Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/11/05 23:36:32
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
"Jesus, Ronald Regan, ISIS." -every 2016 presidential candidate
Yeah... but then they'd lose (again) because then every voter in America would think they're *gasp!* gaaaaaayyyyyyy. (seriously, nothing wrong with being homosexual or anything else, it is just ludicrously funny how much these clowns rail against it)
CptJake wrote:There is a reason folks don't like hiring convicted thieves to work around money or pilfer-able goods... You guys honestly don't think employers should be able to know who they are hiring? Often hiring/training an employee is an investment, making the wrong hire can cost you. Having a good understanding of the applicant and their background makes sense to me.
The problem isn't that an employer won't know that a person was previously convicted of theft (as per this example), but the problem is that the vast majority of people who check that block never receive a call back. By removing the block, if you find this out during the interview, or prior to it, you can ask the applicant in person, "can you please explain the circumstances of X, and have you learned from this mistake?"
Just for funsies, if a guy convicted of stealing car stereos does his time, and is applying for a job as a car stereo installer at a place like Car Toys, certainly he may be one to hire... Often times, one would assume that the theft must be quick (he obviously knows something about the stereo systems) which means in theory, that he could remove and install systems much quicker than perhaps someone coming into the interview process "straight" more stereo installation/turnover at the store = more money. And as we know, in today's corporate world profit is everything.
2015/11/06 00:42:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
"Jesus, Ronald Regan, ISIS." -every 2016 presidential candidate
Yeah... but then they'd lose (again) because then every voter in America would think they're *gasp!* gaaaaaayyyyyyy. (seriously, nothing wrong with being homosexual or anything else, it is just ludicrously funny how much these clowns rail against it)
Hey, I'm just glad someone acknowledged my zinger because I thought it was pretty good!
CptJake wrote:There is a reason folks don't like hiring convicted thieves to work around money or pilfer-able goods... You guys honestly don't think employers should be able to know who they are hiring? Often hiring/training an employee is an investment, making the wrong hire can cost you. Having a good understanding of the applicant and their background makes sense to me.
The problem isn't that an employer won't know that a person was previously convicted of theft (as per this example), but the problem is that the vast majority of people who check that block never receive a call back. By removing the block, if you find this out during the interview, or prior to it, you can ask the applicant in person, "can you please explain the circumstances of X, and have you learned from this mistake?"
Just for funsies, if a guy convicted of stealing car stereos does his time, and is applying for a job as a car stereo installer at a place like Car Toys, certainly he may be one to hire... Often times, one would assume that the theft must be quick (he obviously knows something about the stereo systems) which means in theory, that he could remove and install systems much quicker than perhaps someone coming into the interview process "straight" more stereo installation/turnover at the store = more money. And as we know, in today's corporate world profit is everything.
I agree. I don't understand where the argument against this comes from. As a construction worker, it should come as no surprise that I've known plenty of ex-cons and most of them are decent enough people that did stupid gak and figured out that it was a probably not the best way to live.
My best friend is an ex-felon and has spent the better part of his adult life convincing the Commonwealth of Virginia to re-enfranchise him. Luckily, he managed to have his rights fully restored last year but it makes no sense that he has to fight tooth and nail to get it after more than decade had passed since he paid his debt to society.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 01:04:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Huckabee and Christie dropped to the undercard debate today while Graham and Pataki didn't make the cut at all.
Hopefully Carson get's a chance to drop his new track at the next debate.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 04:32:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'm getting a paywall so I can't read the story. Care to share the relevant bits?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 04:38:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
On the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, Mr. Sanders didn’t say he regretted his debate remarks. “You get 12 seconds to say these things,” he said of the debate setting. “There’s an investigation going on right now. I did not say, ‘End the investigation.’ That’s silly.…Let the investigation proceed unimpeded.”
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/06 04:40:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I don't think that's nearly a revelatory as you do, but Clinton's email is your thing so what do I know.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 04:47:32
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Nothing changed. Your "nugget" doesn't say anything to reverse his debate statement that the voters don't really care about the issue, or that he isn't interested in attacking Hillary over it. Acknowledging that an investigation is happening, one which could very well conclude "she isn't guilty of anything", and stating that he doesn't want to interfere with it is not at all the same as an attack. In fact, your own source explicitly states that he doesn't want to change what he said at the debate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 04:48:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/11/06 04:57:02
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Nothing changed. Your "nugget" doesn't say anything to reverse his debate statement that the voters don't really care about the issue, or that he isn't interested in attacking Hillary over it. Acknowledging that an investigation is happening, one which could very well conclude "she isn't guilty of anything", and stating that he doesn't want to interfere with it is not at all the same as an attack.
BIDEN changed the dynamic when he decided against running.
Had Biden jumped in, he'd be taking more of Clinton's support than Sanders.
So now that Biden is out, Sanders need to subtlety whack Clinton a bit. What's interesting is that this is the WSJ... not sure if there's that many Clinton/Sanders supports would've seen it. It would've have more zing had he said this on MSNBC or HuffingtonPost.
*shrugs*
Not that'll matters... HRC is the next President. Her theme song ought to be I Will Surivive:
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/06 05:05:55
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It would've have more zing had he said this on MSNBC or HuffingtonPost.
Seriously Whembly, you're looking way to far into this non-attack (that also has something to do with Biden?).
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 05:06:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Now you see why I think you're team blue.
Because we don't agree with vague and incoherent theories about how Hillary is evil?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/11/06 05:16:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/06 05:22:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
is it really? I assume every president in the last 100 years has done far, far worse in the pursuit of political expediency.
Also, as someone who really did try to follow the Benghazi investigation, I am more and more convinced that it was all crap, that Hilary was guilty of becoming blasé to her job as just about anyone would, and that the Republicans have destroyed the possibility that I would ever take any of their accusations seriously again.
whembly wrote: Now you see why I think you're team blue.
Or maybe it's because you just like to assume everything?
Anyways, I'm still failing to see what makes that one sentence from an entire interview such a bombshell to you... or what it has to do with Joe Biden.
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
Is that the new right wing tactic? Use their names for extra emphases on how truly evil Hilary Clinton is?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/06 06:49:23
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 06:51:18
2015/11/06 08:35:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BIDEN changed the dynamic when he decided against running.
Had Biden jumped in, he'd be taking more of Clinton's support than Sanders.
So now that Biden is out, Sanders need to subtlety whack Clinton a bit.
Sanders' comment was not an attack on Clinton and, even if it were, it has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Biden. His comment would have been exactly the same if Biden were in the race as the thrust of it was to dismiss the notion that he didn't care about any potential malfeasance. The article you cited alludes to this very fact in the third paragraph.
BlaxicanX wrote: What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
Oh, that's fine. You have to remember that Hillary Clinton is a Lizard Man from Hollow Earth sent to destroy America. On her own she could be managed, but after the Lizard People made peace with the Mole Men in the wake of the inroads made by their emissary, Barrack Obama, the threat is too great to ignore.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 08:45:13
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/11/06 11:00:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
Why, I am just shocked you would even suspect such a thing. I'm sure Whembly also knows the names of the 87 people who died at embassy attacks under the previous administration just as well. The idea that he would only be concerned with the deaths of Americans when they're politically useful - well, who would even do such a thing?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 11:18:53
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/11/06 11:38:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
#whataboutery
2015/11/06 13:34:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
dogma wrote:*Say they get a new job, or their employer switches healthcare providers, or even healthcare plans.
This was me. I had to have a salivary gland removed, but found it out a few months before changing jobs. If my insurance were allowed to reject my claim based on pre-existing (which pre-ACA they were allowed), I would have had to turn down my cushy government job because there is no way I could have afforded the $60,000+ bill for the surgeon alone. To say nothing of the hospital stay or (most expensive part) the anesthesiologist.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:I agree. I don't understand where the argument against this comes from. As a construction worker, it should come as no surprise that I've known plenty of ex-cons and most of them are decent enough people that did stupid gak and figured out that it was a probably not the best way to live.
My best friend is an ex-felon and has spent the better part of his adult life convincing the Commonwealth of Virginia to re-enfranchise him. Luckily, he managed to have his rights fully restored last year but it makes no sense that he has to fight tooth and nail to get it after more than decade had passed since he paid his debt to society.
Look at this guy. Treating them like they're people.
Seriously, part of the reason recidivism rates are so high is because many times once a felon gets out (regardless of the actual crime) they are basically blocked from ever finding work. So their choices become "be homeless and/or starving" or "go back to doing what I did". It's insane that we expect felons to BOOTSTRAP, but then basically tell every employer it's okay to cut off their BOOTSTRAPS. A felon is still a human being, and still an American citizen. Not every felony is so heinous that someone gives up their humanity or whatever.
dogma wrote:Oh, that's fine. You have to remember that Hillary Clinton is a Lizard Man from Hollow Earth sent to destroy America. On her own she could be managed, but after the Lizard People made peace with the Mole Men in the wake of the inroads made by their emissary, Barrack Obama, the threat is too great to ignore.
This is my favorite thing in this thread.
2015/11/06 13:38:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The war of words between George Bush Snr and Cheney/Rumsfeld continues
Nothing worse than a former president trying to settle old scores.
America: can't you put these guys in a ring and force them to battle to the death?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/11/06 14:05:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
#whataboutery
Is a phrase you don't understand the meaning of, if you think it applies to my post.
Hilarious. Carson makes a bald-faced lie and is a victim for being called out on it?
gak son, Obama spent his entire campaign fighting off attacks that weren't even based in reality. Call me about "vetting" when people are demanding to see Carson's birth certificate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 18:05:40
