Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

AFSCME President accuses Republicans of abandoning “all pretense of compassion”, then assaults chair on stage [Darleen Click] UPDATED

Would someone please have Lee Saunders pee in a cup? You know, you just can’t make this sh*t up.

The Cleveland native and national AFSCME president took an empty chair on stage, so early on the audience was prepared for some Eastwooding, a riff on actor Clint Eastwood’s surprising performance at last week’s Republican National Convention.

“Are you ready to rumble?” Saunders roared by way of introduction.

After a speech filled with fiery anti-GOP rhetoric — he accused the Republicans of abandoning “all pretense of compassion” — he turned to the chair. Saunders had a brief conversation with an imaginary Eastwood. He closed by slamming GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan.

“So Dirty Harry, make my day,” Saunders continued, quoting the Eastwood character. “We’re gonna kick some ass in November.”

Then he kicked the chair. Loudly.

And one wonders how and why public employees were ever allowed to unionize.

********************************
oops, I see that newrouter was on the story before I got back from supervising the grandsons in the swimming pool.

Some further facepalm level 10 stupid from Saunders

“I don’t know if you noticed, but you see this chair? I don’t know if you noticed that he actually walked in with me. He’s invisible, he’s sitting right here. He’s been listening to everything I had to say,” Saunders said. “So I want you to welcome Clint Eastwood.”

“I’ve got a couple of questions. I’ve got a couple of questions I want to ask Clint Eastwood,” Saunders continued as dozens of attendees cracked up. “But first, buddy, what do you have to say for yourself? I didn’t hear you.”

“Clint’s been sitting here for the past hour. He doesn’t have anything to say for himself. Mitt Romney has nothing to say for himself. Paul Ryan has nothing to say for himself,” he said.

Oh lord.

********************
UPDATE And it looks like my first two-links went out of their way to downplay Saunders losing it

Suddenly, the tone changed: Saunders, finishing his speech, began to kick the chair, threw it, and yelled “Dirty Harry, make my day! We’re gonna kick ass in November!”

The crowd was cheering, and the humor had gained a palpable edge.

That’s some compassion.

52 Replies to “AFSCME President accuses Republicans of abandoning “all pretense of compassion”, then assaults chair on stage [Darleen Click] UPDATED”

  1. BigBangHunter says:

    – The total silence among the Lefturds pretending it will all go away is deafening. Bain/Bush, Bain/Bush, is all they have to cling too bitterly.

    – The Unions wouldn’t even contribute to the costs of the convention. and Bill won’t let them see his speech.

    – May all these bastards live in interesting tines.

  2. Alec Leamas says:

    Has anyone ever asked for it like this before?

  3. geoffb says:

    Thuggish, stupid, and stunningly unoriginal, the perfect leader for the bunch.

  4. B Moe says:

    Add humor to the ever growing list of words of which they don’t seem to quite grasp the meaning.

  5. BigBangHunter says:

    – Something tells me there won’t be a deficit clock on stage at the DNC.

  6. serr8d says:

    Bugfuck crazy. Because of the dichotomy between unionists of the ’60’s and ’70’s, who would go out of their way to punch a dirty hippie or a commie. Now, today, they lead dirty hippies, commies and socialists; march right alongside and spout the same slogans. They, collectively, are bugfuck crazy.

  7. Pablo says:

    Thuggish, stupid, and stunningly unoriginal, the perfect leader for the bunch.

    You don’t say. Oh, let’s not forget the stupid.

    Remember, plebes. It’s on you.

  8. B Moe says:

    Now, today, they lead are led by dirty hippies, commies and socialists; march right alongside and spout the same slogans.

    ftfy.

  9. leigh says:

    Did the chair called Clint pick itself up, scoot back across the stage and kick Saunders ass?

  10. B Moe says:

    Holy Cow, Pablo. I can’t believe that is real, but it sure looks it.

  11. palaeomerus says:

    “Did the chair called Clint pick itself up, scoot back across the stage and kick Saunders ass?”

    Nah. It was a loyal member of the Chair, Bench, Hassock, and Sitting-oriented Furniture and Fixtures union known for being a team player.

  12. Pablo says:

    Note the account it’s posted to, B Moe. It’s the real thing.

  13. newrouter says:

    hookers and drugs dept.

    National Review was assigned to two Knights Inn properties. Everyone who saw them fled immediately across state lines to an available Marriott in South Carolina rather than stay there. As one of our political correspondents reported:

    The Knights Inn was the worst hotel I have ever seen, and I’ve stayed in many bad motels in my life. Two guys were dealing drugs in the room next to me, and a prostitute was working out of the parking lot. And this was in the early afternoon. The room itself was dirty, full of other people’s stuff, etc.

    I have never requested a hotel change in 3 years at NR. This was the first time I felt absolutely compelled.

    link

  14. Darleen says:

    Pablo, that’s supposed to make Obama look good? Really?

    WTF doesn’t really seem to cut it.

    I mean, I don’t remember GW doing a similar ad with Cheech & Chong.

  15. BigBangHunter says:

    – A fish named Leslie may have something to say about Thursday nights coronation of Uber Ears. They might hsve to move the acceptance speeches to a crack house in South Chicago.

  16. cranky-d says:

    The dot Indian Harold and Kumar guy (I have no idea who is who, never saw any of their movies) quit House to join the Obama campaign. I’m sure he’s all fired up for it this time.

  17. leigh says:

    Darleen,

    Kal Penn was the Wonce’s first BFF, before Reggie Love came along. Oddly, shortly before Penn returned to LA, he was mugged and the only thing stolen was his cellphone/blackberry.

    Things that make you say hmmm.

  18. BT says:

    Obama is trying to lock up the Choomer Vote

  19. leigh says:

    BT, like Michelle said the other day “And don’t forget to vote on November 2nd!”

  20. newrouter says:

    if you have time i just watch this ota tv:

    The Obsolete Man

    video here

    link

  21. cranky-d says:

    I recall that episode quite well, newrouter.

    I have quoted the “You are obsolete” to myself a few times while reading the left’s latest intrusion on our liberty, whatever that might be for the day.

  22. newrouter says:

    Obama is trying to lock up the Choomer Vote

    The Pretenders – Back On The Choom Gang

  23. newrouter says:

    ota=over the air >antennas involved

  24. BigBangHunter says:

    – Darleen – Like Carls Jr. ‘dripping sauce on T-shirt’ ads, its a direct appeal to the low hanging friut, low info, metrosexual anti-intellectual crew, because the campaign knows these dudes have the attention span of a fruit fly.

    – I suspect a lot of them trudged down to the poll places the last time out because whichever chic they were hooked up with at the time said they thought Obama was ‘coolies’.

    – They know they’re probably royally fucked this time with Obama’s impossible to defend record so they’re scraping the bottom feeder barrels for all they’re worth.

  25. EBL says:

    That BHO ad does look like a parody, but apparently they think they need to Choom Gang to win.

  26. newrouter says:

    general motors with extra tasty proggtard sauce

    What is monumentally new about the American state today is the vast empire of entitlement payments that it protects, manages and finances. Within living memory, the federal government has become an entitlements machine. As a day-to-day operation, it devotes more attention and resources to the public transfer of money, goods and services to individual citizens than to any other objective, spending more than for all other ends combined.

    link

  27. BigBangHunter says:

    ……And then they run out of other peoples money and change their name to Greese.

  28. geoffb says:

    “4 years ago we were losing 750k jobs a month. Now we’re not. We had 2 wars. Now we don’t. We didn’t know where Bin Laden was. Now we do. Health insurance rates were growing at a blistering pace. Now they’re not. The? DOW was at 6000. Now it’s at 13,000. Are you better off now? You damn right you are”

    Biden writes Youtube comments?

  29. Pablo says:

    Because “I’m a whore, and I vote when I can find time to put the dick down.” was too wordy.

    Also, sale!

  30. Pablo says:

    Mama must be so proud.

  31. geoffb says:

    Recreate ’68. The carpetbagger edition.

  32. sdferr says:

    Kids these days . . . all grow’d up to occupy high office.

  33. @PurpAv says:

    He only says that because he apparently believes a complete economic collapse will be more “compassionate” than actually dealing with our problems.

    Perhaps he’s right. Maybe the USA could be the first empire in all of recorded history that will go down without massive hardship, suffering and chaos…

    The powers of god/kings are supposed to be pretty strong, right?

  34. newrouter says:

    dog whistles inc

    Racism, for the most part, was never really about race, it was about power. It was about power when slave votes and slave labor were being used to shift the balance of power. And it is about power when black votes and accusations of racism are used to shift the balance of power. And in one of history’s great ironies that renders PBS pieties so absurd, the same Party was responsible for both sets of actions. The ideology, whether that of the permanent racial inferiority of black people of yesterday’s Democratic Party or the permanent social inferiority of black people in today’s Democratic Party, was and is just the clothing that the naked emperor wears on his power trips.

    Racism still endures in the nooks and crannies of the country, but it isn’t the kind of racism that’s talked about in the news. It’s the unextraordinary and unexceptional bigotry of small petty men, of any color and creed, who practice their small mean-spirited acts outside the law. This is not the political racism that we talk about as a national phenomenon. That political racism is not about a man being beaten outside a bar, it’s about the power of the bar’s lawyers to wield unlimited authority in the name of a problem that can never go away, no matter how abstract it becomes, because they have turned it into the source of their power.

    Real racism is slowly dying out, but political racism can never go away. Instead it is rediscovered in ordinary words, in “Golfer” and in “Chicago.” The more it declines, the more it emerges everywhere in dogwhistles and hidden codes that become more and more abstract until no one can find it anymore.

    link

  35. palaeomerus says:

    “https://twitter.com/freddoso/status/242609428329820160”

    “David Freddoso
    ?@freddoso
    That’s odd. Today’s DNC message is that we are better off than 4yrs ago and it’s Bush’s fault.”

  36. newrouter says:

    more “good” news

    Note that as a poor substitute for a job, we institutionalized something called the “internship.” The best I can tell (I get weekly barrages of inquiries from young people wanting to “intern”), you would enjoy the work of free workers who in exchange for their uncompensated labor gather skills and influence that translate at some nebulous date into real work. How odd that the government that fines an employer who does not duly pay proper overtime wages is not interested in the tens of millions of youth who are working largely as Spartan helots.

    These new realities fall heavily on the young male. Traditionally, he was in charge of taking charge — working two jobs to acquire enough to seed a marriage and family or buy a house, striving to be the protector of the household, and accruing experience in his late twenties that would translate into needed promotions in his thirties that would later on pay for braces, kids’ camp, and college tuitions.

    link

  37. newrouter says:

    @cranky-d

    4. LGoPs

    What Dr Hanson so effectively, and bleakly, describes above may not be communism, but when the government controls so much – and working for it seems the only ‘safe’ bet, then what the hell is the difference what it calls itself? It is the all powerful and all consuming State, and history shows that it is rarely, if ever, a benevolent force. More likely it is a source of tyranny, if not outright malevolence – regardless of its political bent. What the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had in common was the all-powerful apparatus of the State (yes I know that they were closely related, more first cousins than the polar opposite right wing vs left wing that the Left would like to portray). And in both cases what they were most efficient at was killing – their own citizens. Government, when you really distill it down, is essentially force. If you dare defy it, whether in a small way or a large way, it will come with guns and take either your freedom or your life. And those who want to enlist it to enforce their likes and dislikes are nothing more than bullies – but worse actually – cowards really – because they won’t come bully you personally. They will enlist Big Brother to come do it for them.
    The all powerful state and its wholly owned propaganda apparatus – the so called mainstream media – are the enemy and one of their greatest travesties – and successes – is their continuing demonization of the Tea Party. Think for a minute of what the Tea Party asks, and stands for. Diminished, smaller government. Not NO government. Just less of the leviathan. And for that they are demonized? How can you be demonized for wanting less of the power to coerce and dominate others? But they are – mainly through the power of the media. And the media’s success reminds me of the old line from C.S. Lewis about the Devil’s greatest accomplishment being convincing everyone he doesn’t exist. Wake up and see who the real enemy is. It is on your TV, bringing you your “News”.
    September 3, 2012 – 7:39 pm

    link

  38. Darleen says:

    good lord, geoffb

    my med premiums went up 7% this year BECAUSE of ObamaCare.

    what IS the color of the sky in that world?

  39. B Moe says:

    newrouter says September 3, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    From the original source:

    For their part, entitlements for older Americans—Medicare, Social Security and other pension payments—worked out to even more by 2010, about $1.2 trillion. In real terms, these transfers multiplied by a factor of about 12 over that period—or an average growth of more than 5% a year. But in purely arithmetic terms, the most astonishing growth of entitlements has been for health-care guarantees based on claims of age (Medicare) or income (Medicaid). Until the mid-1960s, no such entitlements existed; by 2010, these two programs were absorbing more than $900 billion annually.

    In current political discourse, it is common to think of the Democrats as the party of entitlements, but long-term trends seem to tell a somewhat different tale. From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

    Close.This is in keeping with the basic facts of the time: Notwithstanding the criticisms of “big government” that emanated from their Oval Offices from time to time, the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush presided over especially lavish expansions of the American entitlement state. Irrespective of the reputations and the rhetoric of the Democratic and Republican parties today, the empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures should underscore the unsettling truth that both political parties have, on the whole, been working together in an often unspoken consensus to fuel the explosion of entitlement spending.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619671931313542.html

    Read it all.

  40. bour3 says:

    I always have to look up what those letters mean. I look at them and go, what? what? American Federation, I guessed that part State County Municipal Employees, I guessed the employees part too, so three out of six isn’t so bad, I thought the S would be ‘service.’ But just think of it, a labor union for government employees that aren’t federal, I guess they have their own, all those employees grouped as a bloc in concert with one of two main political parties. One party has the civil employees all wrapped up.

    That racket needs undone.

    In Denver I noticed, and this was so dismaying, that veritably all of the candidates arise from the field of public education. Even the telephone surveyor asking me questions about them admitted that was very strange. So, it appears as if public education in Denver is also a machine to produce Democratic candidates for public offices. A public institution rigged to advance the interests of one political party over another.

    That too needs undone.

    How are these things undone? I am unimaginative. I can think of only one, strangulation. Maybe others can do better.

  41. John Bradley says:

    Because no mention of AFSCME is complete without a link to that ’70s advertisement.

    I mean, it’d be like talking about our old friend from Murfreesboro without mentioning cat serenading and/or paella (of the ‘awesome!’ variety).

  42. Merovign says:

    B Moe – without even so much as mentioning the Congress (House or Senate) or events surrounding said Presidencies, how in the world could I begin to take that WSJ article’s contention that it can even begin to judge parties’ role in entitlement growth seriously?

    I need a stronger word than “oversimplified” to describe this approach.

    Just look at spending pre- and post- 2007. The dividing point was not a Presidential election.

    Not to say there isn’t a point to be made on the subject, just that the article doesn’t adequately make it.

  43. B Moe says:

    The aren’t claiming to judge anything.

    From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

    Sure there were other factors, just pointing out one that is overlooked.

    I thought it was especially ironic given how the Ds keep the blue hairs in their pocket by claiming the Rs are going to slash their benefits, when in truth the opposite is closer to the truth.

  44. Ernst Schreiber says:

    From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

    Let’s break that down a bit, shall we?

    Between 1960 and today, there have been 5 Democratic Administrations (Kennedy/Johnson, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama) and four Republican (Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush(I), Bush(II)) In that fifty-two year period, Democrat administrations were in place for 24 and Republican ones for 28. During that period, Democrats controlled the purse strings in toto or in part for all but ten years —6 years of Clinton (’94-’00) and four years of Bush (’02-’06) (II). Since we’re running the government off of continuing resolutions, Democrats are still primarily in control of spending, despite the Republicans having regained the House in ’10.

    My guess is what’s happening is the 6 years of restraint under Gingrich is combining with the creation of a new entitlement (Medicare pt. D) to distort the average growth under Republican administations upward. The fact that the”benefits” of Obamacare don’t become effective (by design of course) until after this election is also distorting the Democrat’s average downward. The other thing that’s distorting it downward is that we’re counting from 1960 when we should be counting from 1964.. Medicare and Medicaid went on the books in 1965, when Johnson was head of his own administration instead of the caretaker for Kennedy’s. The Democrat’s are getting the bonus of 4 extra years to average their contribution out over, as well as keeping a significant portion of their contribution off the books (because it hasn’t gone into effect.)

    In other words, presiding over greater average growth doesn’t translate directly into responsibility for that growth.

  45. leigh says:

    That’s an excellent summary, Ernst. I was trying to write something like it last night and couldn’t so I didn’t.

    Thanks.

  46. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That’s an excellent summary, Ernst.

    It was, wasn’t it?

    he said laconically.

  47. @PurpAv says:

    From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

    Who controlled congress for the bulk of that 50 years? I’m forgetful, refresh my memory.

  48. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Democrats: 1949-1953, 1955-1981, 1987-1995, 2007-2011
    Republicans: 1995-2001, 2003-2007

    Split, Dem. House Rep. Senate: 1953-1955, 1981-1987
    Split, Rep. House, Dem. Senate: 2001-2003, 2011-present

  49. Merovign says:

    If they aren’t claiming to judge, why the tendentiously constructed argument? It beminds me of a small child claiming to be objective when describing the reasons they should get candy.

    Also, this is hardly an overlooked argument, it’s a perennial claim of the left that the R’s are *really* the big spenders.

  50. I don’t think it’s nice, you laughin’. You see, my chair don’t like people laughin’. Gets the crazy idea you’re laughin’ at him. Now if you apologize like I know you’re going to, I might convince him that you really didn’t mean it…

Comments are closed.