re: #103 lawhawk

I’d disagree with that sentiment. The difference between ISIS and unions is that unions represent a greater threat to conservatives than ISIS does.

That’s why conservatives have gone all in on trying to destroy unions wherever they have had a chance.

They’ll complain that the unions have destroyed the fiscal situation in given locality or state, ignoring that politicians used the pension funds as a piggy bank during flush times to balance budgets to the point where they’re now tremendously underwater and unable to cover obligations. So, the GOP is turning around and ignoring the contractual obligations and looking to rewrite the deal.

It’s something out of Robot Chicken, where the GOP plays the part of Vader, and unions are Lando.

[Embedded content]

What always gets me is how flexible their belief in the sanctity of a contract really is. Bank exec bonuses simply cannot be touched, but our duty to wounded veterans is flexible and unions contracts are subject to dismissal because the government was either “forced” into signing them or they were signed by “pro-union” politicians who agreed to “sweetheart deals.”