Well, there's your first problem, you are comparing L/R in the US to L/R in most of the world. To the US, most of the world is all far left.
So, if discussing L/R in the US, let's keep it to use comparisons only, as that what the rest of the world thinks isn't that important to us here....if you like that stuff in EU, have fun with it, but it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation of political spectrum in the US.
However he got demonized by a large majority on the right on pretty much every issue, which tried to paint his Reaganite ideas as "far left". FWIW Hillary tried the same approach and failed
REally? Seriously?
I was around with Reagan as president....and I don't see a single parallel between him and Obama/Hillary.
They are both FAR left of him from my memory of his days as president.
Well duh. If I was the CEO of a company, I wouldn't date anyone in that company. You're just asking for bad things.
But I'd also understand that If I WAS asking someone in the company out, there would be that underlying "I can fire you" threat behind it, even if I didn't mean it. So back to not asking anyone in the company out.
It's sad that we've come to this today, where men can't be men and women can't be women due to fear of litigation or worse.
As I said, "weaponized #metoo" doesn't happen and never will: the moment a woman starts making accusations against any men, even now, she generally suffers severe career consequences, and unless multiple women come forward making accusations against the same man, the allegation never goes anywhere.
Tell that to that lacrosse team that got falsely accused of rape a couple years back, and even though they finally got the lady that lied...those guys lives are still likely difficult if not ruined.
No. But if you ask them out and it's unwanted, you are in violation of Federal Law.
You mean to tell me that merely ASKING a chick lower on the totem pole than you out for a date, no pussy grabbing or anything truly physical, would be against federal law?
SHit, if I was a CEO in a company, I'd never talk to a woman period....its just too fucking screwed up and scary these days with this crap.
Where in this conversation did "difficult" to date women come into play?
Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.
Its the consequences NOW with a weaponized #metoo that threatens to ruin your life you you piss a girl off these days...whether you've slept with her or not.
Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!
Picking up and dating women, isn't really the problem.
The thing you now have to be paranoid about is, that the #MeToo has been weaponized...and if you jilt her or she doesn't take a breakup very well, well, all it takes now is a mere unsubstantiated accusation and your career and life are toast.
Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.
So, you're saying now, that in this day in age...you are no longer able legally in any way, to date within the company???
Geez....so, if you are a boss and you see a lady you want to date, you have to fire them first, before you can ask them out?
That doesn't seem to be a good opening line no matter how you look at it...
...those 7 wacky castaways will finally get off Gilligan's Island! Will make for a very short season though.
I disagree.
I think there are WAY more than enough of us that enjoy seeing Mary Ann in her tight shorts and crop tops......we'll keep them on the island for viewing forever.
Ah, the folly of nostalgia. The "good writing" of the past was the exception, not the rule. As a general optimistic estimate, "90% of everything is crap." Older things look a little better because most of the bottom 80% has been lost, forgotten, or willfully ignored.
The problem is, with writing, like music today....90% of the CRAP from the past is better than 90% of the "GOOD" stuff that is put out today.
Geez, I never thought works of science fiction would be such a realistic guide for the future.
1984 for much of what we see today....and now, I"m thinking I might need a "scramble suit" from A Scanner Darkly.
We've had departments of immigration officers that rounded up and deported illegals for a LONG time.
Hell, for a good public example of it, look in Cheech and Chong's first movie Up in Smoke where they get caught up in a raid by the "migra" and sent across the border into Mexico.
Except it's not that straightforward. People have the legal right to seek asylum, and even if they are here illegally without seeking asylum they are still entitled to due process and basic human rights under both the US Constitution and international laws.
Poverty and economic hardship are not valid reasons for asylum.
Political oppression and governmental threats to their lives are reasons....and I'm guessing the VAST majority of the 4K+ caravan on the way here, are not being directly politically persecuted by their governments.
Then how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All men, not just Americans. Yet there is a growing portion of this country that seems to think those rights don't apply to people outside the US, that they are less than human.
1. This is not law of the land, the Constitution is.
2. The words still are valid, we believe them...we believe you can practice them ANYWHERE you are, but you do not necessarily get to come live HERE to do them. US citizens come first, it is after all, our country. We get to choose who and how many to let in at a time, it is necessary for our country prosperity to continue and grow.
You have all those rights in the Declaration you just quoted....it is just that nowhere in there does it guarantee you get the practice them here in our land.
This is a fact that accounts, I believe, for at least some police shootings of unarmed suspects. The human visual system does not have the bandwidth or acuity to instantaneously take in a whole scene; instead it picks out a few details and constructs, entirely within the brain, an HD picture of the world. But it's more of an animation than it is a movie. Until you actually direct your fovea to the cellphone in the suspect's hands, it's just a dark blob on your retina. If you "know" there's a gun, your brain replaces that blob with a very clear picture of a gun.
It is fairly simple to keep from this type situation.
1. Freeze, when encountering the police in a stop, just be still. Don't move until directed to.
2. Go out of your way to show empty hands, don't be holding a cell phone, etc....show plainly your hands are empty.
3. Actually this should be #!...DON"T FUCKING RUN.
4. Obey officers commands, don't smart off, don't talk any more than you need too (being quiet is one of the first things your lawyer would tell you, you have the right to remain silent...REMAIN SILENT as is your right).
These simple 4 steps would keep the majority of folks from getting shot by the police when they do not need to be shot.
When did common sense go out the door?
It is legal to carry guns in your car here...no license required.
When you get pulled over here...you shut off the engine, keep movements slow...and put both hands on the steering wheel in plain site and wait for officer to approach you.
I usually tell the officer, "I have a loaded gun located xyz".....at that point, they usually ask me to get out of the car...some retrieve the weapon, some don't and just run a check on my DL. No one gets excited, no one gets shot.
Being respectful, and moving slow and deliberate and obeying officers commands make stops pretty quick and uneventful....especially if you are not committing a crime.
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.
I agree we need to update and fix the immigration laws. It should be fair, and a more simple and less $$ process, BUT, it also should allow for control of who all gets to come in. I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.
There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
While it is noble to take our great wealth and resources to help others around the world, we can NOT support the whole world and cannot house or bring everyone and their goat into our country.
If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there.....
ICE is the part of the federal government that helps control immigration and deports those that come here illegally. Why do we not support them?
Hell, one of the few constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government IS to protect our borders.
"Oh well, we tried, time to get an H1-B" any time they can't find somebody willing to take a job for $20/hr, weekend graveyards, $220/week health insurance and you need a 4 year degree and 8 years experience in tech for this senior position that is somehow critical enough that we get an H1-B but not so critical that we can't have a contract worker do it.
Well, if that's all that company is wanting to offer, I'd not want to work for them.
There ARE plenty of other opportunities out there, right now it is more of an employees market as that unemployment is low, and economy is booming.....
If you have talent, you can name your price in most cases. You do still have to shop around and be willing to move to where the best jobs are...but that's nothing new over past decades.
And in the meantime, take 50% to 75% of your rate, and provide you with really crappy benefits.
If that is the case, then you either are not good at negotiating your rates/work rules with the contracting house....or you don't know enough about the business to know to move onto the next one.
One thing to do, however, is to incorporate yourself, it is much easier to contract as an individual 1009 if you are incorporated and do corp-to-corp. Contracting 1099 to an individual scares the shit out of companies, as they can get stung like MS did years back by contractors coming back to sue to claim employee-hood.
If you incorporate, even the contract houses will often work with you and take a smaller finders fee cut....sometimes just a cut for first few months of contract, then, the whole bill rate is yours.
This can be a lucrative business, but you have to put on your "big boy" pants, and learn to manage yourself, promote yourself, do paperwork, taxes AND how to budget your negotiated bill rate to cover your pay, time off, and retirement funds yourself.
It isn't rocket surgery, but along with higher dollars and more freedom, comes more personal responsibility.
The existence of a memo suggesting you hide something to avoid regulatory oversight is a sure way to get some (deserved) regulatory oversight.
This was self-serving, and I'm glad to see it's backfiring on them.
While I agree with your sentiment....and I would like to see more privacy control of the information on US citizens, opt in, YOU own your own data and deserve to be able to say yes/no if it used, and can "be forgotten"....I do have to ask a question.
Since there really is NO current regulation on this in the US, by what authority and power granted by the constitution give congress fuck-all ability to force a private company to turn over documentation on something like this?
I mean, I'm just not sure where congress gets it power for asking private companies to come testify, etc...kinda the same feeling I got during the baseball steroid thing, I mean, really? What was congress doing with all that?
And if I were a private company, I'll politely decline to show up, I mean, just like talking to the police, it just can NOT possibly do you any good.
For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.
Well, Jury duty isn't truly mandatory....
If you don't register to vote, then you are not put into the pool of possible jurors.
I"m not sure I like mandatory.
I understand your feelings behind it, and I would applaud more people participating in general, HOWEVER, I don't like a free country forcing the citizens to do something...maybe they don't like any of the choices, you know?
And also...if someone isn't interested enough in utilizing their right as a citizen to vote, to go register, and show up at the polling place, etc...I'm guessing they are likely also too un-interested to be an INFORMED voter.
If someone is un-informed, then I would posit they are likely to be more readily swayed by foreign propaganda as we have seen the Russians do, and I"m sure other state actors do (surely this isn't first attempt by foreign states)....
So, while I agree with your intentions on that, I disagree in that it might not be the best idea.
I'd rather have few voters that were better informed on what and who they are voting for, rather than a larger voter pool filled with many or most who don't know the issues or the candidates.
The uninformed are much easier to be swayed by exteral forces that might not have the US's best interest in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's your first problem, you are comparing L/R in the US to L/R in most of the world. To the US, most of the world is all far left.
So, if discussing L/R in the US, let's keep it to use comparisons only, as that what the rest of the world thinks isn't that important to us here....if you like that stuff in EU, have fun with it, but it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation of political spectrum in the US.
REally? Seriously?
I was around with Reagan as president....and I don't see a single parallel between him and Obama/Hillary.
They are both FAR left of him from my memory of his days as president.
It's sad that we've come to this today, where men can't be men and women can't be women due to fear of litigation or worse.
Tell that to that lacrosse team that got falsely accused of rape a couple years back, and even though they finally got the lady that lied...those guys lives are still likely difficult if not ruined.
You mean to tell me that merely ASKING a chick lower on the totem pole than you out for a date, no pussy grabbing or anything truly physical, would be against federal law?
SHit, if I was a CEO in a company, I'd never talk to a woman period....its just too fucking screwed up and scary these days with this crap.
Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.
Its the consequences NOW with a weaponized #metoo that threatens to ruin your life you you piss a girl off these days...whether you've slept with her or not.
Hauling stuff (firewood, etc).
Dropping a boat in the lake for a day and hauling it out....
Those are just a couple of quick things that come to mind.
Picking up and dating women, isn't really the problem.
The thing you now have to be paranoid about is, that the #MeToo has been weaponized...and if you jilt her or she doesn't take a breakup very well, well, all it takes now is a mere unsubstantiated accusation and your career and life are toast.
So, you're saying now, that in this day in age...you are no longer able legally in any way, to date within the company???
Geez....so, if you are a boss and you see a lady you want to date, you have to fire them first, before you can ask them out?
That doesn't seem to be a good opening line no matter how you look at it...
I see the start of a new movement of the BGM with t-shirts, rallies, riots and all....
I disagree.
I think there are WAY more than enough of us that enjoy seeing Mary Ann in her tight shorts and crop tops......we'll keep them on the island for viewing forever.
The problem is, with writing, like music today....90% of the CRAP from the past is better than 90% of the "GOOD" stuff that is put out today.
Geez, I never thought works of science fiction would be such a realistic guide for the future. 1984 for much of what we see today....and now, I"m thinking I might need a "scramble suit" from A Scanner Darkly.
New?
We've had departments of immigration officers that rounded up and deported illegals for a LONG time.
Hell, for a good public example of it, look in Cheech and Chong's first movie Up in Smoke where they get caught up in a raid by the "migra" and sent across the border into Mexico.
This isn't anything new.
Poverty and economic hardship are not valid reasons for asylum.
Political oppression and governmental threats to their lives are reasons....and I'm guessing the VAST majority of the 4K+ caravan on the way here, are not being directly politically persecuted by their governments.
They're coming for money.
1. This is not law of the land, the Constitution is.
2. The words still are valid, we believe them...we believe you can practice them ANYWHERE you are, but you do not necessarily get to come live HERE to do them. US citizens come first, it is after all, our country. We get to choose who and how many to let in at a time, it is necessary for our country prosperity to continue and grow.
You have all those rights in the Declaration you just quoted....it is just that nowhere in there does it guarantee you get the practice them here in our land.
Poverty is NOT a reason for asylum.....political oppression, etc...is.
For 4K or whatever number of folks coming here, the vast majority of them are NOT being politically oppressed or persecuted by their government.
We need to turn them away....or let them seek asylum in Mexico if they let them through.
It is fairly simple to keep from this type situation.
1. Freeze, when encountering the police in a stop, just be still. Don't move until directed to.
2. Go out of your way to show empty hands, don't be holding a cell phone, etc....show plainly your hands are empty.
3. Actually this should be #!...DON"T FUCKING RUN.
4. Obey officers commands, don't smart off, don't talk any more than you need too (being quiet is one of the first things your lawyer would tell you, you have the right to remain silent...REMAIN SILENT as is your right).
These simple 4 steps would keep the majority of folks from getting shot by the police when they do not need to be shot.
When did common sense go out the door?
It is legal to carry guns in your car here...no license required.
When you get pulled over here...you shut off the engine, keep movements slow...and put both hands on the steering wheel in plain site and wait for officer to approach you.
I usually tell the officer, "I have a loaded gun located xyz".....at that point, they usually ask me to get out of the car...some retrieve the weapon, some don't and just run a check on my DL. No one gets excited, no one gets shot.
Being respectful, and moving slow and deliberate and obeying officers commands make stops pretty quick and uneventful....especially if you are not committing a crime.
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.
I agree we need to update and fix the immigration laws. It should be fair, and a more simple and less $$ process, BUT, it also should allow for control of who all gets to come in. I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.
There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
While it is noble to take our great wealth and resources to help others around the world, we can NOT support the whole world and cannot house or bring everyone and their goat into our country.
If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there.....
ICE is the part of the federal government that helps control immigration and deports those that come here illegally. Why do we not support them?
Hell, one of the few constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government IS to protect our borders.
Well, if that's all that company is wanting to offer, I'd not want to work for them.
There ARE plenty of other opportunities out there, right now it is more of an employees market as that unemployment is low, and economy is booming.....
If you have talent, you can name your price in most cases. You do still have to shop around and be willing to move to where the best jobs are...but that's nothing new over past decades.
If that is the case, then you either are not good at negotiating your rates/work rules with the contracting house....or you don't know enough about the business to know to move onto the next one.
One thing to do, however, is to incorporate yourself, it is much easier to contract as an individual 1009 if you are incorporated and do corp-to-corp. Contracting 1099 to an individual scares the shit out of companies, as they can get stung like MS did years back by contractors coming back to sue to claim employee-hood.
If you incorporate, even the contract houses will often work with you and take a smaller finders fee cut....sometimes just a cut for first few months of contract, then, the whole bill rate is yours.
This can be a lucrative business, but you have to put on your "big boy" pants, and learn to manage yourself, promote yourself, do paperwork, taxes AND how to budget your negotiated bill rate to cover your pay, time off, and retirement funds yourself.
It isn't rocket surgery, but along with higher dollars and more freedom, comes more personal responsibility.
While I agree with your sentiment....and I would like to see more privacy control of the information on US citizens, opt in, YOU own your own data and deserve to be able to say yes/no if it used, and can "be forgotten"....I do have to ask a question.
Since there really is NO current regulation on this in the US, by what authority and power granted by the constitution give congress fuck-all ability to force a private company to turn over documentation on something like this?
I mean, I'm just not sure where congress gets it power for asking private companies to come testify, etc...kinda the same feeling I got during the baseball steroid thing, I mean, really? What was congress doing with all that?
And if I were a private company, I'll politely decline to show up, I mean, just like talking to the police, it just can NOT possibly do you any good.
Well, Jury duty isn't truly mandatory....
If you don't register to vote, then you are not put into the pool of possible jurors.
I"m not sure I like mandatory.
I understand your feelings behind it, and I would applaud more people participating in general, HOWEVER, I don't like a free country forcing the citizens to do something...maybe they don't like any of the choices, you know?
And also...if someone isn't interested enough in utilizing their right as a citizen to vote, to go register, and show up at the polling place, etc...I'm guessing they are likely also too un-interested to be an INFORMED voter.
If someone is un-informed, then I would posit they are likely to be more readily swayed by foreign propaganda as we have seen the Russians do, and I"m sure other state actors do (surely this isn't first attempt by foreign states)....
So, while I agree with your intentions on that, I disagree in that it might not be the best idea.
I'd rather have few voters that were better informed on what and who they are voting for, rather than a larger voter pool filled with many or most who don't know the issues or the candidates.
The uninformed are much easier to be swayed by exteral forces that might not have the US's best interest in mind.
At least those are some of my thoughts on it...
I just checked, and yup...Bing still gives relevant results.
Unless of course, that is the only derogatory term that is still PC to say/use....?