He didn't delete it fast enough for CNN to get the story. And now a few other heavy hitters in the media have the story. Bye bye, pilot's job!
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
If your company doesn't like it, they don't have to tolerate it. It's not like the government is going after him.
Publicly calling for a candidate to be executed is different than saying "vote Bernie!"
When you embarrass your employer in such a fashion, you usually get the axe.
We're talking about a man who literally holds the lives of hundreds of people in his hands every day. If his judgement is questionable, then by all means he needs to be removed from that position.
When you embarrass your employer in such a fashion, you usually get the axe.
We're talking about a man who literally holds the lives of hundreds of people in his hands every day. If his judgement is questionable, then by all means he needs to be removed from that position.
Good thing you work for radio, that kind of sentiment can be a fireable offense.
Thankfully we were able to get that guy publically slut shamed and cost him his career. That should make other people stop and think before they express their frustration with the ruling class.
He *is* the ruling class, a member of the state Legislature. And he brought the shame and disgrace upon himself. This wasn't a leaked private conversation. It was the digital equivalent of shouting from the rooftops.
After last year with Germanwings Flight 9525, a pilot showing emotional instability is not someone who should be flying a plane. So he's either emotionally unstable enough to post that despite the consequences, or he's too stupid to realize what a bad idea that was considering his career.
"I think therefore I tweet" may mean some of these problematic Twitter posts are less harmful than they appear, since some people use Twitter to let their subconscious run its mouth, but no employer is required to take that into account.
To his credit (for once) Governor Kasich's response to this was "Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested."
This has been an on-going thing for awhile, especially with the new protest rules that the city of Cleveland fought against. The cops in Cleveland fought against having to wear body cameras during the convention too, now they have to. To put it simply, the police in Cleveland aren't exactly the cleanest in Ohio. That said, the police force in Cleveland IS understaffed: they've had guys doing night posts without benefit of a car OR partner.
If something happens at the convention in Cleveland, there really isn't going to be much anyone can do. There are going to be a lot of people marching with guns, cops who are notorious for misconduct, and charged emotions after all the shootings. It's gonna be a nightmare and I'm REALLY glad they aren't doing it in Columbus.
And tons of police and State Troopers from other states too. Somewhere around 2500 officers NOT from Cleveland.
RNC Security planning
Now now, we are a civilized country.
Mississippi prison towns on verge of collapse. To the point where they can't even afford free labor. Other tea-party ruled states are finding that tax cut-fueled growth never materialized.
While "For The Horde!" is a thing, I think you meant "hoard" there.
Fair enough. Disturbing, but possibly not wrong!
Caught this link off of Slashdot: Globalization Considered Harmful
Interesting points. And I do think he has some real points. Food for thought, even if you do/don't completely buy either side of the argument.
Also, I thought it was fascinating to see a plain-html website (you'd have no problem on that site with lynx). Haven't seen that in a while.
Interesting points. And I do think he has some real points. Food for thought, even if you do/don't completely buy either side of the argument.
Also, I thought it was fascinating to see a plain-html website (you'd have no problem on that site with lynx). Haven't seen that in a while.
Wow, he makes such a huge leap right off the start with his "basic economic theory" that people have to stop doing jobs their country isn't good at, and then doubles down on that with the idea that people, like old dogs, can't learn new things.
While he makes interesting points, I don't think the points are valid since they are based on a flawed economic model which he doesn't show is valid in any way - at best it's a thought experiment.
Further, the same model could be used to stop technological progress. "We can't retrain vehicle assembly line workers, so we must not allow public transportation to advance beyond airplanes and busses. No high speed rail projects!" - because those workers can't be retrained, or in his mind shouldn't be asked to be retrained and moved from a job he supposes they love, and we must not trade jobs for efficiency. This analogy works pretty well anyway, because even if we built all the pie in the sky high speed rail projects people would use around the US, we'd still have great need for automobiles, though it would be reduced from today's levels. Just like globalization wouldn't eliminate industries in the US that we weren't efficient at making, though it would depress them somewhat - and would simultaneously increase other industries.
I can only imagine if he was around for the time when the secretary went away due to modern computers and printers, or the typewriter manufacturers had to fold. He would have been crushed to see all those workers slowly "forced" out of the jobs they loved and into other sectors of the economy where they became "slaves" doing worked they really weren't fit for.
While he makes interesting points, I don't think the points are valid since they are based on a flawed economic model which he doesn't show is valid in any way - at best it's a thought experiment.
Further, the same model could be used to stop technological progress. "We can't retrain vehicle assembly line workers, so we must not allow public transportation to advance beyond airplanes and busses. No high speed rail projects!" - because those workers can't be retrained, or in his mind shouldn't be asked to be retrained and moved from a job he supposes they love, and we must not trade jobs for efficiency. This analogy works pretty well anyway, because even if we built all the pie in the sky high speed rail projects people would use around the US, we'd still have great need for automobiles, though it would be reduced from today's levels. Just like globalization wouldn't eliminate industries in the US that we weren't efficient at making, though it would depress them somewhat - and would simultaneously increase other industries.
I can only imagine if he was around for the time when the secretary went away due to modern computers and printers, or the typewriter manufacturers had to fold. He would have been crushed to see all those workers slowly "forced" out of the jobs they loved and into other sectors of the economy where they became "slaves" doing worked they really weren't fit for.
I think you're exaggerating steinman, just as the original author did. I'd say the stronger argument is that people can't move out of service jobs to non-service easily, or manufacturing to not easily, etc. Specifics yes, it's an exaggeration to say they can't change, but his specific example of taking a manufacturing line-worker and thinking you can take most (or even a significant fraction of them) and transition to the financial sector just doesn't make sense. If anything, the more traditional argument of a robot letting 1 guy do the work of 10 (or 20, or whatever) and saying that production will increase enough to keep all employed is closer to "feasible" (though it still has severe problems) reality. His point about certain types of "ship everything everywhere" killing many jobs internally isn't necessarily wrong, even if his capacity for examples and/or hyperbole may be.
So the protectionist argument has some points IMO. I thought his "ignore these trends at your peril" to be the more interesting part:
So the protectionist argument has some points IMO. I thought his "ignore these trends at your peril" to be the more interesting part:
There's a line right above there about "blowing up the system" that if I didn't know Gas better, I'd say it was his writing on that particular line. But either way, I thought it was worth reading, and had some points, though incomplete.
Americans, stop tweeting at the RNC - The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary: This Canadian police department wants you to stop sending them angry Trump tweets It's the provincial police for most of the province I live in (probably similar to state police for you guys down south).
Kinda hilarious really. Their twitter handle is "@RNC_PoliceNL" so it's not like they can't see it's probably not your RNC. According to the article, the correct one is "@GOPConvention"
So... kinda funny. Harmless, but funny.
Kinda hilarious really. Their twitter handle is "@RNC_PoliceNL" so it's not like they can't see it's probably not your RNC. According to the article, the correct one is "@GOPConvention"
So... kinda funny. Harmless, but funny.
GasBandit
Staff member
The political polarization of the US. Incidentally, this was the kind of connection map I wanted to make for HFA but didn't ever figure out how 
Fast forward a few years...
More info:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507
Fast forward a few years...
More info:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507
So many gay jokes come to mind. *sigh*
Party hacks claiming Cruz changed his speech. News outlets had releases from the RNC beforehand with his remarks. Didn't change a thing.
Dave
Staff member
Republicans lied?!? No fucking WAY!Party hacks claiming Cruz changed his speech. News outlets had releases from the RNC beforehand with his remarks. Didn't change a thing.
I still find the speech by his youngest daughter to be the biggest weird thing of the convention.
"He's my dad I guess. We talked sort of. Sometimes he would give me advice every couple of years....you know, like a dad....I guess. One time we even talked face to face. The only other people in the room were all his lawyers."
"He's my dad I guess. We talked sort of. Sometimes he would give me advice every couple of years....you know, like a dad....I guess. One time we even talked face to face. The only other people in the room were all his lawyers."
That's not weird, that's just sad.
Dave
Staff member
Is that real? Or are you joking?
I'm mocking it, but it was a half-hearted speech by a girl who barely knows her father.