Unionist pigs should face murder charges
trijcomm
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sanit_filthy_snow_slow_mo_qH57MZwC53QKOJlekSSDJK
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
If this is true, and right now there's no proof of that...
...why is this any worse than Bush/Cheney falsifying evidence on the
Iraq War and sending 4,000+ troops to their deaths?
You choose the darndest things to get indignant about.
jason
rwa2play, looking for Dogbert
>
Actually, your poisoned arrows should be aimed @ Bloomberg for sitting
on his hands during this whole mess.
Karolina Dean... Where art thou Taija Rae???
trijcomm and his friends NEVER blame republicans for anything, so
Bloomberg gets a free pass....
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
The NY Post is generally an unreliable rag, but even on its own terms
the story is confusing. It talks about orders from "bosses" and
"supervisors" to slow down work. "Bosses" and "supervisors" are not
typically members of unions (generally can't be, by law). So the
article is incoherent on its own terms. I would be interested to see
a competent news source explain this.
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
"jsl...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in
message
news:c1b173f1-1884-4694...@o14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
~~~~
Translation: I have to wait for the Times to tell me what spin we can put on
unions fucking over the people.
LG
--
"Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." - Henry Ford
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "jsla...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu" <jsla...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in
> messagenews:c1b173f1-1884-4694...@o14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, because Rupert Murdoch Machine-Owned Media is ALWAYS
trustworthy....
could someone who LG has NOT kf'd point out that story about the Sun
falsifying an Al-Qaeda threat so that maybe he can get a clue in that
thick noggin of his?
Jason
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "jsla...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu" <jsla...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in
To repeat myself for the idiots reading this -- by which I mean Gow --
The NY Post story itself said that "bosses" and "supervisors" gave
slowdown orders. Again, "bosses and supervisors" are not "unions."
-- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
rwa2play, looking for Dogbert
Gow is pissed because the unions do something deplorable: Standing up
for workers' rights.
Mr. I-must-bow-at-the-statue-of-Rupert-Murdoch can't see it any other
way.
trijcomm
What a schmoe.
trijcomm
Actually, he couldn't do anything about the unionist pigs slowing down
snow removal, causing two people to die.
trijcomm
Bloomberg is no Republican. Please try to keep up with current events.
trijcomm
Could they have been referring to union bosses and supervisors? And do
you mean to tell me that job supervisors and bosses aren't part of
those same unions? Give me a break. You are the one who's incoherent.
trijcomm
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong. They can be members of unions as well. You are showing your
ignorance.
David E. Powell
They may be screwing up terms. They may have meant "Union Bosses" and
not known or cared to use proper terms like "Shop Steward" or
whatever.
Either way, if the story is true there is defnitely cause there if not
from criminal action than civil action against anyone found to be
responsible for a deliberate slowdown.
Not saying right off the bat that the accusation is true. However this
is NYC. With all the reporters in that town I am guessing that
anything that big (It would have to be a force wide "put out the word"
effort to slow things down) will eventually come out.
Bloomberg also has an interest because the Union action, if proven,
would let him a bit off the hook - The motive was even supposedly to
make him look bad. What do you know, he has a lot of media contacts.
I am not Bloomberg's biggest fan by far. However, I am sure that if
this story is legit it will come out. Covering it up would be too hard
for anyone at this point. Hundreds of people would know and millions
would be mad and trying to find out. Throw in a city with a huge
number of press and news organizations, and if true it will out. Even
people who ordinarily would give the story a miss will care if it
happened in their own city and affected them. Especially if people
have died. Daily News readers are as pissed off about this as Post
readers are.
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
> On Dec 30, 1:21 pm, "jsla...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jsla...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2:12 pm, "Karolina Dean... Where art thou Taija Rae???"
>
> > <jadelady...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 30, 9:20 am, "rwa2play, looking for Dogbert"
>
> > > <rwa2p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 30, 10:27 am, trijcomm <trijc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Two people died due to this crapola.
>
> > > > >http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sanit_filthy_snow_slow_mo_qH57MZwC...
>
> > > > Actually, your poisoned arrows should be aimed @ Bloomberg for sitting
> > > > on his hands during this whole mess.
>
> > > trijcomm and his friends NEVER blame republicans for anything, so
> > > Bloomberg gets a free pass....
>
> > The NY Post is generally an unreliable rag, but even on its own terms
> > the story is confusing. It talks about orders from "bosses" and
> > "supervisors" to slow down work. "Bosses" and "supervisors" are not
> > typically members of unions (generally can't be, by law). So the
> > article is incoherent on its own terms. I would be interested to see
> > a competent news source explain this.
>
> Could they have been referring to union bosses and supervisors?
I have no idea, but the term "union supervisor" has no meaning.
And do
> you mean to tell me that job supervisors and bosses aren't part of
> those same unions?
Yes, I'm telling you that bosses generally and supervisors usually
cannot form unions.
I don't know what actually happened, but the terms the paper used are
incoherent.
Give me a break. You are the one who's incoherent.- Hide quoted text -
Don't make gratuitous slams when you don't know what you're talking
about. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
> - Show quoted text -
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please cite me your authority for this. As a a former labor law
attorney and current labor law professor, I'm intrigued. Under the
law as I know it, In some limited cases "supervisors" could be in
unions, but that's the exception, not the rule. And "bosses" can't
be. But I'm sure you know better. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2:21 pm, "jsla...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jsla...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2:12 pm, "Karolina Dean... Where art thou Taija Rae???"
>
> > <jadelady...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 30, 9:20 am, "rwa2play, looking for Dogbert"
>
> > > <rwa2p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 30, 10:27 am, trijcomm <trijc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Two people died due to this crapola.
>
> > > > >http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sanit_filthy_snow_slow_mo_qH57MZwC...
>
> > > > Actually, your poisoned arrows should be aimed @ Bloomberg for sitting
> > > > on his hands during this whole mess.
>
> > > trijcomm and his friends NEVER blame republicans for anything, so
> > > Bloomberg gets a free pass....
>
> > The NY Post is generally an unreliable rag, but even on its own terms
> > the story is confusing. It talks about orders from "bosses" and
> > "supervisors" to slow down work. "Bosses" and "supervisors" are not
> > typically members of unions (generally can't be, by law). So the
> > article is incoherent on its own terms. I would be interested to see
> > a competent news source explain this.
>
> They may be screwing up terms. They may have meant "Union Bosses" and
> not known or cared to use proper terms like "Shop Steward" or
> whatever.
It's extremely likely they are screwing up terms. But for the record,
a "shop steward" is quite different than a "supervisor." "Shop
stewards" don't have the authority to give orders to subordinates.
Indeed, shop stewards typically don't have subordinates.
> Either way, if the story is true there is defnitely cause there if not
> from criminal action than civil action against anyone found to be
> responsible for a deliberate slowdown.
Again, I have no idea what actually happened. The Post is pretty much
a rag and they obviously screwed up the tems, so this article itself
is not reliable. That's not to say something bad didn't happen, but
this article itself is not much evidence of anything.
> Not saying right off the bat that the accusation is true. However this
> is NYC. With all the reporters in that town I am guessing that
> anything that big (It would have to be a force wide "put out the word"
> effort to slow things down) will eventually come out.
Right, which is why in my original post on the topic I said I would be
interested to see what more reliable and accurate sources say about
this -- if anything. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
> Bloomberg also has an interest because the Union action, if proven,
> would let him a bit off the hook - The motive was even supposedly to
> make him look bad. What do you know, he has a lot of media contacts.
>
> I am not Bloomberg's biggest fan by far. However, I am sure that if
> this story is legit it will come out. Covering it up would be too hard
> for anyone at this point. Hundreds of people would know and millions
> would be mad and trying to find out. Throw in a city with a huge
> number of press and news organizations, and if true it will out. Even
> people who ordinarily would give the story a miss will care if it
> happened in their own city and affected them. Especially if people
> have died. Daily News readers are as pissed off about this as Post
> readers are.- Hide quoted text -
TomAl...@youcan'tgettherefromhere.com
On 30-Dec-2010, "jsl...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu"
<jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote:
> It talks about orders from "bosses" and
> "supervisors" to slow down work. "Bosses" and "supervisors" are not
> typically members of unions (generally can't be, by law)
Bosses and supervispors are the union leaders who's wages depend on how many
Union workers there are.
Something along the lines of the Sopranos
TomAl...@youcan'tgettherefromhere.com
disbanded.
Corrupt as hell.
TomAl...@youcan'tgettherefromhere.com
On 30-Dec-2010, Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...why is this any worse than Bush/Cheney falsifying evidence on the
> Iraq War and sending 4,000+ troops to their deaths?
Maybe we need to discuss Gulf of Tonkin too.
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
SMA, specifically the "DADT Is Dead" thread
Trijcomm, like Lord Gow, now inhabits a universe where the natural
order of things and the accompanying logic that we are so accustomed
to, simply don't apply.
Jason
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Read the New York Daily News article first Janis then come back to me
with the same claims.
Don't think they'll hold up.
Oh BTW, I know you get paid to troll for this.
--
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
"Conservatism is a phobia. Grow a pair and face the future." -- SherKhan.
"A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who has never
learned to walk forward." -- FDR.
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
> On 30-Dec-2010, Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...why is this any worse than Bush/Cheney falsifying evidence on the
> > Iraq War and sending 4,000+ troops to their deaths?
>
> Maybe we need to discuss Gulf of Tonkin too.
Maybe we should!
Jason
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
~~~~
What about making absurd rationalizations when you're pretending not to know
what happened.
Union corruption? Perish the thought! That could never, ever happen!
LG
--
Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Calvin Coolidge
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
I'm not making any rationalizations. And I'm not "pretending"
anything: I don't know what happened. And neither do you, or Trij.
The point is, the description in the Post article makes no sense on
its own terms. So the person rushing to unwarranted conclusions is
Trij. And apparently you too. -- Joe (n.j.) [mwo]
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
"jsl...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in
message
news:892a2f90-4186-44bf...@c2g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
~~~~
A) You're an idiot.
B) You're a union ass-kisser.
C) Headline: 'Sanitation Department's shakeup will put 100 supervisors back
on the streets'
Relevant point: 'Joseph Mannion, president of the Sanitation Officers
Association, called the move "devastating" and said the union is exploring
legal options.'
or: https://tinyurl.com/26nkdtz
Union website: https://www.local444seiu.com/current.asp
Supervisors, represented by union, just like the Post said in their very
easy to understand article. What? Not enough legalese mumbo jumbo?
LG (knows how NY operates)
--
The shining beacon of truth in a newsgroup full of liberals. - rafiki
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
That link doesn't say anything about the issue. I'm not going to
waste my time clicking on anything else because you have proven over
and over you're an ignorant hack. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
> LG (knows how NY operates)
> --
> The shining beacon of truth in a newsgroup full of liberals. - rafiki- Hide quoted text -
trijcomm
First of all, if you don't think supervisors and bosses are in the
same unions that their co-workers are, then you've never worked in
that venue. Second of all, let me make it clear to even you what the
issue is. The issue is these folks purposely slowed down their work
which resulted in two deaths. It's that simple. If you don't get that,
then guess who the "ignorant hack" is.
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
>
LG: Ignorant Hack #1
You: Ignorant Hack #2
Isn't it hilarous now, with hindsight -- you're here Dec 30th,
claiming THEY'RE GUILTY!!! HANG EM! HANG EM!! -- with not the
slightest bit of proof about anything that Murdoch's rag alleges about
the sanitation department...
And then a little more than A WEEK later, not even four hours after
the shooting in Tucson, you say FOX NEWS AND RUSH HAVE NOTHING AT ALL
TO DO WITH THIS!!!
Does that strike you as even just a *tad* hypocritical??
Just a tad?
Jason (already knows the answer)
trijcomm
I think it's pretty dang clear what the story is. If you want to play
ignorant, then that's no surprise. And to compare a purposeful work
slowdown that was thought of and conceived to a shooting by a lunatic,
well, that's plain nutty.
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
> well, that's plain nutty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are the one who stated - AND I QUOTE - "unionist pigs should face
murder charges"
Also, preliminary evidence shows Lougher's actions were pre-meditated
and he will most likely NOT be able to plead insanity.
Jason
trijcomm
Jason Todd is THE DEMONIZER
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very smooth, the way you evaded the second part of that post.
Jason
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
~~~~
The website verifies the Union officers. That's all I posted it for. You're
the one who tries to ooze out of any loophole your slimy nonaccountable ass
can find so I tossed it in to the mix to head off any 'maybe the article is
wrong about what's-his'name's position in the union' bullshit.
Now rewind your Rock highlights tape for instructions on what you can do
with your judgemental whining.
LG (Statesman among nitwits)
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
Dumbass. I've been working in the labor relations biz for decades. I
practiced it, I teach it, I've written books and articles about it.
Don't think for one f'n second you can BS me about it. Don't think
for one second that posts that are essentially a string of insults
intimidate me.
Here's an example of how stupid you and Trij are being. Trij posts
the following, and I quote:
"First of all, if you don't think supervisors and bosses are in the
same unions that their co-workers are, then you've never worked in
that venue"
That's completely wrong. There are only a handful of jurisdictions in
the country where supervisors can be in unions, and even in those
jurisdictions, they can't be in the same union as the folks they
supervise. That is black letter labor law, period. I don't have time
to correct all the other errant nonsense in this thread because I have
a real job (teaching labor law). And because you don't care if you're
wrong or not.
My only point in all this was the original Post article didn't make
any sense. It doesn't. You -- because you're a hack -- want to think
the worst of unions. If you want Rock quotes, let me stress that it
really . . . REALLY . . . doesn't matter what you think. I've been
saying consistently I don't know what the union did or didn't do in
this case -- maybe they did something wrong, maybe not -- only that
the Post article was basically gibberish. And it is.
> LG (Statesman among nitwits)
> --
Mhoram
news:8447bf76-bfea-4dfd...@q18g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
***********************
Exactly. What in the hell does a professor of law who specializes in union
labor issues know about this compared to you?
He's just another of the liberal elite who are stupid enough to go to
college and get indoctrinated into the socialist club they call 'higher
education'. He's not smart like us red-blooded Americans who stop at high
school and get all the learning we need on the job!
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
> "trijcomm" <trijc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, M. What's been weird -- although sadly predictable -- is that
throughout this thread, I've consistently said I don't know what
happened here, maybe the union folks did something wrong, maybe they
didn't, but the Post article is confusing and doesn't make sense on
its own terms. For saying that, I'm an apologist for murderers.
Which is why when I post in these threads, I don't do it to try to
convince Trij and Gow of anything. Hell, there's plenty of evidence
on this group that facts -- not stuff that is a matter of opinion or
ideology, but basic facts -- don't matter to them at all. When I do
post in these threads -- which is pretty rarely -- it's in case
somebody with a brain, like you, is reading. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
~~~~
Contradictory. Wanna try again?
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not contradictory because you SNIPPED THE PART THAT FOLLOWED in
which I said EVEN IN the MINORITY of jurisdictions that allow
supervisors to be in unions, THEY CAN'T BE IN THE SAME UNION
(technically, union bargaining unit) THAT THE PEOPLE THEY SUPERVISE
ARE IN.
Trij said that you could have supervisors and the folks they supervise
IN THE SAME UNION (technically, union bargaining unit). That is
flatly wrong. In MOST jurisdictions, supervisors can't be in unions,
period, and in the few places they can be, they CAN'T be in the same
local union.
This is what I mean. I can say things that are inarguably true --
like the sentence you snipped above. Nobody who knows anything about
labor relations, be they pro-management, pro-union, pro-both, anti-
both, would dispute what I said, because that is the law. You then
respond by (i) not understanding the point, and (ii) being a tool
about not understanding the point.
Again, it's a good thing other people are reading this thread. -- Joe
(n.j.) [mWo]
Slater by T.K.O.
What a whuppin'. Slater's talents are wasted on these jobbers.
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
It's not contradictory
~~~~
Follow the bouncing ball:
"COMPLETELY"
"HANDFUL OF JURISDICTIONS"
So is it NONE, or is it SOME? Can't be both, hence contradictory.
Begin long winded tediously boring "splitting hairs" rebuttal here:
LG
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
> What a whuppin'. Slater's talents are wasted on these jobbers.
Oh look! Here's Slater's little lackey spider just in time to reinforce the
whole liberal mutual ass kissing tradition!
Good widdle spider.
<swat>
Slater by Tap Out
"Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XMWdnXRgLrFBu6zQ...@posted.localnet...
Gow, are you dyslexic? I ask only because someone who can't fucking read
would think that Slater's post was contradictory.
Yes, he's completely wrong about supervisors and their employees being in
the same union.
Yes, only a handful of jurisdictions allow supervisors to be in A union.
No, it's not contradictory.
No, you're not clever.
Yes, you're a fucking idiot.
Slater by Tap Out
What's your next move Gow? Are you going to back peddle and pretend you were
just trolling all along or are you going to run away like a pussy again? My
money is on both.
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
> "Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:XMWdnXdgLrFAu6zQ...@posted.localnet...
>
>
>
> >> What a whuppin'. Slater's talents are wasted on these jobbers.
Any kind of informed conversation is wasted on Gow. Again, I'm only
posting in this thread on the chance somebody with half a brain is
reading.
> > Oh look! Here's Slater's little lackey spider just in time to reinforce
> > the whole liberal mutual ass kissing tradition!
>
> > Good widdle spider.
>
> > <swat>
Gow's continuing inability to deal with the substance noted.
> What's your next move Gow? Are you going to back peddle and pretend you were
> just trolling all along or are you going to run away like a pussy again? My
> money is on both.
Mine too, and thanks for understanding. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
Trij are doing their usual recycling of unreliable right-wing talking
points, check out these links on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/nyregion/26snowman.html?_r=2
http://www.queenscampaigner.com/2011/01/officials-wary-of-halloran-claims-on-snow-cleanup/
--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
Wow. Three weeks after the fact you come up with three whole articles citing
anonymous sources who claimed to be lily white (or is that snow white?).
Well hell, sounds ironclad to me!
Tell ya what, you're right. They weren't criminally negligent, they were
just flat out incompetent.
Feel better?
Now NYC just has to fire the inept nitwits and hire some... oh, that's
right... can't do that. Union rules & all...
Hmm... (shrugs)
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
>
> > For anyone who still cares about this, and who suspects that Gow and
> > Trij are doing their usual recycling of unreliable right-wing talking
> > points, check out these links on the topic:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/nyregion/26snowman.html?_r=2
>
>
> >http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/05/2011-01-05_sanitationm...
>
> Wow. Three weeks after the fact you come up with three whole articles citing
> anonymous sources who claimed to be lily white (or is that snow white?).
> Well hell, sounds ironclad to me!
>
> Tell ya what, you're right. They weren't criminally negligent, they were
> just flat out incompetent.
>
> Feel better?
>
> Now NYC just has to fire the inept nitwits and hire some... oh, that's
> right... can't do that. Union rules & all...
>
> Hmm... (shrugs)
>
> LG
> --
> "Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." - Henry Ford
Lack of reading comprehension noted. People interested can read the
links for themselves.
Again, though, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to folks who might
be interested in what actually happened, or other perspectives beyond
that of the New York Post. As opposed to hacks who mindlessly repeat
borderline slanderous charges of "OUGHT TO BE CHARGED WITH MURDER"
because, whatever the truth, that's what fits with their knee-jerk,
close-minded ideologies. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
~~~~
No one is interested.
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
>
> - Show quoted text -
But you were SO interested when you thought the story was "UNIONIST
PIGS SHOULD FACE MURDER CHARGES." As I pointed out at the time, the
story supporting that hysterical claim was shaky on its face, but
because you're you, you wouldn't listen. Now the right-wing BS Trij
was bleating has been even further undercut, you've been shown once
again to be the "repeat whatever is ideologically convenient for me,
facts be damned" hack everyone knows you are, and NOW you're not
interested. Typical, pathetic, but in a sad way, kind of amusing. --
Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
~~~~
We're not talking about me, remember?
LG
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I said I wasn't talking TO you. I am, in part, talking ABOUT
you. As an illustration of the perils of being a mindless hack. It's
a cautionary tale for others.-- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Lord Gow 333, the Formidable!
~~~~
You're really not very good at maintaining conversational flow, are you?
LG (needs a pie chart or something)
--
"Keep it simple. If it takes a genius to understand it, it will never work."
- Clarence Leonard "Kelly" Johnson