Andrew Shirvell: Freakiest Conservative of All Time

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



King Kandy
Wow... just... wow. Just... the vid speaks for itself.

PwObjKZg9Jw

inimalist
"you're a grown adult"

interview should have ended there

Anderson Cooper has his moments smile

The Nuul
So wait, its political but its not because hes doing this out of his office and on his own time. He cant have it both ways.

King Kandy
Hearing Cochs try to justify why he didn't fire him is even stranger.

inimalist
has cochs done any interviews?

Robtard
Just a matter of time before Shirvell is caught on his knees in a public restroom with a mouth full of cock. We'll have lolz then.

inimalist
hey, he said he has nothing against homosexuals

just the racist, elitist and nazi agenda of this one particular person who in no way impacts his life

its not that hard of a distinction to make

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
has cochs done any interviews?

First of all, it's apparently spelled Cox, and we both had it wrong.

Secondly, yes:

V9eLpY1UHCc

RocasAtoll
Cox is running for governor here. He just ****ed himself. Or, knowing how many rednecks are in Michigan, it will increase his chance.

inimalist
going by Cox own opinions then, engaging in civil discourse or being kind to people are not part expected of civil employees... one has to literally be harassing, in terms of tort harassment, before they are "unbecoming" of being a civil servant.

BackFire
Originally posted by Robtard
Just a matter of time before Shirvell is caught on his knees in a public restroom with a mouth full of cock. We'll have lolz then.

I started cracking up as soon as soon as Shirvell spoke, he sounds like a little girl.

Also when AC said "you seemed obsessed with this young gay man", good times.

Nemesis X
If he was concerned about the spreading of AIDS, this would be more understandable but because he's going all "He's a male craver, which means that he must be racist and elitist and so he must be stopped!", he's viewed as a paranoid harasser.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Nemesis X
If he was concerned about the spreading of AIDS, this would be more understandable but because he's going all "He's a male craver, which means that he must be racist and elitist and so he must be stopped!", he's viewed as a paranoid harasser.
Yes, because if he believed that gays spreading AIDS made them Satan's incarnation on earth, and harassed one particular gay person because of it, people would find it understandable... Somehow I don't think you really thought that statement out.

Robtard
^
WTF?

Nemesis X
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, because if he believed that gays spreading AIDS made them Satan's incarnation on earth, and harassed one particular gay person because of it, people would find it understandable... Somehow I don't think you really thought that statement out.

Did not hear him say gays were Satan's incarnations on earth and since we're talking religious stuff here, what are the chances that AIDS are God's way of saying "don't bite that forbidden fruit"? I'm curious.

Also, no, I don't really think that I thought that statement through.

inimalist
Originally posted by Nemesis X
what are the chances that AIDS are God's way of saying "don't bite that forbidden fruit"? I'm curious.

how many children do you think are born, each year, with HIV?

Robtard
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Did not hear him say gays were Satan's incarnations on earth and since we're talking religious stuff here, what are the chances that AIDS are God's way of saying "don't bite that forbidden fruit"? I'm curious.


Considering HIV infects more heterosexuals than homosexuals and Africa is plagued by it, I'd say God is saying "Don't have straight sex and I hate *******", if we're going that route.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering HIV infects more heterosexuals than homosexuals and Africa is plagued by it, I'd say God is saying "Don't have straight sex and I hate *******", if we're goping that route.

Have you considered the fact that maybe most Africans are just homosexuals? ahah

King Kandy
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Did not hear him say gays were Satan's incarnations on earth
Well technically, it wasn't all gays, but rather just this one kid who's Satan's incarnation. But if you didn't hear that part, my only conclusion can be you didn't really watch the video.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
and since we're talking religious stuff here, what are the chances that AIDS are God's way of saying "don't bite that forbidden fruit"?
0%.

Robtard
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Have you considered the fact that maybe most Africans are just homosexuals? ahah

As in "down-low niggas"? This is what you're telling me?

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by Robtard
As in "down-low niggas"? This is what you're telling me? Africans aren't niggas, African-American's are niggas. African's are just... Africans. Or *******.

A lesson in modern Ebonics for you.

Symmetric Chaos
So, uh, he seems autistic.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by King Kandy
Well technically, it wasn't all gays, but rather just this one kid who's Satan's incarnation. But if you didn't hear that part, my only conclusion can be you didn't really watch the video.

I did watch it. The only reason is either that I didn't listen to it in the last five minutes or because I don't like listening to the exaggeration coming from Shirvell's mouth.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Nemesis X
I did watch it. The only reason is either that I didn't listen to it in the last five minutes or because I don't like listening to the exaggeration coming from Shirvell's mouth.
So basically, you watched only half of the video, and paid no attention to the content of that half.

jaden101
I sometimes despair at the politicians we have in the UK and their stupid and ignorant views and then I see politicians from America and feel all better again.

What's more depressing though is the fact that millions of people will listen to and agree with him.

Kinasin
This guy is a total freak and needs to be fired.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hearing Cochs try to justify why he didn't fire him is even stranger.


Originally posted by King Kandy
First of all, it's apparently spelled Cox, and we both had it wrong.

Secondly, yes:

V9eLpY1UHCc

The Attorney General is 100% right, morally and ethically. Other than that, yeah, we agree that the Andrew fella is scum. In fact, his boss seems like a person I'd work for.


BTW, federal employees and contractors are not allowed to "campaign" against incumbents but they can do as much as they want about elections...within legality. It seems like I'm missing an element to that rule...


Other than Robtard, does anyone think that the Andrew fella is almost as gay as Richard Simmons?


Originally posted by Kinasin
This guy is a total freak and needs to be fired.

True on the first part but wrong on the second part. Firing him would be one of the worst/stupidest things that could be done.

King Kandy
Firing him would be the best thing to do, like mentioned he undermines the confidence of the office and therefor firing him is within their ability.

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
The Attorney General is 100% right, morally and ethically. Other than that, yeah, we agree that the Andrew fella is scum. In fact, his boss seems like a person I'd work for.


BTW, federal employees and contractors are not allowed to "campaign" against incumbents but they can do as much as they want about elections...within legality. It seems like I'm missing an element to that rule...


Other than Robtard, does anyone think that the Andrew fella is almost as gay as Richard Simmons?




True on the first part but wrong on the second part. Firing him would be one of the worst/stupidest things that could be done.

His voice certainly sounds like that of a fairy.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BackFire
His voice certainly sounds like that of a fairy.

A homosexual has a certain sound to their voice? eek! Are you homophobic? wink

BackFire
No I mean an actual fairy. His voice sounds dainty and magical, like he swallowed a bunch of pixie dust.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Firing him would be the best thing to do, like mentioned he undermines the confidence of the office and therefor firing him is within their ability.

I think the opposite. How can the Attorney General uphold the constitution if he takes an action that goes directly against it for a very petty and counterproductive reason?


So you wanna make a martyr of the ***hole and help his "outside of work only" activities?


I'm all for letting anyone do anything, outside of work, with their personal resources, as long as it is legal and doesn't directly affect me.

Meaning, a cigarette smoker smoking on the side-walk pisses me off when I walk by but a douche-bag, closet super-gay, whining about a gay student body president doesn't bother me and nor should it.

Originally posted by BackFire
No I mean an actual fairy. His voice sounds dainty and magical, like he swallowed a bunch of pixie dust.

lol!

Nice Bon Jovi recovery.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BackFire
No I mean an actual fairy. His voice sounds dainty and magical, like he swallowed a bunch of pixie dust.

laughing out loud That was not expected.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the opposite. How can the Attorney General uphold the constitution if he takes an action that goes directly against it for a very petty and counterproductive reason?


So you wanna make a martyr of the ***hole and help his "outside of work only" activities?


I'm all for letting anyone do anything, outside of work, with their personal resources, as long as it is legal and doesn't directly affect me.

Meaning, a cigarette smoker smoking on the side-walk pisses me off when I walk by but a douche-bag, closet super-gay, whining about a gay student body president doesn't bother me and nor should it.

1) libel?

2) harassment?

3) the fact that in a state that had cyberbully legislation his acts would be illegal?

4) despite all of this, the fact the man is a lawyer and public servant, and is expected to treat all people equally and fairly under the law, as part of his job and as a matter of ensuring the constitutional rights you are talking about. Regardless of identifiable infractions, it is not fair to homosexual people, that they would have to go through the process of sucessfully suing the state government (lawyers at that) after they have been denied legal due dillagence, the same way it is not fair to the public at large to have to go through being injured and the legal process to prevent someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The first ammendment is not absolute, and the videos provided have even cited court cases where the supreme court has upheld this. The best rebuttal was "it doesn't apply here".

5) America looks really bad

BackFire
People have been fired for a lot less than this. The guy is stalking and harassing a young gay man. If some lady can be fired for having sexy photos up on her myspace page, this guy can be fired for what he's been doing.

And him getting fired isn't going to martyr anything. People will see that he got fired and then learn what he'd been doing and just say 'oh, well a crazy person got fired, probably because crazy people aren't particularly competent or trust worthy. Good'.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the opposite. How can the Attorney General uphold the constitution if he takes an action that goes directly against it for a very petty and counterproductive reason?


So you wanna make a martyr of the ***hole and help his "outside of work only" activities?


I'm all for letting anyone do anything, outside of work, with their personal resources, as long as it is legal and doesn't directly affect me.

Meaning, a cigarette smoker smoking on the side-walk pisses me off when I walk by but a douche-bag, closet super-gay, whining about a gay student body president doesn't bother me and nor should it.

It does not go against the constitution; he is a state employ, and his employment is subject to views of the tax payers who employ him. That's a fundamental principle of republican democracies. It's also backed up by supreme court rulings on the issue.

It isn't an "outside of work only" activity though. He is a legal representative of the state, and how his activities cause said office to be viewed is VERY relevant to his job.

You aren't the attorney general, nor are you gay, nor do you live in Michigan. This issue does not affect you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the people and office that his employment depends on.

It wouldn't bother YOU, obviously. If I was a gay man in Michigan and knew my legal safety would depend on this office, and on obvious homophobes who help run it, I would be extremely bothered.

Ordo
Andrew Shirvell is clearly gay. This means either:

A. He has repressed himself so hard that his only release is to stalk young gay men.

B. He solicited this kid for sex, was rejected, and is now seeking revenge.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
1) libel?

2) harassment?

3) the fact that in a state that had cyberbully legislation his acts would be illegal?

4) despite all of this, the fact the man is a lawyer and public servant, and is expected to treat all people equally and fairly under the law, as part of his job and as a matter of ensuring the constitutional rights you are talking about. Regardless of identifiable infractions, it is not fair to homosexual people, that they would have to go through the process of sucessfully suing the state government (lawyers at that) after they have been denied legal due dillagence, the same way it is not fair to the public at large to have to go through being injured and the legal process to prevent someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The first ammendment is not absolute, and the videos provided have even cited court cases where the supreme court has upheld this. The best rebuttal was "it doesn't apply here".

5) America looks really bad



1. It's hard to prove libel when the accusations of satan's pawn are more abstract than tangible.

Judge: Andrew, prove that he is Satan's pawn.

Andrew: He's one of them homer sexualz AND he's head of a student body from a large university. EVIDENC!

Judge: uhh...ermmm...


2. He has not trespassed. Also, if a restraining order is filed, that's what? 200feet? All Andrew has to do is stay on public property 200 feet away and he can protest all day till his heart is content. First ammendment is "beautiful", isn't it? lol

3. He has justified has "cyber-bullying" as political speech. That would be an uphill battle to enforce the local cyber-bullying law as it would come into conflict with the first amendment most especially because it is claimed as political and religious speech. Also, it isn't cyber-bullying, at all, if he keeps his attacks to his own website. It becomes cyber-bullying when he posts messages on his facebook page and other locations that he is a community member. He knows what he's doing and he's a lawyer: he's seen the legal loopholes all the way through this thing.

4. All of what you said is void, on this point, specifically because he does everything outside of work and none of it at work. None of what he does has anything to do with work. As soon as he does something, while on the job, that is against the law, his boss as a legal reason to fire him. Until then, it is very dangerous to try and fire him for protesting.

5. Sort of. Legal reform is necessary in some areas. But this is one area that I wish to remain protected for quite some time. I'd rather Andrew get the ability to whine on his blog and protest on city streets than him to have those freedom to be removed.




Bonus:

6. Until there is a law put in place that states government employees cannot practice political and religious bigotry, outside of work, while employed, then he's not in trouble.



Originally posted by King Kandy
It does not go against the constitution; he is a state employ, and his employment is subject to views of the tax payers who employ him. That's a fundamental principle of republican democracies. It's also backed up by supreme court rulings on the issue.

It isn't an "outside of work only" activity though. He is a legal representative of the state, and how his activities cause said office to be viewed is VERY relevant to his job.

You aren't the attorney general, nor are you gay, nor do you live in Michigan. This issue does not affect you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the people and office that his employment depends on.

It wouldn't bother YOU, obviously. If I was a gay man in Michigan and knew my legal safety would depend on this office, and on obvious homophobes who help run it, I would be extremely bothered.

Woah woah woah woah.

You seem to have missed the point of the constitution. There are certain unalienable rights that no matter what the people vote on, they cannot be infringed upon by the constitution.

No they are not. Not at all. You see it that way specifically because you see his legal job as conflicting with his spare time. That's rather illegal: you can't tell your state employees to not exercise their rights to the first amendment SPECIFICALLY because they are government employees.

I agree. But, if for one moment, one of Andrew's employees say that Andrew's blog is affecting them, that's definitely wrong. The only exception would be a third party attacking Andrew's coworkers just because they work at the same place. Then that third party is doing something illegal and, as lawyers, they can definitely handle themselves. lol!

You'd be extremely bothered only if you were ignorant of the law. Think about it: you're a smart dude. I don't think you'd worry about jack shit. In fact, you'd probably be hoping he DID do something illegal/unethical so you could sue the shit out of him. big grin As soon as he did something while at work, related to his hate, you've got him. It could be as simple as the security logs showing that he accessed his hate blog while at work (which would be VERY easy to prove.)

But, Andrew seems like a "smart" hater: hating in the "right" way to avoid getting into deep shit.

Kinasin
Fire him.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
Woah woah woah woah.

You seem to have missed the point of the constitution. There are certain unalienable rights that no matter what the people vote on, they cannot be infringed upon by the constitution.

No they are not. Not at all. You see it that way specifically because you see his legal job as conflicting with his spare time. That's rather illegal: you can't tell your state employees to not exercise their rights to the first amendment SPECIFICALLY because they are government employees.

I agree. But, if for one moment, one of Andrew's employees say that Andrew's blog is affecting them, that's definitely wrong. The only exception would be a third party attacking Andrew's coworkers just because they work at the same place. Then that third party is doing something illegal and, as lawyers, they can definitely handle themselves. lol!

You'd be extremely bothered only if you were ignorant of the law. Think about it: you're a smart dude. I don't think you'd worry about jack shit. In fact, you'd probably be hoping he DID do something illegal/unethical so you could sue the shit out of him. big grin As soon as he did something while at work, related to his hate, you've got him. It could be as simple as the security logs showing that he accessed his hate blog while at work (which would be VERY easy to prove.)

But, Andrew seems like a "smart" hater: hating in the "right" way to avoid getting into deep shit.
He did get put into deep shit: he was put on "indefinite leave" recently, basically fired.

The justice department has a right to fire any employ that is lowering the effectiveness of that office, which is what Shirvell is doing; he's casting a negative image that removes people's ability to trust the justice department. As a government official, he is supposed to represent the people, and as such his work life is not the only thing his employment depends on.

Robtard
Originally posted by King Kandy
He did get put into deep shit: he was put on "indefinite leave" recently, basically fired.


Probably best for everyone, now he can spend all his time stalking that gay Chris kid.

Symmetric Chaos
I have a question. When did "gender neutral housing" become part of the radical homosexual agenda? In fact that doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't radical homosexual want to have dorms full of horny college age boys so they would be tempted to "experiment" with each other?

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wouldn't radical homosexual want to have dorms full of horny college age boys so they would be tempted to "experiment" with each other?

That already exist and happens; Shirvel wants to ensure that these "traditional" practices continue, as they did when he was in college.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I have a question. When did "gender neutral housing" become part of the radical homosexual agenda? In fact that doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't radical homosexual want to have dorms full of horny college age boys so they would be tempted to "experiment" with each other?
Seriously, because gender neutral would mean no issues with transexual and transgender students.

Bardock42
Originally posted by King Kandy
Wow... just... wow. Just... the vid speaks for itself.

PwObjKZg9Jw

Oh yeah, I saw that on The Young Turks....epically weird.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Seriously, because gender neutral would mean no issues with transexual and transgender students.

I see. Thanks.

Liberator
hardcore Christians, ahh, my favourite people to piss off.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. It's hard to prove libel when the accusations of satan's pawn are more abstract than tangible.

Judge: Andrew, prove that he is Satan's pawn.

Andrew: He's one of them homer sexualz AND he's head of a student body from a large university. EVIDENC!

Judge: uhh...ermmm...

have you watched the video? satan's pawn is one of the least offensive things this fellow is being called.

For instance, Nazi and Racist are, while not definitively defined, much easier cases to prove. As in, they are things that there is no evidence this man has any association with.

Further, "satan's pawn" has a damaging effect on his stance in the community especially among christians who might accidently find this blog. It becomes a defimation suit at that point, given the onus would be on Shirvel to prove his assertion, for which there would be no judicially reliable evidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. He has not trespassed. Also, if a restraining order is filed, that's what? 200feet? All Andrew has to do is stay on public property 200 feet away and he can protest all day till his heart is content. First ammendment is "beautiful", isn't it? lol

so, let me get this straight, you don't think someone's behaviour becomes unbecomming of holding a public office until they overtly violate the law on work time?

you do realize that nobody gives 2 shits that this moron is saying what he is, but rather that he is doing so while holding an office WHICH IS DIRECTLY RESPOSIBLE FOR THE EQUAL DISSEMINATION OF JUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. He has justified has "cyber-bullying" as political speech. That would be an uphill battle to enforce the local cyber-bullying law as it would come into conflict with the first amendment most especially because it is claimed as political and religious speech. Also, it isn't cyber-bullying, at all, if he keeps his attacks to his own website. It becomes cyber-bullying when he posts messages on his facebook page and other locations that he is a community member. He knows what he's doing and he's a lawyer: he's seen the legal loopholes all the way through this thing.

a) his own boss, the attorney general, said he was bullying this man using technology.

b) the interviews clearly state that he engages in more than just keeping a single blog. While the blog is the main thing, it is even admitted by Shirvel himself that he is posting slanderous things about this student on places other than his blog (he says message boards).

c) religious or political speech does not protect you from litigation. Else all criminal conspiracies would never get charged. Further, freedom of speech does not apply to crime.

d) you seem to, again, be (deliberatly?) confusing the idea that Shirvel commited illegal action with the fact that he is being accuesed of commiting action unbecomming of someone employed in the office of the autourney general.

e) he used loop-holes in legislation that doesn't exist?

Originally posted by dadudemon
4. All of what you said is void, on this point, specifically because he does everything outside of work and none of it at work. None of what he does has anything to do with work. As soon as he does something, while on the job, that is against the law, his boss as a legal reason to fire him. Until then, it is very dangerous to try and fire him for protesting.

a) the supreme court of your country thinks differently

b) this isn't a freedom of speech issue, nobody wants to deny him the right to be a biggot, they are just saying he can't hold an office representing the concept of equality before the law while behaving in a way that it is indisputable he will not provide that service to homosexuals

c) even if this were a freedom of speech issue, there is at least an argument that his freedom of speech does not superceed the right of homosexuals to get fair representation by the state

d) to break this down into barn yard analogies, you are arguing that the fox should indeed be allowed to gurad the chicken coop, because it is against the rights of the fox to refues him employment until after he has, predictably (in fact, with complete foreknowledge of how foxes behave in situations with chickens), murdered the chickens.

Originally posted by dadudemon
5. Sort of. Legal reform is necessary in some areas. But this is one area that I wish to remain protected for quite some time. I'd rather Andrew get the ability to whine on his blog and protest on city streets than him to have those freedom to be removed.

lol, so let me guess, you also wouldn't have a problem with political figures belonging to fascist organizations, or police officers belonging to racist organizations, or politicians also sitting on the boards of companies bidding for government contracts?

do you not believe in the concept of "conflict of interests"?

if you actually think that your constitution protects this guy, I couldn't think of a better reason why the constitution doesn't represent a good form of governance in the modern world. There is no risk to free speech from this issue at all. Nobody is saying private citizens shouldn't be allowed to do things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
6. Until there is a law put in place that states government employees cannot practice political and religious bigotry, outside of work, while employed, then he's not in trouble.

right, because the issue here is that people think Shirvell is a criminal, and not that he is too immature to hold an office and has an obvious prejudice that cannot help but influence his stance toward homosexuals as individuals. This last part being most important because it is his specific job description to provide equal legal representation to all people, regardless of sexual orientation, though I don't have a problem with state employees being reprimanded for behaviour they should have grown out of by third grade.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
have you watched the video? satan's pawn is one of the least offensive things this fellow is being called.

Yes and it seems the most offensive or at least intended to be the most offensive.

Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, Nazi and Racist are, while not definitively defined, much easier cases to prove. As in, they are things that there is no evidence this man has any association with.

Hyperbole for the sake of a "political" point (BTW, that's in the video), Nazi and racist in actions/ideals (that's how he justifies it), etc. Still, for Andrew, Pawn of Satan is probably the most offensive and something he genuinely means. Do you think Peach cries herself to sleep every time someone calls her a Nazi for closing a thread that was inappropriately created? His nazi comments are very non-sequitor to begin with. They are lame as hell. In fact, I have no idea where this ultra-conservative idea came from that homsexuals are racist nazis...but it is definitely not the first time I've heard it (I live in Oklahoma... no expression )

Originally posted by inimalist
Further, "satan's pawn" has a damaging effect on his stance in the community especially among christians who might accidently find this blog. It becomes a defimation suit at that point, given the onus would be on Shirvel to prove his assertion, for which there would be no judicially reliable evidence.

If you're familiar with the ultra-conservative types, even if a person does not outwardly acknowledge or even try to do the work of Satan, that doesn't mean that aren't doing the work of Satan to the conservatard.

And, if there are any ultra-conservative Christians out there that come across his blog, they'd agree with Andrew quite swiftly. Even if they didn't run across the blog and heard of the fella, they'd still say shit like, "That young man is doing the work of the devil." You know how many times I've heard that last line? laughing

And, yeah, there would be "evidence" in that he can cite his scriptures. Then if they try to push it further, he can counter sue for an infringement on his political and religious speech.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, let me get this straight, you don't think someone's behaviour becomes unbecomming of holding a public office until they overtly violate the law on work time?

He's not elected, he's appointed. Let's get that clear. wink

Also, he's fine. And, let's get another thing clear: he's not doing ANYTHING illegal. Your wording is a bit off, there.

And, since when is hate becoming of anyone from anywhere? That's a slippery slope and I'll cover that at the end.

Originally posted by inimalist
you do realize that nobody gives 2 shits that this moron is saying what he is, but rather that he is doing so while holding an office WHICH IS DIRECTLY RESPOSIBLE FOR THE EQUAL DISSEMINATION OF JUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC.

We need to get another thing clear:
As soon as his hate spills over into his job (You know, a case he is working on is not handled properly, not anything else that you are trying to think of which doesn't apply), his boss has probable cause to fire him. There's also the problem of assigning lawyers to cases: what kind of dumbass boss would you have to be to assign Andrew to a case covering the prosecution of a homosexual? If the DA is short-handed and Andrew is the only option, Andrew can either chose to be insubordinate and lose his job OR he can do standard quality work on that case and keep his job. Just take a guess at which option that a**hole would take?



Originally posted by inimalist
a) his own boss, the attorney general, said he was bullying this man using technology.

Then why hasn't he fired him or prosecuted him (he's the ****in' DA...you can do that, n'stuff)? Oh, that's right, because he's not actually bullying him in any illegal way.

Originally posted by inimalist
b) the interviews clearly state that he engages in more than just keeping a single blog. While the blog is the main thing, it is even admitted by Shirvel himself that he is posting slanderous things about this student on places other than his blog (he says message boards).

I did not see that in the video. I watched the whole thing. Unless Andrew is posting on the student's websites/facebook page, it is not cyber bullying. He has to follow him around to his own "stomping grounds" and harass him there in order for it to be cyber bullying. Mr. Cooper took that cyber bullying quotes out of context, which is something news reporters do both ignorantly and willfully. If he posts something on a message board that that dude participates in and someone there, including the student, asks him to stop, that's the end. If he continues, that's harassment and the cyber bullying law can be applied.

Originally posted by inimalist
c) religious or political speech does not protect you from litigation. Else all criminal conspiracies would never get charged. Further, freedom of speech does not apply to crime.

Glad we cleared up that it is not criminal, then, right? (that was done several posts ago)

And what you're talking about, conspiracy to commit a criminal offense, is certainly not the case. You've got only cyber bullying and, at that, it's a very weak argument.

Originally posted by inimalist
d) you seem to, again, be (deliberatly?) confusing the idea that Shirvel commited illegal action with the fact that he is being accuesed of commiting action unbecomming of someone employed in the office of the autourney general.

Yet, you've harped on the illegality of his actions multiple times, now.

And you've missed the point that his actions must be illegal or unethical (towards cases he is working on) when they are done outside of the office. If he leaves work completely out of his actions, there is no legal leg to stand on. Yes, firing an employee is a legal matter and there's shit loads of legislation in each state and at the federal level. You think that Andrew and his boss haven't thought about that? (they are both lawyers)

Originally posted by inimalist
e) he used loop-holes in legislation that doesn't exist?

He is doing something illegal that isn't protected by the US constitution, is not legally protected from his state's employment laws, and his boss is going to fire him based on legally defined ethics behavior for government employees?




Originally posted by inimalist
a) the supreme court of your country thinks differently

The Supreme Court of my country does not.

Originally posted by inimalist
b) this isn't a freedom of speech issue, nobody wants to deny him the right to be a biggot, they are just saying he can't hold an office representing the concept of equality before the law while behaving in a way that it is indisputable he will not provide that service to homosexuals

Freedom of Speech is the issue. And until he actually does something that is as you describe, while at work, then you have a legal leg to stand on. It hasn't happened and it most likely won't happen.

Originally posted by inimalist
c) even if this were a freedom of speech issue, there is at least an argument that his freedom of speech does not superceed the right of homosexuals to get fair representation by the state

That's rather irrelevant considering no such situation has come up. Don't you think his boss would love to fire him over such a thing? (If I were the DA, I would look for any reason to fire him..and as a lawyer, I would certainly be very careful about it.)

Originally posted by inimalist
d) to break this down into barn yard analogies, you are arguing that the fox should indeed be allowed to gurad the chicken coop, because it is against the rights of the fox to refues him employment until after he has, predictably (in fact, with complete foreknowledge of how foxes behave in situations with chickens), murdered the chickens.

Your analogy fails in that your chickens in the coop would equate to every last person prosecuted would have to be a homosexual acting as the student body president of that specific university (I got that from the video, too).

And, yeah, he would have to do something wrong with his job in order to be fired. You seem to think that this is an "at-will" employment agreement.

What do you think will happen if his employer (the DA) fires him and gives the reason that he didn't like his outside of work activities? You do know that the termination of his employment would be rather explicitly illegal and falls under discrimination, right? Yes, you can discriminate against a person based on their beliefs...even if those believes are retarded and asinine.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, so let me guess, you also wouldn't have a problem with political figures belonging to fascist organizations, or police officers belonging to racist organizations, or politicians also sitting on the boards of companies bidding for government contracts?

Let's make sure we make our comparisons accurate...

If you list anything, they all have to be appointed, not publicaly elected. Scratch any publicly elected officials from your list.

They also have to start these actions after employment, too. So scratch having knowledge before-hand.

They also cannot belong to a known organization that illegally discriminates, so scratch that from your list. (main KKK org. still works, though...of which Andrew is not a part of...he accused the student of that.)

Politicians sitting on the boards of companies bidding for government contracts is illegal and cannot really be done. On top of that, if it is done, it is criminal. On top of that if they do have a future or present vested interest the ethics committee is to see that it doesn't happen. On top of that, if they have a future vested interest with an organization that they sat on a contract committee for, they have to be out of public office for at least 2 years. How do I know all of this? Simple, Haliburton scandal.

So what do we have left from your examples?

Police belonging to legal, but bigoted, organizations; and political figures expressing their political philosophies and beliefs? You bet I'd support their right to do those things and as soon as they did something illegal or legally unethical (specifically defined in ethics laws as wrong), they lose the rights to their jobs and have to forfeit their employment.

You want to talk about the "risk" of hiring that person and that does not translate to this topic. The risk occurred after his employment with the DA and only in states that have "at-will" provisions can you fire the douche.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you not believe in the concept of "conflict of interests"?

I certainly do. So there was a case that clearly showed a conflict of interest?

If that's the case, why hasn't the DA fired his ass? Shouldn't the DA fall under scrutiny for that?

Also, if that's the case, then everything I said is still right, but doesn't apply to Andrew and I'm, therefore, wrong.


Originally posted by inimalist
if you actually think that your constitution protects this guy, I couldn't think of a better reason why the constitution doesn't represent a good form of governance in the modern world.

Yeah, and "thank the Lord" that the constitution DOES protect this guy's outside of work "political speech."

Originally posted by inimalist
There is no risk to free speech from this issue at all. Nobody is saying private citizens shouldn't be allowed to do things.

This is why you and I aren't lawyers because neither of us think this douche should be doing what he's doing. We ONLY differ in that I think he has nested himself into legal safe-zone.



Originally posted by inimalist
right, because the issue here is that people think Shirvell is a criminal, and not that he is too immature to hold an office and has an obvious prejudice that cannot help but influence his stance toward homosexuals as individuals. This last part being most important because it is his specific job description to provide equal legal representation to all people, regardless of sexual orientation, though I don't have a problem with state employees being reprimanded for behaviour they should have grown out of by third grade.

You certainly have addressed that (legality) on multiple levels. You can't have your cake and eat it to, man.


If you don't think his actions were cyber bullying (Cause you don't think it's a legal matter) then your entire argument ends there and we can move on. Until his boss has LEGAL reasons to fire him while NOT illegally firing him (cause it is walking a fine line of discrimination), he should remain employed. Whether or not you and I think it's unbecoming means absolutely jack shit (I personally think he should resign and open up a private practice of criminal defense cause the transition is much easier from prosecution to defense...from what I hear). I do tons of stuff that is unbecoming of my job: I fart at make comments about how awesome it was or how stinky it is, I make jokes that could sometimes make a trucker blush, and I make fun of all sorts of political figures. So I should be fired because it is unbecoming? Luckily, we don't live in a fascist state, right? I mean, LUCKILY. That's a pretty big deal to me.


Originally posted by King Kandy
He did get put into deep shit: he was put on "indefinite leave" recently, basically fired.

The justice department has a right to fire any employ that is lowering the effectiveness of that office, which is what Shirvell is doing; he's casting a negative image that removes people's ability to trust the justice department. As a government official, he is supposed to represent the people, and as such his work life is not the only thing his employment depends on.

Good. I hope that the DA has a legal leg to stand on because that type of douche pisses me off.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, and "thank the Lord" that the constitution DOES protect this guy's outside of work "political speech."

The first a amendment does not provide magical blanket protection of everything you say. The old "fire in a crowded theater" clause, crushingly fascist though it may be, is widely accepted in law.

In this case he is unarguably engaging in libel and pretty clearly harassing this young man. I don't see how he claim it as "political speech" either, the kid isn't a public figure he's the figurehead leader of a student council.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Whether or not you and I think it's unbecoming means absolutely jack shit (I personally think he should resign and open up a private practice of criminal defense cause the transition is much easier from prosecution to defense...from what I hear). I do tons of stuff that is unbecoming of my job: I fart at make comments about how awesome it was or how stinky it is, I make jokes that could sometimes make a trucker blush, and I make fun of all sorts of political figures. So I should be fired because it is unbecoming? Luckily, we don't live in a fascist state, right? I mean, LUCKILY. That's a pretty big deal to me.

Are you figure that is expected to represent your place of business to the public? If so you probably can and eventually will be fired for that behavior.

Of course you live in the US so you can be fired for shits-and-giggles.

inimalist
DDM - I think it boils down to this:

do you really think it is reasonable to wait until he, which he will do if the circumstance arises, abuses the legal rights of a homosexual individual?

Like, if you don't see a role for the state in preserving legal equality between citizens, what could you possibly see its role as? sit back and collect taxes like the mafia?

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's rather irrelevant considering no such situation has come up. Don't you think his boss would love to fire him over such a thing? (If I were the DA, I would look for any reason to fire him..and as a lawyer, I would certainly be very careful about it.)
What? Weren't you going on and on about why it would be unethical to fire him? And now you're saying you'd do it in his position?

He already WAS kicked out, before this thread was even made. Had been so for a week. So the idea that he would have been made a martyr was kind of silly... obviously, it would have happened by now.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
What? Weren't you going on and on about why it would be unethical to fire him? And now you're saying you'd do it in his position?

Doesn't my post clearly indicate that I would be looking for a reason to fire him?

It would be unethical and possibly illegal to fire him without an ethical reason because it is not an at-will agreement and he wasn't elected, which is what I covered in that post you quoted that from.


I thought my distaste for Andew's actions was rather apparant. Was it not strong enough?

Originally posted by King Kandy
He already WAS kicked out, before this thread was even made. Had been so for a week. So the idea that he would have been made a martyr was kind of silly... obviously, it would have happened by now.

I did not know that (the vid doesn't have that in it, does it?) and, also, he hasn't been fired yet because the DA is looking for that reason, just like I suggested cause he's smart and doing things carefully. If and when the investigation turns up jack sh*t, then the DA has to reinstate him in the hopes he screws up. If they find something that can stick, that'd be awesome.


Originally posted by inimalist
DDM - I think it boils down to this:

do you really think it is reasonable to wait until he, which he will do if the circumstance arises, abuses the legal rights of a homosexual individual?

Like, if you don't see a role for the state in preserving legal equality between citizens, what could you possibly see its role as? sit back and collect taxes like the mafia?

You're correct; it pretty much boils down to that.

Yes, it is reasonable to wait until he steps out of line especially if his refernces checked out during the hiring process. How in the h*ll would the DA office know that he was a bigot unless they specifically asked for what he was a bigot on? (I ended my sentence in a preposition...imma be sued pained ) Also, you can't fire someone for their hate speech if they do it wholly outside of work.

And, again, you (not you, specifically, ambiguous "you"wink have to PROVE his outside actions are actually taking place while at work or handling a case. If they don't, then you can't fire him unless you want to be sued for discrimination and violation of his first amendment rights.

If we could just get the DA to confirm what I'm saying...jeez! laughing

I'm quite sure the DA would be in full agreement with me. What make sense to you (and is something I agree with), does not bode well, legally.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The first a amendment does not provide magical blanket protection of everything you say. The old "fire in a crowded theater" clause, crushingly fascist though it may be, is widely accepted in law.

In this case he is unarguably engaging in libel and pretty clearly harassing this young man. I don't see how he claim it as "political speech" either, the kid isn't a public figure he's the figurehead leader of a student council.

This was covered, already, and does not apply to Andrew's case. It's a strawman. I don't know who started and why, though...I can't be arsed to go back and look through the thread.

And, if you notice, I put "political speech" in quotes almost everytime I was referencing Andrew's words. There was a reason for that, sir.

And Andrew isn't a public figure-head, either. He's a front line grunt that no one would know anything about, he wasn't elected, he was appointed, and no one would know if the libtards would stop sh*tting themselves about it.

Classic saying applies: don't feed the trolls. The young is doing just that: not feeding the troll. He's the smartest one in the whole bunch: even over CNN producers.

Andrew got screen time that he shouldn't have.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you figure that is expected to represent your place of business to the public? If so you probably can and eventually will be fired for that behavior.

Of course you live in the US so you can be fired for shits-and-giggles.

Indeed: I can be fired for any to no reason. sad

I was making a point that the "unbecoming of his employment" is very slipper-slope that can make just about anyone come under the fascist hammer.

753
Originally posted by Robtard
Just a matter of time before Shirvell is caught on his knees in a public restroom with a mouth full of cock. We'll have lolz then. yup, closet case with the hots for the kid

EDIT: LOLed at this youtube comment

Andrew, what's your response?

"Well, Anderson, I have a huge crush on Chris, but my homophobia prevents me from pursuing a relationship- not to mention my friend Sheila says he called me a 'double bagger'. This is really the best I can do to devote all of my free time to him... other than my hair doll, that is."

Mr. Rhythmic
What a nutter.

AsbestosFlaygon
Based on my observations, he is either:

a) a closet homosexual himself

b) suffers autism or symptoms of autism

Robtard
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Based on my observations, he is either:

a) a closet homosexual himself

b) suffers autism or symptoms of autism

Couldn't he be an autistic closet homosexual?

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't he be an autistic closet homosexual?
I like the way you think.

Great minds think alike.

Darth Jello
Gender neutral housing-that new radical threat brought on by "the gay agenda" that's existed for like, 43 years.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.