Cowardice is Contagious

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I guess we just have different views on what a coward is.

Maybe not. I was just pointing out that there are other ways of looking at things.


You callin' me coward???
Me?

I challenge you to a duel.

Choose your weapon!
I KEEEEEEL YOU....

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Kennedy 0]

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Quote

Cowardice is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient robustness in the face of a challenge. The term describes a personality trait which is viewed as a negative characteristic and has been frowned upon (see norms) within most, if not all global cultures, while courage, typically viewed as its direct opposite, is generally rewarded and encouraged.
Cowards are usually seen to have avoided or refused to engage in a confrontation or struggle which has been deemed good or righteous by the wider culture in which they live. On a more mundane level, the label may be applied to those who are regarded as too frightened or overwhelmed to defend their rights or those of others from aggressors in their lives.

To address your "ballsy" definition, I have to disagree with you. It seems you're saying it takes courage to be a coward. The two are mutually exclusive. Acting with courage can involved avoiding conflict or purposeful retreat, but cowardice is fleeing from fear or to avoid unpleasantness. The same action can come from courage or cowardice. Motivation is the difference.

We can argue motivation of the fleeing democrats until we're blue in the face, because only they know what's in their head and it depends on how one chooses to define certain words.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Quote

Cowardice is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient robustness in the face of a challenge. The term describes a personality trait which is viewed as a negative characteristic and has been frowned upon (see norms) within most, if not all global cultures, while courage, typically viewed as its direct opposite, is generally rewarded and encouraged.
Cowards are usually seen to have avoided or refused to engage in a confrontation or struggle which has been deemed good or righteous by the wider culture in which they live. On a more mundane level, the label may be applied to those who are regarded as too frightened or overwhelmed to defend their rights or those of others from aggressors in their lives.

To address your "ballsy" definition, I have to disagree with you. It seems you're saying it takes courage to be a coward. The two are mutually exclusive. Acting with courage can involved avoiding conflict or purposeful retreat, but cowardice is fleeing from fear or to avoid unpleasantness. The same action can come from courage or cowardice. Motivation is the difference.

We can argue motivation of the fleeing democrats until we're blue in the face, because only they know what's in their head and it depends on how one chooses to define certain words.

Why is it you and your fellow travellers only want to do the whole UP OR DOWN VOTES when YOU have the majority. like before 2006.


Then you of the PARTY OF NO NO NO NO WAY... did exactly this kind of political theatre till Jan of 2011.

Do you see a difference....PAYBACK is a BITCH and so am I

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

We can argue motivation of the fleeing democrats until we're blue in the face, because only they know what's in their head and it depends on how one chooses to define certain words.

OK. Given your statement, how can you guys whine about anything at all...you have no clue as to what they are thinking.
Courage? Cowardice? No clue whatsoever.

Some bozos locked on "coward" and all of a sudden developed tunnel vision. Point out a different viewpoint and panties get wadded up all the way up to their foreheads blocking the eyeballs and choking off blood flow.
Typical.

There's also the "glass house" phenomena...see Amazon. She spells it out.


You "coward" guys keep it coming, though...the entertainment value is up this week.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Kennedy 0]

I see a difference between using legislative tactics to fight against a bill becoming law and fleeing your state to avoid government functioning. If they have to run away, they've lost. You'll also notice I didn't make this a left vs right, R vs D, or even good bill vs bad bill issue. My issue is with running away to stop government. Run a filibuster, tack on poison pill amendments, call sponsors unkind names, even mischaracterize the bill is newsy soundbytes; I don't care. That's politics, and until they change the system both parties can use the tactics. Running and hiding, and hiding from the law, is a whole other ball game. It also frees up the opposition to do anything they want on issues that aren't budget related.

Congratulations cowards, you avoided a vote, stood by your biggest donors, and abandoned any chance of representing everyone else that voted for you. I hope the politicians still doing their jobs pass every bill the deserters hate while they're gone. That's what you get for giving up the gates.

As for amazon's bit about up or down votes, I only want them/ask for them when the issue is clear and one side refuses to admit their position and instead tries to hide behind procedure. I don't mind pols on both side using tactics that are approved by both side for both sides, but I can't stand it when the won't even admit what they think about a bill. Makes it hard to vote for a pol to represent you when they won't say what they want, doesn't it?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wmw999 2,588]

I see them as using a legislative tool (quorum) to try to further their cause. It's been done before. It might not be the best way, but sometime he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

I'm not sure this particular fight is worth that tool, but then I'll admit I'm not all that well-versed on what's going on in Wisconsin, other than it involves unions and pension -- that's kind of like saying it involves babies and Hitler

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DanG 1]

I heard an interesting fact on NPR yesterday. The Governor is claiming that the unions are backrupting the state because of the outrageous pension benefits they receive. The legislation makes the unions pay a percentage of their pension, instead of being fully financed by the state. The collective bargaining part of the legislation is separate, and the Governor and talking heads claim that if they don't get the collective bargaining rights stripped away, that the unions will just bargain the pensions right back. Here's the interesting part: by statute the pension plan is not open to collective bargaining. It is set by law, and the only way to change it is through legislative action.

I think the Republicans are using this budget crisis to push an agenda that is not as closely tied to budgetary issues as they would like people to believe. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," is not just a Democratic principle.

I'm not a fan of unions in practice at all, but I think people should have the right to bargain, collectively or otherwise. I don't think that unions should have any special legal standing, but I also don't think that they should be barred from actions that would be legal for any other entity. In other words, let the free market decide.

- Dan G

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I see them as using a legislative tool (quorum) to try to further their cause. It's been done before. It might not be the best way, but sometime he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

Yes.

From Regulator's original thread
(there's at least 3 threads on this topic):

"As far as the off-site tactic...what in the world makes you think this is something new and unheard of?

Legislators at all levels do it all the time.

Sure...it's a tactic just like all those others you mentioned, plus more. "


They didn't "get it" over there, either.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I guess we just have different views on what a coward is.

Maybe not. I was just pointing out that there are other ways of looking at things.


You callin' me coward???
Me?

I challenge you to a duel.

Choose your weapon!
I KEEEEEEL YOU....

I dare you to take that to school!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

(A) I'm not in law enforcement right now, and not sure I want to go back. I work in the court system now, dealing with officers witnesses and offender more often than judges or lawyers.

Didn't know that. Last time we talked you were. What happened?

Quote

(B) When I was law enforcement, I worked a state that forbade public safety unions. Yep, laws against police fire ems and others organizing.

Which should, in and of iteself, be a crime. How dare any person, for any reason, deny others the right to better their conditions?

Quote

(C) I never joined the FOP.

Why not? Be specific.

Quote

(D) The department I worked for didn't treat officers very well, so they were chronically short of officers. They're not going to reduce the number of officers. If anything, they need to increase their staffing at lower levels and remove useless positions in other city departments.

The presence of a union would have been able to address the issues in much more effective way than any given individual could or would.

Why you guys on the right think that the top of the GOP has anything but disdain for you is beyond me. They constantly enact policies that take form you, are not neutral, and ultimately harmful to your personal prosperity. Why do you think they are on your side?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Didn't know that. Last time we talked you were. What happened?

I left for greener pastures. Well, if not greener, at least ones where the shepherd isn't as much a bastard, the sheep don't bleat so bitter, and sheepdogs are treated no worse.

Quote

Which should, in and of iteself, be a crime. How dare any person, for any reason, deny others the right to better their conditions?

I wasn't denied the right to improve my situation. My employer wasn't interested in workin with me, so I left. In my opinion, I have bettered my situation. As a bonus, in doing so I moved from a mediocre city to a place other have to vacation and visit temporarily.

Quote

Re: not joining FOP
Why not? Be specific.

I had several reasons. Without collective bargaining, they were no effective. Along with tr PBA, they'd done nothing for officers in more than twenty years. The local in charge of the FOP was a putz, and I didn try's him with my money. And we had a local group that, while they couldn't bargain, they could bring our concerns to the administration. Part of the reason I left was tht the administration didn't care to address out concerns, and took actions that brought on more concerns.

Quote

Why you guys on the right think that the top of the GOP has anything but disdain for you is beyond me. They constantly enact policies that take form you, are not neutral, and ultimately harmful to your personal prosperity. Why do you think they are on your side?

I'm not on the "right" and I don't see why folks here keep saying that. You make me doubt my eloquence and writing ability. No one that knows menor that intake to thinks I'm some rightwing uber conservative holy warrior. I believe in limited government according to the constitution at the federal level. I believe states should be able to decide what laws are best for their residents, limited by their constitution and the US constitution. I'm not against a number of ideas people on the "right" would call liberal or socialist. But I happen to think that tyranny from the left is as bad as tyranny from the right. And seeing how poorly government housing works outside the military and the whitehouse, I'm not really interested in Washington DC controlling any other areas of our life that states, the private sector, or citizens themselves can handle without interference. I don't want a Christian government anymore than I want to swear allegiance to a caliph. I don't want the government to impose my morals on others anymore than I want theirs imposed on me. Part of why I support decentralized government on domestic issues is that old saying: a government strong enough to give you everything you want is stein enough to take everything you have.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*