Yep, we really have reached the end-of-thread times, when we argue semantics and the quantity of dancing angels on a pinhead. No, you didn't explicity say "I think it's sinister that unions support Democrats"...you only obsess about it, and given your political position you aren't obsessing positively. But you're right, you never actually said "sinister".
And I suppose you can get away with denigrating the latest union members as bottom-of-the-barrel, as if that's not an expansion of union membership nevertheless, and as if it's not the very people making the least who have the most to gain from unionization. Sure.
And there's no paradox at all between "Ha ha, union membership is down and unions are dying and Capitalism shall triumph over Labor at last!" with "Ohmigod, look at all the money unions give to Democrats! Look how much power they have! We're all doomed!". Sure Tom.
At the end of the day we're arguing over what the future will hold, and the issue won't be clear for a few years yet. You can believe that people will just roll over and accept that it's their god-given place in the natural order of things to give up the gains the American middle class has made since the time of FDR, because their wealthy betters decree it. Me, I put my faith in the people.
And when the American people stop winning this sort of battle, that's when we'll know that the American Dream is dead and gone.
Current Events » in reply to Who said anything about "sinister?"
re: Who said anything about "sinister?"
