meazza Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Not very often. I think most of us gave up on trying years ago, but it can still be entertaining to see him rant at nothing in particular. If i remember correctly, AD called him the riddler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Not very often. I think most of us gave up on trying years ago, but it can still be entertaining to see him rant at nothing in particular. He's like our own little Charlie Sheen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 He's like our own little Charlie Sheen. Except that I will never stop winning with you dolts... Almost 10 years and counting... Eat that Charlie! If i remember correctly, AD called him the riddler That is true! I ask lots of questions too! And of course use the ??? AD is simple... He can't think out of the box like most here: "...I'm a challenge to your balance I'm over your heads how I confound you and astound you..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 He can't think out of the box like most here: Thinking out of the box isn't a strength when you're a congenital moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 Oh... Good you are here... AT first I thought that was a record reply! A record? They rarely make those anymore. Try an eight track or one of those new fangled cassettes. BTW, doesn't "making it flow backwards" prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have **** for brains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 BTW, doesn't "making it flow backwards" prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have **** for brains? No. Just for effect, you know poetic license. "Making it flow the other way" doesn't do it. It only proves that YOU have **** for brains for not understanding that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Are we not all free organize a boycott against whatever or whoever we like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Are we not all free organize a boycott against whatever or whoever we like? Where's the line between "boycott" and "extortion", anyway? In this case...there's something very unseemly about the union's statements. Generally, boycotts are predicated on past and current activities in order to force change. Organizing a boycott on the premise of a lack of a requested future action? That's a bit questionable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Where's the line between "boycott" and "extortion", anyway? In this case...there's something very unseemly about the union's statements. Generally, boycotts are predicated on past and current activities in order to force change. Organizing a boycott on the premise of a lack of a requested future action? That's a bit questionable to me. I seems to have some shady undertones, but it all seems perfectly legal at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I seems to have some shady undertones, but it all seems perfectly legal at least. Boycotting is one thing. When the first two signatures are "police department" and "fire department," it makes the implication that if you don't agree with them then you won't be protected. I have no problem with individual boycotting, but when you do it in the name of the police/fire department I think you've crossed a line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Boycotting is one thing. When the first two signatures are "police department" and "fire department," it makes the implication that if you don't agree with them then you won't be protected. I have no problem with individual boycotting, but when you do it in the name of the police/fire department I think you've crossed a line. What decisions do the police and fire unions get to make that the city isn't making? And why do those unions get a choice on who they do business with, but those businesses don't get the same choice with respect to those unions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Boycotting is one thing. When the first two signatures are "police department" and "fire department," it makes the implication that if you don't agree with them then you won't be protected. I have no problem with individual boycotting, but when you do it in the name of the police/fire department I think you've crossed a line. Hey, like it or not they're all pissed and have every right to react in any legal manner possible. Whether you agree or not, the perception of these government union employees is that they just got **** on and disrespected. It's all anti-union-this and slash-their-compensation-that and if they don't like it they can all go take a flying leap. Which is fine, I guess, until you realize that they people you just beat down and pissed off are the same people who are supposed to protect you and yours. Nobody's done anything wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Hey, like it or not they're all pissed and have every right to react in any legal manner possible. Whether you agree or not, the perception of these government union employees is that they just got **** on and disrespected. It's all anti-union-this and slash-their-compensation-that and if they don't like it they can all go take a flying leap. Which is fine, I guess, until you realize that they people you just beat down and pissed off are the same people who are supposed to protect you and yours. Nobody's done anything wrong here. life is art . Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... !@#$ with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... !@#$ with us. What a great quote from an even better movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Hey, like it or not they're all pissed and have every right to react in any legal manner possible. Whether you agree or not, the perception of these government union employees is that they just got **** on and disrespected. It's all anti-union-this and slash-their-compensation-that and if they don't like it they can all go take a flying leap. Which is fine, I guess, until you realize that they people you just beat down and pissed off are the same people who are supposed to protect you and yours. Nobody's done anything wrong here. That's the question though - is it legal for the police department and fire department to send a threatening letter saying, "Obey or else?" And if it is, should it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 That's the question though - is it legal for the police department and fire department to send a threatening letter saying, "Obey or else?" And if it is, should it be? All I've seen so far is the presentation of the appearance of a unified group threatening to boycott goods and services, nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 All I've seen so far is the presentation of the appearance of a unified group threatening to boycott goods and services, nothing else. Have they actually done anything yet? No. But, as Fez was saying, he has 2 questions. 1) Is a public union threatening a boycott legal? I guess it is, but I'm too lazy to look it up and 2) Should it be legal? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like the playing field is the same for the public union to boycott as it is for a private citizen/group/company. But how dare you raise this question? That's a slap in the face to the rights of the middle class![/pbills] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 All I've seen so far is the presentation of the appearance of a unified group threatening to boycott goods and services, nothing else. Boycott goods and services if future considerations are not provided. That's kind of an important point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Have they actually done anything yet? No. But, as Fez was saying, he has 2 questions. 1) Is a public union threatening a boycott legal? I guess it is, but I'm too lazy to look it up and 2) Should it be legal? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like the playing field is the same for the public union to boycott as it is for a private citizen/group/company. But how dare you raise this question? That's a slap in the face to the rights of the middle class![/pbills] All this effort to make government employees more like private workers makes the "uneven playing field" argument ring a bit hollow. They may be government employees, but they're still Americans. Boycott goods and services if future considerations are not provided. That's kind of an important point. That's interesting. Are you saying that it's illegal to organize a boycott based on past actions? I guess they could argue that they're targeting the next election, even if it is really about retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 All this effort to make government employees more like private workers makes the "uneven playing field" argument ring a bit hollow. They may be government employees, but they're still Americans. The difference, in my opinion, is when you have the police and fire department making it sound like, "Do what we say or we won't help you out." That's where I think the line has been crossed. I agree with what Tom's saying too, but for me the meat of it revolves around the veiled threat of not doing their job if the business doesn't listen. If the individuals had all written letters to the business, I'd have no problem with it. There's a difference between, "Joe Citizen is going to boycot if you don't do what I say," compared to, "Police Chief Citizen is going to boycot if you don't do what I say." Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts