I-Am-Annoyed

Registered bored user

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
kelly_hanna The guy had certain traits and characteristics that are considered to be disqualifying factors. Even while honesty with your interviewers is the best policy, and almost any past criminal behaviors will be forgiven, ongoing stuff is a massive red flag. Strong fundamentalist views, high debt, highly secretive family life, etc.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
barry9a Some of the ones that I find important at least are tax reform, allowing competition for health insurance across state lines, operating outside of the UN channels when the United State's interests did not correspond to its policies.

Again he never said he switched because he was tired of hypocrisy. He doesn't directly state it, but I read it as disgust that someone who was presented as a paragon wasn't. No one in their right mind would ever describe Trump as a paragon of anything except perhaps reality TV. I've had I don't know how many people describe Trumps idiocy as "Trump being Trump".

Taking the media's opinion of almost anything these days is an exercise in futility given how partisan things have become. We need to work with both parties to support candidates with integrity and values that they actually hold, rather than jumping on the "they're better than ..." bandwagon. We need to insist on raising the bar when it comes to choosing who will be the next leaders of the nation.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
My first thought would be mental illness. My second thought it HOW THE FUCK DID THIS MAN PASS A SECURITY CLEARANCE. I mean seriously, a lot of the jobs at Lockheed  and Northrop-Grumman require at least a secret, with many requiring a top secret clearance. If the background checks didn't spot this, what the hell were the investigators doing.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
barry9a I think you're confusing a catalyzing moment for the motivation to change. I will never say, or accept that democrats had a monopoly on hypocrisy. It is something that you will find in any person of any political affiliation. Part of it though i think is the degree of difference between what was thought about someone and what is exposed. If Richard Dawkins came out tomorrow saying that he was converting to Catholicism and that he intended to spend the rest of his life as a missionary it would be far more shocking than if a random college age atheist did the same, because of how different it was from his prior commitment and reputation.

As far as supporting Trump, I feel you can dislike a person for who he is, while supporting the good that he does. I think Trump is a bad spokesman for the Republican party, has little character, and acts like a clown. That said, he has done some things that I felt were necessary for the country that would not had happened without him.

Probably my biggest hope is that next election cycle, one or both of the parties will nominate someone with more character and integrity, so that at least next time we can respect the person we disagree with.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
holygod Personally I think the best political analysis of the election came from Southpark. We had a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. Both candidates scared the hell out of me in many ways. Honestly if Bernie had won the primary I would have voted for him despite disagreeing with almost all of his policy positions because the man had integrity, unlike Trump and Clinton.

That said, the argument of "unpresidential" is somewhat subjective. If you mean that he does not do dignity to the office, i agree. However i also felt that way about president Obama for several of the actions he had done as well. That said, I'm not voting on America's Got Talent, superficiality is less important to me than the character and actions of the person. While i hate his lack of character, I do like many of the actions he has taken (cabinet post choices, executive order allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines, and others).

TL;DR- IMO trump was the lesser of two evils, because at least people recognize his lack of character and will scrutinize what he does, while many will ignore it in Clinton.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
daegog You can find out about cover ups after the fact when they are exposed by investigation. A person didn't need to have been raped by a priest to learn that the church had been hiding the fact that these acts did occur.

Stories did occur after the public accusations that stated that Weinstein's actions were known about but not reported earlier. The New York Times had an article about it, as did many other outlets.

Some snippets from the article:
I was raised in a liberal Jewish family in Washington DC, where my dad served as a Democratic congressman for Los Angeles. Accordingly, I was indoctrinated with all of the correct values and views.

 I began to raise questions with my family and friends, and met resistance. It was not because my concerns were particularly inappropriate; I was just not supposed to be questioning at all.

One could disagree with nuances, but not the judgment of the (then) president, or the party. Period.

the media outlets that had enabled and covered up his indiscretions for years were the same major public voices for the Democratic Party

He was raised to follow the dogma of the democratic party, then later found out that the spokespeople for the party were involved in actions that were antithetical to their pronounced beliefs. Believe me, I very deliberately used the example of pedophile priests and the catholic church for my analogy
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
markust123 From someone in a somewhat similar position to the person who wrote this (conservative jew), I would say from my personal experience that shunning like this can happen even if you aren't going after other people. 

Personally I'm willing to discuss politics of any type with anyone, but I will rarely initiate the topic. Much more often I'll have someone come up to me to tell me about the latest idiocy from Trump or the republicans, then trying to scourge me for not agreeing with them. Since my political opinions were spread around the community, I would say that this makes up a good 60% of the things people will approach me about.

I didn't really lose friends over it, but that was more a factor that I never really had many in the first place, because there wasn't that common ground. Hell, I've had some of the people who do share social circles with me be attacked because they're willing to associate with me.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
daegog I read it more as a "straw that broke the camel's back" type of thing. Its not a big deal politically and it shouldn't reflect on other democrats, but a person that he was raised to see as a paragon wasn't. An analogy would be how the coverage of how a relatively few priests molested boys caused some people to leave the catholic church.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
aegis1294 so the report states that a $12,000 annual UBI could be achieved by increasing taxes 14% on the top 10%. By the math, providing $12,000 for every adult in america (249,485,228 people) would require ~$3 trillion. From 2014 data (latest i could find quickly), the top 10% paid $0.974 trillion. A 14% tax raise would only generate an additional $0.136 trillion. Ill see if I can read through the actual study to see how they got the numbers they did

edit- reading the study atm. The numbers theyre using are a lot more than 14% additional taxes for the top 10%.

41-60% bracket would get an additional 11%
61-80% bracket would get an additional 12%
81-90% bracket would get an additional 21%
91-95% bracket would get an additional 23%
96-99% bracket would get an additional 30%
top 1% would get an additional 35%

From that 2014 data, this means:
top 1% would pay an additional $0.19 trillion
96-99% would pay an additional  $0.084 trillion
91-95% would pay an additional $0.034 trillion
75-90% (no data for just top 20%) ~$0.042 trillion
51-75% would be ~$0.017 trillion

total gain: $0.367 trillion, while their own estimate of costs is $2.99 trillion
As stated in the paper:
 Therefore, the required tax revenues for proposal 1 is around 8.3% of this tax base; around 60% for proposal 2; and around 120% for proposal 3. 
tax revenues would need to increase by a total of 120% to pay for a $12,000 UBI
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
scheckydamon So rough estimate based on your current income is that you have ~$41,000 in current taxes, so take home of ~$79,000 (may be off if your state/local/city taxes are different than those in my calculator).

UBI would give you an additional $20,000 tax free, but assuming my math above was right, would increase your taxes to ~$82,000, giving a final take home pay of $58,000.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
They suggest using funds from existing welfare programs to fund UBI, currently in the US, thats about $1.03 trillion. As of 2016, there were
249,485,228 people over 18 in the US. dividing that up gives $4128.50 per year. 

Total government (state, local, and federal) tax intakes were ~$4.2 trillion. to give a $12,000 a year UBI, assuming no other funding increases, would takes a tax intake of ~$6.2 trillion. $20,000 a year would take ~$8.2 trillion. So we are talking about doubling (or more) peoples tax burden, mostly on the lower and middle classes, because even if the rich cant legislate loopholes for themselves, they are more able to move their assets out of the country.

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
oobaka to be honest, when there is a solid chain of evidence (captured during the commission of the crime), video evidence, multiple witnesses, corroborating physical evidence, and a confession, that is pretty good evidence of guilt. Given that the jurisdiction does allow for the death penalty, calling for execution isn't all that unreasonable as well.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
melcervini Hail Mattis, full of hate. Our troops stand with thee. Blessed art though among enlisted. And blessed is the fruit of thy knife hand. Holy Mattis, father of War. Pray for us heathen, Now and at the hour of combat. Amen.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Here's a video of an officer (from Georgia) explaining the training and methodologies they use for dealing with DUI. He discusses Drug Recognition Expert 13 minutes in, explains the training and the fact that if they pass (like 10% pass rate), they are able to serve as expert witnesses in court.

In this case, the guy did not follow protocol, and did not complete the testing that he was required to do. From having spent a bit of time looking, I haven't found any cases of a person who was given the full test series that did not test positive for drugs, so I will says that the methods they are taught seem to work. Any time though that they do not do ALL of the testing that they are supposed to do, I would say allow the person to walk.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
5cats I guess part of it is that if people don't start to take some sort of responsibility for themselves, rather than saying it was X's fault, we are screwed. 

One thing to keep in mind is the differences between individuals and governments. Every population has its share of saints and shit heads. We tend to notice the shit heads more often due to how our brains work, and frankly the fact that it sells more articles. Think about the differences both in mentality and morality of an average murderer vs the actions of the Third Reich, the Stalinist Soviet purges, The Cultural Revolution, Hundred Flowers, and The Great Leap Forward. One is an atrocity, the other is an industry.

Look both at what the official policies are as well as what is actually being done. Call out the hypocrisy on each side. Don't assume that because one side is doing something you don't agree with, that the other deserves your wholehearted support. Support the actions you think are just, protest the ones you think are not. Make sure you're sure which are which. Place the blame where it belongs. 

Slightly rambling. may be a bit disjointed since I kept changing what I wanted to focus on, my apologies for any parts that aren't clear.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
So lets have some fun.
This camp is a new program, apparently for older teenagers and adults (poster says 16+)
It is run by a professional company that specializes in counter terror, military, police, and professional security training. The instructors are all veterans (10+ years of service according to their site), who have seen combat.

Hamas has been running summer camps for children since at least 2002, seeming to start at about age 5. These camps are run by Ahmed al-Mudallal, a member of the Islamic jihad. 50,000-80,000 children attend annually. They are given military training, including fire arms training for the teenagers, including in how to kidnap IDF soldiers. Some of these children are used to help dig tunnels into Israel. In 2002, a group of teenagers was killed after trying to use the skills they learned in this camp to perform a "martyrdom operation against a settlement"

So why is it so much more upsetting that 15+ years after Hamas starts terrorist summer camps for their children, a group of Israelis start a counter terrorism summer camp for tourists?

Edit: after posting, just wanted to ask people to think for a minute and do some looking on their own before indulging in their gut feelings. It took me maybe 10 minutes to find a shit ton of sources for the stuff i wrote about, and while the majority of them are very pro-Israel (mostly due to the content), there were enough neutral and pro-Palestinian sources to verify the material. The damn world is polarized enough, if you cant stop for a minute to think and engage in a reasoned argument, humanity is going to hit a point where we're killing each other over how you load your toilet paper (of course people who do the roll under should obviously be shot).
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
@_suzuka Havent had a chance to read through the text of the bill, but i assume that it handles brandishing in a similar manner to how open carry works. With open (or concealed) carry, you are legally allowed to carry a weapon on your person. Drawing the weapon outside of a situation where you are legally allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or others is illegal. In some jurisdictions, placing your hand on your weapon (in a manner that would allow you to draw it) is an offense.

So sort of like the idiot 2nd amendment activists who carry their weapons in an unlawful manner, I'm sure idiots with swords and knives are going to have run ins with the police pulling guns on them for doing something stupid and illegal. This law will protect people who know what they're doing, while still getting the morons.

I think you're rarely going to see people walking around with a sword belted on, similarly to rarely seeing a person walking with an open carry long gun. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
prichards114 what you're ignoring is all of the justified police shootings that occur. If this officer had seen the shooter coming with a gun out and killed them, most of us wouldn't have any issue with the shoot, but somehow I think you would have objected.

There is an issue of there being limited transparency in officer involved shootings, partly due to the judicial process (you cannot release any evidence prior to the decision to prosecute), and partly due to the policies of different agencies. What justifies use of force for police is different than it is for civilians, and due to the nature of the job, it needs to be. People in general need to understand that what's initially released in the news rarely gives enough information to understand what happened, and that they should wait for more info before deciding they know what happened.

There are times when the only way to stop a criminal is to shoot them before they can kill an officer or a civilian. When criminals deliberately target police they are just adding to these numbers. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
kalron27 You'd be surprised. We've treated worse people than this in the past. Professional ethics plus the knowledge that if we can save their life, they get to spend a long time in general population rather than getting the easy way out
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
layla_wilson If a 80 pound guy picks a fight with a 200 pound martial artist, who do you expect to do more damage? Strict proportionality is not a valid metric.

One big issue with it is that it is very easy to distinguish between Israeli military deaths vs civilian deaths, as the military wear uniforms. There is no uniform on the part of the terrorists. This makes it very difficult to identify the actual fighters among the population. I'd suggest reading the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report. According to this report, 735 of the 2251 Palestinian fatalities were from armed groups, meaning 68% of casualties were civilians.

In contrast, from the best numbers i can find, the US was responsible for 174k fatalities, of which 112k (low end estimate) are civilians between 2003-2013. I chose to use Iraq due to its more urban environment (more similar to Gaza) compared to Afghanistan, and this interval to avoid issues with ISIS related deaths.

Overall, it seems that Israel is almost on par with the US, which places it far above Russia (90+% civilian casualties in Chechnya)

edit: Just to note, i picked relatively conservative reports for Israeli casualty ratios. There are multiple sources (including the New York Times) that admit that comparing the demographics of the reported casualties and the population shows that males in their early 20's (typical age of armed group members) were affected at a far higher rate than any other. This indicates that the ratio may actually be closer to 50% or less
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: Eh, we don't really worry about patients moving, as they're chemically paralyzed for that reason. Any strapping is just to keep limp bodies in a stable orientation.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: Heres a post from the gun shop/range that he went to, saying he was editing to change context and more or less full of shit. https://www.facebook.com/doubletapshootingrange/?fref=nf
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: His point is that while no one likes being picked on, trolls will focus on anyone who responds to them regardless of gender. If women are more likely to respond, they will focus on women. If men are more likely to respond, they will focus on men. This is what he understands that you seem not to.