Summations Only

I don't see how "unions directly made quotes" vs "businesses employing union members made quotes" fundamentally changes his argument. In both cases, he has a set of quotes that are higher than another quote; the higher quotes are associated with one or more unions; his relative fears a union picket unless a union-associated quote is chosen. The fundamental facts of the anecdote remain the same.I think that a reasonable person, knowing that unions don't directly make quotes, would interpret his words to mean "union shops" instead.I don't see any reason to disbelieve him when he says he knows the difference and was merely prioritizing brevity over hyper-accuracy in his personal anecdote.I don't see how harping on "he said UNIONS made the quote" somehow makes him any more or less right or wrong in the larger sense of his anecdote about unions.I think he has a legitimate complaint regarding the price differences his relative was quoted. I don't necessarily agree that the differences are directly because of unions - the lower priced quote was directly from the manufacturer, and I would expect the optional assembly fee from a manufacturer to be lower than a quote for assembly from a third party. I can understand why his relative would be concerned about a picket, which a new startup business certainly doesn't need,though I think the concern is overblown compared to the actual risk.I don't see how semantic nitpicking changes anything. It's not like he's proposing that the Uncertainty Principle means that nothing actually exists until it's observed and therefore conscious minds create reality - that would be a case where the meaning of terminology is extremely important. In this case...I think a reasonable person, willing to give him at least some benefit of the doubt, would come to the correct interpretation of his words.

The Democrat party is politically liberal, socially liberal.The Republican party is politically liberal, socially conservative.The tea party folks are politically conservative, and socially try very hard not to state an opinion at all.The Republican and Democrat parties both despise the folks with the crazy idea known as political conservatism. Both of those parties, and their members, trash and lie about the tea party folks because they represent the biggest threat to the other two parties dividing the spoils of government up between them.A pox on both their houses!

The Democratic party is politically conservative, socially liberal, and not mad.The Republican party is politically conservative, socially conservative, and somewhat mad.The tea party folks are politically conservative, socially conservative, and completely mad.

If it weren’t for the tea party, Congress would work well, Hollywood actor Sean Penn said during a recent appearance on CNN with host Piers Morgan. And he also said tea partyers should be forcibly committed for mental health treatment.

​

Really, the tea party is to blame for nearly all of the issues facing Congress, he said, as Politico reported.

​

I think they have there’s a mental health problem in Congress, Mr. Penn said. This would be solved by committing them by executive order, I think. Because these are our American brothers and sisters, we shouldn’t be criticizing them, attacking them. This is a cry for help.

​

Mr. Morgan encouraged Mr. Penn to continue: You literally commit what, people like Ted Cruz?

​

And Mr. Penn’s reply, as Politico reported: He is my American brother. I think we should take care of him, he is in trouble.

​

Mr. Morgan then double-checked if Mr. Penn mean to say that he wanted to forcibly commit Mr. Cruz for mental-health treatment.

​

Yeah, I think it’s a good idea, Mr. Penn said with a laugh, Politico reported.

Sean Penn: Commit tea partyers, Ted Cruz 'by executive order' - Washington TimesRight there goes about half of the bill of rights."Progressives" are nothing but totalitarians waiting for their big chance to take over and establish a dictatorship, with them in charge of course. Reeducation camps for anyone who disagrees with them seem to be high on their wish-list.

Since when is Sean Penn a spokesperson for liberals, democrats, progressives or anyone? So can we assume Rush Limbaugh speaks for all conservatives?A reasonable person would understand that they speak for no one else but themselves.

Sean Penn craves for something like this?

You obviously have no idea where liberal and conservative stand on the political spectrum.Both parties are much more conservative than they were 30 years ago. To call Barack Obama and the Democratic Party(yes it is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party)liberal is laughable. Examples please.

Who gives a rats ass what Sean Penn thinks? He is no one politically. HAs no political power and speaks for no one else but himself.Nice strawman.

It is the acceptance those radical ideas are given by progressives that tells the tale.Who among them is calling him a nutcase? He is still invited to give his opinions by TV hosts and other media. He is not soundly condemned for those "reeducation camp" ideas, as he should be.So don't complain to me. He the progressives' spokesman, not mine.You folks own him until you speak out against him and shame him off the political scene.

"I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus living fossils so we will never forget what these people stood for." --- Rush Limbaugh."I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell." --- RedState contributor Thomas Crown."I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber." --- Melanie Morgan"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." --- Ann Coulter

And what sauce shall we use for the gander?

Not at all. He is no one in progressive politics other than a guy that can raise money and get publicity. Don't you find it odd that no one is making a stink about what he says? Because no one really cares. Now that is just stupid. So you own Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? They speak for the conservative movement?Your argumentation has devolved into inanity.

He can raise money and get publicity? He is not a political liability?I think that says a lot right there. And it doesn't suggest that his ideas are beyond the pale, as if they were he couldn't be used for raising money and getting publicity.For raising money and getting publicity you try to find someone whose ideas will resonate within your target audience, not repel them. Perhaps it is that no one to whom he is speaking finds his ideas repugnant?I think you are quite successfully making my case for me. Please, keep it up!

You obviously don't understand your own case.ABE
How about addressing the rest of my post?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

The rest of your post tries to change the subject.You still haven't managed to distance yourself, or progressives in general, from Sean Penn's comments that tea party members should be sent to mental reeducation camps, similar to what occurred in the old Soviet Union.You have yet to say that's not a good idea, and that Sean Penn shouldn't be given the forum to express those radical views.Now's your big chance! Distance yourself from those hateful ideas, then perhaps we can move on.