I assume they’re only referring to when abortion was voted on by itself, not when it was a package deal with a politician (since pretty much all Republicans are gonna be anti-choice).
Because these sheep vote for a letter next to their name. But an issue on a ballot may be backed by them but it doesn’t have a letter itself, so people actually turn into individuals a bit more
Just happened in Ohio. If there were a candidate called “R-issue 1” he would have won with 53% of the vote. But since it was just “Issue 1” and it affected people, they struck it down 43-57 for-against
“The parties appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey’s favor holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy”, which protects a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion” from the Wiki. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#%3A~%3Atext%3DR…
Fair, but to say this is what did it is a bit dramatic. Ideally, the court shouldn't be deciding these issues anyway and legislators should actually be doing their job.
Look at some of the rules they’ve tried to pass. Checking on high school students’ mensuration, checking on people who leave the state for abortions, trating miscarriages as murder.
Just here to say that this man is not Tesla. The people that are making these cars are doing a fantastic job all things considered. I get not wanting to be associated with Elon but he’s one man in a giant company of people that are working their ass off to design and build these cars.
And they are the best cars on the road. A generation better than anything else out there right now. The only other car I would consider is a Rivian, but they are so big and use a lot of electricity. If you don’t want to buy one than don’t, but evaluate the car and not the wack job CEO.
That’s nice. I still won’t give my money to that asshole. I’m square in the middle of their target demographic and I figured I would buy a Tesla as my next car… Until the last year it two happened. I have the luxury of deciding where my money goes and and I won’t buy a Tesla while it’s his company.
Doubt. I doubt these stories are being reported to him. He has been a Cassandra for years to the point that he lost his job and now he presents a bunch of anecdotal stories that can’t be verified.
Sure Christianity hasn’t exactly needed Christ since the beginning but the specific claims in this article I do not believe.
That doesn’t sound very unbelievable to me. It’s not a direct quote and it very much sounds like the sentiment that I hear from evangelicals that I’m acquainted with.
Back in 1996 a psychopath killed an innocent old woman with a bomb. Because he claimed to be ‘anti-abortion’ he was protected by various ‘Christian’ groups.
Have some perspective, the middle east has been radicalized by war since the time the west hated gays and people of color. But now since the majority of Western powers has progressed past this for like 10 years out of the last 80 that we’ve been involved in these conflicts, they’re the savages?
It would be much easier for civil discourse to mature in these countries if most of the people weren’t traumatized by the predominantly Christian imperialist countries.
Unfortunately, conflict is always going to be more common in the middle east. The North American center of command [NOR-COM] barely touches the south American COM. America itself, shares borders with only two countries that it’s allied with.
The middle east COM has 3 COMs around it, the most of any other. The geopolitics of this implies the other COMs are going to meddle in their affairs the most, since they’re the buffer to other rival COMs
Good behavior is about having empathy, not mocking how people view the entire universe. I don’t like how the middle east isn’t as progressive as the west, and I don’t like how they don’t have as much empathy for gay people as the west does now. But mocking an entire religious community - a community that extends far beyond the middle east - for not being peaceful, doesn’t make sense when the west succeeded in bringing imperialism to the entire world. Especially when the west hated gay people for most of that time.
It’s easier to discuss these issues when you don’t have to worry about your school being bombed the next day. It’s easier to have empathy for the western values of diversity, while not having to worry about the west bombing you because of religion
Hmm. Is there a particular reason why you would associate Islam with warfare? I am asking you because you assumed I was being sarcastic without clarifying first.
Oh feel free to get in another whataboutism rant. You must be feeling the itch by now.
Lol you’re dumb, you don’t have an argument you’re just shit talking. But keep talking about what abouttism as if you know anything about logical fallacies
I’ve never actually heard anyone use that line except people in alt-right circles, and I am around a lot of Muslims. It is not a term Muslims use to describe their religion, not that they would describe it differently, just that it is a strange description. It would be like calling Canada “the country of peace”, which I guess is technically true because most countries want to avoid war and promote peace? But does not mean their military is non-violent.
The line is clearly used for the intent of creating a false contrast to make some made up point about hypocrisy.
Also as the other commenter pointed out, you are making a critique about the middle East, everyone agrees the middle East is dysfunctional.
Um, islam and peace in Arabic both come from the Arabic root س ل م, so to say that they aren’t related is just wrong.
Most religions have/had a very strong violent aspect directly related to them. (Crusades, Israel’s Torah “backed” colonization, India creating a hindu state, etc.).
Everyone is free to believe what they want but imposing something on others is not cool :/
I don’t like centralized religions either, and I think I agree with your points. But I’m just saying the line “The X of peace” is either so generic that it is a bland description of any ideology. All ideology hides it’s violence behind self defense, and are therefore “peaceful”. Or it implies that they are particularly peaceful, so it’s a description of non-violent. But few ideologies would identify as non violent, and so they would not use that term to describe themselves.
They REALLY lowballed the funding when some locations have a stop half mile away on top of being slow and inefficient due to lack of drivers and driver training.
Why even pay a firm for optimal route planning if you dont even have the personel to execute it.
So I can’t speak to every school district across the country, but I can speak for the one I worked in and there’s a (good/bad, you be the judge) reason for that.
In my state the language is explicitly may provide transportation. So that means it’s something they take upon themselves. They get money for transportation from the feds/state obviously, but let’s all be honest that it’s a drop in the bucket to what it should be. And it’s not an easy job to coordinate. I don’t know the particulars of this system, but the county I worked for had some absolute backwater areas in its district. We’re talking thirty minutes up/down mountain roads to the nearest school.
Add onto the funding issues that, like you said, there is a noticeable lack of drivers. They don’t get benefits, they get shit pay, AND they have to have a Driver’s License endorsement that entitles them to MUCH better opportunities in private sector.
Not that I’m saying any of this applies to this scenario or excuses it, but until you actually get a glimpse into the sausage factory it’s really easy to mischaracterize something as complex as insuring a bus for every child who needs it as a simple problem. I’m willing to speak for Transportation Directors across all schoolboards that the overwhelming majority of them are absolutely terrified of this scenario occurring in their district.
Edit: I will add that even though it was a relatively podunk district with some of the most rural locals in my state, the district I worked for did insist that they do house-to-house, meaning none of that 1/2 mile - 1 mile stops. And they elected to do that themselves.
One of the big issues is that school districts get funding based on things like property taxes, or geographic location. The result is that affluent districts or schools are will funded and have good services, and others do not. There may also be some willful underfunding in some places as well by folks that balk at any taxes or bonds that don't help them immediately.
However, even an underfunded district should have been able to see this plan would have issue and raised a red flag with the community in advance.
However, even an underfunded district should have been able to see this plan would have issue and raised a red flag with the community in advance.
Honestly, I don’t think that would have stopped anything. One thing made abundantly clear to me from my time in that particular BoE is that the vocal minority literally could not care less. There were more people than I would have imagined griping and complaining that the busses weren’t running to their area, despite the fact it is ultimately the parent’s responsibility, and also despite the fact that they themselves weren’t willing to grab an S endorsement and do the job themselves for not only their child but other people’s as well.
And don’t get me wrong, parents should have been notified and honestly this should have been trialed before opening day. But this would still be an article and people would still be up in arms because, sadly, it’s often the loudest in the room that seem to lack the ability to take personal responsibility.
Wait, are you blaming the parents for not becoming bus drivers when its actually mismanagement from the privatized bus transport companies? Something doesnt track.
Yes, the parents in my area (not the area this article is about) I am blaming, but my area does not have a mismanagement issue so much as it has a massive shortage of bus drivers.
The bottom line is that in my state the school has no responsibility to provide transportation for your children get to school (outside of specific circumstances).Think of that how you will but ultimately that’s neither here nor there. Don’t have children if you don’t want the responsibility that comes with them. And further, even if having children wasn’t your choice that doesn’t change that responsibility.
The other thing that needs mentioning is I’m singling out the vocal minority in particular. The people who get irate about the situation and think there has to be someone to blame in the BoE when more often than not the situation is out of their hands. The people who want to shout the loudest at people who’s hands are tied are the least likely to lift a finger to alleviate the situation. And I get not everyone can just drop what they’re doing, get an S endorsement and subsist on a bus driver’s salary, but there’s more than enough that can and won’t. It’s akin to the hand wringing about “dey tuk ar jerbs”, the people who actually believe that won’t actually go out and work as busboys, roofers, tree trimmers and farm hands. That’s above them and too little of a wage for too much labor.
Instead of getting pissed at the BoE because there’s a driver shortage due to subpar wages, increasingly hostile work environments and incredible amounts of responsibility and liability, maybe they could, I dunno, vote more responsibly? Write their state and federal representatives? Direct the anger at the people who have incredible control over the situation without having skin in the game?
Edit: and what the hell are you even talking about with “privatized bus transport companies”? Bus drivers are BoE employees meaning employees of their city/county school system and therefore state/public employees.
I didn’t really live that rural… I… don’t think? but I was dropped off a half mile walk from my house because the bus would have had to back up a quarter mile to actually drop me off any closer, and I’d still have to walk a quarter mile because the bus couldn’t get down the gravel driveway. One side was a 26-foot deep man made pond (17 foot deep at the dam), the other side was a 15 foot drop into a marsh, with a dam between them passing under the driveway. Nothin doin.
When we got new drivers some of them tried but it was so uncomfortable for me to have caused that situation I just told them not to bother… I was 10, used to it, so it was whatever.
When I was like 13 my mom forgot to pick me up from wrestling practice and I had to walk 12 miles home in the dark along the highway. She didn’t realize I wasn’t there until I walked in at like 10:30… That wasn’t a lot of fun. That’s not really related to the bus issue, other than I wasn’t really that far from the school, I just felt the need to offload it. :)
Apart from the “why do you need it” question, the beach is specifically a place people often leave items that can’t be taken in the water unattended. Sure, legislators can write laws about how a gun must not be left unattended and gun nuts can swear up and down about how they would never do that, but they will. No matter how much you think “there’s a lot of people around” or “I’ll just be in and out” or “I’ll watch my stuff from the water”, thefts happen, and now a mundane occurrence has turned a supposedly (not really) “safe” and “legal” gun into one of those dangerous “illegal” guns they can’t be held responsible for.
We were perfectly happy with our gun laws, and they worked, and now fringe nutcases and a politically captured courts are telling us we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.
the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.
That’s the real issue, here. These guys are absolutely fucking terrified 100% of the time. They pack heat in order to feel like something besides a helpless babyman.
I have never even once felt like I couldn’t possibly pick up a head of lettuce and some yogurt from the supermarket without some moral support from a gun. It’s just fucking bizarre.
There are a large number of people who carry, they’re not who you think they are and they’re not afraid or paranoid. Just like you put on your seatbelt and have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in your home…they carry and think nothing of it.
The amount of white privilege shit shows how much propaganda you lot drink.
Ouch. Guess I touched a nerve. Look, carry if it makes you feel better, but statistically, you’re in more danger from your own guns than you are from anyone else. The same cannot be said for seat-belts, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers.
Damn Lemmy doesn’t alert on posts replies properly. So replying late to this one.
That is completely false. You’re more likely to never use the firearm than be in danger of it. That myth was created by the anti-gun groups using suicides as their stats.
Same in the UK, we had a couple of school shootings and then collectively decided children’s safety isn’t worth trading for the freedom to own guns and that was that. There was very little pushback from any side of the asile.
You also have safety nets, which helps with your crime level. There is a lot more we here in the states could do to curb our violence overall that doesn’t require new gun laws, but a loud majority are idiots who just call everything that involves safety nets and reforming criminals socialism/communism.
How many times have you used your gun to resolve a situation that couldn’t have been solved without one? I legitimately don’t understand the mindset. What situation are people like you “preparing” for? Cause it honestly just seems like you’re afraid.
You and the rest of the anti-gun tools here think that only white people carry. You live in bubbles with no outside experience of what other races have to deal with on a daily basis. It’s actually quite hilarious how disconnected from reality a lot of you are.
There are a large number of people who carry, they’re not who you think they are and they’re not afraid or paranoid.
The fact that they do “carry” unequivocally shows that they are indeed afraid and paranoid, no matter how many times they say “not afraid, bro” out loud. Believe their actions, not their lying words.
My dad said the same thing. He carried a 357 on him. A man, he wasn’t scared… Well, that’s what he said, but in the end he was a racist baby that was afraid a poc was going to car jack him in his fucking chevy equinox. I don’t need a gun to defend myself, it’s getting there though with cult45, that’s a scary bunch of halfwits.
I’m not sure which is worse, someone who intentionally straps a deadly weapon to themselves in full view to be paraded around in public as a show of machismo, or someone who does so thoughtlessly as one would buckle a seatbelt.
Why do you assume they are absolutely fucking terrified vs thinking better safe than sorry?
Because they are too afraid to go to a grocery store without a gun. That means they’re really, really bad at risk assessment. And that makes them dangers to themselves and others.
I know the risk of a violent encounter is low, but I carry because it’s the only reliable way to not be at a disadvantage in a fight.
Do you? Do you actually know that? Because your odds of being a shooting victim are way, way higher as a handgun owner than as a grocery shopper. You’re more likely to be hit by lightning than to be in a violent confrontation at the supermarket, and yet you don’t go around in a rubber suit to be “better safe than sorry.”
Having a plan to avoid being assaulted isn’t the same as living in terror.
And yet you’re not wearing a rubber suit. Your risk aversion needs calibration if the gun that objectively makes you less safe makes you feel more safe.
Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.
Or they could be members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and they are totally ridiculous.
For the record, I don’t think all gun owners are ridiculous - certainly not to the level of the WBC. I don’t even think people who feel the need to pack heat while going out for milk are ridiculous. But they’re definitely scared, and bad at assessing risks.
Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.
Yeah seriously what a ridiculous attempt at the “both sides” defense. Has this guy never heard of scientology, flat earthers, 911 truthers, and all the other various cults and such? There is very much such a thing as morons in large groups.
The other day I was at the grocery store and someone shouldered me and my cart out of the way when I was comparing cantaloupes. He looked at me funny like he was gonna start some shit so I blew him away. Motherfuckers not going to take me out without a fight. #alphamale#iamverybadass
Guns can absolutely be safe, and if they’re bringing it to the beach, it’s probably safe to assume it’s legal.
However, why the fuck anyone needs a gun at a beach is beyond me (or a grocery store, or library, or any number of other ridiculous places to bring a gun). America really needs to get their priorities straight, because it’s not really funny anymore, it’s scary.
Guns, by definition, are not safe. They’re literally made to kill people. You can take all the precautions in the world to mitigate the risks, of course, but the safest gun is the one that nobody can touch.
They’re made to kill, what they kill is up to the person holding it. They aren’t something people should be toting around at the beach, you take them hunting, or to a range.
The hunters I know who carry a pistol do so do put down the animal in the case that the first shot didn’t do it but I don’t think it’s that common especially now that it’s virtually impossible to get a permit for pistol in my country
I don’t know if they can really be safe at the beach though. You go in the water with your gun, or you leave it under your towel and hope a kid doesn’t find it?
we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.
Do you honestly think that panic attacks by gun carriers is the blocker to reasonable gun laws? The number of people that carry firearms regularly is not statistically significant, let alone those with panic attacks.
I carry a concealed firearm because I think it’s important for at risk groups to be able to defend themselves. I don’t panic when I don’t carry, but I recognize that I’m less prepared to defend myself from assault.
It’s important to understand those you disagree with.
I can’t think of any at-risk group that has meaningful influence on gun legislation, but many of the groups propping up the Republican party have been convinced they are in mortal danger.
Though, frankly, I do find someone who thinks restrictions to carrying a gun at a beach in peaceful and multicultural Hawaii aren’t reasonable to be a bit of a nut regardless of whatever risks you have in your personal life.
Should have patrol officers dress in plain clothes and rotate through with the team. Just so they can learn that they don’t need to be assholes. If that could learn that.
“Additionally, Disney announced that starting September 6 subscribers in the US will have access to a new ad-free bundled subscription featuring the ad-free Disney+ and Hulu services for $19.99 a month” I already have had this for a while, it’s interesting that this isn’t going up… maybe I’m missing something? I think I might have ESPN+ in mine as well, but I don’t use it, so didn’t notice.
The elementary school in my town is slightly over half a mile away. No buses here, not sure what the issue is with having a bus stop up to a half mile away.
It's not so much the distance (although that is a bit far for a 6-7 yr old to walk) ... it's that there are no sidewalks, so kids have to walk on the roadway, which means it's likely at least one will be hit this school year.
I mean, the lack of sidewalk for the k-5 kids is a big deal depending on the type of road and how busy it is. The busses not getting kids home until 10 pm is beyond the pale.
Plus a 6 am pickup for k-5 means the kids are walking to the bus stop around dawn or even in the dark parts of the year, with no sidewalk. The school could be miles away which in city traffic could be significant, and many folks don't have other options.
What a terrible situation for the kids and families.
Because they have to do something to improve the situation. As long as that something is not pay the drivers enough that people would be willing to do the job. Because then the teachers would realize how fucked over they are getting and quit to be bus drivers which would only worsen the teacher shortage.
Yeah, the article says they increased pay and still weren’t getting enough drivers. So… do it again. You’ve already know the knob you need to turn to resolve your problems, you just don’t want to turn it any further. Especially not when you can throw money at what seems like corruption (incompetent consultants) instead.
You should need a reason to bring a gun to a beach. You are likely not carrying it unless you are clothed and never go into the water. Do you really think people are going to stay at the beach wearing a holster the whole time?
You don’t see how carrying or not carrying matters? So you can just leave a gun anywhere you like in a public space? Like where a kid or a crazy person could just pick it up if they saw it? And even if that’s legal, you think that should be legal?
Idk, do you want them to be executed or something? I’m guessing if a child were to get a hold of your weapon and something happened you’d be looking at jail time.
Or, you know, people shouldn’t bring guns to the beach where they likely won’t be secure. I’m not sure why you need a gun at the beach in the first place. Are you going to need protection from an angry flounder with a machete?
I totally agree with you, I don’t see the reason either. But something not being understandable to me personally doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
We should have strong restrictions in gaining access to these weapons, and heavy punishments for misusing them. Like leaving a firearm out in the open - obviously that should be severely punishable.
But permits exist for a reason, and as long as someone is careful, responsible, and fully complying with the law then I don’t see a problem.
I fully understand the worry though, and I’m not going to pretend like my opinion is infallible. Obviously what we have now just doesn’t work, and needs to be fixed.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.