|
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:00:29 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote: On 12/5/2014 12:24 AM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/4/14 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:31:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" No. Luckily, racism was never an 'ingrained' behavior. It was simply a false accusation. -- Your years of racist posts here indicate you are a racist. Your years of citing race prove your racism. He doesn't cite much but he sure does accuse folks of being racist, A LOT. What's up with that? What's surprising are his followers. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/2014 7:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:00:29 -0500, Let it snowe wrote: On 12/5/2014 12:24 AM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/4/14 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:31:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" No. Luckily, racism was never an 'ingrained' behavior. It was simply a false accusation. -- Your years of racist posts here indicate you are a racist. Your years of citing race prove your racism. He doesn't cite much but he sure does accuse folks of being racist, A LOT. What's up with that? What's surprising are his followers. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) What surprises you about his follower(butt sniffer)? |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:51:19 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote: On 12/5/2014 7:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:00:29 -0500, Let it snowe wrote: On 12/5/2014 12:24 AM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/4/14 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:31:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" No. Luckily, racism was never an 'ingrained' behavior. It was simply a false accusation. -- Your years of racist posts here indicate you are a racist. Your years of citing race prove your racism. He doesn't cite much but he sure does accuse folks of being racist, A LOT. What's up with that? What's surprising are his followers. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) What surprises you about his follower(butt sniffer)? Actually, I was thinking 'plural', but let's drop it. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
A bit of satire...
|
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 8:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I was really bummed out when I discovered that the silver bullets in my Lone Ranger gun belt were .... plastic. Unfortunately, these cannot be shipped to you: http://www.coonaninc.com/products.ph...ilver-bullets/ -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 8:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:11:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" So no, you have not called me a racist. You've supported Krause's accusation with the word 'ingrained'. I'm not responsible for your racism. Further, I don't care *how or why* you became a racist. Hey, several of your right-wing buddies here are racists, too. Enjoy! -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:01:15 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 8:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:11:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" So no, you have not called me a racist. You've supported Krause's accusation with the word 'ingrained'. I'm not responsible for your racism. Further, I don't care *how or why* you became a racist. Hey, several of your right-wing buddies here are racists, too. Enjoy! Of course. You've been backed into a corner by all - many times. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 9:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:01:15 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 8:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:11:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" So no, you have not called me a racist. You've supported Krause's accusation with the word 'ingrained'. I'm not responsible for your racism. Further, I don't care *how or why* you became a racist. Hey, several of your right-wing buddies here are racists, too. Enjoy! Of course. You've been backed into a corner by all - many times. You've been sleeping in Scotty Ingerfool's bed. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 9:14 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/5/2014 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote: The "Tea Party" has never been allowed to materialize... Not enough white hoods to go around? -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:18:59 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 9:14 AM, KC wrote: On 12/5/2014 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote: The "Tea Party" has never been allowed to materialize... Not enough white hoods to go around? -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 9:14 AM, KC wrote: The "Tea Party" has never been allowed to materialize... The Tea Party morphed into the Tea Baggers. Cruz, et al. They have had significant influence in the House, causing others to bow and scrape to the Tea Bagger agenda out of fear of being ostracized. The Tea Baggers also had a major impact on Romney's campaign for the presidential nomination. Again, Romney felt obliged to cater to them in order to maintain his base. If he had not had to do that he may have stood a better chance in the election. Jeb Bush has said screw them. He understands and wants no part of joining with Cruz and others, even if it means he'll never get the nomination for 2016. Another interesting transformation is the "new" Rand Paul. He's distancing himself rapidly from the Tea Baggers and actually is starting to sound more rational and thoughtful. |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so you will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as clever. === And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so you will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as clever. === And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc. Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so you will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as clever. === And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc. Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here. === OK, I just stopped. The ball is in your court. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 11:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so you will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as clever. === And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc. Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here. === OK, I just stopped. The ball is in your court. Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:57:11 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:34:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/4/2014 10:33 PM, wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: I think there's a lot of truth to that and our media folks are doing everything they can to perpetuate that culture. When I was a little kid almost everything on television was cowboys shooting each other or cowboys shooting indians. Starting in the late 50s or so that changed to detective shows with lots of people shooting each other, and comic books with soldiers and action heros shooting just about everybody. Now we are into video games with incredible violence against everything. Let's not even talk about the Mixed Martial Arts craze but it's certainly there. And so it goes. Violence is inbred into the culture as an accepted way of resolving all disputes. You can track what was on TV buy the guns that were popular at the time. In the 50s and 60s it was cowboy stuff and they started selling SA revolvers and lever action rifles like hot cakes. The old manufactures rushed to restart lines that were shut down during WWII. Ruger was born then with their SA army knockoff. When it was cop shows, snub nosed revolvers took off and we got Charter Arms coming up out of nowhere. Dirty Harry brought the 44 mag to the mass market but it was really too much gun for most people. Then it was the Miami Vice thing and everyone wanted something that looked like an Uzi put they usually ended up with an Ingrahm MAC because they were cheap. Rambo and all of the war movies after that got everyone, including our closeted gun nut wanting an AK or an AR and that was driven home by the Clinton AW ban. Nothing makes Americans wanting something more than the government saying they can't have it. China sold us 2 million SKSs, AKS, MAC knockoffs and other assorted "ugly guns" with some minor change that made them loophole legal (like Harry's HBAR). I guess Johnny Huang's $10,000 "teas" were well worth the money. I was really bummed out when I discovered that the silver bullets in my Lone Ranger gun belt were .... plastic. The only way to go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qXLxHi9_8 Imagine a kid going outside with one of these on his hips. I had one. They sold stick on caps that went on the back of the cartridge and the bullet was spring loaded in it so when the hammer hit the cap, the bullet came out. It was retained in the cartridge by clips on the side and when the cartridge was pushed forward a constriction ion the cylinder released the clips. These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too real. The cops will shoot you, period. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:59:30 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:57:11 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:34:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/4/2014 10:33 PM, wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: I think there's a lot of truth to that and our media folks are doing everything they can to perpetuate that culture. When I was a little kid almost everything on television was cowboys shooting each other or cowboys shooting indians. Starting in the late 50s or so that changed to detective shows with lots of people shooting each other, and comic books with soldiers and action heros shooting just about everybody. Now we are into video games with incredible violence against everything. Let's not even talk about the Mixed Martial Arts craze but it's certainly there. And so it goes. Violence is inbred into the culture as an accepted way of resolving all disputes. You can track what was on TV buy the guns that were popular at the time. In the 50s and 60s it was cowboy stuff and they started selling SA revolvers and lever action rifles like hot cakes. The old manufactures rushed to restart lines that were shut down during WWII. Ruger was born then with their SA army knockoff. When it was cop shows, snub nosed revolvers took off and we got Charter Arms coming up out of nowhere. Dirty Harry brought the 44 mag to the mass market but it was really too much gun for most people. Then it was the Miami Vice thing and everyone wanted something that looked like an Uzi put they usually ended up with an Ingrahm MAC because they were cheap. Rambo and all of the war movies after that got everyone, including our closeted gun nut wanting an AK or an AR and that was driven home by the Clinton AW ban. Nothing makes Americans wanting something more than the government saying they can't have it. China sold us 2 million SKSs, AKS, MAC knockoffs and other assorted "ugly guns" with some minor change that made them loophole legal (like Harry's HBAR). I guess Johnny Huang's $10,000 "teas" were well worth the money. I was really bummed out when I discovered that the silver bullets in my Lone Ranger gun belt were .... plastic. The only way to go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qXLxHi9_8 Imagine a kid going outside with one of these on his hips. I had one. They sold stick on caps that went on the back of the cartridge and the bullet was spring loaded in it so when the hammer hit the cap, the bullet came out. It was retained in the cartridge by clips on the side and when the cartridge was pushed forward a constriction ion the cylinder released the clips. These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too real. I had the predecessor, the basic Fanner 50. I think every kid in the neighborhood had one. We spent a lot of time playing cowboys! -- "When your argument has backed a liberal into a corner, expect to be called a racist." |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:03:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 11:59 AM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:57:11 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:34:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/4/2014 10:33 PM, wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: I think there's a lot of truth to that and our media folks are doing everything they can to perpetuate that culture. When I was a little kid almost everything on television was cowboys shooting each other or cowboys shooting indians. Starting in the late 50s or so that changed to detective shows with lots of people shooting each other, and comic books with soldiers and action heros shooting just about everybody. Now we are into video games with incredible violence against everything. Let's not even talk about the Mixed Martial Arts craze but it's certainly there. And so it goes. Violence is inbred into the culture as an accepted way of resolving all disputes. You can track what was on TV buy the guns that were popular at the time. In the 50s and 60s it was cowboy stuff and they started selling SA revolvers and lever action rifles like hot cakes. The old manufactures rushed to restart lines that were shut down during WWII. Ruger was born then with their SA army knockoff. When it was cop shows, snub nosed revolvers took off and we got Charter Arms coming up out of nowhere. Dirty Harry brought the 44 mag to the mass market but it was really too much gun for most people. Then it was the Miami Vice thing and everyone wanted something that looked like an Uzi put they usually ended up with an Ingrahm MAC because they were cheap. Rambo and all of the war movies after that got everyone, including our closeted gun nut wanting an AK or an AR and that was driven home by the Clinton AW ban. Nothing makes Americans wanting something more than the government saying they can't have it. China sold us 2 million SKSs, AKS, MAC knockoffs and other assorted "ugly guns" with some minor change that made them loophole legal (like Harry's HBAR). I guess Johnny Huang's $10,000 "teas" were well worth the money. I was really bummed out when I discovered that the silver bullets in my Lone Ranger gun belt were .... plastic. The only way to go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qXLxHi9_8 Imagine a kid going outside with one of these on his hips. I had one. They sold stick on caps that went on the back of the cartridge and the bullet was spring loaded in it so when the hammer hit the cap, the bullet came out. It was retained in the cartridge by clips on the side and when the cartridge was pushed forward a constriction ion the cylinder released the clips. These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too real. The cops will shoot you, period. No sweat, the unions will protect the cops. -- "When your argument has backed a liberal into a corner, expect to be called a racist." |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. === Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions protect incompetent members. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too real. The cops will shoot you, period. No sweat, the unions will protect the cops. Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a job-related criminal act. I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that concept. Tough darts. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 1:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. === Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions protect incompetent members. Weeding out bad cops is the job of police management, not police unions. The union is there to ensure due process and to make sure management is not arbitrary and capricious, as it often is. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/2014 1:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 1:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. === Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions protect incompetent members. Weeding out bad cops is the job of police management, not police unions. The union is there to ensure due process and to make sure management is not arbitrary and capricious, as it often is. Are you saying that in a case of a cop being terminated by management (but wishes to fight it) the union's role is to verify the justification for termination and, if valid, that's the end of it? |
A bit of satire...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:42:48 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. === Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions protect incompetent members. Apparently they get involved in the finding of guilt and innocence also - even if in direct contradiction of Harry, et al, who would, it seems, like to see Pantaleo hang. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-grand-n261586 -- "When your argument has backed a liberal into a corner, expect to be called a racist." |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 2:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 1:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. === Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions protect incompetent members. Weeding out bad cops is the job of police management, not police unions. The union is there to ensure due process and to make sure management is not arbitrary and capricious, as it often is. Are you saying that in a case of a cop being terminated by management (but wishes to fight it) the union's role is to verify the justification for termination and, if valid, that's the end of it? The union usually files a grievance in those circumstances and fights the dismissal. Management has to prove justification. Sometimes the cases go to arbitration. There's no hard and fast rule, but it is the union's job to represent its members. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/14 2:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:42:48 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:55:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. === Rightly or wrongly there is a widespread public perception that unions protect incompetent members. Apparently they get involved in the finding of guilt and innocence also - even if in direct contradiction of Harry, et al, who would, it seems, like to see Pantaleo hang. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-grand-n261586 According to the news article, the union praised the grand jury *after* it decided not to indict. How that counts as involvement in the finding of innocence or guilt is a mystery. Well, perhaps to a rabid right-winger like you, eh? -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/5/2014 11:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 11:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so you will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as clever. === And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc. Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here. === OK, I just stopped. The ball is in your court. Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. That would be all well and good if I didn't have to pay for all that coddling of lazy, over paid, under productive, sometimes incompetent workers. |
A bit of satire...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 9:14 AM, KC wrote: On 12/5/2014 8:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote: The "Tea Party" has never been allowed to materialize... Not enough white hoods to go around? Racist! |
A bit of satire...
|
A bit of satire...
On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/6/14 12:09 AM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:44:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too real. The cops will shoot you, period. No sweat, the unions will protect the cops. Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a job-related criminal act. I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that concept. Tough darts. It seems left wing morons do too. I suppose you are really conflicted here. The FOP is saying the New York cop is a boy scout, literally and you think he is a murderer. I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch mob mentality. No, it is a left wing lynch mob. You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system. This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed off the podium. I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. === In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/6/2014 1:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. === In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed. Probably not in a punitive way, but by medical conditions he's mentioned elsewhere. Either way, he won't be missed. |
A bit of satire...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/6/14 12:09 AM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:44:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too real. The cops will shoot you, period. No sweat, the unions will protect the cops. Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a job-related criminal act. I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that concept. Tough darts. It seems left wing morons do too. I suppose you are really conflicted here. The FOP is saying the New York cop is a boy scout, literally and you think he is a murderer. I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch mob mentality. If I was a union cop and my dues went to pay for a cops defense when he actually committed a crime, I would be ****ed if he did not have to reimburse the union. Like the San Francisco cops just convicted of stealing from suspects. Maybe the union should pay for the lawyers of those with valid complaints against cops. |
A bit of satire...
On 12/6/14 1:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. === In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed. As will you. Bet yours is a lot worse. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
A bit of satire...
|
A bit of satire...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 11:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out so you will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not nearly as clever. === And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc. Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here. === OK, I just stopped. The ball is in your court. Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back. Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers. If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will support their members by providing and paying for the services of a good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing so ensures the member has the benefit of due process. My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of union membership. So these individuals are not capable or willing to think for themselves and resort to paying dues to a bunch of left-wing scumbags to defend them when they are inept or lazy? |
A bit of satire...
On 12/6/2014 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch mob mentality. No, it is a left wing lynch mob. You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system. This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed off the podium. I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. You are like the mobs in the street who will accept nothing but an immediate conviction and reject the verdict of a jury in the case of Zimmerman and reject the grand jury in the cases of Wilson and Pantaleo. You had made up your mind before there were any facts established, simply based on media reports that are inaccurate. As I have said many times, there are far better examples but they go off on the wrong ones. Why not protest the cop who shot the 12 year old with the air soft gun or the cop who shot a guy for a seat belt violation. You people always find a criminal or a thug to defend, then you want to lynch the guy who shot them in self defense. In the case of Eric Garner, there were at least 10 people who were collectively responsible for his death (including Garner himself) and only one was targeted, simply because he was the most visible. If I was going to charge someone, it would be the EMTs. Garner was alive when they got there and they did absolutely nothing to keep him alive. When exactly did Garner die? |
A bit of satire...
On 12/6/2014 11:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:14 PM, wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch mob mentality. No, it is a left wing lynch mob. You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system. This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed off the podium. I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. You are like the mobs in the street who will accept nothing but an immediate conviction and reject the verdict of a jury in the case of Zimmerman and reject the grand jury in the cases of Wilson and Pantaleo. You had made up your mind before there were any facts established, simply based on media reports that are inaccurate. As I have said many times, there are far better examples but they go off on the wrong ones. Why not protest the cop who shot the 12 year old with the air soft gun or the cop who shot a guy for a seat belt violation. You people always find a criminal or a thug to defend, then you want to lynch the guy who shot them in self defense. In the case of Eric Garner, there were at least 10 people who were collectively responsible for his death (including Garner himself) and only one was targeted, simply because he was the most visible. If I was going to charge someone, it would be the EMTs. Garner was alive when they got there and they did absolutely nothing to keep him alive. When exactly did Garner die? According at least two sources, Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later. The EMT's may have had no reason to suspect an impending heart attack. He had a pulse and was breathing. |
A bit of satire...
|
A bit of satire...
On 12/6/2014 11:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:14 PM, wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch mob mentality. No, it is a left wing lynch mob. You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system. This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed off the podium. I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero, George Zimmerman. You are like the mobs in the street who will accept nothing but an immediate conviction and reject the verdict of a jury in the case of Zimmerman and reject the grand jury in the cases of Wilson and Pantaleo. You had made up your mind before there were any facts established, simply based on media reports that are inaccurate. As I have said many times, there are far better examples but they go off on the wrong ones. Why not protest the cop who shot the 12 year old with the air soft gun or the cop who shot a guy for a seat belt violation. You people always find a criminal or a thug to defend, then you want to lynch the guy who shot them in self defense. In the case of Eric Garner, there were at least 10 people who were collectively responsible for his death (including Garner himself) and only one was targeted, simply because he was the most visible. If I was going to charge someone, it would be the EMTs. Garner was alive when they got there and they did absolutely nothing to keep him alive. When exactly did Garner die? When his heart stopped beating. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com