Wag The Dog - Random Political and News Jibber Jabber

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
i'd have to be looking for work to be unemployed. i'm turning down work instead.

you said $100k over 4 years, not me.
I know you understand nothing about starting and running a business. But the successful ones have more and more income over time. I never said 100K either. Not sure where you hallucinated that number.

Tonight I spoke with the guy buying the accounts. He will do a ride along tomorrow and sign the final paperwork on the 1st of July. Then it is PAYDAY!!! My other employers will be happy to get me back so I wont even have a month off between jobs. Life is awesome.
 

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
i'm not available to work. i have plants to stare at and dogs to take to the park and meals to cook.

it's meatloaf night tonight. no drooling.

un·em·ploy·a·ble
ˌənimˈploi-əbəl/
adjective
adjective: unemployable
  1. 1.
    (of a person) not able or likely to get paid employment, especially because of a lack of skills or qualifications.
noun
noun: unemployable; plural noun: unemployables
  1. 1.
    an unemployable person.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
don't forget that we have the most corporation-friendly supreme court we have ever had.

i can easily see it going hobby lobby's way.
normally i would agree however, more than being corporation friendly, they are legislation awkward..they like to interpret/translate NOT write/re-write.

it's one thing for a church "non-profit" to claim religious because they are.

and totally another for the white southern christian owner of hobby lobby to claim religious as they are NOT a religion..they are people who choose to be religious. the person that works for them may not be religious. you can't shove your religion down your employees throats..you can't pick and choose whether or not to offer medications that are multi-purpose based upon it not being part of your accepted religion practices.

SCOTUS will refer to the fact that they are "for profit" and you can't do that with a "for profit" corporation. they will invite hobby lobby to become a "non-profit" if they'd like to be able to pick and choose what kind of medication their employees receive:lol:

it would be totally discriminatory and one of biggest political disasters ever.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
un·em·ploy·a·ble
ˌənimˈploi-əbəl/
adjective
adjective: unemployable
  1. 1.
    (of a person) not able or likely to get paid employment, especially because of a lack of skills or qualifications.
noun
noun: unemployable; plural noun: unemployables
  1. 1.
    an unemployable person.
you'll have to tell that to the people who'd like me to work for them then.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
normally i would agree however, more than being corporation friendly, they are legislation awkward..they like to interpret/translate NOT write/re-write.

it's one thing for a church "non-profit" to claim religious because they are.

and totally another for the white southern christian owner of hobby lobby to claim religious as they are NOT a religion..they are people who choose to be religious. the person that works for them may not be religious. you can't shove your religion down your employees throats..you can't pick and choose whether or not to offer medications that are multi-purpose based upon it not being part of your accepted religion practices.

SCOTUS will refer to the fact that they are "for profit" and you can't do that with a "for profit" corporation. they will invite hobby lobby to become a "non-profit" if they'd like to be able to pick and choose what kind of medication their employees receive:lol:

it would be totally discriminatory and one of biggest political disasters ever.
i'm just curious to see what they decide and how.
 

AlecTheGardener

Well-Known Member
not happy with the decision, but america is america.

just feel bad for the poor women (literally, they are often poor) who will have to endure these blathering shitbots when they're not even going to get abortions or anything, just medical care.
I genuinely feel for those women. I have accompanied females many times to women's clinics. I was an ER nurse for some time. I was certified for post rape care and assistance with the forensic medical examination.

The last time I went to a clinic was with one of my best friends. It must have been her lucky day, there was a group of ten protesters waiting about ten feet outside my car door for us. They yelled, shouted, then threw a filled drink cup at her, it fell short luckily. She was already very emotionally savaged, these protestors did not help any. Their signs had distasteful slogans and statements.

I understand those feels very well.


Unfortunately the way that states have been going about it is wrong.

I dislike people being able to be outside women's clinics and protest, unfortunately it is their right.

Some people dislike it when others burn the American flag. I actually find it very distasteful.

However,
They get to do that.


I support their right but dislike their message.



I believe fiercely in personal liberties, we cannot allow them to be chipped away . . . be it for good or bad.

A ruling in the other direction would have made a precedent that could have very negative repercussions. The supreme court's own 'buffer zone' could be an exceptional example.

Government creep is real. Not because the government itself is 'evil' but because it has been abused and twisted by power hungry politicians and the corporations who own/operate them.

Politicians and parties will use every little imperfection to eventually rid us of our rights in their pursuit of the almighty dollar.

The Great American Experiment.

I am a bit of an idealist really.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The last time I went to a clinic was with one of my best friends. It must have been her lucky day, there was a group of ten protesters waiting about ten feet outside my car door for us. They yelled, shouted, then threw a filled drink cup at her, it fell short luckily.
i like the idea of armed escorts for the next time that cup doesn't fall short.

I dislike people being able to be outside women's clinics and protest, unfortunately it is their right.
i have no problem pushing that right back 50 feet or 100 feet, just like they do with the WBCtards.
 

AlecTheGardener

Well-Known Member
i like the idea of armed escorts for the next time that cup doesn't fall short.



i have no problem pushing that right back 50 feet or 100 feet, just like they do with the WBCtards.
I have also considered armed escorts for when those cups don't fall short.

Ugh. Humans are brutal.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
OK, tag team.

How fat is she?

She is so fat, she has to chase her own ass around the block just to sit both cheeks on the same sofa.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
A Brave New World.

Facebook jerks it members membrains.

Internet outraged by Facebook's 'creepy' mood experiment
For one week in early 2012, Facebook (FB, Tech30) changed the content mix in the News Feeds of almost 690,000 users. Some people were shown a higher number of positive posts, while others were shown more negative posts.

The results of the experiment, conducted by researchers from Cornell, the University of California, San Francisco and Facebook, were published this month in the prestigious academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
-----------------------

Is this not like putting make-up in a Bunny's eye? Is this not Joseph Mengele?

Good thing no emotion manipulation happens on RIU, huh? :)
 
Top