The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
08-16-2016, 08:36 AM
#6564
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,178
Total Cats: 1,681
Pretty sure Scott posted that video a few days ago in another thread along with what happened afterwards. From what I think I remember the driver was not charged, and people blocking the street were.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2016, 09:32 AM
#6567
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,076
Total Cats: 6,628
A little rebellion, every now and then...
I'm just going to come out and say it: some people need to be taught their place. This isn't a racial / ethnic judgement, it's a moral / social one.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2016, 09:51 AM
#6568
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,675
Total Cats: 3,017
Posit:
What if 50% of all the poor* families in the US started their own businesses tomorrow? Let's assume that they are all successful businesses which produce a variety of goods and services, and create a net income which lifts these families to an income level which qualifies them as "middle class." For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume that they don't employ anyone outside of their household.
Does this make the rich poorer? Not one bit. Those households which are still in the top X% of income / wealth will remain there. If anything, they will become slightly richer, for two reasons. One is that all of the new income-earners will now be paying taxes, and so the net effective tax rate on the X% will likely drift downwards over time. And the other is that these new earners will now be buying goods and services provided by the companies which the X% own or invest in.
Does it make the poor poorer? Not one bit. Again, the poor will likely benefit from the increased number of taxpayers contributing to medicaid / welfare / etc, as well as the reduced competition for these services.
What if 50% of all the poor* families in the US started their own businesses tomorrow? Let's assume that they are all successful businesses which produce a variety of goods and services, and create a net income which lifts these families to an income level which qualifies them as "middle class." For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume that they don't employ anyone outside of their household.
Does this make the rich poorer? Not one bit. Those households which are still in the top X% of income / wealth will remain there. If anything, they will become slightly richer, for two reasons. One is that all of the new income-earners will now be paying taxes, and so the net effective tax rate on the X% will likely drift downwards over time. And the other is that these new earners will now be buying goods and services provided by the companies which the X% own or invest in.
Does it make the poor poorer? Not one bit. Again, the poor will likely benefit from the increased number of taxpayers contributing to medicaid / welfare / etc, as well as the reduced competition for these services.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2016, 10:16 AM
#6569
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Madison
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 5
I live north of where those riots are happening in Milwaukee, and I used to live 2 blocks from where they started on Saturday. I carry as it is, but some heavier fire power is being added to the home now. People are absolutely insane.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2016, 07:22 PM
#6573
Joe Biden Points to Man at Hillary Rally Holding Nuclear Codes! - YouTube
Granted I am not SS or have a security clearance, but pointing out who has the nuclear codes doesnt sound too intelligent. Good ole Joe.
Granted I am not SS or have a security clearance, but pointing out who has the nuclear codes doesnt sound too intelligent. Good ole Joe.
Reply
0
0
08-18-2016, 04:44 PM
#6578
Interesting interpretation of a SC ruling by a federal judge. Guess this'll end up in the SC.
Court: Hobby Lobby ruling OKs some employment discrimination - POLITICO
Court: Hobby Lobby ruling OKs some employment discrimination - POLITICO
Court: Hobby Lobby ruling OKs some employment discrimination
By JOSH GERSTEIN 08/18/16 03:42 PM EDT Updated 08/18/16 04:09 PM EDT
A Supreme Court decision allowing some companies to opt out of portions of Obamacare for religious reasons also guarantees the right of firms to engage in religiously motivated discrimination against their employees on the basis of gender, a federal judge in Michigan ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Court Judge Sean *** held that the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling on a suit brought by Hobby Lobby craft stores means the Detroit-based RG & GR Funeral Homes was legally protected when the firm fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender employee who wished to dress as a woman.
While the ruling involved a dispute over a transgender employee, the logic could apply to any type of gender or race discrimination a company says is motivated by religious views, lawyers tracking the case said.
*** said the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as interpreted by the justices in Hobby Lobby, meant that the sincere religious beliefs of closely held companies like RG & GR had to be respected unless the government could show a need to advance a compelling interest and that letting Stephens wear women's attire would have the least impact on the religious views of the company's management.
"Thus, the question becomes whether the law at issue here, Title VII and the body of sex-stereotyping case law that has developed under it, imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the Funeral Home to conduct business in accordance with its religious beliefs," the judge wrote. "The Court concludes that the Funeral Home has shown that it does."
Read more: Court: Hobby Lobby ruling OKs some employment discrimination - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
By JOSH GERSTEIN 08/18/16 03:42 PM EDT Updated 08/18/16 04:09 PM EDT
A Supreme Court decision allowing some companies to opt out of portions of Obamacare for religious reasons also guarantees the right of firms to engage in religiously motivated discrimination against their employees on the basis of gender, a federal judge in Michigan ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Court Judge Sean *** held that the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling on a suit brought by Hobby Lobby craft stores means the Detroit-based RG & GR Funeral Homes was legally protected when the firm fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender employee who wished to dress as a woman.
While the ruling involved a dispute over a transgender employee, the logic could apply to any type of gender or race discrimination a company says is motivated by religious views, lawyers tracking the case said.
*** said the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as interpreted by the justices in Hobby Lobby, meant that the sincere religious beliefs of closely held companies like RG & GR had to be respected unless the government could show a need to advance a compelling interest and that letting Stephens wear women's attire would have the least impact on the religious views of the company's management.
"Thus, the question becomes whether the law at issue here, Title VII and the body of sex-stereotyping case law that has developed under it, imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the Funeral Home to conduct business in accordance with its religious beliefs," the judge wrote. "The Court concludes that the Funeral Home has shown that it does."
Read more: Court: Hobby Lobby ruling OKs some employment discrimination - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Reply
0
0
08-18-2016, 05:33 PM
#6579
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,076
Total Cats: 6,628
Originally Posted by Politico
While the ruling involved a dispute over a transgender employee, the logic could apply to any type of gender or race discrimination a company says is motivated by religious views...
The transgender community have made a very conscious and deliberate effort to separate "gender" from "sex" in the public discourse. As such, they have effectively removed themselves from the protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act and subsequent statutes as they exist at present.
This precedent, therefore, does not strictly nullify other protections. (I'll admit, I have not read the court's Opinion, and am going only by the news article.)
Reply
0
0
08-19-2016, 02:43 PM
#6580
Kindof makes you want to login to your bank account after reading this.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/...ments-confirm/
Wonder if Snowden did the NSA a favor by "confirming" of sorts?
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/...ments-confirm/
THE NSA LEAK IS REAL, SNOWDEN DOCUMENTS CONFIRM
ON MONDAY, A HACKING group calling itself the “ShadowBrokers” announced an auction for what it claimed were “cyber weapons” made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.
The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA’s virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.
The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, “ace02468bdf13579.” That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.
The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA’s virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.
The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, “ace02468bdf13579.” That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.
Reply
0
0
