Stalking is legal? If you're in a union, sure!

[Toro]

As long as we're above the law, who cares what the little people think?

 

[JoeB131]

As long as we're above the law, who cares what the little people think?

Well, apparently, you guys do, given how much whining we are hearing from the 1%ers of late.

YOu see, that's what I don't get. It's not enough you have the money, you want love, too.

And you are very upset you don't get it.

 

[WinterBorn]

But we have digressed, yet again, from the topic of whether or not a union should be exempt from laws against stalking & harassment?

Are the laws not serious? Are they not designed to protect people? Is there some idea that people never need protection from unions? Of course, if this were the case, why would they want the exemption?

Gee, maybe they'd want an exemption because Ms. Kneepads might provoke an incident in a resturant and then claim she was being "stalked"...

Oh, wait, she totally did that.

And the same could happen to anyone else. We have to rely on the courts, but the unions get an automatic pass. Is there anyone here who thinks unions have never stalked, threatened, harassed or harmed anyone?

 

[WinterBorn]

As long as we're above the law, who cares what the little people think?

Well, apparently, you guys do, given how much whining we are hearing from the 1%ers of late.

YOu see, that's what I don't get. It's not enough you have the money, you want love, too.

And you are very upset you don't get it.

No one should be above the law. Period.

 

[WinterBorn]

But we have digressed, yet again, from the topic of whether or not a union should be exempt from laws against stalking & harassment?

Are the laws not serious? Are they not designed to protect people? Is there some idea that people never need protection from unions? Of course, if this were the case, why would they want the exemption?

Gee, maybe they'd want an exemption because Ms. Kneepads might provoke an incident in a resturant and then claim she was being "stalked"...

Oh, wait, she totally did that.

If I provoke an incident in a restaurant, do you think I would be able to press charges for stalking? No, don't be silly.

If I call you names, can you have me prosecuted for stalking? No, of course not.

So why the need for the exemption? Oh yeah, the union thug threatened her life. Now I remember.

 

[Spiderman]

But we have digressed, yet again, from the topic of whether or not a union should be exempt from laws against stalking & harassment?

Are the laws not serious? Are they not designed to protect people? Is there some idea that people never need protection from unions? Of course, if this were the case, why would they want the exemption?

Gee, maybe they'd want an exemption because Ms. Kneepads might provoke an incident in a resturant and then claim she was being "stalked"...

Oh, wait, she totally did that.

If I provoke an incident in a restaurant, do you think I would be able to press charges for stalking? No, don't be silly.

If I call you names, can you have me prosecuted for stalking? No, of course not.

So why the need for the exemption? Oh yeah, the union thug threatened her life. Now I remember.

Don't forget the sex offender like stalking of her kids.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee, maybe they'd want an exemption because Ms. Kneepads might provoke an incident in a resturant and then claim she was being "stalked"...

Oh, wait, she totally did that.

If I provoke an incident in a restaurant, do you think I would be able to press charges for stalking? No, don't be silly.

If I call you names, can you have me prosecuted for stalking? No, of course not.

So why the need for the exemption? Oh yeah, the union thug threatened her life. Now I remember.

Don't forget the sex offender like stalking of her kids.

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

 

[Spiderman]

If I provoke an incident in a restaurant, do you think I would be able to press charges for stalking? No, don't be silly.

If I call you names, can you have me prosecuted for stalking? No, of course not.

So why the need for the exemption? Oh yeah, the union thug threatened her life. Now I remember.

Don't forget the sex offender like stalking of her kids.

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

So you're saying the reporter for the newspaper that reported it is lying too?

Taking pictures of kids is creepy.

Those union perverts were probably jacking off to them while they were on the clock.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't forget the sex offender like stalking of her kids.

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

So you're saying the reporter for the newspaper that reported it is lying too?

Taking pictures of kids is creepy.

Those union perverts were probably jacking off to them while they were on the clock.

What, a reporter with a bias not being honest? Because the only reporting I've found on this at all comes from Philly.com, and it all seems a bit one-sided.

Are you saying that reporters were there the day that her kids happened to be at the bus stop and supposed union guys took pictures of them. What was the reporter doing following her kids around?

This story doesn't seem to hold a lot of water when put under scrutiny.

 

[Spiderman]

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

So you're saying the reporter for the newspaper that reported it is lying too?

Taking pictures of kids is creepy.

Those union perverts were probably jacking off to them while they were on the clock.

What, a reporter with a bias not being honest? Because the only reporting I've found on this at all comes from Philly.com, and it all seems a bit one-sided.

Are you saying that reporters were there the day that her kids happened to be at the bus stop and supposed union guys took pictures of them. What was the reporter doing following her kids around?

This story doesn't seem to hold a lot of water when put under scrutiny.

You calling someone else biased is almost as hilarious as you calling someone else stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

So you're saying the reporter for the newspaper that reported it is lying too?

Taking pictures of kids is creepy.

Those union perverts were probably jacking off to them while they were on the clock.

What, a reporter with a bias not being honest? Because the only reporting I've found on this at all comes from Philly.com, and it all seems a bit one-sided.

Are you saying that reporters were there the day that her kids happened to be at the bus stop and supposed union guys took pictures of them. What was the reporter doing following her kids around?

This story doesn't seem to hold a lot of water when put under scrutiny.

You calling someone else biased is almost as hilarious as you calling someone else stupid.

Oh, I admit my bias. But the point is, the purpose of a reporter is to be unbiased.

Which this reporter clearly isn't. He reports allegations as facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

If I provoke an incident in a restaurant, do you think I would be able to press charges for stalking? No, don't be silly.

If I call you names, can you have me prosecuted for stalking? No, of course not.

So why the need for the exemption? Oh yeah, the union thug threatened her life. Now I remember.

Don't forget the sex offender like stalking of her kids.

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

You really aren't good at comprehending what you read, are you?

The articles stated that the police and prosecutors did not pursue a case concerning them taking pics of her kids.

But I guess this is like you insisting the judge dismissed the case for lack of merit, huh? No need to let facts get in the way.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't forget the sex offender like stalking of her kids.

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

You really aren't good at comprehending what you read, are you?

The articles stated that the police and prosecutors did not pursue a case concerning them taking pics of her kids.

But I guess this is like you insisting the judge dismissed the case for lack of merit, huh? No need to let facts get in the way.

Because she didn't report it or it didn't happen?

Because, frankly, the writer of that article was so biased and so unclear in his narrative, it's not really clear what happened.


So they don't prosecute over stalking kids but they do prosecute because she was called a "scab" in a resturant.

Before the Judge threw the whole thing out for having no merit and scolding everyone for wasting his time.

 

[WinterBorn]

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

You really aren't good at comprehending what you read, are you?

The articles stated that the police and prosecutors did not pursue a case concerning them taking pics of her kids.

But I guess this is like you insisting the judge dismissed the case for lack of merit, huh? No need to let facts get in the way.

Because she didn't report it or it didn't happen?

Because, frankly, the writer of that article was so biased and so unclear in his narrative, it's not really clear what happened.


So they don't prosecute over stalking kids but they do prosecute because she was called a "scab" in a resturant.

Before the Judge threw the whole thing out for having no merit and scolding everyone for wasting his time.

The reporter is quite clear in his narrative concerning the reason the judge threw the case out, since the judge cited the exemption when he did so.

They don't prosecute when there is not enough evidence to convict. If there were no witnesses other than the kids, it is likely there would be no prosecution. Or if pictures of her kids at their bus stop were anonymously delivered to her, who would they prosecute?

And obviously the federal prosecutors agree with her that these are violent men.

 

[Spiderman]

You mean the incident she never reported to the police? That incident. The one she kind of made up on the fly to see what she could get to stick to the wall?

You really aren't good at comprehending what you read, are you?

The articles stated that the police and prosecutors did not pursue a case concerning them taking pics of her kids.

But I guess this is like you insisting the judge dismissed the case for lack of merit, huh? No need to let facts get in the way.

Because she didn't report it or it didn't happen?

Because, frankly, the writer of that article was so biased and so unclear in his narrative, it's not really clear what happened.


So they don't prosecute over stalking kids but they do prosecute because she was called a "scab" in a resturant.

Before the Judge threw the whole thing out for having no merit and scolding everyone for wasting his time.

It was thrown out because the union thugs get an exemption from the law that they probably got by paying off some corrupt political puppet.

Intimidation tactics are an established M.O. of unions and is well documented.

 

[JoeB131]

The reporter is quite clear in his narrative concerning the reason the judge threw the case out, since the judge cited the exemption when he did so.

They don't prosecute when there is not enough evidence to convict. If there were no witnesses other than the kids, it is likely there would be no prosecution. Or if pictures of her kids at their bus stop were anonymously delivered to her, who would they prosecute?

And obviously the federal prosecutors agree with her that these are violent men.

I'm sure they do... but I'd be very surprised if they get convictions...

You see, working class folks tend to end up on juries.. meh, heh, heh.....

 

[JoeB131]

[q

It was thrown out because the union thugs get an exemption from the law that they probably got by paying off some corrupt political puppet.

Intimidation tactics are an established M.O. of unions and is well documented.

And that's a bad thing, why?

Or is intimidation only okay when the 1%ers do it.

"Hey, Bob, we need you to come in this weekend!"

"But I have my kid's soccer game!"

"Well, your kid won't be able to play soccer if his dad loses his job!"

 

[WinterBorn]

The reporter is quite clear in his narrative concerning the reason the judge threw the case out, since the judge cited the exemption when he did so.

They don't prosecute when there is not enough evidence to convict. If there were no witnesses other than the kids, it is likely there would be no prosecution. Or if pictures of her kids at their bus stop were anonymously delivered to her, who would they prosecute?

And obviously the federal prosecutors agree with her that these are violent men.

I'm sure they do... but I'd be very surprised if they get convictions...

You see, working class folks tend to end up on juries.. meh, heh, heh.....

Yeah, keep laughing. But fewer and fewer people these days are sympathetic to thugs and bullies. Look at union membership numbers. They have been falling steadily. Look at the places that had workers vote NOT to bring in the unions. Those have been rising steadily.

More and more people are fed up with the bullies. Oh, and the 10 union thugs were indicted in the Quaker Meetinghouse terrorism. At least some of them will do time.

 

[Toro]

As long as we're above the law, who cares what the little people think?

Well, apparently, you guys do, given how much whining we are hearing from the 1%ers of late.

YOu see, that's what I don't get. It's not enough you have the money, you want love, too.

And you are very upset you don't get it.

I don't give a shit if you love me.

In fact, I'd rather you not.

 

[WinterBorn]

[q

It was thrown out because the union thugs get an exemption from the law that they probably got by paying off some corrupt political puppet.

Intimidation tactics are an established M.O. of unions and is well documented.

And that's a bad thing, why?

Or is intimidation only okay when the 1%ers do it.

"Hey, Bob, we need you to come in this weekend!"

"But I have my kid's soccer game!"

"Well, your kid won't be able to play soccer if his dad loses his job!"

Were weekends discussed when the person was hired or promoted? If not, they should have been.

I have been working since I was 18. My oldest child is about to be 31. Not once in all those years did I have to miss an event or game that I let my bosses know about in advance. Not one single time in 3 decades.

But nice try at comparing the two. If I see that my workplace is not friendly towards those with families, I would seek employment elsewhere. That doesn't mean I quit that day. But I certainly start looking.

I doubt any of the victims of the union had a choice of whether they were going to get beaten up, threatened, have their tires slashed ect ect ect.