This is why they kneel

[mngopher35]

Government officials care about their budget. But they are not as financially motivated as the private sector. This is true of both Democrats and Republicans. They just spend on different stuff. Typically, to cater to their base.

Again, you make a moral statement and believe this applies. It doesn’t. People do not have to give up their money for what you believe is the greater good, especially not through a government system. Wealthy people should be charitable but where and with who they are charitable is their choice.

You’re right. I’m on this message board to discuss my thoughts and ideals, not provide facts which you already have access to and would probably either debate the facts or discredit the source. A message board is for thoughts and opinions. We are all capable of looking up facts on our own.

Sure, so when people were pointing out they still have a budget this is why. They will try and create money for the things they want to get done in many ways. The point has always been they still have incentive to cut costs/save in certain areas like wages/benefits of employees to get other things they want done instead.

No, I make a statement about my beliefs and why I think we should have a system working for all. We are allowed opinions, you just scream and rant anytime someones goes against yours. Wealthy people can still be charitable with who they want.

Thank you, so stop freaking out when others have differing opinions. You are the one often telling other people they lack evidence and it is their opinion. It's extreme double standards on your part especially given how often it is provided by myself in our discussions when you ask for it. Realize when someone provides validity/facts/data backing up what they say and you don't it is now more than just their opinion against yours. You not being able to provide any on a regular basis is an issue, we are on a message board and some people have arguments only in opinion that often go against reality very often on a regular basis.

[joeyc77]

Maybe management wants good PR and high arrest numbers and thus turns a blind eye. Punishing cops for abusive behavior is bad PR and limits there ability to arrest people. Maybe to really know we need more data then you over arching generalizations can provide


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At some level, management are appointed by politicians. If management are self serving, they are a reflection of politicians who appoint them. Bad pr happens when cops are not reprimanded for non violent confrontations with civilians until eventually they are violent.

[ewing]

That time Joey ran the police force


https://youtu.be/hZZhhA87d6g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flips333]

If they are in the game to protect the public that should be their primary motivation then. If people are motivated by money, there’s the private sector. As I said, soldiers get paid less than private military. I’m sure soldiers have some type of patriotic motivation as well. Some people are motivated by money. Some are motivated by intangibles. Those ones will most likely work for less money to fulfill those intangibles.

That's dumb. People are not motivated by one thing. But we have reached the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ portion of the conversation.

[flips333]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status...150276096?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take that back Joey, some people are motivated by one thing.

[joeyc77]

That's dumb. People are not motivated by one thing. But we have reached the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ portion of the conversation.

Maybe I should have clarified... some people have motivations above money. Look at sports... some free agents are only motivated by money. Some free agents are mainly concerned with winning a championship so they take less money to play for a contender.

[joeyc77]

Sure, so when people were pointing out they still have a budget this is why. They will try and create money for the things they want to get done in many ways. The point has always been they still have incentive to cut costs/save in certain areas like wages/benefits of employees to get other things they want done instead.

No, I make a statement about my beliefs and why I think we should have a system working for all. We are allowed opinions, you just scream and rant anytime someones goes against yours. Wealthy people can still be charitable with who they want.

Thank you, so stop freaking out when others have differing opinions. You are the one often telling other people they lack evidence and it is their opinion. It's extreme double standards on your part especially given how often it is provided by myself in our discussions when you ask for it. Realize when someone provides validity/facts/data backing up what they say and you don't it is now more than just their opinion against yours. You not being able to provide any on a regular basis is an issue, we are on a message board and some people have arguments only in opinion that often go against reality very often on a regular basis.

While government officials/negotiators have a budget, they are typically not motivated by lowering that budget because it’s not their money. Therefore, they are more apt to give into the demands of union members rather then face a strike. Unions do not consider the budgets of the government either.

I’m not sure why you think I scream and rant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, I call out people who make bold claims and ask them for evidence to back up these claims. That’s different than having an opinion. If someone says Trump is a bad president. Typically, I don’t even respond. If someone calls Trump a lizard alien from Mars, I may ask for some proof.

I saw in another thread where you were asking Nasty to support a bold claim he had made. Do you see the difference?

[ewing]

Maybe I should have clarified... some people have motivations above money. Look at sports... some free agents are only motivated by money. Some free agents are mainly concerned with winning a championship so they take less money to play for a contender.

It’s like you are looking in my soul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mngopher35]

While government officials/negotiators have a budget, they are typically not motivated by lowering that budget because it’s not their money. Therefore, they are more apt to give into the demands of union members rather then face a strike. Unions do not consider the budgets of the government either.

I’m not sure why you think I scream and rant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, I call out people who make bold claims and ask them for evidence to back up these claims. That’s different than having an opinion. If someone says Trump is a bad president. Typically, I don’t even respond. If someone calls Trump a lizard alien from Mars, I may ask for some proof.

I saw in another thread where you were asking Nasty to support a bold claim he had made. Do you see the difference?

No, go back to what you said when I mentioned ways to improved the country. It's still based on money, it doesn't just lose value because it's government now as you kept noting they have a budget too. Yes the unions aren't focused on the government budget, that's the part government represents when negotiating if you will. Unions are for the employees aspect of it.

You did make a bold claim haha this all started with your take on unions. You kept refusing to back up that bold take and I was asked to back up a much more basic idea about unions in general and did so lol. As I often note you claim to have these standards but never apply them to yourself in any way, I do get that aspect which is why I was asking you to back up your bold claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flips333]

Maybe I should have clarified... some people have motivations above money. Look at sports... some free agents are only motivated by money. Some free agents are mainly concerned with winning a championship so they take less money to play for a contender.

Because the proper analogy is one in which everyone is a 1%er...?

[joeyc77]

No, go back to what you said when I mentioned ways to improved the country. It's still based on money, it doesn't just lose value because it's government now as you kept noting they have a budget too. Yes the unions aren't focused on the government budget, that's the part government represents when negotiating if you will. Unions are for the employees aspect of it.

You did make a bold claim haha this all started with your take on unions. You kept refusing to back up that bold take and I was asked to back up a much more basic idea about unions in general and did so lol. As I often note you claim to have these standards but never apply them to yourself in any way, I do get that aspect which is why I was asking you to back up your bold claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s a difference between being motivated by the budget and not having enough in the budget. Teachers probably deserve millions. Obviously that’s not in the budget. So if unions are for employees during negotiations, how is this any different when employees are to be reprimanded?

Saying to abolish unions is not that bold of a claim considering the current climate. There’s an obvious problem with policing in inner cities. Do we agree on this?

[joeyc77]

Because the proper analogy is one in which everyone is a 1%er...?

This is true of many different industries.

[mngopher35]

There’s a difference between being motivated by the budget and not having enough in the budget. Teachers probably deserve millions. Obviously that’s not in the budget. So if unions are for employees during negotiations, how is this any different when employees are to be reprimanded?

Saying to abolish unions is not that bold of a claim considering the current climate. There’s an obvious problem with policing in inner cities. Do we agree on this?

They all are motivated to have a budget that benefits them is the point. I don't necessarily think they do deserve millions but I think they deserve decent wages and should have something in place to ensure we get solid teachers with enough benefits/high enough salary to actually do so. When they are reprimanded unions are essentially the defense attorney if you will, they are not always in the right but they still deserve their say. I am not saying this means unions don't have issues/aren't problems you just haven't shown this in total across the board in any way being the major negative you claim to the point they all need to be gotten rid of.

Haha that is a very bold claim, you are calling for drastic change here. I agree there are problems with inner city policing lol we have been through this plenty. You associating the worst aspect of police to all unions is just ridiculous and that you can't back it up with anything else shows you have the same issues as others I call out like Nasty in your example. You made a bold claim, won't back it up, and keep trying to deflect from this over and over in similar manner.

[joeyc77]

They all are motivated to have a budget that benefits them is the point. I don't necessarily think they do deserve millions but I think they deserve decent wages and should have something in place to ensure we get solid teachers with enough benefits/high enough salary to actually do so. When they are reprimanded unions are essentially the defense attorney if you will, they are not always in the right but they still deserve their say. I am not saying this means unions don't have issues/aren't problems you just haven't shown this in total across the board in any way being the major negative you claim to the point they all need to be gotten rid of.

Haha that is a very bold claim, you are calling for drastic change here. I agree there are problems with inner city policing lol we have been through this plenty. You associating the worst aspect of police to all unions is just ridiculous and that you can't back it up with anything else shows you have the same issues as others I call out like Nasty in your example. You made a bold claim, won't back it up, and keep trying to deflect from this over and over in similar manner.

Sometimes what benefits them bus to have teachers or police officers not go on strike. That’s the point...in fact, very few are motivated by cutting or even balancing their budget. Exactly, except it’s not a criminal case. For instance, Val gave an example of a cop pulling over a black driver 100 times out of a 100 over a white driver. A union rep can just state that the cop is just doing his job. And he’s right if both the black and white drivers are speeding. Technically, the officer is just doing his job. We cannot allow this type of behavior and defense if we are going to “clean up” the police force.

-Unions are mostly concerned about their members (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)

-Unions are concerned with workplace safety. (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)!

- For Police, workplace safety sometimes involves shooting a potentially dangerous civilian. (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)

- Unions will always defend their members (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)

Other than stating we need to abolish unions, I’m not sure what I’ve said to support that opinion is such a bold claim

[mngopher35]

Sometimes what benefits them bus to have teachers or police officers not go on strike. That’s the point...in fact, very few are motivated by cutting or even balancing their budget. Exactly, except it’s not a criminal case. For instance, Val gave an example of a cop pulling over a black driver 100 times out of a 100 over a white driver. A union rep can just state that the cop is just doing his job. And he’s right if both the black and white drivers are speeding. Technically, the officer is just doing his job. We cannot allow this type of behavior and defense if we are going to “clean up” the police force.

-Unions are mostly concerned about their members (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)

-Unions are concerned with workplace safety. (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)!

- For Police, workplace safety sometimes involves shooting a potentially dangerous civilian. (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)

- Unions will always defend their members (I don’t believe this is a bold claim)

Other than stating we need to abolish unions, I’m not sure what I’ve said to support that opinion is such a bold claim

With how often we hear "we can't pay for that", I think we know there is major emphasis on $ (I mean outside common sense) and you even said this yourself when convenient in making a different point. Then don't allow that behavior and have actual standards within the justice system and those holding others accountable. We can't allow murder either but if you murder someone you still get someone to defend you. As I noted you just keep trying to use the worst of the worst then blame all unions, that's really all you got on this subject while ignoring all context outside of that.

-Unions are supposed to be mostly concerned with their members

-Unions are supposed to be concerned with workplace safety, this also relates to the above

-Yes it does.

-Yes they will.

You have yet to prove literally anything about the firefighter unions or USPS or garbage men etc. etc. in any legitimate way. You just keep trying to associate all unions to cops killing people because unions have a concern for safety of members. Even within that issue there are other aspects like the departments themselves and the justice system. There is so much reform outside of the unions that needs to also happen but as I noted before too police are the worst of the worst in this aspect given how much they have been allowed to get away with over time.

Your bold claim is that we need to get rid of all public sector unions and this didn't address that at all lol.