ChocolateReignRemix
-
Posts
1,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by ChocolateReignRemix
-
-
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:
Oh I agree she handled it wrong. I am still surprised by the murder charge which implies intent I think. It seems manslaughter or some other less serious charge would have been more appropriate. And people keep saying ‘in his own home,!’ with yes is tragic...,but if she really thought she was in her apartment it was a big accident.
I think when people carry guns they get weird about situations. If I saw my apartment door ajar I would run and get help...not go on in.
I think she was just a very unsympathetic defendant due to the sexting with a married man. That she admitted full affair with apparently.
FWIW legally "intent" can form in a moment just before the act.
There wasn't a great case for manslaughter. She entered his home and had no valid reason to shoot him.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, Janeway said:
But the term atheist specifically has a dictionary definition of meaning belief in no god. It does not even mean belief in nothing, which many people think it does. One can be very religious and their religion simply does not include the belief of gods of any sort and they would still be an atheist. However, the term "atheist" has been used a lot in modern society to mean belief in no religion (theist refers to gods, a refers to none, theist does not refer to theology or religion in general). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
The word feminist, however, can mean either supporting equal rights, or...organized activity on behalf of women's rights (not stating equal). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminist
This is defined much like Republican or Democrat is defined which one subsection is defined as subscribing to that political party. When one says he or she is feminist, by definition, that can mean equal rights or it can mean belonging to the bigger political movement/group of today calling itself feminism. Groups change. And the political group of feminism by standards of today, abortion is about equality. By many of us who believe in equality do not feel that things like abortion should be legal nor do they bring on equality. That means a huge set of us who seriously believe in equal rights for the genders has been left out and scorned by the feminist movement of today. Plus, the feminist movement makes it clear that it is all about female rights and not about gender equality. Many of us who may have once been called feminists would now be more of gender equalists.
I just have to ask - exactly how do you think the SAT is scored?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:
Perhaps, but I also think those numbers are too out of date to capture the increasing numbers of aging boomers who need to (and do) work. Every year, millions more age up. I think it is highly likely that, in two and a half years, my mom will still be working in some capacity.
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.
-
27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:
While I think Heigh Ho's characterization is off, I also think 2002/8 numbers are woefully out of date. My mom is 67, almost 68, and she works as a substitute teacher as often as she can. She NEEDS the money because she did not prepare for old age. She is not alone among her age cohort. I think the people who are mostly likely to still be working at these ages are those in 'knowledge' professions tho, people who have degrees and don't have to expend tons of physical energy. These are probably also the same people who were not working minimum wage jobs in their prime.
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.
-
9 hours ago, HeighHo said:
You are citing above the table and full time.
I am citing above the table (anything else would be a guess) but using the BLS standard of employed = 1+ hours of paid work.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Mergath said:
Thirty teenage boys? I'm gonna go with all of them. You will need all the buns. 😂
lol That was exactly my first thought. ALL OF THEM!
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, HeighHo said:
I don't know why you think 'still working at 76' is rare. People live to their late 90s. Many of them live a full life and aren't ready to leave part time work, especially when it comes with full medical as it does in this state. I know people in their early 90s who are candy stripers at the hospital, and they are pushing stretchers, not passing out tissues. Part of why they have a long life is they keep busy doing things besides occupying the porch swing.
And really, you're a bit old for ad hominems. Makes it hard to take you seriously.
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.
-
4
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:
*For some people*, you’re right. Those things are tickets out. But we have to stop pretending everyone has that access and ability!
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).
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, SKL said:
Well are we subsidizing businesses that offer jobs to people with very limited skills/experience, or are we subsidizing people who have not (or not yet) developed the skills and experience needed to land a better job? I mean if those jobs for those people went away, would those people be qualified for higher-paying jobs? If so, they should go take them. WalMart is not a monopoly. Why are people willing to work at WalMart in this time of near full employment?
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.
-
10
-
1
-
-
On 5/15/2019 at 2:02 PM, EmseB said:
Have you ever run a small business?
The point is wages don't exist in a vacuum. If you think every business owner is swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck and just refuses to pay his employees $5 more per hour, then I have to assume you have not. Employee salaries are a carefully budgeted item just like everything else. Comfortable isn't really the issue when many small business owners often forgo taking a salary themselves to get off the ground, get through tough economic times, or to try to grow their business. If I run a bakery and the price of grain goes up I have raise the sales price on my bread. Similarly, if the price of labor goes up, I have to make up that loss somewhere or go out of business. It's telling that you think no business is preferable to a business paying $7.25/hour when that bit of income could make a huge difference for someone for a variety of reasons.
It is denying economic reality to say that we can raise wages without causing a ripple effect in other areas of the economy. It does us no good to earn extra money if prices are higher or less people overall have jobs.
Your argument is emotionally compelling but doesn't address the actual issues with raising wages independent of other economic factors.
When unemployment is high, we don't tell businesses to just hire more people to solve that problem because in general people realize that unemployment isn't a simple matter of businesses being unwilling to hire people. I don't know why people seem to think the answer of low wages is just telling businesses to pay more.
Everyone says, "Oh, I will pay a little more so that businesses can pay a living wage," but the problem is you've just also raised prices on those same people you wanted to lift out of poverty by paying them more. It's so obvious the problem can't be solved this way. And yet.
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.
-
6
-
-
39 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:
Bricks were being thrown through church doors and windows in that town for several weeks. Just Christian churches. Police investigated. There are other examples, but that one obviously made an impression on me. Thankfully nobody was injured.
Here are some other recent examples from just down the way, though this isn’t where I attended:
I’m sure you can pick it apart as not persecution and quite frankly I don’t care - this congregation is more diverse than ours was but the behavior is not dissimilar. Ordinary Shoes asked for any examples. Tada.
In the link you provided the church leadership seems to think they were being targeted due to having a large number of minority members.
-
38 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:
Bricks were being thrown through church doors and windows in that town for several weeks. Just Christian churches. Police investigated. There are other examples, but that one obviously made an impression on me. Thankfully nobody was injured.
Here are some other recent examples from just down the way, though this isn’t where I attended:
I’m sure you can pick it apart as not persecution and quite frankly I don’t care - this congregation is more diverse than ours was but the behavior is not dissimilar. Ordinary Shoes asked for any examples. Tada.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:
The question given was for any example. I gave a verifiable personal one.
Not really. A random broken window doesn't prove anything,
-
10 minutes ago, Skippy said:
But "evidence of systemic persecution" was not the bar here. Any evidence of any kind of persecution ever in the history of the U.S. was the bar. You are changing the topic.
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.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Skippy said:
I never said that any attack involving a church was "anti-Christian."
You certainly implied it when you used the Birmingham church bombing and the Charleston shooting as evidence of Christian persecution.
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Skippy said:
I am not worried too much because it only requires one case of any kind of persecution at any time in the entire history of the United States to refute the claim that was made ("never.. any kind... not inthe past or now"). The one brick thrown above is enough to refute it.
I know you said this one doesn't count, but I disagree. Atheist kills 26 people in Texas church shooting:
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.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Skippy said:
I think it is factually incorrect to state that "Christians have never be subject to any kind of persecution in the United States; not inthe past or now."
You may leave those you picked out off the list if you think the fact that they were Christians was not relevant and replace them with recent burnings and shootings at white churches if you prefer. For example, there was one in Antioch, TN where I think the congregants were white. There was a fire in a Catholic Church in Arizona yesterday that is thought to be arson, but I am not sure of the race of those congregants.
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.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Skippy said:
History proves that this is just untrue, unless one believes the whitewashed version of history (Pilgrims fleeing persecution and establishing freedom of religion for all). The Catholics persecuted (meaning hanged) the French Protestants. The English Protestants persecuted the Catholics. The Puritans persecuted the Quakers. These things continued after the colonies became the United States. The Anglicans persecuted the Baptists and Presbyterians. Protestants continued persecution of Catholics in the 19th century. (And I am not even mentioning the persecution of the Mormons.) There have been many instances of church bombings/fires/and shootings continuing to the present day. A church that was a pivotal location for civil rights activities was bombed in Birmingham killing four little girls. There was a mass shooting by a white supremacist at a church in Charleston at a prayer service killing nine.
I don't subscribe to limiting compassion. Unfortunately, historically, there has been enough persecution to go around (and I am not the type who thinks "Happy Holidays" is persecution. I am talking about execution, imprisonment, removal of children from parents, burning homes and places of worship, etc.).
Claiming the bolded as acts targeting Christians is intellectually dishonest. In both cases the targets were African Americans who happened to be Christian.
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:
And whose guns were they? Do we know that? Why does a 19 year old have access to a rifle and ammo? As of 2019, you had to be 21 in California. So, where did this gun come from? Again, I am giving the side eye. I was in the Army, and am the daughter and granddaughter of police officers, but I don't let my kids go into homes with guns. I wish our country would do something about this violence already. I am so so sick of it.
He was 18 in 2018 so it could have been purchased then.
Could have been purchased illegally.
-
Every offender has a first time. Some are actually caught the first time.
-
7 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:
You can tell by WHERE they are registered. If they are registered in my town or some place without a jail, then they aren't incarcerated. If they are registered in Huntsville, TX, for example, then they are probably incarcerated. Last time I looked there was a sentencing date, and the sentence.
I understand that - it also designates on the site where their current residence is or if they are currently incarcerated.
I just pulled another. Disposition date of 1997. Registration date of 2018 at the sheriff's office. Not currently incarcerated.
I have been scrolling through Anderson county and I am not seeing any short sentences that can be determined by looking at the disposition date, the sentence, and the registration date.
-
4 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:
But, you can still get a general idea based on where they registered.
Are you sure about this? I have been looking at the Texas Registry and it includes the the disposition date. Based on the disposition dates and the registration date, I don't believe it is is possible to accurately estimate time served.
Example: I pulled one where the offender is currently incarcerated, the offenses occurred in 1991, but he has a registration date of 2017. I think you are making assumptions based on limited data.
-
1 minute ago, TechWife said:
You are making assumptions without evidence. What makes you think the victim didn’t talk to the police? I have seen nothing to indicate that in the coverage. There was enough evidence to help the rapist realize he should admit to what he did and plead guilty. How much more cooperation do they need than a guilty plea?
The reality is we don't know how cooperative/reliable the victim was. I agree we should not make assumptions about her as we simply do not know.
FWIW a plea deal in a felony case doesn't always indicate actual guilt. If you are looking at a risky trial and 25+ years in prison and someone offers a lesser plea and probation...even some innocent people won't take the gamble.
Amber Guyger
in The Chat Board
Posted
Off-duty cops get convicted fairly often. Most only make the news briefly.