|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada11355 Posts
As I said earlier, if I'm wrong, "our culture is one of more expectation and narcissistic entitlement than I'd feared." I'd like to think we're largely better than that, though. I'm not sure that's the case. People may volunteer out of a sense of service. But for work, one is looking for gainful employment, emphasis on gainful. It isn't narcissitic to look to better your opportunities by looking for jobs that balance enjoyment and pay. I think that's generally what most people do when looking for employment. Certainly, I can't think of many choosing a job that they do not enjoy, that pays worse than alternatives, all out of a sense of civic duty to the business owner who will not (cannot?) pay more. Even for unemployed people- getting laid off as a teacher, I'm certainly not looking for rock picking work. Some on call work and some janitorial work to pay the bills and one can get by while looking for a new job that doesn't involve getting paid below minimum wage for an unenjoyable job.
But perhaps the school systems should emphasize the societal benefits of rock picking rather than steer everyone away from McDonald's level jobs. (Besides, I have heard it argued that those sorts jobs are not real jobs anyways- stepping stone jobs for high school students, but not meant for raising a family upon. Can it be any wonder, that citizens steer away from 'not real jobs' that cannot support a family and were supposedly never meant to.)
Curious: how does a government protect against illegal labor? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Seems to me under-the-table transactions are too easy to do and too hard to catch. It depends- but I think you'd have to go after the employers. Hit a few hard enough as examples and they rest will think twice about hiring employees without knowing if they should be working. In the case of Canada, the temporary foreign worker program was getting abused by businesses, we're still figuring out what to do about it, but many are being barred from using the program if they were abusing it and the rules are tightening on when you can use it- locally unemployment has to be quite low (long term employees were getting laid off because businesses could hire foreign workers for cheaper.) But employers willing to hire illegals creates the demand, which draws illegals up to work. Therefore, penalize businesses hiring illegally (whether truly ignorant or willfuly ignorant) and they'll do the screening for you, effectively drying up demand.
|
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) has emphasized this week that he was not aware of the hateful views of a white nationalist group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke when he spoke before it at a convention over a decade ago.
Yet the event was apparently well known and toxic enough that it forced a minor league baseball team from Iowa to move to a different hotel to avoid bumping into the May 2002 conference.
The Iowa Cubs, a AAA team, were planning to stay at the Best Western Landmark Hotel in Metairie, Louisiana at the same time as the national convention for the European-American Unity and Rights Organization was being held there.
But according to newspaper reports at the time, the local New Orleans team that was arranging the visiting team's accommodations made a change in part because of concerns about the EURO event.
The Des Moines Register covered the lodging change on May 2, two weeks before the convention Scalise spoke at took place on May 17-18. A New Orleans alt weekly, the Gambit Weekly, also reported on the change in an article about potential backlash to the EURO meeting.
The switch was sparked by an anonymous call to the Iowa Cubs about the planned EURO meeting, according to the 2002 report from the Des Moines Register. The team's media relations director then brought the concern to the New Orleans Zephyrs.
"A representative from the (New Orleans) Zephyrs told me she didn't want (the Cubs) in the hotel if that meeting was going to take place," a sales representative for the hotel, Lisa Taylor, told the Register at the time.
The general manager of the Zephyrs, Dan Rajkowski, told the newspaper that the EURO meeting was just one of several reasons the Iowa team's accommodations were changed.
Source
|
Do you watch Luther? Luther on Netflix? I have it, I just didn't watch it. Here's the thing, though. James Bond is a fictional character, obviously. James Bond was invented, created by Ian Fleming, a former spy, MI6, and James Bond is a total concept put together by Ian Fleming. He was white and Scottish, period. That is who James Bond is. But now Sony is suggesting that the next James Bond should be Idris Elba, a black Briton rather than a white from Scotland. But that's not who James Bond is, and I know it's racist to probably even point this out.
But the franchise needs to get with it, right? The franchise needs to get hip. The franchise needs to get with the 21st century. That's right. We had 50 years of white Bonds because Bond is white. Bond was never black. Ian Fleming never created a black Brit to play James Bond. The character was always white. He was always Scottish. He always drank vodka shaken not stirred and all that.
Okay, so we're not supposed to have a problem with this. I mean, it's the movies. Come on, we've had 50 years of white James Bonds. We need to spread it out. We need to be equal. We need to be fair about this. Okay, fine, let's play a little game. (interruption) Jay-Z's favorite drink? How would I know what Jay-Z's favorite drink is? Ah, what would that be, Cristal? Yeah.
Ignorance incarnate....
Besides that he goes on to compare James bond being played by a black actor to white actors playing real people in bio pics he can't even get his racism right.
Jay-Z's favorite drink is certainly not Cristal...
On Wednesday, it was announced that a new company led by Jay Z had acquired Armand de Brignac Champagne — a celebrity favorite — from Sovereign Brands for an undisclosed amount.
when Frederic Rouzaud, the manager of the company that makes Cristal champagne, made an unsavory comment about his brand's clientele.
“What can we do?” Rouzaud replied when a reporter from the Economist asked his thoughts about the popularity of Cristal among rappers. "We can’t forbid people from buying it. I'm sure Dom Pérignon or Krug would be delighted to have their business."
Jay Z called for a boycott of Cristal after the company made a comment about not liking the brand's rapper clientele.
Jay Z, a major Cristal client who had given the brand shoutouts in songs, didn't appreciate the comment. Many in the hip-hop industry viewed the comments as racist, so Jay Z called for a boycott of the brand.
Later that year, a gold bottle appeared in Jay Z's music video for “Show Me What You Got” and with that, the ever-present Cristal was officially replaced with Ace of Spades — despite Cristal being more highly regarded among wine critics.
In "Show Me What You Got," Jay Z sings the lyrics, "H.O.V.A., gold bottles of that Ace of Spade/Why even fool with these other guys" and in the video is seen rejecting a bottle of Cristal in favor of Ace of Spades.
Source Source
|
On December 31 2014 05:35 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The California Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that sharecropping arrangements in the pickle industry did not permit growers to ignore the state's workers'-compensation laws. Sharecroppers were not independent operators, the court said, and growers could not avoid their legal responsibilities simply by inventing a new name for their employees. But after subsiding briefly, sharecropping reappeared a few years ago in the strawberry industry, in a new version that makes the old one seem enlightened and humane. Behind many of the current sharecropping schemes are growers and former growers determined to eliminate all risk from the business of producing strawberries. Instead of paying the operating costs of a strawberry farm, these growers--now called commission merchants--lend sharecroppers the money for operating costs at interest rates as high as 19 percent. Under the old arrangement, if things went wrong, sharecroppers simply would not be paid for hard work; under the new one, they are being saddled with thousands of dollars of debt. Why stop at sharecropping, lets just go all the way back to straight up slavery...? If anyone should be in prison it shouldn't be the people who fell for the statue of liberty's message and crossed an imaginary line to hopefully be able to provide a better life for themselves and their children, it should be the people exploiting the holy hell out of said people. Either way they shouldn't be complaining about how they wont be able to exploit the shit out of as many people. Anax have you provided a shred of evidence to support your claims? Not just from your own head but you know, actual information generated by studies or an article or something? The most I've done so far is point to this chart showing that there are plenty of unemployed individuals of whom some could probably do the work that these immigrants, who might not have to worry about deportation, move on from. A lot of younger people could (and perhaps should) jump on the opportunity to earn some money and, more importantly, experience and contacts. But if their productivity does not exceed their wage rates, they're not going to get hired, because employing them for a wage lower than the lawful minimum is illegal. As I said earlier, if I'm wrong, "our culture is one of more expectation and narcissistic entitlement than I'd feared." I'd like to think we're largely better than that, though. You're assuming that the current workers are being compensated for their productivity. This is incorrect. The current workers are being exploited because of a near universal attempt to keep food prices artificially low because if food inflated in price while real wages stagnated/decreased, the poor would probably get involved in the class war.
Americans aren't going to jump at the wonderful chance to earn $5* an hour**. * Some restrictions may apply. Wages will likely be retracted in part or in full at owner's discretion. ** Not all hours will be counted towards the previously mentioned tentative 'hourly wage'. Pay for a 14 hour day will most likely be the same as the pay for an 8 hour day.
Source: I live on a horse farm. On _____ Dairy Rd. My mother, father, grandfather, and uncle all farmed. Farmhands get fucked harder than any other workers (with the possible exception of actual prostitutes). It is not at all surprising that most people are unwilling to do more work for less pay + the added bonus of having your employer steal from you.
|
On December 31 2014 05:54 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Curious: how does a government protect against illegal labor? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Seems to me under-the-table transactions are too easy to do and too hard to catch. It depends- but I think you'd have to go after the employers. Hit a few hard enough as examples and they rest will think twice about hiring employees without knowing if they should be working. In the case of Canada, the temporary foreign worker program was getting abused by businesses, we're still figuring out what to do about it, but many are being barred from using the program if they were abusing it and the rules are tightening on when you can use it- locally unemployment has to be quite low (long term employees were getting laid off because businesses could hire foreign workers for cheaper.) But employers willing to hire illegals creates the demand, which draws illegals up to work. Therefore, penalize businesses hiring illegally (whether truly ignorant or willfuly ignorant) and they'll do the screening for you, effectively drying up demand.
I agree.
|
Canada11355 Posts
Hooray! Consensus on the internet is sometimes hard to find.
|
That's one of the conservative's primary reasons for wanting to halt illegal immigration. No one wants to work for $5 an hour, and if there wasn't a supply of illegal workers, employers wouldn't be able to offer such a low wage. And I do think most understand that food prices would probably go up, but still think it's worth it.
|
On December 31 2014 05:40 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 05:24 Falling wrote: Well, if citizens are not willing to take the job now (farmers find difficult it to find labourers at current legal wages) and if they instead resort to illegal, cheap labour... the way to find out would be to cut off illegal labour. Right now labour is getting undercut from an outside source, so of course citizens aren't going to work for less than minimum- they can get better pay elsewhere or perhaps equivalent pay for less work. Cut off illegal labour and you'll still need workers (unless you can automate everything), if citizens are still not willing to work, then it seems to me that wages are not high enough to attract workers and higher wages are needed. Curious: how does a government protect against illegal labor? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Seems to me under-the-table transactions are too easy to do and too hard to catch. It usually involves the employer. Legal workers leave paper trails. Salary payments, employment records that sort of thing, government officials see a field full of workers and ask to see their records. In the case of Illegal labor they probably don't exist or if they are falsified it can be checked with the IRS ect. The employer is then given a hefty fine and additional action may be taken if needed.
In the US it might be a bit less but here a business pays taxes on my salary, payments towards pension and healthcare. That all leaves a paper trail that wont exist for illegals. Stuff like an illegal plumper working on his own is much harder to check but an actual business is easy.
|
The US has vetoed the Palestinian Statehood resolution at the UN.
|
On December 31 2014 07:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The US has vetoed the Palestinian Statehood resolution at the UN. The reporting I saw said it fell one vote short, no veto needed.
|
The NYPD ladies and gentleman:
On the day two NYPD officers were fatally shot, a widely circulated memo purporting to be from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association told officers that "Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary." The group denied that it issued the memo, though its president, Pat Lynch, used language similar to what was in the document when he said there's "blood on the hands" of Mayor de Blasio. Regardless of who wrote the memo, it appears officers took the message to heart. The New York Post reports that NYPD officers are engaged in a "virtual work stoppage," citing statistics that show arrests in the city are down 66 percent for the week starting December 22, compared to the same period last year. The paper reports that NYPD officers are making arrests only "when they have to," leading to a massive drop in their response to low-level crimes: - Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.
- Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.
- Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.
- Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.
There's been no official confirmation that officers have purposely stopped making arrests, but one source told the Post it isn't just a political statement. "The call last week from the PBA is what started it, but this has been simmering for a long time," said one source. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake. Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them."
Source
So said protest could very easily show how over funded and aggressive the NYPD really are.
|
|
The Vatican apparently now has been infiltrated by followers of a radical green movement that is, at its core, anti-Christian, anti-people, anti-poor and anti-development. The basic tenets of Catholicism — the sanctity of human life and the value of all souls — are detested by the modern pagan environmentalists who worship the created, but not the creator.
Source
Oh man, this encyclical is going to make the republican primaries even more fun to watch!
On December 31 2014 08:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The NYPD ladies and gentleman: Show nested quote +On the day two NYPD officers were fatally shot, a widely circulated memo purporting to be from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association told officers that "Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary." The group denied that it issued the memo, though its president, Pat Lynch, used language similar to what was in the document when he said there's "blood on the hands" of Mayor de Blasio. Regardless of who wrote the memo, it appears officers took the message to heart. The New York Post reports that NYPD officers are engaged in a "virtual work stoppage," citing statistics that show arrests in the city are down 66 percent for the week starting December 22, compared to the same period last year. The paper reports that NYPD officers are making arrests only "when they have to," leading to a massive drop in their response to low-level crimes: - Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.
- Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.
- Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.
- Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.
There's been no official confirmation that officers have purposely stopped making arrests, but one source told the Post it isn't just a political statement. "The call last week from the PBA is what started it, but this has been simmering for a long time," said one source. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake. Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them." SourceSo said protest could very easily show how over funded and aggressive the NYPD really are.
lol. Other than the public urination that sounds like it's going to please more people than it's going to piss off .
|
On December 31 2014 08:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The NYPD ladies and gentleman: Show nested quote +On the day two NYPD officers were fatally shot, a widely circulated memo purporting to be from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association told officers that "Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary." The group denied that it issued the memo, though its president, Pat Lynch, used language similar to what was in the document when he said there's "blood on the hands" of Mayor de Blasio. Regardless of who wrote the memo, it appears officers took the message to heart. The New York Post reports that NYPD officers are engaged in a "virtual work stoppage," citing statistics that show arrests in the city are down 66 percent for the week starting December 22, compared to the same period last year. The paper reports that NYPD officers are making arrests only "when they have to," leading to a massive drop in their response to low-level crimes: - Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.
- Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.
- Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.
- Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.
There's been no official confirmation that officers have purposely stopped making arrests, but one source told the Post it isn't just a political statement. "The call last week from the PBA is what started it, but this has been simmering for a long time," said one source. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake. Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them." SourceSo said protest could very easily show how over funded and aggressive the NYPD really are. Is this the qoute (or part of the qoute) that the NYPD is taking such offense over?
New York mayor Bill de Blasio says race inequality is an American problem after a grand jury failed to indict a police officer over the death of Eric Garner.
Sigh, these cops really are not smart are they. No the mayor will not have your back if you kill a man using a prohibited maneuver, and he shouldn't have your back at that time. If he did you would be a corrupt police force which is the very problem the US is facing...
|
On December 31 2014 05:35 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The California Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that sharecropping arrangements in the pickle industry did not permit growers to ignore the state's workers'-compensation laws. Sharecroppers were not independent operators, the court said, and growers could not avoid their legal responsibilities simply by inventing a new name for their employees. But after subsiding briefly, sharecropping reappeared a few years ago in the strawberry industry, in a new version that makes the old one seem enlightened and humane. Behind many of the current sharecropping schemes are growers and former growers determined to eliminate all risk from the business of producing strawberries. Instead of paying the operating costs of a strawberry farm, these growers--now called commission merchants--lend sharecroppers the money for operating costs at interest rates as high as 19 percent. Under the old arrangement, if things went wrong, sharecroppers simply would not be paid for hard work; under the new one, they are being saddled with thousands of dollars of debt. Why stop at sharecropping, lets just go all the way back to straight up slavery...? If anyone should be in prison it shouldn't be the people who fell for the statue of liberty's message and crossed an imaginary line to hopefully be able to provide a better life for themselves and their children, it should be the people exploiting the holy hell out of said people. Either way they shouldn't be complaining about how they wont be able to exploit the shit out of as many people. Anax have you provided a shred of evidence to support your claims? Not just from your own head but you know, actual information generated by studies or an article or something? The most I've done so far is point to this chart showing that there are plenty of unemployed individuals of whom some could probably do the work that these immigrants, who might not have to worry about deportation, move on from. A lot of younger people could (and perhaps should) jump on the opportunity to earn some money and, more importantly, experience and contacts. But if their productivity does not exceed their wage rates, they're not going to get hired, because employing them for a wage lower than the lawful minimum is illegal. As I said earlier, if I'm wrong, "our culture is one of more expectation and narcissistic entitlement than I'd feared." I'd like to think we're largely better than that, though.
Ok so you want to talk about how you value work, and how you think people who are unemployed should be working for whatever they can get, because "A lot of younger people could (and perhaps should) jump on the opportunity to earn some money and, more importantly, experience and contacts." You point out that there are quite a few unemployed people in the United States, and you think that those people are "entitled" and "narcissistic" for not working for $5 or $3 an hour if they have to.
It's very difficult to find another job of any kind when you are working in a manual labor job for 40+ hours a week getting paid poverty wages. Those jobs are physically and emotionally draining. You have little time to actually look for other job openings. You have little time to go on interviews and pursue leads. You are have even littler time because you can't afford a car to get anywhere, so your commutes are long. You have little space because you are living in a crowded or tiny area and subsisting on poverty foodstuffs.
On top of that, there is the reality of knowing that future wages are heavily tied to current wages. Going to work at $5 an hour for a year out of college on a farm picking fruit yields you $10,000 gross for the entire year, and no experience benefit for the vast majority of jobs that college educated people tend to seek. You vastly overstate the "opportunity," "experience," and "contacts" that a sub-poverty wage job on a farm grants someone. There is practically zero upward mobility in those positions. They are essentially temporary jobs. They do not help you land anything except maybe other temp positions. And so what you really end up with after a year of hard labor in the fields in $10,000 and a dead end.
88% of people who would benefit from a raise in the current minimum wage are over 20 years old, so I know you can't mean that high schoolers should be filling the slave labor gap on Californian farms. You want the people who have lost their office or construction job, who are in their 30s or 40s, to take this "opportunity" to earn $5 an hour when they were earning $20 an hour before and barely making ends meet, when there is no realistic hope that taking such a job will help them get a job that puts them over the poverty line. You also overestimate how many near-minimum wage jobs there are. A Walmart opening in D.C. had 23,000 applications for 600 jobs. A 2.6% acceptance rate. Pretending like people in Ohio can uproot themselves to go to California for a few months of sub-minimum wage pay is completely out of touch. The only narcissism and entitlement I see is that of the people who declare from their upper middle class mountaintop that the poor unemployed get off their couch and volunteer as slave labor in the farmers' fields.
|
On December 31 2014 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 08:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The NYPD ladies and gentleman: On the day two NYPD officers were fatally shot, a widely circulated memo purporting to be from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association told officers that "Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary." The group denied that it issued the memo, though its president, Pat Lynch, used language similar to what was in the document when he said there's "blood on the hands" of Mayor de Blasio. Regardless of who wrote the memo, it appears officers took the message to heart. The New York Post reports that NYPD officers are engaged in a "virtual work stoppage," citing statistics that show arrests in the city are down 66 percent for the week starting December 22, compared to the same period last year. The paper reports that NYPD officers are making arrests only "when they have to," leading to a massive drop in their response to low-level crimes: - Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.
- Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.
- Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.
- Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.
There's been no official confirmation that officers have purposely stopped making arrests, but one source told the Post it isn't just a political statement. "The call last week from the PBA is what started it, but this has been simmering for a long time," said one source. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake. Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them." SourceSo said protest could very easily show how over funded and aggressive the NYPD really are. Is this the qoute (or part of the qoute) that the NYPD is taking such offense over? Show nested quote +New York mayor Bill de Blasio says race inequality is an American problem after a grand jury failed to indict a police officer over the death of Eric Garner. Sigh, these cops really are not smart are they. No the mayor will not have your back if you kill a man using a prohibited maneuver, and he shouldn't have your back at that time. If he did you would be a corrupt police force which is the very problem the US is facing...
No, I believe the quote was about his son being black and having to talk to his son about interacting with the cops. Said quote: http://gawker.com/mayor-deblasio-had-to-warn-his-son-about-his-police-for-1666419881
|
Barack Obama pledged to spend 2014 wielding his pen to write executive orders circumventing Congress; now he has warned that 2015 will require him to “pull out his veto pen”, to prevent Congress from overriding his wishes.
In an uncompromising interview released on Monday, the president said he expected that the Republican takeover of the Senate would cause him to spend much of his last two years in office blocking attempts to unpick his domestic reforms.
“I haven’t used the veto pen very often since I’ve been in office, partly because legislation that I objected to was typically blocked in the Senate even after Republicans took over the House,” Obama told NPR, in a conversation recorded before he left for a Christmas vacation in Hawaii.
“Now I suspect there are going to be some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out. And I’m going to defend gains that we’ve made in healthcare; I’m going to defend gains that we’ve made on environment and clean air and clean water.”
The language of Obama’s pledge echoes his 2014 State of the Union address, in which he promised to use his “pen and phone” to overcome an intransigent Congress and seek alternatives to legislation.
The Democrats’ loss of the Senate in November’s midterm elections means Republicans are likely to try to reverse that momentum and pass legislation. Such legislation can be blocked by the White House, unless there is a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress.
Obama’s NPR interview also acknowledges openly for the first time that since the midterms, the White House has shifted toward a more confrontational policy.
“The moves like the Cuba diplomatic initiative are ones that I want to make sure I continue to pursue partly because, frankly, it’s easier for a president to do at the end of his term than a new president coming in,” said Obama, who agreed he was shifting from things he “had to do” to things he “wanted to do”.
He added: “I’m in a position now where, with the economy relatively strong, with us having lowered the deficit, with us having strong growth and job growth, for the first time us starting to see wages ticking up, with inflation low, with energy production high – now I have the ability to focus on some long-term projects, including making sure that everybody is benefiting from this growth and not just some.”
The tone of Obama’s end-of-year interview, much like his end-of-year press conference on 19 December, reaffirmed a bolder mood that is likely to infuriate critics and delight supporters.
He also pointed to limited opportunity for compromise with Republicans on issues like immigration, where he said could not work with “nativists” who opposed reform efforts.
However, the president once again ducked opportunities to side with protesters over recent clashes with police in Ferguson and New York, arguing that the US was “probably in its day-to-day interactions less racially divided” now than when in became president.
Source
|
On December 31 2014 09:48 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:On December 31 2014 08:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The NYPD ladies and gentleman: On the day two NYPD officers were fatally shot, a widely circulated memo purporting to be from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association told officers that "Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary." The group denied that it issued the memo, though its president, Pat Lynch, used language similar to what was in the document when he said there's "blood on the hands" of Mayor de Blasio. Regardless of who wrote the memo, it appears officers took the message to heart. The New York Post reports that NYPD officers are engaged in a "virtual work stoppage," citing statistics that show arrests in the city are down 66 percent for the week starting December 22, compared to the same period last year. The paper reports that NYPD officers are making arrests only "when they have to," leading to a massive drop in their response to low-level crimes: - Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.
- Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.
- Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.
- Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.
There's been no official confirmation that officers have purposely stopped making arrests, but one source told the Post it isn't just a political statement. "The call last week from the PBA is what started it, but this has been simmering for a long time," said one source. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake. Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them." SourceSo said protest could very easily show how over funded and aggressive the NYPD really are. Is this the qoute (or part of the qoute) that the NYPD is taking such offense over? New York mayor Bill de Blasio says race inequality is an American problem after a grand jury failed to indict a police officer over the death of Eric Garner. Sigh, these cops really are not smart are they. No the mayor will not have your back if you kill a man using a prohibited maneuver, and he shouldn't have your back at that time. If he did you would be a corrupt police force which is the very problem the US is facing... No, I believe the quote was about his son being black and having to talk to his son about interacting with the cops. Said quote: http://gawker.com/mayor-deblasio-had-to-warn-his-son-about-his-police-for-1666419881 Thank you, its a slightly better reason at least, tho imo not even remotely good enough, but we have had that discussion here before very recently so ill leave it at that.
|
On December 31 2014 06:09 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 05:35 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The California Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that sharecropping arrangements in the pickle industry did not permit growers to ignore the state's workers'-compensation laws. Sharecroppers were not independent operators, the court said, and growers could not avoid their legal responsibilities simply by inventing a new name for their employees. But after subsiding briefly, sharecropping reappeared a few years ago in the strawberry industry, in a new version that makes the old one seem enlightened and humane. Behind many of the current sharecropping schemes are growers and former growers determined to eliminate all risk from the business of producing strawberries. Instead of paying the operating costs of a strawberry farm, these growers--now called commission merchants--lend sharecroppers the money for operating costs at interest rates as high as 19 percent. Under the old arrangement, if things went wrong, sharecroppers simply would not be paid for hard work; under the new one, they are being saddled with thousands of dollars of debt. Why stop at sharecropping, lets just go all the way back to straight up slavery...? If anyone should be in prison it shouldn't be the people who fell for the statue of liberty's message and crossed an imaginary line to hopefully be able to provide a better life for themselves and their children, it should be the people exploiting the holy hell out of said people. Either way they shouldn't be complaining about how they wont be able to exploit the shit out of as many people. Anax have you provided a shred of evidence to support your claims? Not just from your own head but you know, actual information generated by studies or an article or something? The most I've done so far is point to this chart showing that there are plenty of unemployed individuals of whom some could probably do the work that these immigrants, who might not have to worry about deportation, move on from. A lot of younger people could (and perhaps should) jump on the opportunity to earn some money and, more importantly, experience and contacts. But if their productivity does not exceed their wage rates, they're not going to get hired, because employing them for a wage lower than the lawful minimum is illegal. As I said earlier, if I'm wrong, "our culture is one of more expectation and narcissistic entitlement than I'd feared." I'd like to think we're largely better than that, though. Source: I live on a horse farm. On _____ Dairy Rd. My mother, father, grandfather, and uncle all farmed. Farmhands get fucked harder than any other workers (with the possible exception of actual prostitutes). It is not at all surprising that most people are unwilling to do more work for less pay + the added bonus of having your employer steal from you. I am kind of curious, as a horse farmer do you mostly sell horses for racing or whats the deal?
|
|
|
|
|