The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:20:21 -0000

That is &#39Upper Class Twit of the Year&#39, to you!

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:09:25 -0000

AR

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode2...

please show me how " Every employer shall pay to each of his employees" does not constitute citable evidence that (d) discrimination based on sex, does not apply to lilly. Just sayin&#39 that sexual bias does not only refer to minimum wage workers here as how could you pay a female worker less if your men get paid the minimum; thus, it fits every worker.

May not be good lawyering, but its logically consistant.

twit

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:23:57 -0000

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!

You are mixing different wage laws, which never really works. But would you at least care to share a link, as I did?

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:17:23 -0000

If I was looking for an argument, then I wouldn&#39t have come to the abuse dept.

The (d) section I last sent you makes no attempt to over write previous contracts, yet you can&#39t pay someone less than minimum wage after its passage. No discrimination now means every subsequent paycheck.

That&#39s not what SCOTUS ruled.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:11:18 -0000

And I thought we had degenerated back into one of our Monty Python Argument Clinic moments!

:)

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:48:20 -0000

AR

Drop your negative baggage. And I&#39m real sorry you feel so sure you know what I think.

I thought I was having a conversation, obviously, not.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:43:44 -0000

Hmmm. I guess you simply don&#39t know they law as well as you pretend, HemmD. Again, laws cannot be made retroactive without specific call out. The drug laws do so, as I pointed out; this law did not. And it was changed to correct its deficiency.

Again, you just seem to want to spend time whining over and over again that you didn&#39t like the effect of the law as it was written, and bad, bad SCOTUS for not just changing the law to meet your whims.

Obviously, you are never going to get over it (you probably still haven&#39t gotten over Bush v. Gore, I would bet), so, no more arguing with a tree for me today. I do have more important things to do than to try and educate a rock.

See you on another thread, I am sure.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:26:37 -0000

AR
Yes ace, I know the following is for minimum wage, however, as (d) below states,
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate.....

Pre-existing contracts are exempted where?"

Title 29 Capt 8 § 206

(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:28:13 -0000

Certainly.

21 USC Sec. 841, paragraph a, articles 1 and 2:

(a) Unlawful acts
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally -

(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or

(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.

The rest of the subchapter deals with the allowable exceptions, and prior contracts is not one of them.

Go do your own research now:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:06:25 -0000

In your spare time, let me know where in the US Code the contract dissolution passage you refer to is located. You&#39re the expert, show me.

And when you find it, explain to me how this affects drug contracts, but not illegal employment contracts.

Thanks barrister

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:20:21 -0000

That is 'Upper Class Twit of the Year', to you!

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:09:25 -0000

http://www4.law.cornell.edu...

please show me how " Every employer shall pay to each of his employees" does not constitute citable evidence that (d) discrimination based on sex, does not apply to lilly. Just sayin' that sexual bias does not only refer to minimum wage workers here as how could you pay a female worker less if your men get paid the minimum; thus, it fits every worker.

May not be good lawyering, but its logically consistant.

twit

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:52:17 -0000

Nope - because the laws on the distribution of controlled substances specifically invalidate any pre-existing contracts once a substance is added to the list. Again, well written law (much of which I vehemently disagree with, BTW. I just don&#39t pretend the part that I don;t like don&#39t exist, as you seem inclined to do o n laws you don&#39t care for)

SCOTUS was quite clear it was the language of the law itself that forced their hand, not some hatred of women as you seem to want to fantasize about, and given your apparent memory problems, I will again point out that Congress then indeed changed the law to correct their own poor wording.

I am sorry you feel compelled to throw bogus strawman after bogus strawman at me, especially given i have the language of the SCOTUS ruling to back me up, but the plain fact is it was a poorly written law, SCOTUS made that abundantly clear, and then it got corrected.

I really fail to see how that is so evil. The court did its job, Congress theirs. The only objection seems to come from those that insist SCOTUS should act as an extension of Congress.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:38:25 -0000

Wrong again AR, nice try though.

Hypothetical

I contract with you in 1960 to sell you LSD on a monthly basis. At the time of the contract&#39s start, LSD is a legal drug. I continue to sell you the drug to feed your monthly habit until the present day. I take it by your logic that because it was a legal act at the beginning of the contracting period, no unlawful act is committed after the drug is outlawed.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:19:53 -0000

HemmD -

Ah, but you conveniently ignore the that the past act occurred prior to the enactment of the law, which had been written with no grandfather clause (the fatal flaw), and continuing results of a prior action do not count, in legal terms, and new incidents. Had they again, after the enactment of the law, performed another separate, distinct act of pay discrimination, that certainly WOULD have counted.

So, your example of the insurance, as it always seems to be for Leftists that do not get their way in court, is simply not a relevant example. It is just another lying misstatement of the initial conditions and facts in evidence so you can feel superior in your flawed reasoning.

Again, my position is the difference between rulings based on the law vs. the &#39what makes your tummy feel yummy&#39 theory of jurisprudence. I prefer the former. If it leads to unacceptable consequences, change the law. As was done. As I said.

As always, with love and respect, AR

:)

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:23:57 -0000

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!

You are mixing different wage laws, which never really works. But would you at least care to share a link, as I did?

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:17:23 -0000

If I was looking for an argument, then I wouldn't have come to the abuse dept.

The (d) section I last sent you makes no attempt to over write previous contracts, yet you can't pay someone less than minimum wage after its passage. No discrimination now means every subsequent paycheck.

That's not what SCOTUS ruled.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:11:18 -0000

And I thought we had degenerated back into one of our Monty Python Argument Clinic moments!

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:08:13 -0000

AR

I beg to differ with your take. The decision hinged upon the idea that past discrimination is inadmissible if there was no "present" act within the allotted time period. In quoting a past case,

"We agreed with Evans that the airline’s “seniority sys-tem [did] indeed have a continuing impact on her pay and fringe benefits,” id., at 558, but we noted that “the critical question [was] whether any present violation exist[ed].” Ibid. (emphasis in original). We concluded that the continuing effects of the precharging period discrimination did not make out a present violation."

So, past discrimination, in Lilly&#39s case unequal pay, could not be counted toward a present act of discrimination even though every paycheck underscored that unequal pay.

So, if I sell you a fraudulent insurance policy where you make monthly payments, you can&#39t be charged for fraud because the origination of that policy falls outside the statue of limitations? Cool, I&#39ve got some shoreline real estate I&#39d like to sell you.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:48:20 -0000

Drop your negative baggage. And I'm real sorry you feel so sure you know what I think.

I thought I was having a conversation, obviously, not.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:43:44 -0000

Hmmm. I guess you simply don't know they law as well as you pretend, HemmD. Again, laws cannot be made retroactive without specific call out. The drug laws do so, as I pointed out; this law did not. And it was changed to correct its deficiency.

Again, you just seem to want to spend time whining over and over again that you didn't like the effect of the law as it was written, and bad, bad SCOTUS for not just changing the law to meet your whims.

Obviously, you are never going to get over it (you probably still haven't gotten over Bush v. Gore, I would bet), so, no more arguing with a tree for me today. I do have more important things to do than to try and educate a rock.

See you on another thread, I am sure.

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:26:37 -0000

AR
Yes ace, I know the following is for minimum wage, however, as (d) below states,
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate.....

Pre-existing contracts are exempted where?"

Title 29 Capt 8 § 206

(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:28:13 -0000

Certainly.

21 USC Sec. 841, paragraph a, articles 1 and 2:

(a) Unlawful acts
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally -

(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or

(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.

The rest of the subchapter deals with the penalties and allowable exceptions, and prior contracts is not one of the allowed exceptions.

Go do your own research now:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pu...

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

HemmD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:06:25 -0000

In your spare time, let me know where in the US Code the contract dissolution passage you refer to is located. You're the expert, show me.

And when you find it, explain to me how this affects drug contracts, but not illegal employment contracts.

Thanks barrister

Re: New Haven Firefighters: The Divide Remains

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:17 -0000

SCOTUS was quite clear it was the language of the law itself that forced their hand, not some hatred of women as you seem to want to fantasize about, and given your apparent memory problems, I will again point out that Congress then indeed changed the law to correct their own poor wording.

I am sorry you feel compelled to throw bogus strawman after bogus strawman at me, especially given i have the language of the SCOTUS ruling to back me up, but the plain fact is it was a poorly written law, SCOTUS made that abundantly clear, and then it got corrected.

I really fail to see how that is so evil. The court did its job, Congress theirs. The only objection seems to come from those that insist SCOTUS should act as an extension of Congress.