Protests

by **mrswdk** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:36 pm

Where are you hiding all those Establishment millions, Bernard?

by **saxitoxin** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:39 pm

Watch how Bernard keeps his trap shut about an even larger GOP donor, Sheldon Addelson ...

He won't say a single bad thing about Sheldon the Hutt because Sheldon the Hutt is paying for the Ewoks in Tel Aviv.

Bernard's focus on small fry like the Kochs, while ignoring the Big Pork Riblet, Sheldon, shows he's not serious about campaign finance reform. It's just a prop in his effort to slime his way into power.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:52 pm

Sheldon Adelson,
Is Big and Fat,
Head so Large He Can't Wear a Hat.

Sheldon Adelson,
Likes Tel Aviv,
But the Rolls on His Face Make Me Wanna Heave.

Sheldon Adelson,
Is a Racist Slob,
Who manipulates morons with names like "Jim Bob."

by **Bernie Sanders** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:54 pm

saxitoxin wrote:Watch how Bernard keeps his trap shut about an even larger GOP donor, Sheldon Addelson ...

He won't say a single bad thing about Sheldon the Hutt because Sheldon the Hutt is paying for the Ewoks in Tel Aviv.

Bernard's focus on small fry like the Kochs, while ignoring the Big Pork Riblet, Sheldon, shows he's not serious about campaign finance reform. It's just a prop in his effort to slime his way into power.

Koch brothers are small fry? Better lay off your meds for awhile and let your head clear up.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:00 pm

Bernie still refuses to say a bad thing about Sheldon Adelson. No matter how hard you press him he won't either. He'll always change the subject. :lol:

by **Bernie Sanders** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:04 pm

saxitoxin wrote:Bernie still refuses to say a bad thing about Sheldon Adelson. No matter how hard you press him he won't either. He'll always change the subject.

What the heck do you want me to say? That Sheldon Adelson is a large contributor to Republican races? Not sure where you want to go with this logic.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:05 pm

Bernie Sanders wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Bernie still refuses to say a bad thing about Sheldon Adelson. No matter how hard you press him he won't either. He'll always change the subject.

What the heck do you want me to say?

Say Sheldon Adelson should be placed in preventative detention and his assets forfeited.

by **mrswdk** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:05 pm

saxitoxin wrote:Bernie still refuses to say a bad thing about Sheldon Adelson. No matter how hard you press him he won't either. He'll always change the subject.

Or his 'I am the 1%' personal finances, or indeed anything of any substance whatsoever!

by **tzor** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:06 pm

Bernie Sanders wrote:What do you think they should earn? With vacation and holidays, paid day offs should be required. Not sure if you ever worked an honest day in your life, but everyone should "work to live", NOT "live to work"

I'll get back to you on that. Offhand I've forgotten what the London cost of living is these days. Clearly a rotating shift (which is really nasty for the average person long term) deserves more money. European and English "holidays" (on that side of the pond vacations are holidays) are far more generous than in the US. I believe they currently get 43 days "holiday" time.

As to work to live and live to work; it's a lot more complicated than people often think. Yes there is a point where you need to work to live, but there is also a point where you need to work to give meaning to your life, so in effect you are living to work. it points out that it is really necessary to work at jobs that you derive accomplishments from.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:10 pm

If Sheldon Adelson and his friends think they’re about to save Israel from the boycott threat, they’re even more out of touch than we suspected.

Let’s face it, a bunch of ancient tycoons and mega-donors who believe there isn’t a problem that you can’t spend out of existence are the worst candidates for leading the fight against a low-cost, viral and grassroots rival like BDS. You might as well try and swat a mosquito with a Tomahawk missile.

The people from ADL, Hillel, Stand With Us and all the other “advocacy” types sitting with you know this as well as I do. But they won’t tell you the truth, because they’re supplicants waiting for your money.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/jerusalem- ... m-1.659745

by **Bernie Sanders** on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:10 pm

tzor wrote:
Bernie Sanders wrote:What do you think they should earn? With vacation and holidays, paid day offs should be required. Not sure if you ever worked an honest day in your life, but everyone should "work to live", NOT "live to work"

I'll get back to you on that. Offhand I've forgotten what the London cost of living is these days. Clearly a rotating shift (which is really nasty for the average person long term) deserves more money. European and English "holidays" (on that side of the pond vacations are holidays) are far more generous than in the US. I believe they currently get 43 days "holiday" time.

As to work to live and live to work; it's a lot more complicated than people often think. Yes there is a point where you need to work to live, but there is also a point where you need to work to give meaning to your life, so in effect you are living to work. it points out that it is really necessary to work at jobs that you derive accomplishments from.

by **Phatscotty** on Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:21 am

I remember how scared everyone was about Scott Walker being president, cuz the Koch brothers just buy whatever and whoever they want, right? But the Koch brothers could not even buy 2% support in polls?

by **Phatscotty** on Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:35 am

mrswdk wrote:
Phats wrote:One right cannot infringe another right

Of course it can. If BLM protesters aren't allowed to obstruct roads when they protest then the right to totally unhindered protest is infringed on by the right to freedom of movement. Pretty sure there was another thread recently where Mets or Tails or someone was talking about how there can never be such a thing as 100% freedom.

it's not infringed on by the right to move freely. respecting the rights of others to move freely doesn't mean those moving freely are infringing on the blm right to protest. If that were the case and blm had a right to protest in traffic at a busy intersection or something, then we all have the right to surround Saxi's house and fill the streets in protest in a square block radius for 7 days straight. Of course Saxi has the freedom to choose to participate in a 7 days hunger strike or until the Palestinian flag is draped over the dome rock, whichever comes first.

If the protesters can infringe on the rights of others, then others can infringe on the protesters.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:34 am

mrswdk wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:
mrswdk wrote:4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Got a source for that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33459515

A tube driver's starting salary is 49,000GBP ($75,000), for which they currently work 36-hour weeks. The 32-hour thing is something I remember reading in a Standard article about the Tube strikes - part of the deal being offered to them in return for the launch of 24-hour Tube services is a 32-hour, 4-day week rota (although they've gone on strike so many times about this unfair deal that 24-hour Tube has now been punted into the long grass).

$75,000 a year, with 43 days holiday and no need to ever put in more than 36 hours a week, in return for making a train move jerkily forwards along a set of tracks (when they aren't delayed or cancelled). It's nice working in the European public sector, huh?

My mistake, I thought you'd said taxi drivers for some delusional reason.

Carry on, nothing to see here.

by **mrswdk** on Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:38 am

Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Phats wrote:One right cannot infringe another right

Of course it can. If BLM protesters aren't allowed to obstruct roads when they protest then the right to totally unhindered protest is infringed on by the right to freedom of movement. Pretty sure there was another thread recently where Mets or Tails or someone was talking about how there can never be such a thing as 100% freedom.

it's not infringed on by the right to move freely. respecting the rights of others to move freely doesn't mean those moving freely are infringing on the blm right to protest.

The right to freely protest is being limited by the right to move freely.

by **Phatscotty** on Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:24 pm

mrswdk wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Phats wrote:One right cannot infringe another right

Of course it can. If BLM protesters aren't allowed to obstruct roads when they protest then the right to totally unhindered protest is infringed on by the right to freedom of movement. Pretty sure there was another thread recently where Mets or Tails or someone was talking about how there can never be such a thing as 100% freedom.

it's not infringed on by the right to move freely. respecting the rights of others to move freely doesn't mean those moving freely are infringing on the blm right to protest.

The right to freely protest is being limited by the right to move freely.

Like the same way the right to finger-bang your va-JJ is challenged by the yearning of your chocolate starfish to be finger-banged?

by **Dukasaur** on Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:17 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Phats wrote:One right cannot infringe another right

Of course it can. If BLM protesters aren't allowed to obstruct roads when they protest then the right to totally unhindered protest is infringed on by the right to freedom of movement. Pretty sure there was another thread recently where Mets or Tails or someone was talking about how there can never be such a thing as 100% freedom.

it's not infringed on by the right to move freely. respecting the rights of others to move freely doesn't mean those moving freely are infringing on the blm right to protest.

The right to freely protest is being limited by the right to move freely.

Like the same way the right to finger-bang your va-JJ is challenged by the yearning of your chocolate starfish to be finger-banged?

I can't believe I understood your Newspeak. :oops:

I need to stop hanging out with you people.

by **mrswdk** on Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:12 pm

Basically, Phatscotty acknowledges the truth of my point.

by **jimboston** on Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:23 pm

mrswdk wrote:Basically, Phatscotty acknowledges the truth of my point.

... and you ignore mine.

.. and never actually clearly state your own.

... and just use the thread to trash Bernie, even though this thread has nothing to do with trashing another player.

by **mrswdk** on Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:28 pm

Which point of yours did I ignore?

by **jimboston** on Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:33 am

mrswdk wrote:Which point of yours did I ignore?

Wait. Let me retype it, so you can ignore it again.

by **KoolBak** on Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:54 am

This was pretty damn funny ... Oh Phatty...you never cease to amaze :lol:

Dukasaur wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Phats wrote:One right cannot infringe another right

Of course it can. If BLM protesters aren't allowed to obstruct roads when they protest then the right to totally unhindered protest is infringed on by the right to freedom of movement. Pretty sure there was another thread recently where Mets or Tails or someone was talking about how there can never be such a thing as 100% freedom.

it's not infringed on by the right to move freely. respecting the rights of others to move freely doesn't mean those moving freely are infringing on the blm right to protest.

The right to freely protest is being limited by the right to move freely.

Like the same way the right to finger-bang your va-JJ is challenged by the yearning of your chocolate starfish to be finger-banged?

I can't believe I understood your Newspeak.

I need to stop hanging out with you people.