Things that made you frown today (Political)

[drauz]

http://i.imgur.com/8f3nFHt.jpg

[Tgo01]

http://i.imgur.com/8f3nFHt.jpg

As a great man once said; Those who would tear down the walls of their house to build a fence around their house, deserve both liberty and safety.

[drauz]

As a great man once said; Those who would tear down the walls of their house to build a fence around their house, deserve both liberty and safety.

People is glass houses shouldn't climb trees.

[~Rocktar~]

This is what the radical Left has become. Take note you Liberal/Socialist fucktards, these people are who is representing you and who you have become. You don't go to a "peaceful" protest carrying bats and clubs. These idiots want to specifically carry guns to protests to stir shit up and possibly set out to hurt people. Maybe you all should check yourselves before you wreck yourselves?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/21/antifa-wants-combat-training-and-firearms-after-losing-the-battle-for-berkely/

[Tenlaar]

You called them "the radical left" yourself. They don't represent the left any more than the nutjob "radical right" represents all of the right.

[~Rocktar~]

You called them "the radical left" yourself. They don't represent the left any more than the nutjob "radical right" represents all of the right.

Since the majority of Liberal/Socialists, media and internet trolls present the radical Right as being fully representative of the Right, I am simply returning the favor. Welcome to the shoe being on the other foot.

[Androidpk]

Since the majority of Liberal/Socialists, media and internet trolls present the radical Right as being fully representative of the Right, I am simply returning the favor. Welcome to the shoe being on the other foot.

That logic isn't very good logic.

[~Rocktar~]

That logic isn't very good logic.

So you agree that Liberal/Socialists and the majority of the media don't use good logic?

[Androidpk]

So you agree that Liberal/Socialists and the majority of the media don't use good logic?

I agree that the loudest people (who are probably a minority) of both parties have consistently shown that they are complete morons and are just exacerbating the situation.

[~Rocktar~]

I agree that the loudest people (who are probably a minority) of both parties have consistently shown that they are complete morons and are just exacerbating the situation.

Nice answer, kudos to you.

[Tenlaar]

This thing I don't like is bad and wrong, so my response is to also be bad and wrong! So nyaa!

Fantastic reasoning.

[~Rocktar~]

Thank you for be consistent in your replies. I can always count on them to be devoid of value, substance and thought.

[Tenlaar]

Why do you expect to be served anything but what you brought to the table?

[~Rocktar~]

Why do you expect to be served anything but what you brought to the table?

Why do you believe you are capable of delivering more than you already do?

[Tenlaar]

Why do you believe you are capable of delivering more than you already do?

Is your plan to address the stupidity of your statement to call me stupid instead? The "I know you are" defense?

[~Rocktar~]

Is your plan to address the stupidity of your statement to call me stupid instead? The "I know you are" defense?

Are you going to address the issue of degenerate Leftists wanting to bring firearms to protests that already have a history of turning violent or are you going to continue to cry about an object lesson in generalization?

[Back]

This is what the radical Left has become. Take note you Liberal/Socialist fucktards, these people are who is representing you and who you have become. You don't go to a "peaceful" protest carrying bats and clubs. These idiots want to specifically carry guns to protests to stir shit up and possibly set out to hurt people. Maybe you all should check yourselves before you wreck yourselves?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/21/antifa-wants-combat-training-and-firearms-after-losing-the-battle-for-berkely/

Why do you hate the Second Amendment?

[Androidpk]

Why do you hate the Second Amendment?

:lol:

[~Rocktar~]

Why do you hate the Second Amendment?

Why do you support Fascists?

[Taernath]

Why do you support Fascists?

Why do you support hypno-lactation?

[Back]

Why do you support Fascists?

Wait... who in that situation are the fascists? Antifa, which literally means "anti-fascist", or the other guys?

[Androidpk]

Antifa are nothing but violent thugs.

[Tgo01]

Wait... who in that situation are the fascists? Antifa, which literally means "anti-fascist", or the other guys?

:rofl:

Did you literally just imply that Antifa can't be fascists because their name literally means "anti-fascists"?

I've seen you say some dumb shit before, Back, but this is one for the ages.

[Back]

:rofl:

Did you literally just imply that Antifa can't be fascists because their name literally means "anti-fascists"?

I've seen you say some dumb shit before, Back, but this is one for the ages.

I'd say your comment is one for the ages. But it is predictable. I knew someone would make this very comment. So, according to you, we live in a backward world where everything means the opposite? Ok, you know there is a great book you should read. Written by George Orwell back in 1949. It's called 1984. Check it out.

[Tgo01]

I'd say your comment is one for the ages. But it is predictable. I knew someone would make this very comment. So, according to you, we live in a backward world where everything means the opposite? Ok, you know there is a great book you should read. Written by George Orwell back in 1949. It's called 1984. Check it out.

And then you double down on this idiocy.

There is a party in Europe called the "European Pirate Party", do you think this means they are actual pirates raiding ships for booty?

[Warriorbird]

And then you double down on this idiocy.

There is a party in Europe called the "European Pirate Party", do you think this means they are actual pirates raiding ships for booty?

Obviously the violent thugs who punch the Nazis are the only ones to be concerned with... and these are kinder gentler Nazis so thus okay!

[Androidpk]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C20GWV1UUAAsDIu.jpg

[Warriorbird]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C20GWV1UUAAsDIu.jpg

Cute cartoons obviously make the people who want to establish a white ethno state okay too!

[Parkbandit]

I'd say your comment is one for the ages. But it is predictable. I knew someone would make this very comment. So, according to you, we live in a backward world where everything means the opposite? Ok, you know there is a great book you should read. Written by George Orwell back in 1949. It's called 1984. Check it out.

Wait.. you believe that if you name your group "Anti-fascists" you can't possibly be fascist?

Seriously, are you really this fucking dumb or are you playing the "I'm just trolling you guys" card again?

[Tgo01]

Obviously the violent thugs who punch the Nazis

Glad you can admit they are violent thugs who want to label people they disagree with by an evil term and then use that as a pretense to attack them and thus see no problem with said violence.

Now gee, that sounds like a political belief system...what is it...what is it...Gosh it's on the tip of my tongue! A political belief system that believes violence is okay as long as it brings people together under the same political ideology...

Oh right! Fascism! But that can't be! Their name literally means "anti-fascists"!

[Warriorbird]

Glad you can admit they are violent thugs who want to label people they disagree with by an evil term and then use that as a pretense to attack them and thus see no problem with said violence.

Now gee, that sounds like a political belief system...what is it...what is it...Gosh it's on the tip of my tongue! A political belief system that believes violence is okay as long as it brings people together under the same political ideology...

Oh right! Fascism! But that can't be! Their name literally means "anti-fascists"!

The people they disagree with label themselves that by their particular term. You defend them because you love Neville Chamberlaining it up. I abhor both.

[Tgo01]

The people they disagree with label themselves that by their particular term.

EVERY person Antifa has attacked has labeled themselves as a Nazi? And even if by some miracle that were true, that is not a reason to physically attack someone. Thinking that's okay is in fact a core tenet of fascism.


You defend them because you love Neville Chamberlaining it up. I abhor both.

I haven't defended anyone in this conversation. Also this is a false equivalence. Saying you "abhor" Nazis to make some sort of comparison to Antifa thugs literally showing up to cause trouble and beat people is not even remotely the same thing.

If Antifa just wanted to play dress up and show up to places to make a mockery of themselves I wouldn't even give them a second thought. But showing up to places with their faces covered because they want to cause trouble and they want to attack "Nazis" or "racists" is not even in the same ballpark as a self described Nazi saying words.

Words aren't violence. The sooner the fascists on the left realize that the sooner we can get closer to normalcy in American politics.

[Warriorbird]

EVERY person Antifa has attacked has labeled themselves as a Nazi? And even if by some miracle that were true, that is not a reason to physically attack someone. Thinking that's okay is in fact a core tenet of fascism.

I haven't defended anyone in this conversation. Also this is a false equivalence. Saying you "abhor" Nazis to make some sort of comparison to Antifa thugs literally showing up to cause trouble and beat people is not even remotely the same thing.

If Antifa just wanted to play dress up and show up to places to make a mockery of themselves I wouldn't even give them a second thought. But showing up to places with their faces covered because they want to cause trouble and they want to attack "Nazis" or "racists" is not even in the same ballpark as a self described Nazi saying words.

Words aren't violence. The sooner the fascists on the left realize that the sooner we can get closer to normalcy in American politics.

It... isn't merely words. There are singularly reprehensible policy proposals and your (and those like you's) constant rationalization and Neville Chamberlaining that go right along with it.

With that said I think the attempt by people who previously classified themselves as anarchists to seize some element of moral high ground for their attacks is disgusting and exactly what the self classified Nazis in these situations want. Once you have violent attacks you can justify all sorts of reprisals on everybody else.

[Gelston]

That pornstar bitch that got punched in the face by a US Marine was throwing IEDs into a crowd. That group is also advocating bring firearms next time, but yeah, they aren't facists because of their name... Even though they are using violence against people using their 1st Amendment rights. Why not just label Antifa as what they are? Terrorist. Shitty ones, but they are trying.

[Warriorbird]

That pornstar bitch that got punched in the face by a US Marine was throwing IEDs into a crowd. That group is also advocating bring firearms next time, but yeah, they aren't facists because of their name... Even though they are using violence against people using their 1st Amendment rights. Why not just label Antifa as what they are? Terrorist. Shitty ones, but they are trying.

I'd argue far less with that claim.

[Tgo01]

It... isn't merely words. There are singularly reprehensible policy proposals and your constant rationalization and Neville Chamberlaining that go right along with it.

Not policy proposals! ANYTHING BUT POLICY PROPOSALS! Holy shit! No wonder we need Antifa! We need to beat the shit out of Nazis because they are proposing policies! RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE NAZIS ARE TAKING OVER!

I saw a lot of bullshit "policy proposals" coming out of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, I never once thought "Hey those policy proposals are a threat to our way of live! Time to show up with a mask and a gang of thugs and attack the shit out of them!"

The fact that you said that with a serious face is frightening to be honest.


With that said I think the attempt by people who previously classified themselves as anarchists to seize some element of moral high ground for their attacks is disgusting and exactly what the self classified Nazis in these situations want.

So now you are placing the blame for Antifa's violent attacks on the people being attacked themselves? They want to be attacked?

This is beyond retarded at this point. My brain is shutting down.

[Gelston]

And also, when did it become okay to use violence upon people because of their speech? Whether the people self identify as "Nazis" or "Facists" or not (PS, they don't and aren't), why is it okay to assault them? Are they murdering people? Aren't we supposed to be a free country?

[Warriorbird]

Not policy proposals! ANYTHING BUT POLICY PROPOSALS! Holy shit! No wonder we need Antifa! We need to beat the shit out of Nazis because they are proposing policies! RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE NAZIS ARE TAKING OVER!

I saw a lot of bullshit "policy proposals" coming out of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, I never once thought "Hey those policy proposals are a threat to our way of live! Time to show up with a mask and a gang of thugs and attack the shit out of them!"

The fact that you said that with a serious face is frightening to be honest.



So now you are placing the blame for Antifa's violent attacks on the people being attacked themselves? They want to be attacked?

This is beyond retarded at this point. My brain is shutting down.

This is funny. You seem to be under the peculiar delusion that I approve of these actions. This has happened to you before. These people would've just been violent anarchists beforehand. Now that we have you and your party defending Nazis they think they have the moral high ground. Is it strictly your or their lack of morals at fault? Certainly not. But it helps.

I think that Richard Spencer and his ilk relish people attempting to attack them. It works as clickbait for their cause.


And also, when did it become okay to use violence upon people because of their speech? Whether the people self identify as "Nazis" or "Facists" or not (PS, they don't and aren't), why is it okay to assault them? Are they murdering people? Aren't we supposed to be a free country?

It certainly isn't. Claiming that you want to "peacefully" ethnically cleanse a country of all but white people just might bother some folks though.

[Androidpk]

Cute cartoons obviously make the people who want to establish a white ethno state okay too!

Your pathetic attempts at fear mongering are pathetic.

[Gelston]

It certainly isn't. Claiming that you want to "peacefully" ethnically cleanse a country of all but white people just might bother some folks though.

So? It is their right to say it. In a free society, people will get offended. Guess what, suck it up or ignore it, that is one of the prices you have to pay.

[Androidpk]

And also, when did it become okay to use violence upon people because of their speech? Whether the people self identify as "Nazis" or "Facists" or not (PS, they don't and aren't), why is it okay to assault them? Are they murdering people? Aren't we supposed to be a free country?

The tolerant left missed that memo.

[Warriorbird]

So? It is their right to say it. In a free society, people will get offended. Guess what, suck it up or ignore it, that is one of the prices you have to pay.

I'd suggest peaceful protest or condemnation myself (since I don't subscribe to the rationalize white supremacy club)... but these antifa people mainly just need to be in jail.

[Back]

You can always count on semantic arguments here on the PC. My original question to the OP was about Second Amendment rights.

They can call themselves what they want. You can call them what you want. But aren't they Americans with intrinsic God-given rights to bear arms?

[Androidpk]

But aren't they Americans with intrinsic God-given rights to bear arms?

They still have to follow the law..

[Gelston]

You can always count on semantic arguments here on the PC. My original question to the OP was about Second Amendment rights.

They can call themselves what they want. You can call them what you want. But aren't they Americans with intrinsic God-given rights to bear arms?

And you spiraled out supporting Antifa, who should be labeled a terrorist organization. This is an open thread, dumbass.


They still have to follow the law..

And hey, yes, yes you do! Back doesn't understand that though. He thinks the rights of one group supersede the rights of others.

[Tgo01]

They can call themselves what they want. You can call them what you want. But aren't they Americans with intrinsic God-given rights to bear arms?

If they have the proper license and there aren't any laws against bringing a firearm to where ever they are going (I would be surprised if most college campuses these days aren't gun free zones) then yes, they have the right to bear arms.

If they are suggesting bringing guns because they want to attack other people and feel being armed would send a "psychological message" that the people they are attacking shouldn't attack back, then they are the very definition of pieces of shit.

Bringing firearms to defend yourself because people don't like your message and have attacked you before is one thing.

Bringing firearms when YOU are the aggressor and then wanting to claim self defense after the fact is utter bullshit. But I'm not surprised you don't see the difference, Mr. Antifa can't be fascists because Antifa is short for anti-fascists!

[Androidpk]

Sorry, Tgo, Politifact has said that Antifas are indeed anti-fascists.

[Tgo01]

Sorry, Tgo, Politifact has said that Antifas are indeed anti-fascists.

Shit!

[Back]

And you spiraled out supporting Antifa, who should be labeled a terrorist organization. This is an open thread, dumbass.



And hey, yes, yes you do! Back doesn't understand that though. He thinks the rights of one group supersede the rights of others.

Amazing how you came to all those conclusions about me. I'd like to see where you think I supported Antifa or claimed the rights of one group superseded another? You won't though because I didn't. You're a bit excitable tonight.

[Back]

If they have the proper license and there aren't any laws against bringing a firearm to where ever they are going (I would be surprised if most college campuses these days aren't gun free zones) then yes, they have the right to bear arms.

If they are suggesting bringing guns because they want to attack other people and feel being armed would send a "psychological message" that the people they are attacking shouldn't attack back, then they are the very definition of pieces of shit.

Bringing firearms to defend yourself because people don't like your message and have attacked you before is one thing.

Bringing firearms when YOU are the aggressor and then wanting to claim self defense after the fact is utter bullshit. But I'm not surprised you don't see the difference, Mr. Antifa can't be fascists because Antifa is short for anti-fascists!

We agree on everything actually.

[Parkbandit]

You can always count on semantic arguments here on the PC. My original question to the OP was about Second Amendment rights.

They can call themselves what they want. You can call them what you want. But aren't they Americans with intrinsic God-given rights to bear arms?

It's not semantics when you post retarded shit like this:


Antifa, which literally means "anti-fascist"

It's a bipartisan agreement that you are indeed a fucking retard.

[Back]

It's not semantics when you post retarded shit like this:



It's a bipartisan agreement that you are indeed a fucking retard.

They came up with the name. Not I. Your angry old man schtick is still on point though. Have some Metamucil. I hear it helps with constipation.

[Parkbandit]

They came up with the name. Not I. Your angry old man schtick is still on point though. Have some Metamucil. I hear it helps with constipation.

You made the assertion they couldn't possible be fascists because their name actually means anti-fascists. It's not semantics, it's not anything but you being a full blown retard.

I'm glad there is a cure for constipation. Too bad for you there is no cure for mental retardation though :(

[Latrinsorm]

Glad you can admit they are violent thugs who want to label people they disagree with by an evil term and then use that as a pretense to attack them and thus see no problem with said violence.

Now gee, that sounds like a political belief system...what is it...what is it...Gosh it's on the tip of my tongue! A political belief system that believes violence is okay as long as it brings people together under the same political ideology...

Oh right! Fascism! But that can't be! Their name literally means "anti-fascists"!Who told you that's what fascism means? It's not even close.

[Tgo01]

Who told you that's what fascism means? It's not even close.

I didn't say that's what fascism "means." I said part of the fascist ideology is that violence is okay, especially if it can be used to bring about some sort of unity, ie beat the shit out of your political opponents.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say that's what fascism "means." I said part of the fascist ideology is that violence is okay, especially if it can be used to bring about some sort of unity, ie beat the shit out of your political opponents.Uh, okay. That's still wrong, but it doesn't even have to be to demonstrate how the form of your argument is wrong.

Fascists: violence is okay!
Antifa: We're anti-fascists, but we think violence is okay too!
Terry: Aha! You're fascists too, actually!

Literally Adolf Hitler: my country's military is great!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: I'm anti-Hitler, but I think my country's military is great too!
Terry: Aha! You're literally Hitler too, actually!

Franklin Roosevelt wasn't literally Hitler, because Hitler could walk.
Anti-fascists aren't fascists, for literally the same reason.

QED.

[Androidpk]

Uh, okay. That's still wrong, but it doesn't even have to be to demonstrate how the form of your argument is wrong.

Straight from Wiki - Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.

[Tgo01]

Uh, okay. That's still wrong, but it doesn't even have to be to demonstrate how the form of your argument is wrong.

Uh, no. It's not wrong. (https://books.google.com/books?id=uEXwWEzdB0YC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=do+fascists+believe+in+violence&source=bl&ots=MAO_e72ovo&sig=NM5u6iVtWWcbZlFOO_gIAZpJKPo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik19XMh7zTAhUM7IMKHT29Cms4ChDoAQhbMAk#v =onepage&q=do%20fascists%20believe%20in%20violence&f=false)



Fascists: violence is okay!
Antifa: We're anti-fascists, but we think violence is okay too!
Terry: Aha! You're fascists too, actually!


The question put forth was:


Wait... who in that situation are the fascists? Antifa, which literally means "anti-fascist", or the other guys?

So if we're looking at these two groups of people and asking "Which one is the fascists" then I am going to go with the shitheads who think violence is okay because "the other guy" doesn't agree with them.


Literally Adolf Hitler: my country's military is great!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: I'm anti-Hitler, but I think my country's military is great too!
Terry: Aha! You're literally Hitler too, actually!

Okay. I know you thought this was a great point in your head, but I feel a little sad for you to be honest.

"Hitler liked the color blue, Roosevelt liked the color blue. LITERALLY HITLER!"

Thinking violence is a good thing to bring about unity is much more "ANTIFA IS LITERALLY FASCIST!" than "YOU LIKE THE COLOR BLUE? YOU'RE LITERALLY HITLER!"


Franklin Roosevelt wasn't literally Hitler, because Hitler could walk.
Anti-fascists aren't fascists, for literally the same reason.

Fascists can't walk?

[Tenlaar]

Are you going to address the issue of degenerate Leftists wanting to bring firearms to protests that already have a history of turning violent or are you going to continue to cry about an object lesson in generalization?

Why is it my responsibility to address the issue of a group of people that I don't belong to, agree with, or support? A group that you yourself label as being "radicals" while, at the same time, trying to act like they represent the left as a whole?

Is it your responsibility to address every right wing radical group that does some stupid shit? Should I start calling you out personally to answer for it every time they do?

[Back]

You made the assertion they couldn't possible be fascists because their name actually means anti-fascists. It's not semantics, it's not anything but you being a full blown retard.

I'm glad there is a cure for constipation. Too bad for you there is no cure for mental retardation though :(

If you want to live in backward land where everything is the opposite of what it actually is then you just called me a genius. Get the rules straight, buddy.

Look, I responded to Rocktar after he responded to my inquiry about second amendment rights by asking if I supported the fascists so it seemed somewhat ironic, that maybe just me, that Rocktar would label Antifa as fascists when they clearly think of themselves, and call themselves, anti-fascists.

Now you and Tgo01 are backing up the idea that Antifa are actually fascists. I don't think either of you have any kind of grasp on what fascism is or means, let alone any grasp on reality outside your own little bubbles where everything is the exact opposite of what it is called. You both are headed down very slippery slopes. Is the RNC actually controlled by republicans? Or is it really democrats? Are the police there to keep the peace? Or are they really the criminals?

Your confusion about reality really shows in your arguments.

[Androidpk]

If you want to live in backward land where everything is the opposite of what it actually is then you just called me a genius. Get the rules straight, buddy.

Look, I responded to Rocktar after he responded to my inquiry about second amendment rights by asking if I supported the fascists so it seemed somewhat ironic, that maybe just me, that Rocktar would label Antifa as fascists when they clearly think of themselves, and call themselves, anti-fascists.

Now you and Tgo01 are backing up the idea that Antifa are actually fascists. I don't think either of you have any kind of grasp on what fascism is or means, let alone any grasp on reality outside your own little bubbles where everything is the exact opposite of what it is called. You both are headed down very slippery slopes. Is the RNC actually controlled by republicans? Or is it really democrats? Are the police there to keep the peace? Or are they really the criminals?

Your confusion about reality really shows in your arguments.

Maybe they're not really fascists but they sure do believe that violence in politics is perfectly acceptable. They're terrorists as far as I'm concerned.

[Parkbandit]

If you want to live in backward land where everything is the opposite of what it actually is then you just called me a genius. Get the rules straight, buddy.

Look, I responded to Rocktar after he responded to my inquiry about second amendment rights by asking if I supported the fascists so it seemed somewhat ironic, that maybe just me, that Rocktar would label Antifa as fascists when they clearly think of themselves, and call themselves, anti-fascists.

Now you and Tgo01 are backing up the idea that Antifa are actually fascists. I don't think either of you have any kind of grasp on what fascism is or means, let alone any grasp on reality outside your own little bubbles where everything is the exact opposite of what it is called. You both are headed down very slippery slopes. Is the RNC actually controlled by republicans? Or is it really democrats? Are the police there to keep the peace? Or are they really the criminals?

Your confusion about reality really shows in your arguments.

I never, ever stated that they were or were not fascists. My only posts on this topic has been to point out how fucking retarded you were with your "special" "logic" in saying they can't possibly be fascists because they named themselves "anti-facists"

The only one confused here is you.

As usual.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe they're not really fascists but they sure do believe that violence in politics is perfectly acceptable. They're terrorists as far as I'm concerned.

What if they renamed themselves Antite... which literally means anti-terrorists.

WHAT THEN!!!!

[Androidpk]

What if they renamed themselves Antite... which literally means anti-terrorists.

WHAT THEN!!!!

Oh then the gloves will really come off. Or on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZJV37oibhc

[Back]

In your case more like...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGDzPgm-ZQk

[Androidpk]

Are you assuming my race? That isn't very liberal of you, Back.

[Back]

Are you assuming my race? That isn't very liberal of you, Back.

Why would you say that? I meant you would be that goofy guy at the end who slips on a bullet and goes off like Jiffy Pop popcorn.

[Androidpk]

Why would you say that? I meant you would be that goofy guy at the end who slips on a bullet and goes off like Jiffy Pop popcorn.

Wow, even worse, mocking me for my mental disabilities. Jesus Christ, Back...

[drauz]

If you want to live in backward land where everything is the opposite of what it actually is then you just called me a genius. Get the rules straight, buddy.

Look, I responded to Rocktar after he responded to my inquiry about second amendment rights by asking if I supported the fascists so it seemed somewhat ironic, that maybe just me, that Rocktar would label Antifa as fascists when they clearly think of themselves, and call themselves, anti-fascists.

Now you and Tgo01 are backing up the idea that Antifa are actually fascists. I don't think either of you have any kind of grasp on what fascism is or means, let alone any grasp on reality outside your own little bubbles where everything is the exact opposite of what it is called. You both are headed down very slippery slopes. Is the RNC actually controlled by republicans? Or is it really democrats? Are the police there to keep the peace? Or are they really the criminals?

Your confusion about reality really shows in your arguments.

What they are doing is exactly how fascism would look.

[Methais]

This is what the radical Left has become. Take note you Liberal/Socialist fucktards, these people are who is representing you and who you have become. You don't go to a "peaceful" protest carrying bats and clubs. These idiots want to specifically carry guns to protests to stir shit up and possibly set out to hurt people. Maybe you all should check yourselves before you wreck yourselves?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/21/antifa-wants-combat-training-and-firearms-after-losing-the-battle-for-berkely/

http://i.imgur.com/DLN6eB6.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Straight from Wiki - Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.You've fallen victim to a false binary: this would be accurately described as anti-pacifism, not pro-violence. I would also point out from the same article the Definitions section, and yes, that's "definitions" plural. There simply is no "the fascist ideology", as Terry proposed. There are many ideologies that self-described as fascist, there are many that have been described as fascist, including for example George W. Bush. Or take his example of Sorel, whose published philosophies predated the word fascism and was openly hostile to it... but who was nevertheless cited as a great influence by self-described fascists. There is no way to definitively declare any of these people fascists, because there is no definitive definition of fascism. Terry has fixated on the use of violence because someone told him to, refusing to consider the presence of populism, anti-liberalism, nationalism, fin de siècle ism...
Okay. I know you thought this was a great point in your head, but I feel a little sad for you to be honest. "Hitler liked the color blue, Roosevelt liked the color blue. LITERALLY HITLER!" Thinking violence is a good thing to bring about unity is much more "ANTIFA IS LITERALLY FASCIST!" than "YOU LIKE THE COLOR BLUE? YOU'RE LITERALLY HITLER!"Whoosh.

[Methais]

If you want to live in backward land where everything is the opposite of what it actually is then you just called me a genius. Get the rules straight, buddy.

Look, I responded to Rocktar after he responded to my inquiry about second amendment rights by asking if I supported the fascists so it seemed somewhat ironic, that maybe just me, that Rocktar would label Antifa as fascists when they clearly think of themselves, and call themselves, anti-fascists.

Now you and Tgo01 are backing up the idea that Antifa are actually fascists. I don't think either of you have any kind of grasp on what fascism is or means, let alone any grasp on reality outside your own little bubbles where everything is the exact opposite of what it is called. You both are headed down very slippery slopes. Is the RNC actually controlled by republicans? Or is it really democrats? Are the police there to keep the peace? Or are they really the criminals?

Your confusion about reality really shows in your arguments.

If the people on the right that people like you call racists called themselves "AntiRac" which would be short for "anti-racist", that would make it impossible for them to be racist, right?

[Methais]

You've fallen victim to a Latrin: this would be accurately described as anti-Latrinism, not pro-Latrin. I would also point out from the same article the Latrins section, and yes, that's "Latrins" plural. There simply is no "the Latrin ideology", as Terry proposed. There are many ideologies that self-described as Latrin, there are many that have been described as Latrin, including for example Latrin W. Bush. Or take his example of Latrinsorm, whose published philosophies predated the word Latrin and was openly hostile to it... but who was nevertheless cited as a great influence by self-described Latrins. There is no way to definitively declare any of these people Latrins, because there is no definitive definition of Latrinism. Terry has fixated on the use of Latrin because Latrinsorm told him to, refusing to consider the presence of Latrinism, anti-Latrin, Latrinsormism, fin de Latrinism...Whoosh.

Fixed.

[Androidpk]

You've fallen victim to a false binary: this would be accurately described as anti-pacifism, not pro-violence. I would also point out from the same article the Definitions section, and yes, that's "definitions" plural. There simply is no "the fascist ideology", as Terry proposed. There are many ideologies that self-described as fascist, there are many that have been described as fascist, including for example George W. Bush. Or take his example of Sorel, whose published philosophies predated the word fascism and was openly hostile to it... but who was nevertheless cited as a great influence by self-described fascists. There is no way to definitively declare any of these people fascists, because there is no definitive definition of fascism. Terry has fixated on the use of violence because someone told him to, refusing to consider the presence of populism, anti-liberalism, nationalism, fin de siècle ism...Whoosh.

Wiki > Latrin

[Gelston]

National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nazis weren't fascist, they were just a socialist labor party. Says right in the name.

[Methais]

National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nazis weren't fascist, they were just a socialist labor party. Says right in the name.

They just wanted jobs. Labor jobs.

[Latrinsorm]

Wiki > LatrinWiki and I are in agreement. You haven't read Terry's statements.

Therefore, schizophrenia.

[Androidpk]

Wiki and I are in agreement. You haven't read Terry's statements.

Therefore, schizophrenia.

I'm proud of my schizophrenia and you should be proud of yours too.

[RichardCranium]

I'm proud of my schizophrenia and you should be proud of yours too.

Side effect of marijuana.

[Methais]

Side effect of marijuana.

The alternative is being Latrin.

[Androidpk]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9c99ff1199319663db99a7d000325e49f6bbbb9f94d6d3ab44 21dff30f718a35.jpg

[Jeril]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9c99ff1199319663db99a7d000325e49f6bbbb9f94d6d3ab44 21dff30f718a35.jpg

This made me laugh and not frown.

[Androidpk]

Not that I'm surprised but I'm disappointed in Obama cashing in on Wall St. speeches.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-bGxsFXUAI8yPO.jpg

[Taernath]

What's morally wrong about being paid to give speeches?

[Tgo01]

What's morally wrong about being paid to give speeches?

Morally? Nothing. It's the point that Democrats have made it a central theme this past year that Wall Street is taking advantage of the average American and the view is that they are basically buying congresspeople in order to further their own interests.

[Shaps]

They're full of shit is what they are. Say one thing and make sure to have a (D) next to your name.. it's all good. Have an (R) and you're an asshole. Wish you all would figure that out.

Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean they're working FOR you. It means they ARE working you for $.

Fuck politicians on both sides of the aisle at this point.

[drauz]

They're full of shit is what they are. Say one thing and make sure to have a (D) next to your name.. it's all good. Have an (R) and you're an asshole. Wish you all would figure that out.

The same is true of republicans speaking about democrats though.


You are right though, politicians are all full of shit. Almost all will say one thing and do another.

[Parkbandit]

What's morally wrong about being paid to give speeches?

I don't know about morally... but it's certainly hypocritical.

It would be like a Republican getting paid $400K for giving a speech at Planned Parenthood.

[Gelston]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/27/yale-grad-students-begin-symbolic-hunger-strike-fo/

Yale Graduate Students on a "Symbolic" hunger strike. The symbolic is in there because they are still going to eat when they are hungry.

[Androidpk]

And naturally I'm being called a racist for saying I'm disappointed in Obama for taking Wall St. money.

[Wrathbringer]

And naturally I'm being called a racist for saying I'm disappointed in Obama for taking Wall St. money.

I'm not disappointed in him. If he can make that money, then make it. This is the realest he's been in 8 years. Finally, the mask comes off.

[Taernath]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/house-passes-new-overtime-pay-law-time-and-a-half-rule-could-change

House passes new overtime pay law; time-and-a-half rule could change
CNN

Do you get paid for overtime work? The House of Representatives just passed a bill you may want to know about.

The measure, backed by Republicans, would let employers give workers time off instead of time-and-a-half pay the next time they put in extra hours. The vote tally was largely along party lines, with no Democrats voting in favor of the bill. Six Republicans also voted against it.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/house-passes-new-overtime-pay-law-time-and-a-half-rule-could-change

That's always been the case. Employee works an extra hour on Monday and Tuesday, we let them go early on Thursday and Friday.

This stopped us from scheduling people for only 36 hours a week.

"ZOMG REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING AWAY OUR OVERTIME!" makes a cute headline though.

[Taernath]

That's always been the case. Employee works an extra hour on Monday and Tuesday, we let them go early on Thursday and Friday.

This stopped us from scheduling people for only 36 hours a week.

"ZOMG REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING AWAY OUR OVERTIME!" makes a cute headline though.

The concern here is that it allows employers to determine when employees receive overtime compensation. An extra hour on Monday for one less hour Friday is one thing, but banking a few days worth then having your resident Lumbergh cosplayer say it's just not a good time for the company is another.

[Parkbandit]

The concern here is that it allows employers to determine when employees receive overtime compensation.

This has always, always, always been the case. Generally, an employee doesn't get to determine his/her own schedule.. if they would, most people would say "Fuck yea, let me make overtime this week to pay for my new widget I need!".

Most successful companies will attempt to keep overtime at a minimum, unless there is extenuating circumstances.


An extra hour on Monday for one less hour Friday is one thing, but banking a few days worth then having your resident Lumbergh cosplayer say it's just not a good time for the company is another.

Doesn't work that way.. overtime is determined by the week, not by the month or year. By the time you "bank" a few days, it's the end of the week and next week it won't matter.

And if the employer is a douche and says "ok, I need you to work only 6 hours for the next 4 days and work Sunday", it's really up to the employee to tell them it's either overtime or "I've already made plans"... which just happened to my wife.

[Savageheart]

I can't speak for the history of the thing, but I think your example is off - it has to do with flex - scheduling. Which is perfectly legitimate, you're not wrong about that or about the practice of hourly workers only getting a static amount per week regardless of shift length.

How I read this, it refers to simply eliminating overtime pay in lieu of vacation time. Which is an entirely separate matter.

Overtime is often time and a half depending on the industry, where as vacation time best case (paid) would be time not time and a half. In some cases vacation isn't even paid at full rate especially in commission based environments that might be a wild tangent though.

So there's an immediate savings for employers and loss for employees where thats the case.

Some places have less generous overtime pay but none the less it is still a higher pay rate than their hourly.

I'm not going to quibble as to how this might disproportionately effect certain income brackets or the emotions of the thing. End of the day its good for employers, and thats about it.

As an afterthought I'm generally neutral on this type of thing, it used to be these benefits were offered by employers to distinguish and encourage employment, making it a federal mandate essentially made what was a sound quality of life bonus for staying loyal to an employer into an entitlement.

[Tgo01]

The concern here is that it allows employers to determine when employees receive overtime compensation. An extra hour on Monday for one less hour Friday is one thing, but banking a few days worth then having your resident Lumbergh cosplayer say it's just not a good time for the company is another.

Provisions for all of this is baked into the bill, but Democrats and their media lapdogs aren't reporting on that.


(B) in the case of an employee who is not represented by a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of such employee under applicable law, an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)—

“(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation; and

“(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and not as a condition of employment.

So in other words it's up to the employee whether or not they want overtime pay or they want to save the time for paid time off. Before the employee works overtime the employee needs to sign off on it that they would rather bank the hours for paid time off in the future in lieu of overtime pay right away, this has to be voluntary on the employee's part and the employer can't threaten to fire them if they do not choose the paid time off instead of overtime pay right away.


COMPENSATION DATE.—Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period.

Also any unused saved time has to be paid at the end of the year at the usual overtime rate.

This really is just a boon for employees by giving them the choice to save up paid time off instead of receiving overtime pay right away.

If the worry is an employer is going to just ignore the law and not pay for the saved up time after a year then we might as well also worry about employer's who are going to ignore the law and put someone down for working 39 hours instead of the 50 they really worked.

[Tgo01]

How I read this, it refers to simply eliminating overtime pay in lieu of vacation time. Which is an entirely separate matter.

Overtime is often time and a half depending on the industry, where as vacation time best case (paid) would be time not time and a half. In some cases vacation isn't even paid at full rate especially in commission based environments that might be a wild tangent though.

This is why it's good to educate yourself on a subject matter and not let politicians tell you what you "need" to know. The choice for the employee is either receive overtime pay at 1.5 times their usual pay like normal, or bank 1.5 hours worth of paid time off. In either instance the employee receives the exact same amount of pay.

[hello]

This is why it's good to educate yourself on a subject matter and not let politicians tell you what you "need" to know. The choice for the employee is either receive overtime pay at 1.5 times their usual pay like normal, or bank 1.5 hours worth of paid time off. In either instance the employee receives the exact same amount of pay.

Not quite, this does benefit employers as it allows them to utilize you during most demanding seasons/hours/whenever and offset it by having you go on vacay time during off hours non-busy season, where your presence would not be fully utilized
anyway.

In other words...

Employer:"Fuck, I'm paying time and a half for this asshat but I really fucking need him here in December our busiest time... fuck plus I gotta pay him time just to sit around in March our slowest season when he might as well just not come. Fuck. Help me GOP you're my only hope!"

GOP:"Capacity squeeze by these fucking peasants?! Not in my district! Now Lord Baron Richman can get his third Ferrari by utilizing peasant boy during peak times and randomly give him paid days off during off times at his majesty's discretion. What's that you say? Peasant boy lives paycheck to paycheck and needs the time and half surge bi-weekly to feed his kids? Who cares? This shitty job is a revolving door he'll be forced to look for another job soon enough anyway and we'll make it so he can't use all of his vacation time, the dumbass will probably have to forfeit half of it by the time he leaves!"

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111151641/4836953-agent-smith-evil-laugh.gif

[Ososis]

That sucks, but why is this political?

Misposted. Sorry I'm not on my a game at the moment.

[Tgo01]

Not quite, this does benefit employers as it allows them to utilize you during most demanding seasons/hours/whenever and offset it by having you go on vacay time during off hours non-busy season, where your presence would not be fully utilized anyway.

In other words...

Employer:"Fuck, I'm paying time and a half for this asshat but I really fucking need him here in December our busiest time... fuck plus I gotta pay him time just to sit around in March our slowest season when he might as well just not come. Fuck. Help me GOP you're my only hope!"

GOP:"Capacity squeeze by these fucking peasants?! Not in my district! Now Lord Baron Richman can get his third Ferrari by utilizing peasant boy during peak times and randomly give him paid days off during off times at his majesty's discretion. What's that you say? Peasant boy lives paycheck to paycheck and needs the time and half surge bi-weekly to feed his kids? Who cares? This shitty job is a revolving door he'll be forced to look for another job soon enough anyway and we'll make it so he can't use all of his vacation time, the dumbass will probably have to forfeit half of it by the time he leaves!"

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111151641/4836953-agent-smith-evil-laugh.gif

That's cute. Except I just got finished quoting the actual bill itself where it states this is 100% voluntary on the employee's part and the employer can't threaten their employment status if the employee doesn't agree to it. It also states the employee must agree to this in writing before they even work the overtime hours in question. Also the employer has to go ahead and pay any saved up hours at the end of the year.

If the worry is that "But the employers might ignore the law and screw over the employee!!111" then what is to stop the employer from just ignoring the 10 hours of overtime an employee works altogether and just paying them a straight 40 hours? I mean if the employer is already going to break the law anyways I don't see how this law somehow makes it easier for the employer to break the law.

Before I waste anymore of my time further debating you just let me know up front if your posts are going to consist of "MUH FEELS!" or if they are going to be based in reality and facts and shit.

[drauz]

Not quite, this does benefit employers as it allows them to utilize you during most demanding seasons/hours/whenever and offset it by having you go on vacay time during off hours non-busy season, where your presence would not be fully utilized
anyway.

In other words...

Employer:"Fuck, I'm paying time and a half for this asshat but I really fucking need him here in December our busiest time... fuck plus I gotta pay him time just to sit around in March our slowest season when he might as well just not come. Fuck. Help me GOP you're my only hope!"

GOP:"Capacity squeeze by these fucking peasants?! Not in my district! Now Lord Baron Richman can get his third Ferrari by utilizing peasant boy during peak times and randomly give him paid days off during off times at his majesty's discretion. What's that you say? Peasant boy lives paycheck to paycheck and needs the time and half surge bi-weekly to feed his kids? Who cares? This shitty job is a revolving door he'll be forced to look for another job soon enough anyway and we'll make it so he can't use all of his vacation time, the dumbass will probably have to forfeit half of it by the time he leaves!"

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111151641/4836953-agent-smith-evil-laugh.gif

Perhaps you missed the part where the employer doesn't get to decide which they want to use, it is the employee's decision...

[Parkbandit]

Perhaps you missed the part where the employer doesn't get to decide which they want to use, it is the employee's decision...

BUT THE EVIL COMPANIES WANT TO TAKE AWAY OVERTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hello]

That's cute. Except I just got finished quoting the actual bill itself where it states this is 100% voluntary on the employee's part and the employer can't threaten their employment status if the employee doesn't agree to it. It also states the employee must agree to this in writing before they even work the overtime hours in question. Also the employer has to go ahead and pay any saved up hours at the end of the year.

If the worry is that "But the employers might ignore the law and screw over the employee!!111" then what is to stop the employer from just ignoring the 10 hours of overtime an employee works altogether and just paying them a straight 40 hours? I mean if the employer is already going to break the law anyways I don't see how this law somehow makes it easier for the employer to break the law.

Before I waste anymore of my time further debating you just let me know up front if your posts are going to consist of "MUH FEELS!" or if they are going to be based in reality and facts and shit.

This first part about conditions for implementing such a scheme is never about existing employees. You have to understand the type of people in the labor force and companies this HR is targetting. Namely low-skill hourly workers like construction workers, orange pickers, retail sales, etc. the backbone of society which makes the real economy run. A company like Walmart is a revolving door in terms of employees..

Turnover in the retail sector has been steadily rising and now stands 5 percent a month. At that rate, if Walmart's workforce were to hold to the national average, over a full year it would be losing 60 percent of its sales staff.
--Bloomberg


HR 1180 'protection clauses' under section 2 applies to existing employees not someone who's thinking about becoming an employee(in which case none of the Fair Labor Act would apply). Thus, the potential employee and the employer has an implied agreement including time compensation prior to any work done by the employee which is in fact stated in the HR itself..

“(B) in the case of an employee who is not represented by a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of such employee under applicable law, an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)—

--HR 1180

Therefore, in reality, for someone in the low-skill job market(the so called 'working poor') the new rule for all intents and purposes is this new time compensation scheme. But, at first glance the scheme itself doesn't look all that bad! Well, let's read a bit deeper into the HR. Currently, if you ever worked in these type of jobs the days off or especially vacation time is requested by the employee and approved by the management. Therefore, vacation time is setup by the employer alone and this is implied in the HR.

“(7) USE OF TIME.—An employee—

“(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1); and

“(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time,

shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.

--HR 1180


But ! even still the HR seems beneficial to the employee giving clauses that compensatory time must be cashable if unused every year.

(B) COMPENSATION DATE.—Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period.

--HR 1180


So, let's look at the almighty paragraph 6, the actual pay rate.

“(A) GENERAL RULE.—If compensation is to be paid to an employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than—

“(i) the regular rate earned by such employee when the compensatory time was accrued; or

“(ii) the regular rate earned by such employee at the time such employee received payment of such compensation,

whichever is higher.

--HR 1180

Therefore, when unused vacation comp time is cashed in, it's at the normal standard rate either on the day the time was accrued or the day of the compensation (aka if you got a promotion between that time you can use your higher promoted pay rate). So... this sucks for employees, but just don't 'cash-in' right? Wrong. Because this is where the shit hits the fan.

“(C) EXCESS OF 80 HOURS.—The employer may provide monetary compensation for an employee’s unused compensatory time in excess of 80 hours at any time after giving the employee at least 30 days notice. Such compensation shall be provided at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6).

So, the max secured bankable OT vacation time is 80 hours. Which is insane, when I was working these jobs I almost always fill up 80 OT hours in 2-3 weeks easy. So, anything beyond these hours (possibly a thousand hours in a year) can be exchanged at the 'fucked over' rate as explained above.

The only good news for employees coming from this is the sunset clause of 5 years otherwise if you're poor and destitute trying to feed a family, well...

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111151641/4836953-agent-smith-evil-laugh.gif

[Tgo01]

HR 1180 'protection clauses' under section 2 applies to existing employees not someone who's thinking about becoming an employee(in which case none of the Fair Labor Act would apply). Thus, the potential employee and the employer has an implied agreement including time compensation prior to any work done by the employee which is in fact stated in the HR itself..

Okay, macguyver, I'll play along one more time. Where in the bill does it suggest only an existing employee has the right to choose between overtime pay and paid time off, and when it comes to new employees the employer gets to choose?


Therefore, when unused vacation comp time is cashed in, it's at the normal standard rate either on the day the time was accrued or the day of the compensation

Yes that's because:


(1) GENERAL RULE.—An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.

So for every hour of overtime you work you can earn 1.5 hours of paid time off in the future at your normal rate of pay.

Do we agree that x times 1.5 is the same as 1.5 times x, where x is the employee's rate of pay?

[hello]

Okay, macguyver, I'll play along one more time. Where in the bill does it suggest only an existing employee has the right to choose between overtime pay and paid time off, and when it comes to new employees the employer gets to choose?



Yes that's because:



So for every hour of overtime you work you can earn 1.5 hours of paid time off in the future at your normal rate of pay.

Do we agree that x times 1.5 is the same as 1.5 times x, where x is the employee's rate of pay?

The employer isn't choosing anything but like the HR says an agreement is made between employer and future employee before any work is done.


“...an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)—

--HR 1180

You kinda have to read what hasn't been said or hasn't been covered under the HR which allows an opening for employers to offer this alternative and this alternative alone whilst in the past there was only one choice (pay time and a half). Much like everything in the U.S. you can sign to waive away almost anything unless it violates an explicitly written statute or law.

A potential worker approaches Walmart for work, Walmart states this is how we deal with overtime, you don't like it? you're free to leave through the doors you just walked in from. This has been the iron-clad custom in the U.S. since time immemorial, especially in 'right to work' states. Therefore, the HR only speaks about bullying employees through threat of being fired, never about someone who at that moment is not affiliated with the company, else they would have put clauses in with words like "potential employee" or "as a condition for hire".

I admit, this is a tactic used by Democrats as well, after all, 90% of the Congress were lawyers at some point. Heck, Scalia wrote a dissent once with the foundation of it being based on literally two words in the constitution.

As to your second query, I think you missed the main crux of what this bill is really about. Employers can at-will claw back any banked time and pay you in 30 days. To put it simply, using this law Employers now have the ability to defer a huge portion of a hourly workers paycheck from bi-weekly to monthly or even yearly if they so desired with absolutely no intention of utlizing the bill for it's mandated purpose aka "vacation time." That is to say, the primary purpose of the bill is a means for companies to delay payment on something they must pay attached to every paycheck (under the now previous Fair Labor Act). This is a huge boon to any company and devastating to a working class family who eek by paycheck to paycheck.

You're innocent, I get that, and going through some of your posts in politics you have an earnest naivete which is endearing, especially with your cute dog avatar. But, this is how D.C. works, it's fucking poisonous to say the least and something that looks like a great plan designed to help people is really a claymore mine in disguise.

P.S. Not just harping on Repubs, the Dems do it as well!

[Tgo01]

The employer isn't choosing anything but like the HR says an agreement is made between employer and future employee before any work is done.

“...an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)—

--HR 1180

You kinda have to read what hasn't been said or hasn't been covered under the HR which allows an opening for employers to offer this alternative and this alternative alone whilst in the past there was only one choice (pay time and a half). Much like everything in the U.S. you can sign to waive away almost anything unless it violates an explicitly written statute or law.

...yes, and as the bill plainly points out:


(B) in the case of an employee who is not represented by a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of such employee under applicable law, an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)—

“(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation; and

“(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and not as a condition of employment.

Notice the last section there? Not as a condition of employment? That means the employer specifically can't do what you are suggesting in your Walmart example.


As to your second query, I think you missed the main crux of what this bill is really about. Employers can at-will claw back any banked time and pay you in 30 days. To put it simply, using this law Employers now have the ability to defer a huge portion of a hourly workers paycheck from bi-weekly to monthly or even yearly if they so desired with absolutely no intention of utlizing the bill for it's mandated purpose aka "vacation time." That is to say, the primary purpose of the bill is a means for companies to delay payment on something they must pay attached to every paycheck (under the now previous Fair Labor Act). This is a huge boon to any company and devastating to a working class family who eek by paycheck to paycheck.

Why you backtracking? What you said was "Therefore, when unused vacation comp time is cashed in, it's at the normal standard rate", strongly suggesting that instead of receiving time and a half for overtime worked they only receive time, then when I pointed out that's because the hours received is already time and a half you now come up with this bullshit.

And as I just got finished explaining...yet again...this is all voluntary on the employee's part so this whole bullshit about this is just a ploy for employers to screw over the little guy. No.

The WORST case scenario is an employee agrees to this paid time off on their own free will and the employer keeps hemming and hawing to give them their time for as long as possible so the employee basically just gave their employer a very short interest free loan. That's the worst case scenario. If an employee doesn't trust their employer that much then they can just opt to continue receiving their usual overtime pay.


You're innocent, I get that, and going through some of your posts in politics you have an earnest naivete which is endearing

Talk about irony. But not sure what I expected going into this to be honest :(

Let's also not forget this gem of yours in your original post about this:


This shitty job is a revolving door he'll be forced to look for another job soon enough anyway and we'll make it so he can't use all of his vacation time, the dumbass will probably have to forfeit half of it by the time he leaves!

Even though SURPRISE! There is already a provision in the bill that states if the employee leaves the company with banked time off, whether they leave voluntarily or are fired/laid off, the employer has to pay them any banked time. But it's understandable, your innocence and naivete is just shining through.

[Warriorbird]

https://media.makeameme.org/created/trolltal-recall.jpg

[hello]

...yes, and as the bill plainly points out:



Notice the last section there? Not as a condition of employment? That means the employer specifically can't do what you are suggesting in your Walmart example.



Why you backtracking? What you said was "Therefore, when unused vacation comp time is cashed in, it's at the normal standard rate", strongly suggesting that instead of receiving time and a half for overtime worked they only receive time, then when I pointed out that's because the hours received is already time and a half you now come up with this bullshit.

And as I just got finished explaining...yet again...this is all voluntary on the employee's part so this whole bullshit about this is just a ploy for employers to screw over the little guy. No.

The WORST case scenario is an employee agrees to this paid time off on their own free will and the employer keeps hemming and hawing to give them their time for as long as possible so the employee basically just gave their employer a very short interest free loan. That's the worst case scenario. If an employee doesn't trust their employer that much then they can just opt to continue receiving their usual overtime pay.



Talk about irony. But not sure what I expected going into this to be honest :(

Let's also not forget this gem of yours in your original post about this:



Even though SURPRISE! There is already a provision in the bill that states if the employee leaves the company with banked time off, whether they leave voluntarily or are fired/laid off, the employer has to pay them any banked time. But it's understandable, your innocence and naivete is just shining through.

Although it can be construed for someone who is trying to get a job, 'condition of employment' in this case is for an existing employee because of a blanket condition of that sub-section,

No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at least 1,000 hours for the employee’s employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period before the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off.
--HR 1180


It's voluntary up to the point where an employee agrees to it since it's the only choice an employer will offer when hiring which again, from above, does not include rehires or seasonal to permanent hires.


Even though SURPRISE! There is already a provision in the bill that states if the employee leaves the company with banked time off, whether they leave voluntarily or are fired/laid off, the employer has to pay them any banked time.

This is the exact provision...

“(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.—An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).


Which is predicated by this...

(B) COMPENSATION DATE.—Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period.

Meaning, it could be month(s) or even a year until the employee gets his check. The usefulness of such a check being eroded to nil over that time for a low wage worker.

[Wrathbringer]

Ablahblahblah

Your rep sucks again, macgyver. What happened?

[Gelston]

Your rep sucks again, macgyver. What happened?

I had hit him earlier and mine did take him down any blocks, but I imagine he had to have been right on the edge. My rep epeen is pretty big.

[Tgo01]

“(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.—An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).

How someone can read the bold words there and think this is saying an employer can put off paying the employee for upwards of a year is beyond comprehension.


Which is predicated by this...
[I]
(B) COMPENSATION DATE.—Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period.

Predicated by...what?

It says right there in plain English that it is referring to paragraph 6, which is:


(6) RATE OF COMPENSATION.—

“(A) GENERAL RULE.—If compensation is to be paid to an employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than—

“(i) the regular rate earned by such employee when the compensatory time was accrued; or

“(ii) the regular rate earned by such employee at the time such employee received payment of such compensation,

whichever is higher.

“(B) CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT.—Any payment owed to an employee under this subsection for unused compensatory time shall be considered unpaid overtime compensation.

How you think what you quoted is relevant to the section we are discussing is nonsense.

At this point it's pretty clear you are just retarded and are trying to fall back on the ol' "GAIS GAIS! I JUST PRETENDING! LOL!"

No. You are stupid. Begone from my presence, I don't want to risk catching the stupid.

[hello]

How someone can read the bold words there and think this is saying an employer can put off paying the employee for upwards of a year is beyond comprehension.



Predicated by...what?

It says right there in plain English that it is referring to paragraph 6, which is:



How you think what you quoted is relevant to the section we are discussing is nonsense.

At this point it's pretty clear you are just retarded and are trying to fall back on the ol' "GAIS GAIS! I JUST PRETENDING! LOL!"

No. You are stupid. Begone from my presence, I don't want to risk catching the stupid.



(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.—An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).

Tgo01, seriously squire, what you boldfaced there is the HR clarifying that either/or (quitting or him being fired) the employee is going to get paid. Not that he's going to be paid right there on the spot , which in of itself is impossible for most companies. That and try reading that paragraph without the bold faced part and it quickly becomes meaningless hence it's pertaining to quitting or being fired not a chronological date of when he should get paid. That would further make no sense since it's left ambiguous. (Now?! , 2.5 minutes when termination papers are filed? when?!) Therefore, you follow the (6)'s around and the exact times are given under ta da! (B) COMPENSATION DATE! Well, go figure.

Listen tgo01 I know, eh, how do I say this politely... I know you're an older gentlemen (apparently with your time in GS) and you adhere to an era when things were much simpler and people said what they meant. And, honestly, I respect you sir and those past years. People were truly heroic back then and perhaps things were better for some people. But, times have changed much like GS did. It's not the same game any more in Congress, old sport. Cheers. :)

[Androidpk]

Every single House Republican cocksucker that voted yes today.

[Tgo01]

Every single House Republican cocksucker that voted yes today.

Careful, you might get fired for being homophobic.

[Androidpk]

Homophobia isn't a pre-existing condition, I'm covered.

[Ososis]

Your rep sucks again, macgyver. What happened?

He only had good rep because PB pos reped him to piss me off. He is kindof in love with me.

[Neveragain]

Listen tgo01 I know, eh, how do I say this politely... I know you're an older gentlemen (apparently with your time in GS) and you adhere to an era when things were much simpler and people said what they meant. And, honestly, I respect you sir and those past years. People were truly heroic back then and perhaps things were better for some people. But, times have changed much like GS did. It's not the same game any more in Congress, old sport. Cheers.

TGO you have to give credit when credit is due. McGyver's generation is populated with a large number of spineless jellyfish, many of which never had a father figure in the home or were raised in a daycare. We now live in an era where changing the oil in your car may as well be the same as planning a mission to the moon for these people. An age where the skilled tradesman has been labeled the low skill worker and the douche bag that sits at the desk that you have to talk to like a kindergartner on a daily basis so they actually understand how the machine you make ready, operate, maintain and repair works, is now considered the highly skilled employee.

Take heed young retards, there's this word called no. It's used like this: NO I won't work overtime, NO I won't work for your shitty company. It's amazing how soon an employer will realize that because of their OT policy, they will have the worst available employees in the market.

[drauz]

TGO you have to give credit when credit is due. McGyver's generation is populated with a large number of spineless jellyfish, many of which never had a father figure in the home or were raised in a daycare. We now live in an era where changing the oil in your car may as well be the same as planning a mission to the moon for these people. An age where the skilled tradesman has been labeled the low skill worker and the douche bag that sits at the desk that you have to talk to like a kindergartner on a daily basis so they actually understand how the machine you make ready, operate, maintain and repair works, is now considered the highly skilled employee.

Take heed young retards, there's this word called no. It's used like this: NO I won't work overtime, NO I won't work for your shitty company. It's amazing how soon an employer will realize that because of their OT policy they have the worst available employees in the market.

The guy from the generation that taught this generation complains that they weren't taught well enough.. I could argue that you are from the worst generation.

I would guess Tgo is around 30, maybe late 20s from his youtube videos. If so, he would be part of this generation you complain about.

[Neveragain]

The guy from the generation that taught this generation complains that they weren't taught well enough.. I could argue that you are from the worst generation.

I would guess Tgo is around 30, maybe late 20s from his youtube videos. If so, he would be part of this generation you complain about.

Oh there's no doubt it started with my generation. Growing up it was odd to hear a friend say that their mom was at work or they had no father in the home. These structures didn't really start to change until the late 70's early 80's and it's been a free fall ever since.

Can you change the oil in your car?

Here is a link to some statistics that are a direct cause of the greatest lie ever sold by liberals to the American public.

https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

[drauz]

Can you change the oil in your car?

I worked at jiffy lube during high school. I can do that and more!

[Parkbandit]

He only had good rep because PB pos reped him to piss me off. He is kindof in love with me.

What?

Don't kid yourself.. I gave you red rep because you spammed my inbox with frustration and anger.

But good to know McGayver having green rep pisses you off..

[Methais]

Homophobia isn't a pre-existing condition, I'm covered.

They're not that scary. They mostly just kind of prance around and twerk. It'll be ok.

[Back]

TGO you have to give credit when credit is due. McGyver's generation is populated with a large number of spineless jellyfish, many of which never had a father figure in the home or were raised in a daycare. We now live in an era where changing the oil in your car may as well be the same as planning a mission to the moon for these people. An age where the skilled tradesman has been labeled the low skill worker and the douche bag that sits at the desk that you have to talk to like a kindergartner on a daily basis so they actually understand how the machine you make ready, operate, maintain and repair works, is now considered the highly skilled employee.

Take heed young retards, there's this word called no. It's used like this: NO I won't work overtime, NO I won't work for your shitty company. It's amazing how soon an employer will realize that because of their OT policy, they will have the worst available employees in the market.

LOL!!!!

https://jeffpelline.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/9ryvxqh.jpg

Ok grandpa. Don't forget your Centrum Silver today.

[Neveragain]

LOL!!!!

https://jeffpelline.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/9ryvxqh.jpg

Ok grandpa. Don't forget your Centrum Silver today.


Exhibit 1.

[Back]

Exhibit 1.

Yeah yeah yeah, old man. You walked uphill in the snow both ways dodging tyrannosaurs in the prehistoric age before the wheel was invented. That must have fucking sucked balls.

[Neveragain]

Yeah yeah yeah, old man. You walked uphill in the snow both ways dodging tyrannosaurs in the prehistoric age before the wheel was invented. That must have fucking sucked balls.

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

We had the wheel, we just understood that the wheel only works if it's round.

[Fallen]

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

We had the wheel, we just understood that the wheel only works if it's round.

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on the incarceration rate in this country?

[Neveragain]

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on the incarceration rate in this country?

I think there would be a much smaller prison population if we treated addiction properly. It's pretty common knowledge that addicts use drugs to kill pain, primarily emotional pain. Of course this only further supports what the stats I posted show, single parent homes are an emotional time bomb for children.

[Fallen]

I think there would be a much smaller prison population if we treated addiction properly. It's pretty common knowledge that addicts use drugs to kill pain, primarily emotional pain. Of course this only further supports what the stats I posted show, single parent homes are an emotional time bomb for children.

Would you agree we can't really incarcerate our way out of the problem?

[Gelston]

Would you agree we can't really incarcerate our way out of the problem?

No. Put everyone into prison, there is no more crime.

[Androidpk]

No. Put everyone into prison, there is no more crime.


http://www.mccartie.com/assets/office-space-lumbergh.jpg

[Gelston]

http://www.mccartie.com/assets/office-space-lumbergh.jpg

Won't be street crime if no one is on the streets.

[Neveragain]

Would you agree we can't really incarcerate our way out of the problem?

I kind of think that's what I said.

Would you agree that the de facto court decision to place children in the mothers custody has been proven to be a giant failure?

[Neveragain]

Won't be street crime if no one is on the streets.

There would be no street crime if there were no streets. Just say no to streets!

[Taernath]

Won't be street crime if no one is on the streets.

What if we turned the publicly funded streets into privately owned toll roads? Would probably have the same effect.


Would you agree that the de facto court decision to place children in the mothers custody has been proven to be a giant failure?

There it is.

[Whirlin]

There would be no street crime if there were no streets. Just say no to streets!
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/images/folder526/600x600/16784526/you-cant-if-you-dont.jpg

[Fallen]

I kind of think that's what I said.

Would you agree that the de facto court decision to place children in the mothers custody has been proven to be a giant failure?

I honestly don't know enough about child development to have an informed opinion. I don't have kids and aren't around people who have them outside of work.

I would agree there is some degree of institutionalized sexism in the courts in general, though.

[Neveragain]

I worked at jiffy lube during high school. I can do that and more!

They don't actually change the oil, so I will take that as a no?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf1lr29a3O4

[drauz]

They don't actually change the oil, so I will take that as a no?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf1lr29a3O4

Different company and different region, we actually did the work we charged for.

[drauz]

In the vein of youth not knowing how to do stuff I came across this helpful guide for all sorts of stuff.

http://imgur.com/gallery/kzSAn

[~Rocktar~]

In the vein of youth not knowing how to do stuff I came across this helpful guide for all sorts of stuff.

http://imgur.com/gallery/kzSAn

Here is the source blog http://www.artofmanliness.com

[drauz]

WTF...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXswMEL3TI

[Androidpk]

Hearing reports that Erdogan gave the command to attack the people protesting. How do we as a country respond to something like this?

[Gelston]

Hearing reports that Erdogan gave the command to attack the people protesting. How do we as a country respond to something like this?

Persona non gratia and arrest whoever we can.

[hello]

Hearing reports that Erdogan gave the command to attack the people protesting. How do we as a country respond to something like this?

Find the vids with him sitting in the car, it's 100% he gave the order. You see his captain leaning down into the car then a few seconds later he stands up taps his lieutenant and he gives a quick nod... suddenly you see his entire security detail zerging the protestors.

[hello]

Persona non gratia and arrest whoever we can.

Heck no that's weak pussy shit. The protestors were US citizens on US soils (fucking DC of all places). Kick out their Ambassador and Trump should demand a formal public apology from Erdogan himself.

[Gelston]

Heck no that's weak pussy shit. The protestors were US citizens on US soils (fucking DC of all places). Kick out their Ambassador and Trump should demand a formal public apology from Erdogan himself.

WTF do you think persona no gratia means you dumb illiterate fuck.

[hello]

WTF do you think persona no gratia means you dumb illiterate fuck.

Sorry I can't read Spanish.