Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. It would follow standard policy. Being on suicide watch is usually temporary. The prisoner is kept in a fairly bare cell under constant supervision. Usually the more restrictive conditions last only a few days (much longer without good reason and issues with cruel and unusual punishment will pop up). The suicide watch is also very expensive to maintain and affects staffing. The next phase is usually to put the prisoner in a SHU. Check ins are again about every 15-20 minutes. It is not common but also not unusual for someone to commit suicide in a SHU. My guess is we will find out whomever is in charge of psychology services and 1-2 others signed off on his transfer to a SHU. It's *possible* someone killed Epstein. It's more likely he committed suicide. Considering the rumors about him had existed for some time, my guess is anyone powerful enough to get to him in a federal prison would have done it long ago.
  2. I just have to ask - exactly how do you think the SAT is scored?
  3. The last number wasn't from 2008. The uptick began at that time. Currently 75+ in the workforce is around 10%. There is an expectation the % will grow as life expectancy increases, but it will always be the lowest.
  4. The uptick began in 2008. The increase in the 65-70 group was much higher than in the 70+. The 75+ had an increase but smaller than the others. Those working over 75 are still a distinct minority for many reasons.
  5. I am citing above the table (anything else would be a guess) but using the BLS standard of employed = 1+ hours of paid work.
  6. As of 2002 less than 5% of those age 75 or older were still working. The number has been growing and and jumped after the 2008 economic debacle and is somewhere around 8-10% now. I would call that relatively rare.
  7. It's also important to remember that education is a solution at the micro level, but has shrinking returns at the macro level. There are only so many openings for jobs with higher skill levels, and eventually someone has to do the unskilled work. A landscaping company isn't going to pay you more just because someone has an engineering degree (extreme example obviously).
  8. For starters, near full employment is a bit misleading. The unemployment rate is calculated in a consistent measure and for that reason is a solid measure of trends over time, but it doesn't account for underemployment. It should also be noted WalMart employs around 1.4 million people in the United States. Considering a fair number of those are in areas with limited employment opportunities, I am not sure where you think that many people can find employment elsewhere. Not to be trite, but as noted in "Caddyshack", the world needs ditch diggers too. Our labor market consists of X number of jobs that may be unskilled but still require a person willing to do them. As long as the number of those seeking work >>> number of available jobs, those on the unskilled side of the labor market will be on the low end of wages. As a society we then have to decide how we are going to treat the least of us. Personally I think whether someone is bagging my groceries, doing the landscaping in my neighborhood, or cleaning houses, anyone who is working full time should be able to afford to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and live a decent life.
  9. So...if business margins cannot support the additional pay, and those who are working for $7.25 can't make ends meets, then who makes up the difference? Hint: it starts with tax and ends with payers via the social safety net (as limited as it may be.) So the question could also be posed as why should businesses be indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer? And let's nor pretend these are only small businesses being subsidized. WalMart and other major corporations benefit even more than the typical small business. WalMart has been known to even provide employees on how to apply for government assistance. If we are okay with subsidizing business, then fine. But that means the constant attacks on the social safety net need to be dropped as well.
  10. She also has a back story involving brain trauma and manipulation. I won't judge her yet as we are very early in her story arc.
  11. Depending on where they are going with CM I am okay with the character being unlikable as that fits the current comic characterization. I disagree on that scene being forced. All the characters are present at the battle so it isn't impossible. And like I said, I don't mind a little fan service and it was a fun scene.
  12. My idea of roughing it is a hotel without room service.
  13. In the link you provided the church leadership seems to think they were being targeted due to having a large number of minority members.
  14. Personally I am just glad Christians in this country have never had to face actual persecution. I don't understand the need of those who want to pretend they have.
  15. Not really. A random broken window doesn't prove anything,
  16. 1.) My favorite scene was "On your left!" 2.) I don't mind the Captain Marvel arrogance as it is true to the current characterization in the comic. I know she seems a bit forced but the back story explains it, and her character opens up a lot of options for the universe as a whole. 3.) The girl power scene falls into the category of fun fan service, and I am okay with that. I have no idea where they are going with the MCU now.
  17. I am not sure rare, random attacks qualify under the general understanding of persecution. Christians have been, and currently still are, a dominant group in the U.S. so claiming persecution is a stretch.
  18. You certainly implied it when you used the Birmingham church bombing and the Charleston shooting as evidence of Christian persecution.
  19. I will also add that anyone who thinks citing one act against a group as evidence of systemic persecution is someone who doesn't grasp what real persecution looks like.
  20. First, I didn't make that claim. Second, you started off just randomly calling any attack involving a church as anti-Christian so it is hard to take you seriously.
  21. The church burnings were again targeting African American churches. The Sutherland Springs church was targeted because the shooter's ex-wife attended it. The shooter in Antioch, TN claimed his attack was in response to the shooting at the black church in Charleston, SC. You aren't making your case very well.
  22. Claiming the bolded as acts targeting Christians is intellectually dishonest. In both cases the targets were African Americans who happened to be Christian.
  23. He was 18 in 2018 so it could have been purchased then. Could have been purchased illegally.
  24. Every offender has a first time. Some are actually caught the first time.
  • Create New...