The Constitution is designed to restrict the federal government from infringing on the rights of the citizens. It is not to be changed every time someone wants a law (good or bad) and can’t get it pushed through the right way.
Ah, I guess Prohibition and ending slavery were just restricting the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the citizens.
Of course, that statement is incorrect because the constitution is not just a limit on the government’s power. It’s the blueprint on which our entire system of government is founded, and declaring the internet as an unrestricted public utility is absolutely a reasonable reason to convene a constitutional convention.
But, making any changes to the constitution is impossible right now. The Democratic states could call one to amend the constitution to ban the government from forcing children to watch their puppies get drowned, and within hours Fox News would be espousing murdering puppies.
You should visit Convention of States website and see how long conservatives have been calling for such a convention. Here’s a hint, 34 states are required to pass resolutions calling for the convention. 38 must agree to ratify any amendment.
Prohibition didn’t belong in the Constitution to begin with.
The thirteenth amendment had the effect that states could not legalize slavery after it had been abolished by Lincoln. That is a restriction on government. What I said is still accurate.
“I done seent it on the TV! He was a BIG old smart business man on The Apprentice what when he done made them city folk do all the tasks every week and then said ‘you’re fired!’ Hur hur hur!”
This is exactly what they will think. Remember during the 2016 campaign when the left was angry at him for not paying taxes? The right wing masses said they thought it was smart. They think cheating the system is a good thing. Except when someone on welfare does it. Then we have to dismantle the whole system.
Heh. I was going to make a WWE joke about how all the seals have to do is ask their supervisors to piss first but…
The new testing regimen was spurred in part by the 2022 death of Seaman Kyle Mullen, a 24-year-old sailor and former Division 1 football player who went into cardiac arrest a few hours after completing the hardest portion of the SEAL selection course, known as Hell Week. After his death, the Navy found testosterone, human growth hormone and other drugs in a car that the sailor shared with other candidates.
An investigation determined that Seaman Mullen’s death was not caused by drug use, but rather by bacterial pneumonia, made worse by inadequate medical attention and poor training oversight. Even so, the incident raised alarms about wider problems in the SEALs.
This straight up is the same shit that happened with benoit. A violent abuser was protected by the organization and his cronies even while he actively beat his wife and children and continued to engage in activities that would further damage his brain and remove what few inhibitions he had. Then, when he commit murder, it was IMMEDIATELY all about the steroids and nothing else.
Same here. The navy makes a culture where the only way people can possibly make it through training is by abusing steroids and uppers. And, to promote “strong warriors”, there is a strong culture of not asking for help and not providing it when it is needed. And then someone dies so it must be all the drugs.
Yup. My wife’s uncle failed out of ranger school on like the last week because he got pneumonia and nearly died before they actually started treating him.
Reddit did a good job making sure that “proud boys” returned very homosexual content in a Google search before Jan 6th. They took that back by… attempting a coup. Pretty hefty uno reverse card in the world of SEO if I’m being honest, it was a bold move and it payed off. SEO-wise, anyways.
There is a Swiss professional soccer club called “Young Boys” and it sounds like some sketchy gay nightclub. Even funnier is that their stadium is called “Wankdorf Stadium”
I used to work in a very busy ambulance district, and it drove me ragged trying to keep up with some of them. Then I found out they drug tested the supervisors and they all peed hot for meth.
It was a last ditch plan to use only Republican votes to keep the government open.
I bet he can still bring the Senate CR (or whatever they pass) up for a vote. He’ll lose his job as Speaker, though.
“Safe” districts allow people to pull this shit. If any of these wackadoo Republicans had to explain themselves to their constituents it would be a totally different story. But most of them only have to win their primary.
What's up with crazy people in Philadelpha? Is there something in the water? Just a few days ago someone there stole a shop vac full of hornets there, and now this.
Using a shop vac to clear out hornets sounds weird but it’s the go-to approach that professional exterminators use when they can’t fumigate for one reason or another.
I kind of wish it was at least normative to groom your successor and bow out if you’re a ground-breaking leader as you advance in age
I especially wish that was the sort of thing had been the case with (for example) RBG because let’s face it, it really hurt us for her seat to go to ACB
The sick thing here isn’t the impending shutdown. It’s that the article implies McCarthy did everything he could to make a deal, when in fact he and his party are the sole cause of the crisis - on purpose, to later blame the Democrats for “having no leadership or policy” and causing harm to the country.
And then, when this predictably puts all the small time, local food joints out of business, the people that vote for these clowns will be complaining that big corporations control everything.
Can you guys even see 10 inches in front of your own nose?
OK I fat fingered 20 instead of 60. That’s even better for my argument. To get the good pay you have to work for a huge multinational. Who else has 60 locations in the US alone?
What are you smoking? You know there’s a labor market right? And companies compete for workers? Imagine you run a taco shack and every one of your employees is waiting for the minute there’s an opening across the street at taco bell, or the opening of the new burger king down the street. What do you do? High turnover and employee resentment or raise wages? If raising wages means going out of business you’re stuck.
And then small minded people like you will be in a thread in 2 years quoting statistics showing how big corporations are putting smaller ones out of business and taking over all the industries, even going so far as to blame corrupt politicians and corporate capture, conveniently forgetting that you cheered on the very corporate capture legislation that led to it.
idk personally I think if you can’t pay a living wage you don’t have a business model, you have a loophole of exploitive policy. Like, you’re saying all this and I’m hearing “but without slaves to pick my cotton I’ll go out of business!” good
This is the fast food lobby’s main talking point. Personally, I don’t disagree. Decide a living wage, make that the bare minimum for everyone. The talking point however is that “my poor wittle small business can’t afford to pay people enough money to live please daddy let me continue the exploitation.”
Indeed - not saying I agree, but this is the main talking point from the fast food companies. It’s not fair they have to pay more when (sometimes) slightly smaller businesses do not.
The raise takes effect on April 1 and applies to workers at restaurants that have at least 60 locations nationwide — with an exception for restaurants that make and sell their own bread, like Panera Bread.
Where did you get 20? And does your point about minimum locations make sense with also bringing up local joints who are explicitly exempt given said minimum?
Edit: I see, are you saying that small businesses won’t be able to compete with this new wage minimum? Valid point there.
My bad, 60. That’s even better. To get the good pay you have to work for a big corporation.
Yeah, the “exempt” ones will be in a situation where they’ll have to raise pay above what they can afford, thus going out of business, or have high turnover and high employee resentment. The end result of all of this is of course more big multinational control over the fast food industry.
Yeah the obvious solution to stop big businesses is removing all regulations. Once everyone is all getting paid below minimum wage, wages will magically go up and they’ll be better off.
I never said anything about removing all regulations.
Just, think about the downstream impact of what you’re doing. This one’s fucking econ 101 level obvious, there’s a meme about shit this obvious involving a bicycle and a stick. There’s got to be a better, more well thought out idea. Here’s one off the top of my head: a 0.1% additional business tax for every location above 10 in the state that goes towards housing assistance for food service workers. That’s a win win; either you get more business diversity in the state or you get all the workers at all the fast food businesses a pay bump.
If you think this isn’t corporate capture and corrupt business politics you’re nuts. There’s a fucking exemption in the law for panera bread.
I don’t wanna debate the subject or anything but I did want to point out that there ARE other factors that keep employees around besides wage especially at lower skill jobs where there is wide range of ages that could work there. If you’re a good boss to work for in a small business, less money could be worth better work environment.
A lot of people are scared of change. And im sure there are plenty of people don’t really try to achieve more on life than being content.
and also McDonald’s has had competitive pay above minimum wage for a while now. Idk I just don’t think this stuff will be such a pendulum swing as you anticipate because of these things so I wanted to share.
Well, my thoughts on that are 1) if you wouldn’t move for 20 an hour because the environment’s good, is $20 really a living wage? If you can stand $15 then that’s gotta he enough to live, right? 2) if people won’t achieve more than the minimum they need to get by, maybe that’s something we should just let happen, and 3) if companies are raising pay to stay competitive without government action, doesn’t that negate the argument used to institute stuff like this?
All of your arguments in this thread sound like someone who really has already made up their mind how they feel and you just say whatever feels right. Your last point alone is so silly, as if there hasn’t been decades of history proving otherwise. Maybe try focusing on listening for a while instead of trying to be right.
Um… literally all of it? All you have shared are opinions.
You’re not only just stating your opinion but it’s also your opinion of what the consequences might be. Shit that hasn’t happened yet!! And you haven’t even used any source or data or even a reference to a specific time in history where something like this happened that leads you to believe in the consequences you’re insisting will happen, which would at least be something I could point to as true or not. So like, yeah man idk but you really do not be so stubborn about what you think might happen in the future.
I literally don’t care if something is owned by a small or big business. The obsession of small businesses is absolutely stupid. I only care if prices are low and wages are high. If that means only “big businesses” can provide that because of economies of scale, than good for them, companies should be rewarded for doing that.
If “small businesses” want to compete they should provide equity, there’s literally nothing stopping that from happening.
There’s a local barber shop that I go to and in my province the min wage was increased 50% while the prices have climbed 80% since I started going to them. But guess what, there still the best price/service wise so I go to them. The chains cost more than double plus taxes. And a lot of the local neighboirhood goes to them.
The only business that complain about labour laws especially laws like this that put heavier burden on larger companies are poorly run companies.
I see good business treating people good so when things like this comes up it shows me that business people will always push against progress.
If it’s better for customers and workers what’s the problem (from a capitalist perspective)?
Do you want to punish success?
If small businesses become successful and grow do you want to purposefully stop them?
I always ask what is the difference between a small and big business and nobody gives a good answer.
Small business is always used as a shield to attack workers.
Genuinely, if they don’t offer a innovative product, what’s the point of “small business”? What’s the point of a “small business” barber/retail store/grocer/etc. besides better prices?
When does a “small business” become a “big business”? And should we stop that from happening?
It seems to me that “small business” is just entitled people. If those same people became a “big business” they would want to crush their competition (i.e. “small business”) look at Bill Gates/Steve Jobs against IBM.
The only thing that “small business” people want is for them to be the owner of a “big business”. That’s it.
If you actually care about distribution of ownership and wealth. You’d advocate for co-operatives, ESOPs and distributed ownership structures. Otherwise I don’t care.
The issue is that this inevitably leads to monopolization. When a large business is able to keep competitors out of the market, they eventually are able to raise prices without any competition which is drastically worse for consumers. There are many reasons why monopolies have historically been broken by the government and why the government should continue doing so. It’s not for anyone’s best interest other than the shareholders.
I have literally seen a small business expand beyond my city and become regional over a couple decades. And probably will try to be national chains.
From a capitalist perspective. What’s bad about monopolization? For big businesses to be big business they need to have success. Why do you want to break success? Why do you want to pick winners and losers?
I don’t believe in any of that. I prefer distributed ownership and benefits.
If the consumers own their own stores through a consumer cooperative than they can set the prices for themselves. And hence don’t need “competition”. And since the shareholders would be the members (i.e. the consumers), in a consumer cooperative, then that means they’ll benefit. No need to have any billionaire tyrant either local nor from a big box store.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.