The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
institutional retardation:
US Court Says it's Okay for Police Departments to Refuse to Hire Someone who is Too Smart
US Court Says it's Okay for Police Departments to Refuse to Hire Someone who is Too Smart
If I had an open posting for a fairly mundane job, like Master Control or Production Assistant (hint: we do), I probably wouldn't hire someone with a EE, or 15 years' experience and a demo reel. Why? Because I know form experience that they'd be likely to burn out quickly due to boredom, and I'd be right back in the hiring process again in a few months.
The same libertarian values which state that the Federal government shall not force me to lower my standards in order to hire people who do not otherwise meet my minimum qualifications for a job require that I also not be forced to hire those who are obviously over-qualified for it.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Hitler gave everyone a free radio. He was a great orator. And then he nationalized the radio. Citizens were warned if they listened to anything other than **** radio, they would be put to death.
The only voice they had was the government radio station and the government controlled newspaper.
Hitler gave Austrian equal rights for everyone. Also, everybody getting a guaranteed income from the government. The equal rights amendment was designed in two components, equality, economics and social. Economics was designed to equalize the countries wealth because everyone was entitled to equal income. To achieve that, they had to raise taxes to 70%.
People got fuel stamps, heating fuel. The government equalized the countries wealth by taxing us. Called socialism.
On the socialism, everyone has to be on the work force. Moms stayed home, raised their families. But in socialism, if you didn’t work, you were called a parasite. Moms had to go to work and leave the kids to where? A daycare center. The longer you left your child with the schools and daycare, the better the government liked it. These caretakers were from the government, trained in psychology, to mold the children.
Education was then nationalized. We had a good education system before Hitler.
The only voice they had was the government radio station and the government controlled newspaper.
Hitler gave Austrian equal rights for everyone. Also, everybody getting a guaranteed income from the government. The equal rights amendment was designed in two components, equality, economics and social. Economics was designed to equalize the countries wealth because everyone was entitled to equal income. To achieve that, they had to raise taxes to 70%.
People got fuel stamps, heating fuel. The government equalized the countries wealth by taxing us. Called socialism.
On the socialism, everyone has to be on the work force. Moms stayed home, raised their families. But in socialism, if you didn’t work, you were called a parasite. Moms had to go to work and leave the kids to where? A daycare center. The longer you left your child with the schools and daycare, the better the government liked it. These caretakers were from the government, trained in psychology, to mold the children.
Education was then nationalized. We had a good education system before Hitler.
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
From: OKC, OK
My post was in a direct response to a comment by Art. Go back to safe space.
Reply
0
0
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 331
Total Cats: 40
From: Columbus, IN
I've repeatedly seen people post in this thread that at "total ban on all firearms" is a 100% effective way to eliminate gun violence. I wonder if the citizens of Melbourne, AU would agree.
Gun Violence, Crime & Shootings in Melbourne | How Melbourne became a Gun City
Gun Violence, Crime & Shootings in Melbourne | How Melbourne became a Gun City
Reply
0
0
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 331
Total Cats: 40
From: Columbus, IN
Reply
0
0
I've repeatedly seen people post in this thread that at "total ban on all firearms" is a 100% effective way to eliminate gun violence. I wonder if the citizens of Melbourne, AU would agree.
Gun Violence, Crime & Shootings in Melbourne How Melbourne became a Gun City
Gun Violence, Crime & Shootings in Melbourne How Melbourne became a Gun City
Or maybe we should ask the folks from London:
Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News
Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News
Contrary to what a lot of proponents on both sides would like you to believe, neither Australia nor Great Britain are gun free. They have ban on certain types of firearms, and make both qualifying to own, and the process to continue ownership fairly burdensome... but if you don't mind waiting and filling out paperwork, the average person can own a lot of guns in both places. To put it bluntly, there are a lot of guns in both Britain and Australia. Many guns enter the illegal market and are used in crime, which should come to no surprise.
What you need to be very careful of, is how the statistics are generated. For example... one year in GB, a law was changed that made possession-of-a-firearm-not-used-in-a-crime within the city limits, a felony... it was previously a misdemeanor that often was plea-bargained down to a ticket.
Headline:
"GUN CRIME IN LONDON TRIPLES IN 6 MONTHS!!! CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!!!!"
Two years later, after all the graphs had changed, and politicians had their pulpit material, and the jails were awash with gun-crime-prisoners ending their 2-yr possession sentences, they changed the law again that made simple "possession" a misdemeanor again.
Headline:
"LOCAL BLAH BLAH POLITICIAN HELPS POLICE BRING GUN CRIMES TO A MULTI-YEAR LOW!!!"
It's tough, even for us modern adults who try our best not to let our political information come from Facebook memes, to unsee sensational headlines like that.
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,604
Total Cats: 248
From: Canberra, sort of
I've repeatedly seen people post in this thread that at "total ban on all firearms" is a 100% effective way to eliminate gun violence. I wonder if the citizens of Melbourne, AU would agree.
Gun Violence, Crime & Shootings in Melbourne How Melbourne became a Gun City
Gun Violence, Crime & Shootings in Melbourne How Melbourne became a Gun City
And yes, I am sure they would agree, given the current controls are (surprise!) being circumvented by the crims.
Those comments are usually centered around the concept of "If I had a magic wand and could make every gun in the country disappear instantly, we'd have no more gun crime." That's tough to argue with.
Contrary to what a lot of proponents on both sides would like you to believe, neither Australia nor Great Britain are gun free. They have ban on certain types of firearms, and make both qualifying to own, and the process to continue ownership fairly burdensome... but if you don't mind waiting and filling out paperwork, the average person can own a lot of guns in both places. To put it bluntly, there are a lot of guns in both Britain and Australia. Many guns enter the illegal market and are used in crime, which should come to no surprise.
Contrary to what a lot of proponents on both sides would like you to believe, neither Australia nor Great Britain are gun free. They have ban on certain types of firearms, and make both qualifying to own, and the process to continue ownership fairly burdensome... but if you don't mind waiting and filling out paperwork, the average person can own a lot of guns in both places. To put it bluntly, there are a lot of guns in both Britain and Australia. Many guns enter the illegal market and are used in crime, which should come to no surprise.
Reply
0
0
"If I had a magic wand and could make every gun in the country disappear instantly, we'd have no more gun crime." That's the best answer. If everyone gave up or had their guns taken away they physically would not be able to harm each other nearly as many or as quickly. But there's fear of other people, invasion, robbery, etc. Some people are unstable. Debate on how to determine who is ineligible is a tough subject.
Exactly.....because not one person has ever rented/stolen or used a truck to mow down people in seconds. Never happened. Nor has one acquired the components to make a bomb and kill many instantly.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Things liberals say:
...But ABC News’ Cokie Roberts took it to a whole new level. The reason women in Alabama still support Roy Moore? They’re trashy rubes who are abused as regularly as Nancy Pelosi is stretched.
“One of the things to keep in mind is, in the base, even women are suspicious about these sexual harassment claims. And part of the reason for that is that women who are not in fancy white collar jobs often have really awful things happen to them on the job. They are assaulted. They are raped. They have horrible things happen to them. And so when they hear women say, ‘he talked dirty to me,’ or ‘he came on to me,’ they think, ‘big deal. That’s not what happened to me. ‘What happened to me is so much worse.’ And so there’s not that same sense of affinity.”
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
things liberals say:
So, according to Joy, if you think murder is bad, but you aren’t a Bern-feeling socialist, you’re a giant hypocrite.
“It’s kind of consistent, though, in a way, when you think of a lot of these people who are anti-choice,” she said. “They’re very big on the fetus, but soon as the child is born, they don’t vote for additional health for the child.”
“No, they won’t pay for that,” she added, at prompting from Haines, essentially making the argument that bigger government is the only moral choice and overlooking the free help that pregnancy centers offer.
According to Behar, those who want to protect the unborn don’t care about children after birth.
“No, they won’t pay for that,” she added, at prompting from Haines, essentially making the argument that bigger government is the only moral choice and overlooking the free help that pregnancy centers offer.
According to Behar, those who want to protect the unborn don’t care about children after birth.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
It is obviously acceptable to terminate the life of an unborn fetus, because they are too young to be offended. Therefore, their opinions do not count.
Reply
0
0
That song was very well written. I love rap like that. It has real meaning and is about something important. You can tell the artist took a lot of time to get it right so it sounded good while telling the story he wanted to tell. I also liked the simplicity of the music video. Very well directed and edited.
Reply
0
0
