Bolas

2 hours ago, Squeak said:

Things were obviously not right in his head.  It's fucking tragic and sad for everyone involved,  including Billy

Thank you Squeak saying that and thank you DFWAJG for starting this thread.

That thing that did that was not the Billy we used to know.  

Let this be a place to celebrate whom he was previously, not what he became and did at the end.

Blue Skies… asstrumpet.  ☹️

Was out visiting another DZ.commer and they had a family emergency after we had met her for lunch.  She stepped in and let me stay at her place, took me around Hollywood and then back to the airport.  Even shipped some art I bought to a friend for me.

Of course, there was a price we all paid...

Thankfully the pics didn’t seem to survive the site conversion.

Moo skies forever 

Current justices would be exempted from the mandatory retirement age.

Definitely agree judicial activism needs to be limited regardless of party. Would like to think further limiting access to abortions is something used to just get the rabble to vote at this point as it really just needs to go away and accept that (gasp) it’s not the government’s business what a woman chooses to do.

At the same time, the legislative and executive branches have to stop punting the ball to the SC. As was said earlier in the thread, were congress to pass clear laws, the SC wouldn’t have to do some of the gymnastics it had to do with the ACA.

Vaguely recall the justices back when gay marriage laws were overturned stating prior that they didn’t need to rule on this: a law or executive order declaring as such would be upheld as constitutional if challenged.

Like most “lifetime” things, life expectancy increasing was not factored in when originally proposed.

Perhaps a mandatory retirement age? This would of course lead to younger appointees, which may not be a bad thing either.

Wouldn’t separating classes by Wing Loading be easiest and most effective?

mr2mk1g

On refusing service:

There's a pub round the corner from my office which had signs out all week advertising the screening of the next world cup match. It read "Uruguay v. Portugal - 30th June. No dickheads".

Thought that summed their stance up nice and succinctly.

I dunno, that could still be discriminatory...
https://www.amazon.com/Mask-BizTM-Penis-Dick-Funny/dp/B015I3PIZU

Quote

The corollary is that official accounts cannot be used to single out individual persons or businesses for personal reasons, for which Sanders clearly used hers, as Trump did with his, subsequently.

One could argue this was not personal, but political. Had she been kicked out for a personal reason not related to her job...

Phil1111

What? No comments or votes for the pernicious "Chef" actions?

Quote

Wilkinson told the Post that she wasn’t even in the restaurant when Sanders initially entered; she received a call from the chef at 8 p.m., who told her that Sanders was in the restaurant and the staff was concerned. When she arrived at the restaurant, she told the staff that she could ask Sanders to leave, and they said they wanted her to do that.

Would be curious to know the immigration status of the chef and other employees.

Business owner saw a way to get a ton of free press and be seen as a hero to her employees. Hopefully all the employees are legal as they just painted a big bullseye on themselves.

yoink

***I don't know why I'm spending all this time and effort going to school to be an accountant when it sounds like I can make a killing in the daycare industry

Put 'Baby' before any product then jack the price up 400%. Seriously.

Same can be said for ‘Wedding’. Just got married 2 years ago and have both kids getting married this year.

Maybe you should start a baby wedding business.

The original plan was to attach a silent audio file (so noone could hear it) to the groupme chat but Jerry didn’t know how.

So ya got white noise instead, ass-trumpet.

Bob_Church

***I remember the days of rec.Skydiving.org

Remember the ongoing argument over kiss passes? There were people actually arguing that putting your tongue down a student's throat was part of the sport and they shouldn't go to a DZ if they didn't like it. My suggestion was that if that was the case then they should have to do it with *every* female student. That didn't go over well.

Probably went over better than had you said kiss pass *every* student.

Did you watch the video? Starting at 6:55 they discuss the men focused recruiting campaign.

Point is they are still using gender stereotypes to recruit men so likely still are to recruit women. Yes there are groups that in the past were told no or steered away from professions but the solution is to remove DNA group focus altogether in recruiting: Anyone can try to become a nurse, doctor, engineer, astronaut, etc. to begin with but need to have certain skills/traits to be successful at it.

https://youtu.be/lOT0GOyw2pY

Huge gender gap in nursing due to past attitudes and discrimination but so what?
Unfortunately rather than just defocusing on gender going forward and more on skills/attributes (as we all should for any DNA group), in some cases they’re specifically trying to recruit men using traditional gender stereotypes.
Why do I bring this up? Because I’ve always felt that targeting and keeping stats on race, gender, birthplace, or orientation was wrong but as my “group” was not the beneficiary of the special treatment such comments could be viewed as just discriminatory and dismissed.
Nurses need certain attributes, particularly caring, empathy, and trust. Focus recruitment efforts on those, not what plumbing they have.

yoink

Let me be clear before I get shouted at:
'I thought she was legal' is NOT an OK defense. I do believe it can be, however, the reality of the situation.
When it comes to stuff like this 'Assume nothing' will be what I'm teaching my son.

Agreed assume nothing is good to teach all, but at some point some sort of burden of proof has to be established, but something beyond “I thought they were legal.” Being in a club with a drink definitely isn’t it, but asking them their age, and maybe for ID?

Of course the flip side is if a defined standard is established then underage prostitution rings might use it. Complex issue for sure but thankfully one that doesn’t directly impact me.

DJL

******Reuters:

Trump says he would consider sending New York attack suspect to Guantanamo Bay.

Well, he'd have to get past that little thing called "due process" and the "rights of the accused".

And it's a bit amusing that after the Las Vegas shooting, it was "not the right time" to talk about guns and gun control.

But he can instantly go after immigrants and Muslims after this.

Also, after this instance of a vehicle plowing into people we didn't hear anyone talk about how "there are goods people on all sides".

No one said anything about “the religion of peace?”

Which immigration groups can work legally/pay taxes?

That’s another place the US screwed up big which led to large scale under the table payments for lower wages, sometimes less than minimum wage.

Not quite.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Quote

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[9] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[10]

Legal immigrants at least have a path to gaining voting and full citizenship rights, the same cannot be said for illegals.

But getting back on topic, what rights other than voting do Canadian legal immigrants not have? And what additional rights do the illegal immigrants not have?
Does the free healthcare for all truly cover all?

kallend

***What a novel concept, investing in something beyond the next quarter!

Wendy P.

Is that even legal in the USA?

Quote

So Canada robs other countries of their best educated and highest skilled workers. In essence stealing the future from other countries. To benefit Canada's future and tax base.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

DanG

Where we went wrong was making just about all forms of previously legal immigration illegal.

If we reduced the nationwide speed limit to 5mph it would miss the point to complain about the wave of speeding violations.

Also agree. We needed to either stick with the previous laws/policy or when we went for the $$$ like Canada is now doing actually enforce the new laws and limit loopholes such as children born of illegals in country are citizens.

The biggest issue with illegal immigration is the illegals themselves are often expolited as they try to keep a low profile along with no voting rights.

wmw999

What do you think hasn't worked about it for the US? It's not perfect, but to me, immigrants bring a vitality and willingness to risk that's valuable to any economy and society.

Wendy P.

No issue with immigration itself, just illegal immigration and apathy towards it is where the US went wrong.

Apparently Canada just decided to copy the old US immigration model. Hope it works out better for them long term than it has for us.
Are children of illegal immigrants born in Canada automatically Canadian citizens?

wolfriverjoe

******Utah nurse reaches $500,000 settlement in dispute over her arrest for blocking cop from drawing blood from patient

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/31/utah-nurse-arrested-for-blocking-cop-from-drawing-blood-from-patient-receives-500000-settlement/

I hope she donates that to a good civic cause. There's such thing as profiteering too.

Read the article. It mentions where she plans on donating some of the money (a couple different places).

Kind of a shame that the taxpayers will be footing this cost.

It would be really nice to see the individual officers held responsible for their behavior.
And, yes, I realize there are some good reasons for that not happening.

That’s the biggest problem with settling as no legal precedent is set.

yoink

In the long run these attacks with motor vehicles are going to be bad news. I don't see any easy way to stop them. Do any of you?

Guns are easy - make them disappear and society would carry on but that's just not the case with transport. Removing them would literally cause capitalist society to stop functioning.
Fully autonomous cars / trucks with no human interface are probably somewhat of a solution, but that's going to be a tough sell even when the technology is perfected.

Yes, because the tool’s the issue, not the behavior.

One difference though: use versus possession.

Gun owners aren’t arguing over laws about use of a firearm against another person in cases other than self defense, many are for tougher penalties for criminal use, what they are arguing over are laws that criminalize just possession either in their homes or in public.

If we were to begin to attempt to equate speech rights to current gun laws/policy:

Before being even allowed just the right to legally speak (but not actually speak, that’s a whole different set of laws) you must submit to a government background check. If you pass, depending where you live, there are certain words that are illegal to even know, even if you knew them before, and only so many words can be used at a time. Your right to speak in public is not allowed legally in “speech free zones.”

I thought this was going to be an article about the impending doom of AI super intelligence.