Lurker > bigblu89

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'm not even taking them at their word. I'm literally just repeating what is in the article for the people that seem to refuse to read it, despite it being posted in full twice in this thread.

What the union does after then win (or lose) the suit is a different story.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Im not. In the least.

Just because you can explain one side without showing prejudice doesnt mean you support that side.

People in here, that I assume didnt read the article, jumped to the conclusion that the union was suing because they made the rule.

The union is suing because they werent allowed to negotiate what the punishment was.

Thats it. No bias from me saying they should win the suit. No bias from me either way. I dont know a single NYPD officer to care how they get punished.

The game called Have a cordial conversation on CE despite having an opinion that differs from the majority.

Tyranthraxus posted...

They have the right to remain silent and they have the right to an attorney. Unions should not be permitted to protect criminal conduct.

Its not about possession without a prescription. Its about failing drug tests.

You cant be arrested for failing a drug test at your job.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Here's the issue. I don't fucking understand why this needs to be a negotiation. Just arrest them and charge them with unlawful possession of a schedule 3 controlled substance the same as you would any other criminal.

In theory, it needs negotiation becasue that's what I union is there for. Negotiate the rights of the union members.

Murphiroth posted...

No, it's a stance the union CLAIMS they agree with. They absolutely do not and they absolutely want to avoid police potentially getting in trouble for taking steroids and whatnot illegally. They don't give a shit about the negotiations, that's just a smokescreen, the ultimate goal, as it always is, is to avoid any and all police accountability.

Police unions DO NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt and I'm not sure why you insist on giving it to them.

I'm not giving them anything, I'm just explaining the situation to all the people that think the Union is fighting for the officers to be able to roid up without punishment.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Bulking up is a legitimate medical use of steroids. It's not accepted in athletic associations but sports rules aren't the same thing as medical rules.

And if they have a legitimate medical use for anabolic steroids or HGH, they will have a prescription.

Which this isn't fighting.

The Department is looking to punish officers that use steroids of HGH WITHOUT a prescription.

A stance that the union AGREES with.

The union is suing because the Department is looking to make a change to something agreed upon during their last contract without allowing the union to negotiate the changes and punishments.

That it's Saturday and I don't have to work.

andel posted...

knicks are back baby one more series until we wreck boston in the ecf

jalen brunson is a playoff god

Living in NY, Knicks are definitely back to what they were in the 1990's.

The 4th-5th best team in the league who gets grossly overrated by their fanbase who thinks they can win a Championship becasue they got out of the 1st round.

xsdarknesssx posted...

Not only does the idea of everyone in the world (or even like your city/town for that mater) knowing everything that you do sound creepy as hell, If everyone in the world knew everything about you then I would imagine it would be difficult to keep your money secure.

Yeah, if everyone knows everything, that means hackers don't even need to put in any effort to steal your money, as they'll know all your passwords and account numbers.

You'd spend 90% of you days just calling your banks for fraud claims.

SF_Okami posted...

76ers are getting killed.

You were saying?

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Cruise ships are an abomination

Gonna need more details on this opinion

Dont start next week.

Start TODAY.

Haejin posted...

Occupany rates are higher on cruise ships, they can lower prices as the voyage dates get near and move voyages when demand is high. Hotel buildings cost more, and staff are local, cruises can hire international workers who accept $18,000 a year as a very very very lucrative wage

That last part is huge.

Last cruise I went on I befriended a few of the casino dealers. We went out for drinks at one of the ports and they talked about how they basically make $20 grand for what equates to 8 months of work. BUT they dont pay for their room or food, so they basically send every dollar back home

codey posted...

I mean the times I've had to do it the bag was clear so you can still see what the notifications are.

The one I had to use wasn't see though, but I have seen the ones where there is a window where you can see your phone screen.

TheGoldenEel posted...

so every time your phone vibrates you have to walk over to the kiosk to unlock the phone to figure out if its someone calling about your extended warranty or if your kid is in the hospital?

I theory, yes. If you absolutely NEED to know who called you.

Again, I can only speak for myself. I was with my wife the one time we had to do it. SO if my phone were to go off and then hers shortly after, we would've realized something was up.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You have your phone on you at all times, it's just in a "bag" that's locked

Mortainous28 posted...

No.

While I hate seeing dozens or hundreds of phones in the air, but the thought of an incoming emergency call being gatekept by anyone is not a show I would attend.

My wife and I were at a live Whose Line event with friends. They got a call mid show that their daughter was having a seizure. The thought of walking somewhere, possibly waiting and then getting someone/thing to unlock MY phone so I could use it in a situation like that is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if there is nothing I could do, doesn't matter if they called 911 and everything was being handled (they had). Fuck that.

Tool does not allow people to take pictures at their live events. If you are caught, you are ejected. They open up a few sets for pictures and videos. They do all of that without locking your phone in a bag.

I can only speak of my experience, but in the bag they put it in, you can still feel your phone vibrating, so it at most delays things a few minutes, or however long it takes for you to get to the kiosk and unlock you phone.

I'm not necessarily advocating for them, but the time I had to do it, it didn't really bother me in the least.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Someone holding up a phone to block my view in order to get a 30 second video clip that looks and sounds worse than one you can easily find online can get annoying.

Got a "if you can't watch it" summary?

If not, I'll wait till after work to watch.

Basement and a crawlspace that connects the two 2nd floor bedrooms.

Undertaker
Lion-O

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's not getting taken away. You put it in the bag, and you hold it. In case of emergency, you just go to a nearby kiosk and they unlock the bag for you.

The first/only time I've had to do it was when I saw Kevin Hart and Chris Rock last summer. Rock was filming his new Netflix special, so he didn't want any of it to be leaked. My kids were home alone (18 and 15 years old) so it was slightly unnerving not being able to check my phone, but I just went to the kiosk in between sets to send them a text to make sure all was ok.

As far as needing it as a clock, can't help you there. lol

BlueKat posted...

Before I entered the topic I knew it would be about Bill Maher

It's HBO, so it's either him of John Oliver.

Assuming I have no other plans, and it's relatively local, I'd go

How do you feel about bagging your phone to see a show? Comedians and some musicians make the audience bag the phones for different reasons. Could you enjoy the show without having to capture any of it?

For those that dont know the process:

https://www.overyondr.com/phone-locking-pouch

Venues then have kiosks where you can unlock your phone (usually in a spot beyond the view of the stage) in case of an emergency.

Wouldn't bother me.

If there's housing an wealthier neighborhoods that the government is willing to give the seller fair market value for and then subsidize it, who am I to stop them?

That being said, I don't know if local governments are willing to buy up multi-million dollar homes in nice neighborhoods in hopes they can house 2-3 families when they can put up a building with 40 affordable apartments in them with the same amount of money.

I says $50-500, but I wouldnt call it debt per se because I pay it off every month.

Assuming there are no other negative health implications...

Bacon and Cheddar burger with carnalized onions.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The saying isn't specifically about people going to war.

The "foxhole" thing is symbolic of a dire situation. As in, when people are in a no-win situation, they tend to look to a higher power in a last ditch effort to be saved.

Basically what MaserBlaster said in post #13.

Buy American

Cats or dogs, easily.

its the only two that wouldnt completely throw the world on its head

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ok.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

No. The precedent of Unions not having the right to negotiate a change in an agreed upon contract.

This is going in circles, but AGAIN, the union isnt even arguing about the steroid use, they actually AGREE with the department.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


As opposed to the people that dont read the article and jumped right to the comments, thinking that the union is fighting for cops to actually be able to use unprescribed steroids, when in reality the union agrees with the department, and what theyre suing over is whether or not the union can unilaterally enforce this change?

A federally run department unilaterally trying to change an agreed upon policy without the union having a chance to negotiate sets a terrible precedent.

Link_of_time posted...

This is hilarious. I'd actually believe it if you told me that was the reason.

Edit: after looking at the article, it seems a little shady. It states that it counts shows ending/cancellations/limited series as part of their total outcome. Presenting the issue as one only affecting LGTBQ characters is a little dishonest.

Exactly. A lot of scripted shows are getting cancelled/ending, and being replaced by reality TV and prime time game shows, so the numbers on ALL characters are going down

Tag

wanderingshade posted...

You gotta subscription you could give me?

I quoted the whole article in post #22

wanderingshade posted...

Policing basically refuses to do anything about the dudes who wanna just bully people and get away with it, they don't need to ALSO allow them to be on anabolic steroids and CONSTANTLY angry.

JFC. Read the article

DarkChozoGhost posted...

You are saying there is a chance the police union is in the right. As such, you are being blasted for it, because that is a terrible stance.

Looking past it being the Police Union, and just looking at it as Union, the fact that (potentially, because like I said I dont know the details of the agreement) the department changed policy without the union having a chance to renegotiate MIGHT hold water in a court of law.

Thats all Im saying. Because the union isnt arguing about whether or not police officers should be allowed to take unprescribed steroids or HGH, they are arguing whether or not the department had a right to unilaterally change the policy.

But whatever, as with most conversations on CE, Ive wasted WAY too much time discussing something that I honestly dont care about and has zero bearing on my life. I dont know a single person that is an NYPD officer, so whatever the outcome is doesnt change my life in the slightest.

I dont know if this will open up a can of worms or not, but this study only counted characters that were confirmed to be LGBTQ.

There's A LOT of characters on TV now whose sexuality isnt part of the plot enough to even know if they are straight/gay/bi/etc.

ai123 posted...

The study only looked at scripted shows, not reality TV.

Where We Are on TV, a report from the media watchdog group that analyzes the number of LGBTQ regular and recurring characters on scripted primetime broadcast, scripted primetime cable and scripted series on eight major streaming platforms

Though the total number of scripted shows were fewer, that wouldn't explain the percentage drop in LGBT characters.

I meant how scripted shows were being cancelled and replaced by reality TV and game shows.

The article only shows the percentage of the decreases, not the percentage of how many characters are LGBTQ.

Reading the article made it sound like the shows were simply cancelled, as opposed to them replacing LGBTQ characters with non-LGBTQ characters.

Raikuro posted...

How much of that was just from Sex Education ending.

OK, that legit made me lol.

The dip, however, can partially be attributed to the decreasing number of primetime scripted series overall on broadcast television.

Looks like at least a part of it is the increase in reality TV and game shows, especially on Network TV, where there aren't really "characters" to assign sexuality to.

Could also be the simple fact that identifying a characters sexuality isn't necessary for newer shows that are being introduced.

ALWAYS plead not guilty to ANY moving violation ticket that didn't involve an accident or a DWI/DUI.

Most times they will get bargained to a non-moving violation. Usually something like an "unsafe stop on the shoulder".

Either that, or if you fight it further, there's a good chance the officer doesn't show, and it gets thrown out.

Murphiroth posted...

Death to Smoochy.

Though I think it's hit a level of cult classic status to some degree.

I absolutely LOVE this movie. I constantly argue about how I think it's Robin William's best role.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Its not even the first time the fourth wall is broken in the movie.

Ok, then I'll reserve any more judgement until I see the movie, if I ever see it.

Because everything I have read made it sound like the remote thing came out of nowhere.