Turns out that I don't actually have to ask permission to get an MRI done.
You get that permission from a doctor, only it's called a referral. Not from the CEO of the company you work for, nor the HR flack he hired to write the company health care plan. Medical professional, not a corporate stooge.
Why would I want to go and work in a country with shitty employment law?
So you had a talking point, not an argument, by admitting that employment law doesn't necessarily protect the employed? Why didn't you say so earlier? Let us know how the meeting goes at your local Chamber of Commerce goes, when you ask for all the benefits of membership without having to pay membership dues.
Well sorry if my experience with 3 DIFFERENT UNIONS and THE SAME SHIT isn't good enough for you.
Sorry my TWO DIFFERENT ANECDOTES weren't enough to get you on board to summarily ban capitalism. Three's the charm? Okay, one more:
I used to work at shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union. One old codger did more talking than working, and one time this "talk" included telling a woman 30 years younger than him that he would, quote unquote "like to rape the shit out of you". Nothing was done by management. Now, since three different examples are what you needed, you're down for banning capitalism, yes? Or were you just getting your confirmation bias on?
Unions don't prevent people from being fired, they just make it very time-consuming and difficult to do so
Not. If. There. Is. Cause.
However the union filing motions to keep him from being fired is also a problem.
It's called due process, to make sure the real reason Bob's getting fired isn't because he refused to come in on his day off, work off the clock, or balked at doing a dangerous job he wasn't trained or equipped to do.
No, banks aren't necessarily bad. Stripping regulation from industry, having it fail, then bailing them out is bad. If banks were like a Union, then if 90% of banks are doing good and the rest were going down the road of Wells Fargo, then you'd give them all a 3% pay increase regardless of how screwed up or piss poor that other 10% were.
Exactly! Judging entire groups of people based on the actions of a few is just silly when it's the boss class. But for those uppity proles who don't know their place, it just makes sense.
"Secret laws" and confidential negotiations are very different things.
As long as the law is crafted in those "confidential" negotiations, that's a distinction without a difference. And what excuse is there for keeping laws that will effect billions of people "confidential" in the first place? This isn't FDR getting together with Churchill and Staling discussing strategy on how to beat Germany, it's civil law.
Before the law would be voted on it would be published during first and second reading.
When it's subjected to "fast track authority", which will prevent amendments from modifying the terms agreed to in secret. By design.
No, but the 20th draft may look very different than the first draft so debating the first draft would be irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Only if you ignore the last three decades or more of history. The time to push back against unacceptable provisions is early and often, not at the last minute when they wheel out the "zomg we must pass this it's our last chance and it's your fault if the crumbs to help the unemployed/sick/jobless fail" shtick.
Go back to Berkeley. I will agree with you that the US is far more authoritarian than it was just 6 years ago. I'm sure you helped make it that way.
I see we reached the part of the conversation where you ran out of junk talking points to defend the indefensible, and started blathering incoherantly.
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
Umm, well, again, if they are AIMING for an economic target, then it's not collateral damage. What are you not understanding here? I think you need a dictionary.
Do I have to paint you a literal picture in addition to the verbal one? WTC = economic target, Slick.
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
Not only were they not on a battlefield, they were not terrorists.
More handholding? The people attending those weddings weren't terrorists, either. Nor the people minding their own business in cafes, or apartments, or farms.
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing?
Huh? Not sorry? Or is this a trick question?
Dropped on the head as a child? The obvious point here is that just because someone is accused of being a terrorist, doesn't mean they're a terrorist. And maybe you should make sure they're actually guilty before you bomb their ass, otherwise you are the terrorist.
Killing terrorists is good.
So you ARE disappointed that Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight. Good to know.
Where I'm from unions aren't at the company level, they're at the industry level.
So you're saying workers are less abused, better paid, with greater benefits and vacation time? And this is a bad thing for you?
People don't voluntarily joins the unions
Here, why don't you try an experiment: go down to the office of your local Chamber of Commerce, and tell them you want to enjoy all the benefits of being a CoC member, but without having to pay membership dues. Write down the responses, and come back to us.
Unions don't protect employees, employment law protects employees.
Why don't you go work at the Tyler Pipe factory for a while and say that again. Negligence that would land your ass in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison gets shrugged off if done by a monied corporation.
Unions are a check on greed, and the robber baron class as only gotten more as time goes on.
3 years down the road, Bob still doesn't know how to stop/start a Unix service or manage the backup system. Well, actually he might if he tried, but Frank is still the one that gets poked to handle it all. Really, Bob is just somewhat lazy and is milking the system. Bob *could* be fired, but it would take another several years of fighting between the union and management, and that's expensive. So install Bob manages a few servers in the old system, and Frank gets 1.5x the work.
And yes, this *does* happen in unions
Cute story, and I'm sure that oceanfront property you're selling in Nebraska is beautiful as well. Just a few problems, though:
1) There is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired for cause 2) Bob is management's problems, not the unions. 3) Because Frank, and Frank's union friends, would be the ones standing outside managements door demanding that Bob be retrained or "encouraged" to find a different job. Because, once again, joining a union doesn't mean you get a hole in your head and a desire to do your work plus someone else's.
I worked in one shop where the guy wasn't coming to work, was mis-using company resources, and basically did it all with a smirk. It took them *years* to get him out, and years again of fighting to keep him from being brought back.
Oooo, black and white anecdote time! Enron stole money from customers and shareholders, therefore all capitalism is bad, mmkay. And Wells Fargo ripping off homeowners means that all for profit banks are bad and should be banned immediately!
Of course, no one would be stupid enough to make those kind of leaps of bad logic with business. But people do it all the time with labor - why is that?
Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports).
Also from his citation: the Feds consider the "international border" to be 100 miles inland. Back to square one.
Pure dumbfuckery. Do you like picking up the slack for lazy incompetents at your non-union company? Of course not. Would that change if you changed jobs and joined a union? Of course not.
So why, exactly, do you think union members spend all day thinking, "boy, I wish Bob over there would stop doing his job so I can do my work plus his!"
The argument of "See! It works in $OTHER_COUNTRY! Why is the US so dumb in not doing it the same way?" is getting really tired.
You butthurt American Exceptionalists are so cute. Nevermind that the U.S. had similar regulations that kept this sort of catastrophe from happening, before Clinton and Congress repealed it. So you're wrong on both counts.
You know who else was "collateral damage" - just about everyone who died on 911.
No, because civilians were the target in the 9/11 attack. That's the opposite of collateral damage.
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
most of the people murdered by drones are not on any "battlefield"
Well yeah, so? I never said they were literally on a battlefield, and that's okay. They don't have to be.
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
Yes, terrorists are not in full-on terrorism mode 100% of the time. They also have weddings and go on walks after dinner. Point being?
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing? Are you itching to see the force feedings of Gitmo prisoners on pay per view - you know, the ones that were found innocent of any crime five years ago?
That just tells me you're using "terrorist" differently from the commonly accepted definition.
You're telling me the shit coming out of your own murdering ass doesn't stink. That's okay, you're far from the only massive hypocrite on this issue.
I used to set lead type in my parents print shop as a kid, and I'm perfectly fine
Other than the side effect of dodging simple questions, unless that's a recent development for you.
set lead type in my parents print shop as a kid
Uh huh. Here's another simple question for you to dodge: since you were fine as a kid, and the science behind lead poisoning "isn't settled", do you give toys with lead paint to your nephews at Christmas?
Truth is, all this talk of natural balance of CO2 is hogwash. Read up on the Cretaceous period. CO2 levels were much higher. Temperatures were up to 20 degrees higher.
The next canard: hey we've had climate change before, so this is no big whoop! Read up on your drivel, as periods of rapid climate change happen after big events, like the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, or the eruption of a supermassive volcano - and are accompanied by mass extinction events. Dinosaurs didn't choose to put a big rock on the path to their planet, though.
But that's the great thing about being an anti-science troll - you'll just move on to the next Big Lie. Up next: hey, it's really the sun getting hotter!
In fact it is relevant. Collateral damage is okay and expected in actions like this.
Imperialist hypocrisy and American Exceptionalism are never "okay". You know who else was "collateral damage" - just about everyone who died on 911. The other problem with your defense of the indefensible: most of the people murdered by drones are not on any "battlefield". They're minding their own business in their own homes, walking around town, or attending a wedding....until a robot plane fires a missile at them and anyone around them. The USG is the largest and deadliest terrorist organization on the planet.
That's just authoritarian naivete, as the U.S. has indisputably been in the business of murdering American citizens as of the al-Awlaki family.
You can put your faith in the Washington post, but in my experience, that is not wise.
Your experience, if it was honest, is of WaPo bending over backwards to accommodate the "needs" and wants of the American military-industrial-imperialism complex. Not of them making shit up about when the CIA decides to murder people.
Slashdot Mirror
You get that permission from a doctor, only it's called a referral. Not from the CEO of the company you work for, nor the HR flack he hired to write the company health care plan. Medical professional, not a corporate stooge.
Idiot.
So you had a talking point, not an argument, by admitting that employment law doesn't necessarily protect the employed? Why didn't you say so earlier? Let us know how the meeting goes at your local Chamber of Commerce goes, when you ask for all the benefits of membership without having to pay membership dues.
Sorry my TWO DIFFERENT ANECDOTES weren't enough to get you on board to summarily ban capitalism. Three's the charm? Okay, one more:
I used to work at shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union. One old codger did more talking than working, and one time this "talk" included telling a woman 30 years younger than him that he would, quote unquote "like to rape the shit out of you". Nothing was done by management. Now, since three different examples are what you needed, you're down for banning capitalism, yes? Or were you just getting your confirmation bias on?
Not. If. There. Is. Cause.
It's called due process, to make sure the real reason Bob's getting fired isn't because he refused to come in on his day off, work off the clock, or balked at doing a dangerous job he wasn't trained or equipped to do.
Exactly! Judging entire groups of people based on the actions of a few is just silly when it's the boss class. But for those uppity proles who don't know their place, it just makes sense.
As long as the law is crafted in those "confidential" negotiations, that's a distinction without a difference. And what excuse is there for keeping laws that will effect billions of people "confidential" in the first place? This isn't FDR getting together with Churchill and Staling discussing strategy on how to beat Germany, it's civil law.
When it's subjected to "fast track authority", which will prevent amendments from modifying the terms agreed to in secret. By design.
Irrelevant? Only if you ignore the last three decades or more of history. The time to push back against unacceptable provisions is early and often, not at the last minute when they wheel out the "zomg we must pass this it's our last chance and it's your fault if the crumbs to help the unemployed/sick/jobless fail" shtick.
See: NAFTA, Telecom Deregulation, DMCA, Gramm-Leech-Bailey, Patriot Act, AUMF, telecom immunity, Obomneycare, NDAA, sequester, etc etc etc.
I see we reached the part of the conversation where you ran out of junk talking points to defend the indefensible, and started blathering incoherantly.
Every time you hear some stooge for the MIC whine about "human shields".
Your American Exceptionalist bullshit.
Do I have to paint you a literal picture in addition to the verbal one? WTC = economic target, Slick.
More handholding? The people attending those weddings weren't terrorists, either. Nor the people minding their own business in cafes, or apartments, or farms.
Dropped on the head as a child? The obvious point here is that just because someone is accused of being a terrorist, doesn't mean they're a terrorist. And maybe you should make sure they're actually guilty before you bomb their ass, otherwise you are the terrorist.
So you ARE disappointed that Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight. Good to know.
So you're saying workers are less abused, better paid, with greater benefits and vacation time? And this is a bad thing for you?
Here, why don't you try an experiment: go down to the office of your local Chamber of Commerce, and tell them you want to enjoy all the benefits of being a CoC member, but without having to pay membership dues. Write down the responses, and come back to us.
Why don't you go work at the Tyler Pipe factory for a while and say that again. Negligence that would land your ass in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison gets shrugged off if done by a monied corporation.
Unions are a check on greed, and the robber baron class as only gotten more as time goes on.
Cute story, and I'm sure that oceanfront property you're selling in Nebraska is beautiful as well. Just a few problems, though:
1) There is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired for cause
2) Bob is management's problems, not the unions.
3) Because Frank, and Frank's union friends, would be the ones standing outside managements door demanding that Bob be retrained or "encouraged" to find a different job. Because, once again, joining a union doesn't mean you get a hole in your head and a desire to do your work plus someone else's.
Oooo, black and white anecdote time! Enron stole money from customers and shareholders, therefore all capitalism is bad, mmkay. And Wells Fargo ripping off homeowners means that all for profit banks are bad and should be banned immediately!
Of course, no one would be stupid enough to make those kind of leaps of bad logic with business. But people do it all the time with labor - why is that?
Repeating state propaganda is funny?
Repeating Big Lies from authoritarians makes you either a fascist or a monarchist. Which is it?
Also from his citation: the Feds consider the "international border" to be 100 miles inland. Back to square one.
Because deflecting/whining about Kennedy means Alito's fondness for authoritarians doesn't exist. Or something.
Pure dumbfuckery. Do you like picking up the slack for lazy incompetents at your non-union company? Of course not. Would that change if you changed jobs and joined a union? Of course not.
So why, exactly, do you think union members spend all day thinking, "boy, I wish Bob over there would stop doing his job so I can do my work plus his!"
You butthurt American Exceptionalists are so cute. Nevermind that the U.S. had similar regulations that kept this sort of catastrophe from happening, before Clinton and Congress repealed it. So you're wrong on both counts.
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing? Are you itching to see the force feedings of Gitmo prisoners on pay per view - you know, the ones that were found innocent of any crime five years ago?
You're telling me the shit coming out of your own murdering ass doesn't stink. That's okay, you're far from the only massive hypocrite on this issue.
Other than the side effect of dodging simple questions, unless that's a recent development for you.
Uh huh. Here's another simple question for you to dodge: since you were fine as a kid, and the science behind lead poisoning "isn't settled", do you give toys with lead paint to your nephews at Christmas?
If not, why not?
Then you just ran the ball into your own end zone.
Hint: it's the first step in denying AGW, before moving on to the "it might not really be humans" or "it might not be that bad" canards.
The next canard: hey we've had climate change before, so this is no big whoop! Read up on your drivel, as periods of rapid climate change happen after big events, like the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, or the eruption of a supermassive volcano - and are accompanied by mass extinction events. Dinosaurs didn't choose to put a big rock on the path to their planet, though.
But that's the great thing about being an anti-science troll - you'll just move on to the next Big Lie. Up next: hey, it's really the sun getting hotter!
Imperialist hypocrisy and American Exceptionalism are never "okay". You know who else was "collateral damage" - just about everyone who died on 911. The other problem with your defense of the indefensible: most of the people murdered by drones are not on any "battlefield". They're minding their own business in their own homes, walking around town, or attending a wedding....until a robot plane fires a missile at them and anyone around them. The USG is the largest and deadliest terrorist organization on the planet.
That's just authoritarian naivete, as the U.S. has indisputably been in the business of murdering American citizens as of the al-Awlaki family.
Your experience, if it was honest, is of WaPo bending over backwards to accommodate the "needs" and wants of the American military-industrial-imperialism complex. Not of them making shit up about when the CIA decides to murder people.
Which is.....drum roll.....wait for it....answering your question.
Newsflash: one of the CIA's central job functions is to lie.
Irrelevant. They knew he was there, and they killed him.
Giving a straight answer to a straight question - 'the CIA thought he was in the car' - is skirting around the point on what planet?
I'd argue is still straight-up murder when done entirely and deliberately outside the rule of law.
But they couldn't be bothered to even try him in absentee. But the evidence they had was overwhelming! But it's all classified, doncha know...
You mean from the one group that was actually denied tax-exempt status? You know, the liberal one?
Do you still use leaded gasoline or paint because you don't think the science behind lead poisoning is "settled"? If not, why not?