Actually he put it on. Facilitated by lawsuits against news agencies that they settle instead of fight. They will be deferential going forward. News has been broken. Those cowed will be producing mostly pr0-d0n0ld propaganda going forward. You must be so happy.
I stand with the workers and against the "government scabbers" you support.
Depending on who you are referring to. I'm unsure and so is Copilot...
Copilot: It sounds like the commenter was framing the issue as a clear-cut conflict, but "government scabbers" seems to be an unusual or unclear term. Traditionally, a "scab" refers to someone who crosses a picket line to work during a strike, undermining the efforts of striking workers. In this context, the commenter might be using "government scabbers" metaphorically, perhaps accusing certain government officials or institutions of siding with corporations against workers’ rights. [end]
People are being fired. They aren't bringing in "scabbers" to fill in for them. Therefore you must be referring to "government officials or institutions of siding with corporations against workers’ rights".
I oppose this while you support it. As "fascism" is a good term in your vernacular, to be a "scabber" must also be a positive to you.
Minus: The Government is Unionized Scabbers... a "union" or "trust" of scabs who hate the workers and work against real workers rights (like Trust Busting).
WTF??
Minus: Elon is "busting" their trusts! :)
WTF??
The term "scab" is a derogatory term for non-union workers who cross picket lines during a strike or refuse to join a union. It's used to describe people who undermine the striking workers' bargaining power.
Definition provided due to you clearly not knowing what the term "scab" means.
Definition provided due to you clearly not knowing what the term "scab" means.
If government workers oppose/work against the rights of workers in the private sector (your claim?) isn't that a policy issue and indicate the people at the top need different direction or to be replaced? That's not what Musk is doing with his mass firings.
Copilot: ...framing government workers as "scabs" could imply that their roles are seen as competing with or undermining private-sector jobs. If the commenter is advocating for privatization, they might believe that reducing the size of government and shifting responsibilities to private companies would create more opportunities in the private sector and align with their vision of "real workers' rights".
However, this perspective overlooks the essential services government workers provide, often in areas where the private sector may not be as effective or equitable, such as public safety, education, and infrastructure. Privatization can sometimes lead to cost-cutting measures that prioritize profit over quality or accessibility, which could harm the very workers and communities the commenter claims to support.
It’s an interesting argument, but it simplifies a complex issue. Balancing public and private roles in the economy requires careful consideration of efficiency, equity, and the long-term impact on workers and society. [end]
If that accurately summarizes your argument, then I'm on the side of "the government scabbers". Given that I'm opposed to the privatization of essential services provided by the government. Providing these services is why government exists.
Government workers are unionized members of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC), who do naught but kowtow to the corporate oligarchy for a "surplus salary" found on a GS table. They represent the boot-on-the-neck of your typical private industry worker.
What your argument FOR public sector worker overlooks is what is know as "institutional capture" and it also ascribes to the "myth of the good administrators" of the commons.
EROSION OF THE MYTH OF ADMINISTRATORS OF THE COMMONS
"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one writer postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop regulatory policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and demanding that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of a regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational distribution of the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase is followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes into operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great majority of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. Once this political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and specifically interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring sufficient pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency to the protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even staffing of the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency administrators from the ranks of the regulated."
In a recent NBC survey of registered voters in America that gaugedit clearly shows that Socialism in America is much greater that we had first thought. For example, that a look at the “Socialist” Blogs right here in America. They may call the,selves Progressives, but reading them carefully you would see that deep down these LEFTY LUNATICS are clearly of the Socialist persuasion. The Hate for our President will tell you that right off the bat. Are these people NUTS? Clearly they are, and Clearly they don’t belong here
If "institutional capture" is your concern, why do you wish for complete capture via privatization? Seems to me that your desire is that citizens pay more for the services they need -- and for those who cannot pay to go without. But our corporate overlords will enjoy greater profit. Is that your main concern? That poorer people should suffer so the wealthy can prosper more?
lol! I was a government contractor for 30 years. They don't hire Contractors because they're MORE expensive, but because they're CHEAPER.
Besides Contractors MUST follow the rules. Civil Servants, not so much. They 'exempt' themselves from 'best practices'.
And the Civil Servant leaders rotate in-and-out of corporate roles all the time. To think that they're "different" than private Contractors is to buy into the "public service" mythology.
Minus: lol! I was a government contractor for 30 years. They don't hire Contractors because they're MORE expensive, but because they're CHEAPER.
Sure. Doing something not-for-profit is more expensive than farming it out for-profit. According to rightturd "logic".
Copilot: The idea that contractors are "cheaper" can be debated. While contractors might save the government money in certain areas -- like avoiding long-term costs for pensions, benefits, or training -- they also include profit margins in their pricing. This means that, in some cases, contractors could end up being more expensive than in-house government operations.
The person you mentioned may have firsthand experience, but that doesn’t necessarily make their perspective universally true. The cost-effectiveness of contractors often depends on the specific context, like the type of work, duration of the contract, and the efficiency of the government agency involved.
It’s a nuanced issue, and your point about the not-for-profit nature of government work is an important one. [end]
Minus: Besides Contractors MUST follow the rules. Civil Servants, not so much. They 'exempt' themselves from 'best practices'.
No.
Copilot: The comment likely stems from a perception of differing accountability structures between contractors and civil servants. Contractors are bound by the terms of their contracts, which often include strict compliance with specific rules and deliverables. If they fail to meet these terms, they risk penalties, losing the contract, or damaging their reputation. This can create the impression that contractors are more tightly regulated.
Civil servants, on the other hand, operate within a broader framework of government policies and regulations. While they are subject to oversight and accountability measures, the enforcement of "best practices" can vary depending on the agency, leadership, and resources available. This variability might lead some to believe that civil servants have more leeway in adhering to certain standards.
However, it's important to note that both groups are held to professional and ethical standards, albeit through different mechanisms. The idea that civil servants "exempt themselves" from best practices is likely an oversimplification or a reflection of frustration with perceived inefficiencies in government operations. [end]
If this is a problem, the solution would be to change the rules that government workers follow, not outsourcing a job to get workers to adhere to best practices.
Copilot: ...holding civil servants accountable is a practical and effective solution. Clear performance metrics, transparency, and consistent oversight could go a long way in ensuring civil servants achieve desired outcomes without needing to rely heavily on private sector contractors. [end]
Minus: ...read Plato's Hipparchus to learn the definition of "for profit"...
Copilot: Plato's Hipparchus is a dialogue where Socrates asks questions about what it means to "love gain". In a way, this is connected to the idea of doing something "for profit". They discuss whether wanting to gain or profit from something is always good or if it's bad depending on the situation.
It's less about giving a strict definition of "for profit" and more about asking deeper questions -- like whether we should always want profit or whether some things are more valuable than money or gain. It’s philosophy’s way of exploring the idea behind profit, rather than just defining it outright.
Me: That seems to be an argument against privatizing the functions of government. Yet the blog commenter who brought it up presented it as an argument that privatizing is desirable.
Copilot: That's an interesting disconnect. Plato’s Hipparchus raises questions about whether the pursuit of profit aligns with broader societal or ethical values, which can indeed sound like an argument against privatizing government functions -- where profit motives might conflict with public good. If the commenter is using it as an argument for privatization, they may be emphasizing something different, like efficiency or competition.
It's possible they interpreted the dialogue in a way that highlights the benefits of pursuing gain in a structured and thoughtful way, seeing it as an endorsement of productive competition. Alternatively, they might be selectively referencing the work to support their own perspective, even if it doesn’t fully align with the original text's intentions. [end]
Alexander Soros got all his USAID contracts cancelled by DOGE. :)
And in Plato's Hipparchus, for there to be a "profit", both sides in a transaction must "gain". If you buy a sandwich and it makes you sick, it isn't "profitable". And as DOGE is proving, if you buy a government service and it throws the money away on waste, fraud, and abuse, the service isn't "profitable" either. In fact, like the aforementioned sandwich, it makes you "sick".
All business should be "profitable", especially "PUBLIC" services. Isn't that their mission, furthering the PUBLIC GOOD?
Why is Plato's Hipparchus particularly relevant? In ancient Athens, Hipparchus (the man) was a TYRANT who's MURDER eventually led to democracy being instituted in Athens and the tyranny overthrown.
Minus: ...if you buy a government service and it throws the money away on waste, fraud, and abuse, the service isn't "profitable" either. In fact, like the aforementioned sandwich, it makes you "sick".
Much of the "waste, fraud, and abuse" being found by doge is imaginary. Like tRump's claim (also repeated by el0n) that $8 million was spent on "transgender mice". When the mice are transgenic, not transgender.
Transgenic mice are genetically modified mice whose DNA has been altered to include genes from another species. This modification is done through genetic engineering techniques, allowing researchers to study specific genes and their effects on diseases, development, or biological processes.
That claim (touted by tRump in his recent speech) is definitely a rotten sandwich that is making people sick. Sick over the fact that a moron is leading the country.
Minus: lol! [link to white house page that says "Yes, Biden Spent Millions on Transgender Animal Experiments"].
That's BS.
Copilot: It seems like there’s a mix of misunderstanding and political framing at play here. Donald Trump’s reference to “transgender mice” appears to be a mischaracterization of research involving transgenic mice -- genetically modified mice used in biomedical studies. These studies often explore the effects of hormones or other treatments, sometimes in contexts related to gender-affirming care, but they’re not about making mice “transgender” in the way Trump described.
The White House website under Trump’s administration doubled down on this claim, framing it as an example of wasteful spending under Biden. However, the studies cited involve legitimate scientific research, such as understanding hormone effects on health conditions like asthma or breast cancer. The language used in the press release seems designed to provoke controversy rather than accurately describe the research. [end]
The mice are NOT transgender. They are transgenic (have human genes), in order to do research using them that is applicable to humans. I would laugh, except this moronity is tragic, not funny.
You think that mice were given sex change operations? How many mice were transitioned from male to female versus how many mice were transitioned from female to male? If you can give me those verifiable stats, then I might have to concede you (and d0n0ld) are right.
Actually he put it on. Facilitated by lawsuits against news agencies that they settle instead of fight. They will be deferential going forward. News has been broken. Those cowed will be producing mostly pr0-d0n0ld propaganda going forward. You must be so happy.
ReplyDeleteWhich side are you on, Dervy? The workers or the government scabbers?
DeleteI stand with the workers and against the "government scabbers" you support.
ReplyDeleteDepending on who you are referring to. I'm unsure and so is Copilot...
Copilot: It sounds like the commenter was framing the issue as a clear-cut conflict, but "government scabbers" seems to be an unusual or unclear term. Traditionally, a "scab" refers to someone who crosses a picket line to work during a strike, undermining the efforts of striking workers. In this context, the commenter might be using "government scabbers" metaphorically, perhaps accusing certain government officials or institutions of siding with corporations against workers’ rights. [end]
People are being fired. They aren't bringing in "scabbers" to fill in for them. Therefore you must be referring to "government officials or institutions of siding with corporations against workers’ rights".
I oppose this while you support it. As "fascism" is a good term in your vernacular, to be a "scabber" must also be a positive to you.
The Government is Unionized Scabbers... a "union" or "trust" of scabs who hate the workers and work against real workers rights (like Trust Busting).
DeleteElon is "busting" their trusts! :)
DeleteMinus: The Government is Unionized Scabbers... a "union" or "trust" of scabs who hate the workers and work against real workers rights (like Trust Busting).
DeleteWTF??
Minus: Elon is "busting" their trusts! :)
WTF??
The term "scab" is a derogatory term for non-union workers who cross picket lines during a strike or refuse to join a union. It's used to describe people who undermine the striking workers' bargaining power.
Definition provided due to you clearly not knowing what the term "scab" means.
Definition provided due to you clearly not knowing what the term "scab" means.
"Unionized Scabbers" is an oxymoron.
You're simply denying the yin in the yang...
DeleteIf government workers oppose/work against the rights of workers in the private sector (your claim?) isn't that a policy issue and indicate the people at the top need different direction or to be replaced? That's not what Musk is doing with his mass firings.
DeleteCopilot: ...framing government workers as "scabs" could imply that their roles are seen as competing with or undermining private-sector jobs. If the commenter is advocating for privatization, they might believe that reducing the size of government and shifting responsibilities to private companies would create more opportunities in the private sector and align with their vision of "real workers' rights".
DeleteHowever, this perspective overlooks the essential services government workers provide, often in areas where the private sector may not be as effective or equitable, such as public safety, education, and infrastructure. Privatization can sometimes lead to cost-cutting measures that prioritize profit over quality or accessibility, which could harm the very workers and communities the commenter claims to support.
It’s an interesting argument, but it simplifies a complex issue. Balancing public and private roles in the economy requires careful consideration of efficiency, equity, and the long-term impact on workers and society. [end]
If that accurately summarizes your argument, then I'm on the side of "the government scabbers". Given that I'm opposed to the privatization of essential services provided by the government. Providing these services is why government exists.
Government workers are unionized members of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC), who do naught but kowtow to the corporate oligarchy for a "surplus salary" found on a GS table. They represent the boot-on-the-neck of your typical private industry worker.
DeleteWhat your argument FOR public sector worker overlooks is what is know as "institutional capture" and it also ascribes to the "myth of the good administrators" of the commons.
DeleteEROSION OF THE MYTH OF ADMINISTRATORS OF THE COMMONS
"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one writer postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop regulatory policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and demanding that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of a regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational distribution of the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase is followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes into operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great majority of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. Once this political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and specifically interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring sufficient pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency to the protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even staffing of the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency administrators from the ranks of the regulated."
Video at the top of your post = maga delusions.
ReplyDelete...yeah, that why the Democrats are so popular now and are busy "choosing their fighters".... bWAH!
DeleteI wonder which is Pikachu....
WTF?? Your brain tumor must be growing. Given all these replies that make no sense.
DeleteAnd your brain shrinks 3 sizes every time you open your mouth.
DeleteMethinks Derpwood's peebrain shriveleth 4 sizes each time Derpwood farts and burps.
DeleteIn a recent NBC survey of registered voters in America that gaugedit clearly shows that Socialism in America is much greater that we had first thought.
ReplyDeleteFor example, that a look at the “Socialist” Blogs right here in America. They may call the,selves Progressives, but reading them carefully you would see that deep down these LEFTY LUNATICS are clearly of the Socialist persuasion. The Hate for our President will tell you that right off the bat. Are these people NUTS? Clearly they are, and Clearly they don’t belong here
If "institutional capture" is your concern, why do you wish for complete capture via privatization? Seems to me that your desire is that citizens pay more for the services they need -- and for those who cannot pay to go without. But our corporate overlords will enjoy greater profit. Is that your main concern? That poorer people should suffer so the wealthy can prosper more?
ReplyDeleteMethinketh Derpy's peebrain shranketh 5 sizes with that Bigly stinky fart he ripped.
Deletelol! I was a government contractor for 30 years. They don't hire Contractors because they're MORE expensive, but because they're CHEAPER.
DeleteBesides Contractors MUST follow the rules. Civil Servants, not so much. They 'exempt' themselves from 'best practices'.
And the Civil Servant leaders rotate in-and-out of corporate roles all the time. To think that they're "different" than private Contractors is to buy into the
"public service" mythology.
Minus: lol! I was a government contractor for 30 years. They don't hire Contractors because they're MORE expensive, but because they're CHEAPER.
ReplyDeleteSure. Doing something not-for-profit is more expensive than farming it out for-profit. According to rightturd "logic".
Copilot: The idea that contractors are "cheaper" can be debated. While contractors might save the government money in certain areas -- like avoiding long-term costs for pensions, benefits, or training -- they also include profit margins in their pricing. This means that, in some cases, contractors could end up being more expensive than in-house government operations.
The person you mentioned may have firsthand experience, but that doesn’t necessarily make their perspective universally true. The cost-effectiveness of contractors often depends on the specific context, like the type of work, duration of the contract, and the efficiency of the government agency involved.
It’s a nuanced issue, and your point about the not-for-profit nature of government work is an important one. [end]
Minus: Besides Contractors MUST follow the rules. Civil Servants, not so much. They 'exempt' themselves from 'best practices'.
No.
Copilot: The comment likely stems from a perception of differing accountability structures between contractors and civil servants. Contractors are bound by the terms of their contracts, which often include strict compliance with specific rules and deliverables. If they fail to meet these terms, they risk penalties, losing the contract, or damaging their reputation. This can create the impression that contractors are more tightly regulated.
Civil servants, on the other hand, operate within a broader framework of government policies and regulations. While they are subject to oversight and accountability measures, the enforcement of "best practices" can vary depending on the agency, leadership, and resources available. This variability might lead some to believe that civil servants have more leeway in adhering to certain standards.
However, it's important to note that both groups are held to professional and ethical standards, albeit through different mechanisms. The idea that civil servants "exempt themselves" from best practices is likely an oversimplification or a reflection of frustration with perceived inefficiencies in government operations. [end]
If this is a problem, the solution would be to change the rules that government workers follow, not outsourcing a job to get workers to adhere to best practices.
Copilot: ...holding civil servants accountable is a practical and effective solution. Clear performance metrics, transparency, and consistent oversight could go a long way in ensuring civil servants achieve desired outcomes without needing to rely heavily on private sector contractors. [end]
Oversight? Like DOGE? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Deletebtw - Tell Copilot to read Plato's Hipparchus to learn the definition of "for profit".
doge = propaganda, not "oversight".
DeleteYou'd approve if the next president was a Democrat and he decided to keep doge, but appoint Alexander Soros to head it?
Minus: ...read Plato's Hipparchus to learn the definition of "for profit"...
DeleteCopilot: Plato's Hipparchus is a dialogue where Socrates asks questions about what it means to "love gain". In a way, this is connected to the idea of doing something "for profit". They discuss whether wanting to gain or profit from something is always good or if it's bad depending on the situation.
It's less about giving a strict definition of "for profit" and more about asking deeper questions -- like whether we should always want profit or whether some things are more valuable than money or gain. It’s philosophy’s way of exploring the idea behind profit, rather than just defining it outright.
Me: That seems to be an argument against privatizing the functions of government. Yet the blog commenter who brought it up presented it as an argument that privatizing is desirable.
Copilot: That's an interesting disconnect. Plato’s Hipparchus raises questions about whether the pursuit of profit aligns with broader societal or ethical values, which can indeed sound like an argument against privatizing government functions -- where profit motives might conflict with public good. If the commenter is using it as an argument for privatization, they may be emphasizing something different, like efficiency or competition.
It's possible they interpreted the dialogue in a way that highlights the benefits of pursuing gain in a structured and thoughtful way, seeing it as an endorsement of productive competition. Alternatively, they might be selectively referencing the work to support their own perspective, even if it doesn’t fully align with the original text's intentions. [end]
Alexander Soros got all his USAID contracts cancelled by DOGE. :)
DeleteAnd in Plato's Hipparchus, for there to be a "profit", both sides in a transaction must "gain". If you buy a sandwich and it makes you sick, it isn't "profitable". And as DOGE is proving, if you buy a government service and it throws the money away on waste, fraud, and abuse, the service isn't "profitable" either. In fact, like the aforementioned sandwich, it makes you "sick".
All business should be "profitable", especially "PUBLIC" services. Isn't that their mission, furthering the PUBLIC GOOD?
Profiting the government civil servant AND the public... not just the former doing things to HARM the public?
DeleteWhy is Plato's Hipparchus particularly relevant? In ancient Athens, Hipparchus (the man) was a TYRANT who's MURDER eventually led to democracy being instituted in Athens and the tyranny overthrown.
DeleteOn a hermes outside Athens: “a monument to Hipparchus: do not deceive a friend. "
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMinus: ...if you buy a government service and it throws the money away on waste, fraud, and abuse, the service isn't "profitable" either. In fact, like the aforementioned sandwich, it makes you "sick".
ReplyDeleteMuch of the "waste, fraud, and abuse" being found by doge is imaginary. Like tRump's claim (also repeated by el0n) that $8 million was spent on "transgender mice". When the mice are transgenic, not transgender.
Transgenic mice are genetically modified mice whose DNA has been altered to include genes from another species. This modification is done through genetic engineering techniques, allowing researchers to study specific genes and their effects on diseases, development, or biological processes.
That claim (touted by tRump in his recent speech) is definitely a rotten sandwich that is making people sick. Sick over the fact that a moron is leading the country.
lol!
DeleteMinus: lol! [link to white house page that says "Yes, Biden Spent Millions on Transgender Animal Experiments"].
ReplyDeleteThat's BS.
Copilot: It seems like there’s a mix of misunderstanding and political framing at play here. Donald Trump’s reference to “transgender mice” appears to be a mischaracterization of research involving transgenic mice -- genetically modified mice used in biomedical studies. These studies often explore the effects of hormones or other treatments, sometimes in contexts related to gender-affirming care, but they’re not about making mice “transgender” in the way Trump described.
The White House website under Trump’s administration doubled down on this claim, framing it as an example of wasteful spending under Biden. However, the studies cited involve legitimate scientific research, such as understanding hormone effects on health conditions like asthma or breast cancer. The language used in the press release seems designed to provoke controversy rather than accurately describe the research. [end]
The mice are NOT transgender. They are transgenic (have human genes), in order to do research using them that is applicable to humans. I would laugh, except this moronity is tragic, not funny.
You think that mice were given sex change operations? How many mice were transitioned from male to female versus how many mice were transitioned from female to male? If you can give me those verifiable stats, then I might have to concede you (and d0n0ld) are right.
ReplyDelete