Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #24209498 -

Lol, people didn't talk like that back then.  I was 25 the first time I taught.  Some of my students were older than me.  I had a high school diploma and maybe a year's equivalent of college.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil]
    #24209590 -

Enlil said:
So, are you able to break down your claim that the courts are responsible?


YES.

I've agreed with you on multiple occasions that pensions would not have been there in the first place if not for collective bargaining, and that this was a great argument you made in favor of collective bargaining.

But that's NOT what we're arguing about - we're arguing whether or not police would be able to keep that pension if the Supreme Court had ruled differently.  Had the Supreme Court had ruled differently, then police who didn't do their job WOULD have been guilty of a crime.  And in many states, pension can be revoked for conviction of crime related to official duties.  So yes, the courts WERE responsible for allowing police to not do their job and still collect pension by saying it was ok.

Now, care to address any of the other points you skipped over?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (03/31/17 11:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #24209592 -

Bigbadwooof said:
I love watching how these conversations get derailed.

The point is, collective bargaining is good.


^^^THIS^^^

To make Enlil happy, let's clarify that it's good for the many people in the collective, and it may or may not be good for others.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil]
    #24209600 -

Bigbadwooof said:
Enlil said:
I would have made twice as much if it weren't for they union.


Twice as much, if you didn't have the upper-hand provided via collective bargaining? I'm sure that's because you were the cream of the crop, and those other slobs were holding you back, right? lol


Enlil said:
Yup.  My bosses petitioned the union to create a new classification to increase my pay, but it was denied.


That's one of the areas unions can definitely improve upon.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (03/31/17 11:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #24209622 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Bigbadwooof said:
Enlil said:
I would have made twice as much if it weren't for they union.


Twice as much, if you didn't have the upper-hand provided via collective bargaining? I'm sure that's because you were the cream of the crop, and those other slobs were holding you back, right? lol


Enlil said:
Yup.  My bosses petitioned the union to create a new classification to increase my pay, but it was denied.


That's one of the areas unions can definitely improve upon.


I don't like when unions won't allow workers to go above and beyond, because you're hurting someone else's job security. I'm sure there isn't a single person here who can't name something they don't like about unions. At the end of the day, I want in! Trade unions provide quality workmanship, higher safety standards, and better pay for their employees. They provide training for youngsters. They are good for society, on-the-whole.

I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, unless you have a better one to replace it with. A better baby. Ok? Good.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24210151 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But that's NOT what we're arguing about - we're arguing whether or not police would be able to keep that pension if the Supreme Court had ruled differently.  Had the Supreme Court had ruled differently, then police who didn't do their job WOULD have been guilty of a crime.  And in many states, pension can be revoked for conviction of crime related to official duties.  So yes, the courts WERE responsible for allowing police to not do their job and still collect pension by saying it was ok.


I see your argument.  Unfortunately, it has some glaring problems:

1. The cases you cited had nothing to do with criminal prosecutions.  Those cases did not even look at the issue of whether or not it is a crime for police not to do their jobs.  In other words, if the Supreme Court had ruled differently, it would have literally zero bearing on the issue of pensions.

2. The reason it isn't a crime is because there is no statute making it a crime.  Such a statute could be written, but even if it were, that wouldn't be the court's doing.  That would be the legislature's doing.

3. Even if the other two points weren't valid and true (they are), it is illogical to argue that they keep their pension because no one has taken it.  As a fundamental premise, the pension exists because of collective bargaining.  The terms of the pension are a product of collective bargaining.  You're basically arguing that the fact that the court didn't step in and change those terms means the court is responsible for those terms.

Your argument goes something like this:

      a. The union and municipality made a deal that includes pensions.
      b. The court could have changed or overridden those terms.
      c. They didn't, therefore:

      The court is responsible for those terms.


So, do you have anything else?  Or are you ready to concede that you were wrong when you said that the court was responsible for the fact that cops get to keep their pensions even if they don't do their jobs?

As to the "other points", I'm happy to address them.  I'm not going to argue 7 different issues at once, though.  Let's finish this one and then move on to the next one.  I think we're probably done or close to done with this one anyway.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil]
    #24210440 -

Enlil said:
The cases you cited had nothing to do with criminal prosecutions.  Those cases did not even look at the issue of whether or not it is a crime for police not to do their jobs.  In other words, if the Supreme Court had ruled differently, it would have literally zero bearing on the issue of pensions.


The case cites 42 U.S. Code § 1983, but I now see that is a civil statute.

Enlil said:
Your argument goes something like this:

      a. The union and municipality made a deal that includes pensions.
      b. The court could have changed or overridden those terms.
      c. They didn't, therefore:

      The court is responsible for those terms.


Close, but more like:

      a. The union and municipality made a deal that includes pensions.
      b. The court had an opportunity to rule it not ok for cops not to do their job.
      c. They didn't, therefore:

      The court is responsible for ruling it ok for cops not to do their job.

I get your point that even if the court ruled otherwise, it appears to be a civil rather than criminal ruling, hence it may not have changed anything.



But here's the flaw in YOUR argument.  You said: "This started because he complained that cops can not do their jobs and still collect their pensions.  I attributed that to collective bargaining."

While I agree that collective bargaining is responsible for the cops collecting pensions, it really has nothing to do with cops collecting pensions and not doing their jobs.  Your argument goes something like this:

      a. The union and municipality made a deal that includes pensions.
      b. The deal failed to mention forfeiture of pensions for cops that don't do their job.  Therefore:

      The collective is responsible for cops who don't do their job to get pensions.


At this point in the discussion, I'd say no one is responsible (or possibly the legislature is).


Enlil said:
As to the "other points", I'm happy to address them.  I'm not going to argue 7 different issues at once, though.  Let's finish this one and then move on to the next one.  I think we're probably done or close to done with this one anyway.


The reason I want to address those other three points is because you made ad hominem style attacks without backing those claims up:  "you seem completely lost in this discussion", "I think that is naïve as fuck and doesn't represent the reality on the ground", "Maybe it's time we named a new straw man king?".

So I explained why I think you're wrong above.  If you're going to make those type of statements, I think you need to back them up.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24210468 -

It sounds like you're admitting that your claim was wrong.  Please confirm or deny this.

As to your argument about my claim, here is where you're wrong:

The collective bargaining agreement is why they get pensions.  It's why they get pensions if they eat eggs.  It's why they get pensions if they wear brown shoes.  It's why they get pensions if they don't do their jobs.

It's why they get pensions.

My statement is that collective bargaining is why they get pensions even if they don't do their jobs.  That statement is true. 

It doesn't look like you're going to concede the point even though you've been proven wrong for multiple reasons.  Don't be HU or Webster, dude.  We all are wrong from time to time.  I really don't want to lose my respect for you just because you're hung up on being right on this stupid issue.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil]
    #24210834 -

Enlil said:
It sounds like you're admitting that your claim was wrong.  Please confirm or deny this.


Yes, I agreed I was wrong about the courts being responsible for allowing pensions to be paid to cops that don't do their jobs. 

Enlil said:
The collective bargaining agreement is why they get pensions.  It's why they get pensions if they eat eggs.  It's why they get pensions if they wear brown shoes.  It's why they get pensions if they don't do their jobs.

It's why they get pensions.

My statement is that collective bargaining is why they get pensions even if they don't do their jobs.  That statement is true.


Agreed.

Wooof was NOT upset about cops collecting a pension.  He was upset about them collecting a pension without doing their job.  Your response to him was "Welcome to the wonderful world of collective bargaining", implying collective bargaining somehow ensured cops got a pension even if they didn't do their job.  When in reality, collective bargaining only ensured they got a pension.

I realize it's one in the same, so I'll concede the point.  But I think you're unfairly trying to blame collective bargaining for something they didn't actively do, and for something the legislature could have prevented.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #24210856 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
It sounds like you're admitting that your claim was wrong.  Please confirm or deny this.


Yes, I agreed I was wrong about the courts being responsible for allowing pensions to be paid to cops that don't do their jobs. 

Enlil said:
The collective bargaining agreement is why they get pensions.  It's why they get pensions if they eat eggs.  It's why they get pensions if they wear brown shoes.  It's why they get pensions if they don't do their jobs.

It's why they get pensions.

My statement is that collective bargaining is why they get pensions even if they don't do their jobs.  That statement is true.


Agreed.

Wooof was NOT upset about cops collecting a pension.  He was upset about them collecting a pension without doing their job.  Your response to him was "Welcome to the wonderful world of collective bargaining", implying collective bargaining somehow ensured cops got a pension even if they didn't do their job.  When in reality, collective bargaining only ensured they got a pension.

I realize it's one in the same, so I'll concede the point.  But I think you're unfairly trying to blame collective bargaining for something they didn't actively do, and for something the legislature could have prevented.


Good point. The government should have had some foresight on the matter, and worked in as many exceptions as they could have. The point of bargaining is to give everyone the best deal they can bargain for. That's Capitalism at its finest!


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Edited by Bigbadwooof (04/01/17 01:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #24210880 -

Enlil said:
It sounds like you're admitting that your claim was wrong.  Please confirm or deny this.

As to your argument about my claim, here is where you're wrong:

The collective bargaining agreement is why they get pensions.  It's why they get pensions if they eat eggs.  It's why they get pensions if they wear brown shoes.  It's why they get pensions if they don't do their jobs.

It's why they get pensions.

My statement is that collective bargaining is why they get pensions even if they don't do their jobs.  That statement is true. 

It doesn't look like you're going to concede the point even though you've been proven wrong for multiple reasons.  Don't be HU or Webster, dude.  We all are wrong from time to time.  I really don't want to lose my respect for you just because you're hung up on being right on this stupid issue.



I thought we had just established that assets, including pensions, could be seized from cops who displayed a pattern of illegally not doing their job.

If that is the case, would it not follow that a lack of prosecution i.e. "the courts" is to blame?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: ballsalsa]
    #24210897 -

ballsalsa said:
I thought we had just established that assets, including pensions, could be seized from cops who displayed a pattern of illegally not doing their job.

If that is the case, would it not follow that a lack of prosecution i.e. "the courts" is to blame?


I'm guessing you are correct in places where there are established laws saying cops have to do their job (like your San Jose example).  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24210914 -

that example was a state supreme court decision that applies to all of California (the important part of the U.S.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: ballsalsa]
    #24210987 -

It doesn't say what you think it says, though.  It didn't make it a crime for them not to do their job.  Also, your whole civil forfeiture argument was theoretical.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #24211014 -

it makes it a crime for them not to show up to their job.  I don't think its a huge leap.  If someone would prosecute, we could see the theory put to the test.

Edit: I noticed that you didn't refute my assertion that California is the important part of the U.S.
:heytherebadboy:

Edited by ballsalsa (04/01/17 02:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: ballsalsa]
    #24211199 -

I love it when you guys use case law.  It really does warm my heart because so many people are ignorant to the fact that most law is case law. 

Still, it's easy to get it wrong.  Falcon got it wrong earlier on those two 1983 cases, and you got it wrong now.  That case has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.  All it says is that a court can enjoin (force) the police to go to work despite a strike because their jobs perform an essential government function.

Unlawful =/= criminal. 



--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil]
    #24211273 -

Bigbadwooof said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think you're unfairly trying to blame collective bargaining for something they didn't actively do, and for something the legislature could have prevented.


Good point. The government should have had some foresight on the matter, and worked in as many exceptions as they could have.


I'll assume your silence is agreement.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24211295 -

I guess it depends on which government.  If were talking about the government at the bargaining table, yes.

If were talking about another governmental entity forcing different terms, no.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Enlil]
    #24211595 -

Enlil said:
I love it when you guys use case law.  It really does warm my heart because so many people are ignorant to the fact that most law is case law. 

Still, it's easy to get it wrong.  Falcon got it wrong earlier on those two 1983 cases, and you got it wrong now.  That case has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.  All it says is that a court can enjoin (force) the police to go to work despite a strike because their jobs perform an essential government function.

Unlawful =/= criminal. 





You're the lawyer, i'll take your word for it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Hillary 2008 Already in Gear
( 1 2 all )		 ekomstop 3,898 30 11/04/04 01:36 PM
by Innvertigo
* Interesting E-mail....and it all checks out
( 1 2 all )		 wmammoth 4,103 25 12/16/02 04:20 PM
by Evolving
* Why people love Hillary Clinton
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,889 32 06/30/03 05:43 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Swift Vets Mailing in PA retread 1,953 17 10/19/04 10:00 PM
by Swami
* Will Hillary run in 2004? (poll) LearyfanS 674 4 09/20/03 05:51 PM
by shakta
* Coalition Launches Anti-Empire Drive SquattingMarmot 628 2 10/17/03 04:38 PM
by PsiloKitten
* HILLARY'S CHUTZPAH luvdemshrooms 415 0 11/02/03 05:27 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* He turned himself blue. bivalve 1,079 8 10/15/02 07:27 PM
by dee_N_ae

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
87,504 topic views. 2 members, 249 guests and 75 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.