|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2015 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem  That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then  Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point? You tell me.
The question is you didn't disagree with any of my points just agreed with one and didn't respond to the rest, what was your point?
|
On May 04 2015 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US.
[quote]
My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US.
[quote]
My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point? You tell me. The question is you didn't disagree with any of my points just agreed with one and didn't respond to the rest, what was your point?
In which post? The first one?
|
GARLAND, Texas (AP) — A provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb was put on lockdown Sunday night and attendees were being evacuated after authorities reported a shooting outside the building.
An officer dressed in SWAT gear took the stage toward the end of the event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and told attendees, including an Associated Press reporter, that a shooting had occurred. He said one officer and two suspects were shot.
It wasn't immediately clear if the shooting was related to the event.
Source
|
On May 04 2015 11:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point? You tell me. The question is you didn't disagree with any of my points just agreed with one and didn't respond to the rest, what was your point? In which post? The first one?
On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such.
That one. What was the point of saying that? It's no secret conservatives inside and out of media complain about teachers unions and that they are political enemies. But it doesn't address what I was saying in the post it was responding to (especially it's edit [which came long before your response]).
|
On May 04 2015 11:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 11:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'.
Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing.
The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet.
And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'.
Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point? You tell me. The question is you didn't disagree with any of my points just agreed with one and didn't respond to the rest, what was your point? In which post? The first one? Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. That one. What was the point of saying that? It's no secret conservatives inside and out of media complain about teachers unions and that they are political enemies. But it doesn't address what I was saying in the post it was responding to (especially it's edit [which came long before your response]).
The point was to explain why you'll hear conservatives complaining about teacher's unions often.
You were saying that conservatives should be talking about police unions since they talk about teacher's unions. However, the reasons that conservatives talk about teacher's unions only partially overlap with police unions, hence a differential in conservative media attention. AFAI police are not the major Democrat donor standouts that teachers unions are and haven't been a major obstacle to what Republicans have wanted to do with police forces.
Moreover, the problems that conservatives have with teachers unions have built up to a level that has taken national attention multiple times over a span of decades, while problems with the police and police unions has only recently come to be a national issue.
|
On May 04 2015 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 11:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 11:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:[quote] Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting...
It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly).
[quote]
So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it.
EDIT: Farv's example works too.
Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. I know. That's kind of my point? You tell me. The question is you didn't disagree with any of my points just agreed with one and didn't respond to the rest, what was your point? In which post? The first one? On May 04 2015 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 05:11 farvacola wrote:On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. Similarly, to suggest that critics of teacher's unions are oftentimes conspicuously silent when similar dynamics are seen at play with police is not synonymous with suggesting that all critics of teacher's unions be "throw[n] into the same bucket." Scratch that, I don't really need to ask. I think it's clear that reading isn't your problem That wasn't his argument. He didn't write that critics of teacher's unions 'oftentimes' are silent. He wrote that all of those critics were silent, which my existence proved incorrect. On May 04 2015 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:55 Millitron wrote:Pointless to speculate about why they 'could' of arrested him we have the document from the police declaring why they arrested him. As you noted it was NOT resisting a legal detention so there is 0 reason to suggest/mention it. I brought it up because in a similar situation someone might get arrested for resisting. To the uninitiated this might seem like getting arrested for nothing. The Baltimore mom who hit her son was not a big deal. As for Hillary, there's no waiting for a trial because nobody is demanding official punishment, at least not yet. And before you or anyone else start, being fired is absolutely a punishment. I don't know how you could see it any other way. I don't know what you mean by "not a big deal" but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that no one criticized her for not waiting till she had facts that warranted her disciplining her son. For all we know he was peacefully protesting... It's a consequence. Whether it is a punishment or not is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be a police officer. What happens in court is independent of their employment. In that the simple facts/stories of what happened are worthy of termination. No one (including police) is denying that their actions (or lack thereof) resulted in a mans death. That they were totally oblivious as to how it even could of happened the day it did is further evidence that they are unqualified. Refusing to testify for the public as a public employee would just be the cherry on top (not substantive, but reinforces the idea they are not doing their jobs correctly). On May 04 2015 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them. Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US. On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played. Sure reads like you were throwing all unions (and their members) in the same bucket to me. Which US unions are you leaving out of the bucket of broken institutions? My assertion that unions are a broken institution is not synonymous with each and every union being broken or 'bad'. Similarly, asserting that the Baltimore PD is in need of reform is not to say that every individual officer is bad. So saying "Baltimore PD's behavior is just more evidence of police departments being broken institutions isn't synonymous with each and every PD being broken or 'bad'" is also fair? If it goes both ways I'm cool with it. EDIT: Farv's example works too. Of course it goes both ways. The rules of grammar and logic don't change based on political affiliation! First I guess we should start with that, until I said something about it, they were silent. Or simply said it's what the union is supposed to do. Radically different from what they say about teachers unions defending questionable teachers. I said that it " seems". That being said, it still seems you represent a minority, clearly a minority position in context of the national conservative media. I'll expect your support in defending the comment that "the actions of the PD in Baltimore and the national union is just more evidence of PD's and their unions across the country being broken institutions" then Conservative media often complains about teachers unions because they almost exclusively support Democrats with campaign donations and have opposed education reforms that conservatives have wanted to see implemented. They're consistent political opponents and are treated as such. That one. What was the point of saying that? It's no secret conservatives inside and out of media complain about teachers unions and that they are political enemies. But it doesn't address what I was saying in the post it was responding to (especially it's edit [which came long before your response]). The point was to explain why you'll hear conservatives complaining about teacher's unions often. You were saying that conservatives should be talking about police unions since they talk about teacher's unions. However, the reasons that conservatives talk about teacher's unions only partially overlap with police unions, hence a differential in conservative media attention. AFAI police are not the major Democrat donor standouts that teachers unions are and haven't been a major obstacle to what Republicans have wanted to do with police forces. Moreover, the problems that conservatives have with teachers unions have built up to a level that has taken national attention multiple times over a span of decades, while problems with the police and police unions has only recently come to be a national issue.
Something must be wrong because you are just saying what I was saying. Again there was no confusion as to why they complain about teachers unions.
My point is that it's curious that the political relationship seems to trump the ideological regarding their rhetoric and policy. That despite many police unions having virtually identical issues (along with ones highlighted by cases like Baltimore) to their more democratically aligned counterparts, conservatives here and otherwise have been (and remain [EDIT: I'm definitely looking at you Danglers]) virtually silent about their problems and don't advocate for the same cuts and restrictions (certainly not with the same fervor). That going from people here, all the way up to one of the leading conservative options for a presidential nominee. That inconsistency is transparent.
I also take issue with the characterization that problems with the police and their unions are only recently an issue or one of national attention. I also think suggesting such takes a cavalier disregard for why it struggles to maintain national attention and further strengthens my point.
|
On May 04 2015 10:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ben Carson has announced he's running for President.
He won't get establishment vote b/c of some of his speeches. He's had only a little fumbling with conservative/tea party positions. We'll see how he fares with donors, the start of primary season, and debates.
|
On May 04 2015 12:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 10:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ben Carson has announced he's running for President. He won't get establishment vote b/c of some of his speeches. He's had only a little fumbling with conservative/tea party positions. We'll see how he fares with donors, the start of primary season, and debates.
I dunno why he would run imo. Seems like a lot of people don't take him seriously at all is the sense I get.
|
On May 04 2015 11:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +GARLAND, Texas (AP) — A provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb was put on lockdown Sunday night and attendees were being evacuated after authorities reported a shooting outside the building.
An officer dressed in SWAT gear took the stage toward the end of the event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and told attendees, including an Associated Press reporter, that a shooting had occurred. He said one officer and two suspects were shot.
It wasn't immediately clear if the shooting was related to the event. Source
Sigh. So much for use not abuse of free speech.
|
In Texas, shooting IS free speech.
|
On May 04 2015 13:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 11:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:GARLAND, Texas (AP) — A provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb was put on lockdown Sunday night and attendees were being evacuated after authorities reported a shooting outside the building.
An officer dressed in SWAT gear took the stage toward the end of the event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and told attendees, including an Associated Press reporter, that a shooting had occurred. He said one officer and two suspects were shot.
It wasn't immediately clear if the shooting was related to the event. Source Sigh. So much for use not abuse of free speech.
It's worse when you hear the organizer talk about why they did it, and describe the previous meeting by Muslims in the same building. Kind of just more evidence of what I was just talking about.
Definitely the most footage of corpses I've ever seen on national cable television though.
|
On May 04 2015 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 13:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 04 2015 11:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:GARLAND, Texas (AP) — A provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb was put on lockdown Sunday night and attendees were being evacuated after authorities reported a shooting outside the building.
An officer dressed in SWAT gear took the stage toward the end of the event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and told attendees, including an Associated Press reporter, that a shooting had occurred. He said one officer and two suspects were shot.
It wasn't immediately clear if the shooting was related to the event. Source Sigh. So much for use not abuse of free speech. It's worse when you hear the organizer talk about why they did it, and describe the previous meeting by Muslims in the same building. Kind of just more evidence of what I was just talking about. Definitely the most footage of corpses I've ever seen on national cable television though.
I liked that the organizer said that the shooting shows "how much an event like this is needed".
|
Exactly what they wanted to happen, I'm sure.
|
Basically "I called his dead mom a bunch of bad names and he punched me in the face, people who love their moms are terrible violent people".
|
On May 04 2015 14:18 DannyJ wrote:
Exactly what they wanted to happen, I'm sure.
They said as much. Although what happened isn't really known yet. My natural skepticism of police, matched with the alleged fact 2 men, with some element of surprise, got out of their car and both opened fire on a school security guard, and only superficially wounded his ankle, before being shot dead a handful of steps from the car by the police, makes me think that there's more to the story than we know. No idea what, but it definitely seems weird.
|
On May 04 2015 14:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Basically "I called his dead mom a bunch of bad names and he punched me in the face, people who love their moms are terrible violent people".
There is a difference between a spontaneous violent reaction and pre-planned mass murder..
|
On May 04 2015 14:37 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 14:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Basically "I called his dead mom a bunch of bad names and he punched me in the face, people who love their moms are terrible violent people". There is a difference between a spontaneous violent reaction and pre-planned mass murder..
You should look into the Garland police department a bit before you go taking their word for what happened.
Either way, if it was planned, it was a piss poor plan.
|
On May 04 2015 14:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 14:37 Maenander wrote:On May 04 2015 14:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Basically "I called his dead mom a bunch of bad names and he punched me in the face, people who love their moms are terrible violent people". There is a difference between a spontaneous violent reaction and pre-planned mass murder.. You should look into the Garland police department a bit before you go taking their word for what happened. Either way, if it was planned, it was a piss poor plan.
I was just answering the post, not making any assumptions about what happened. "They insulted my dead relative" is no excuse for murder in any modern country as far as I know.
|
On May 04 2015 14:51 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 14:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 14:37 Maenander wrote:On May 04 2015 14:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Basically "I called his dead mom a bunch of bad names and he punched me in the face, people who love their moms are terrible violent people". There is a difference between a spontaneous violent reaction and pre-planned mass murder.. You should look into the Garland police department a bit before you go taking their word for what happened. Either way, if it was planned, it was a piss poor plan. I was just answering the post, not making any assumptions about what happened. "They insulted my dead relative" is no excuse for murder in any modern country as far as I know.
Didn't realize you were commenting absent the event's context. My fault.
|
stupid contest / stupid islamists and again it is stupidly headlined in every country.
idk why i should care when:
If Americans misbehaved on Jan. 15, 2013, as they typically do, then there were 30 gun-related murders and 162 people wounded by firearms in the country, based on the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On top of that, another 53 people kill themselves with a firearm each day, according to the CDC.
Breaking it down further, three people are killed by a gun per hour and almost seven people are shot every 60 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
