If we have a gazillion dollars to work with, sure.
Shipping huge numbers of people back across the world isn't exactly a cheap proposition FYI - especially if you've got to do protective detail to make sure they don't just hop off and try to come back. There's a huge cost to be incurred even in the "send them back and do 'nothing' for them" approach.
And that's not even getting into our care standards that we make sure undocumented children get.
Billy, how on earth do you think "homonyms are unrelated words and completely irrelevant to this discussion" is supposed to imply "these product names using homonyms are relevant to this discussion"? That is exactly the opposite of what I said. For your own sake, dude, please just stop this. At this point you're only grasping at straws and embarrassing yourself.
First, because you say they are irrelevant, does not make them irrelevant. Second, Cracker Jack is no more or less of a homonym than Redskins. We know when someone talks about Redskins they are talking about a football team. We know when someone says cracker jack they are talking about a snack. We as humans are smart enough to tell the difference between the regular and derogatory use of the words.
You do understand that "Cracker Jack" isn't marketed as a name of the kid on the box being Jack and him being a "cracker" right? His name is actually "Sailor Jack" (and the dog is Bingo for completeness of trivia).
The term "cracker jack" was old slang for "really good" and was commonly used on boats (not to mention the Navy in general being super popular at the time)... and the product was marketed towards children... which led to a logo with a KID IN A SAILOR SUIT. (Who happened to be white because when the logo was developed in 1918 the boxes were in monochrome and even barring the racism of the times preferring whites on products printing a black face on the monochrome printing they used would've lost any detail they cared to make [same reason his dog is mostly white])
As for "Redskins" I can't, as white person, say how much the word hurts to hear - I have no sense of the experience behind how painfully the word is used - but I as a white person who has heard "cracker" used offensively a few times (much rarer now that I'm not involved in hiring and firing with about 30-40% black folks working with me though - would hear it probably monthly back in my HR days) it's a world of difference hearing "Hey Rob, you want some Ritz crackers" or "Some Cracker Jack is over there on the counter if you want it" whereas if I walked into a screaming crowd chanting "CRACKERS, CRACKERS, CRACKERS!" like happens with a sports team I might be a bit annoyed/offended until the context became clear. And I'm not particularly bothered by the word cracker mind you - but the idea of an entire crowd chanting a term derogatory to me would likely still set me off a little because it's so blatant.
(Or even worse, think about a group chanting N***** multiple times and how huge of a deal that would quickly escalate to for obvious reasons - heck I seem to recall "Dago" chanting causing an issue in recent memory too from the local news coming out of NJ)
Nod, definitely not typical - on my 12th now and only had 3 power so far, two in that one - but between going 3-1 pretty consistently and value regularly being well over 5 tix in opening stuff being quite profitable for me.
Linking the unbelievable pool pic, didn't see how earlier.
Dunno about "funny plays" but I've been loving the set from a value standpoint so far... started with barely having the 45 tix for a sealed. Ended the second day of messing with it after 8 events with just shy of 400 tix counting packs I have on hand.
Of course the open that I had that was FOIL Time Warp and Ancestral Recall did help skew that figure some.
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
"The citations and trespass warnings against Chico and Debbie Jimenez and their volunteers are part of an increased effort by the police to discourage Good Samaritans from steering homeless people away from the agencies set up to provide the same services. It's part of the city's and county's broader effort to eventually centralize homeless services."
In other words, the government doesn’t want private citizens providing charitable services to needy people because it lowers the number of people who might apply for welfare.
Is there also a vested interest for businesses to lobby to the state to ban feeding homeless people. Of course. I already acknowledged that in my previous post. But there is also a vested interest in the state to do that as well.
Without conspiracy theory reasoning, there's nothing there that says that.
What the police are saying in the article as easily means "We want them to stay clear of this area for their panhandling - send them elsewhere" - just in a PC way that can't come back to bite them in the ass if they just said "Get those homeless the $%#@ out of here!" like the strict interpretation of the law actually means.
Believe it or not most police aren't just about the letter of the law, especially those that get up to Police Chief tiers - they actually care about helping people and directing them to services they need to get them along - that doesn't mean the laws that lead them to giving those suggestions are intended for those purposes, just the nature of the job.
[Same way that police that show up for domestic disturbance calls will often offer suggestions on counseling - it's not actually part of what they're required to do - they do it because they care]
In fact the only person actually making the quote that he states in the article was THE COUPLE THEMSELVES - that was the interpretation of two people - likely angry over being asked to disperse.
[And again note, Daytona Beach (convenient spot FYI, it's only one hour north of where I'm planning to open my shop (Brevard County, hopefully Meritt Island as that's where I'll be buying my home in a few) - so easy to tap information on from my business groups) started it's ordinance at the behest of the business groups and only applies to boardwalk and main street areas - literally they could set up the same thing in an alley area and they'd be fine with how the ordinance there is handled. (Haven't read it, but that's how it's enforced regardless of how it's written - out of sight of the major businesses is how it's enforced) - so evidence in this case seems quite against the interpretation you theorize]
Random searches are legal in a number of places - the NYC ones still continue today even after being challenged.
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)
1. At least in my state, random searches aren't legal - at least not without probable cause.
2. Why does greater scrutiny matter if I'm a law-abiding citizen?
3. I try not to patronize businesses that aren't supportive of my rights.
1) For now, most of the "random search" laws that I'm familiar with came up quickly to tamp down on a flurry of crime that started up. (NYC's went through in something like a month or two IIRC) Just because it's not that way today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.
2) Almost every single citizen breaks a law unintentionally now and again - I've got a completely clean record, but I could quote at least ten minor laws I've broken in the past week (and only one with the wife before anyone gets any ideas... most of the normal civil law kind not bedroom law...) knowingly plus there's likely some others I broke accidentally without even knowing it. [Minor speeding and running a red light were two - the latter was somewhat unintentionally since my brakes froze a bit and I was halfway through the intersection when they caught - so felt it was safer to break that law]
There's a huge difference between the slap on the wrist I'd get, and someone who's under greater scrutiny by an officer could potentially get for all those minor things.
3) Hope you don't like Chipotle and Starbucks amongst others that are a bit less vocal about it. Most grocery stores have an anti-gun policy as well, additionally most banks (for obvious reasons...). Guess any that are connected with places of law/politics you're not keen on patronizing either... Or airports... Or trains... or many bus lines... etc.
Having experience with that style of situation - I'd bet pennies to pesos that corporation actually "lost the contract" to locations of their own in other states. Additionally it's the rare case of a field that's almost entirely salary based.
Most businesses that are near minimum wage are fractionally effected by payroll - food service industry for example are around 10-20% payroll for their overhead. So versus the case you quote (phone work) where 80-90% of the costs will be payroll based, they'd be impacted nearly ten times less on average by the same payroll increase. Also note that this was a symptom of your state creeping nearly $2/hr ahead of other states ($7.25 Federal minimum) if the rift was $1 the savings might not make sense to the same client - especially if it's universally raising. [And for phone work there's a big pushback against foreign call centers FYI - there's many groups boycotting companies that use foreign call centers because it's obnoxious to deal with someone with a thick foreign accent who doesn't understand the language fully...]
I do not buy for one second that cities are wanting to ban feeding homeless people as an attempt to make said cities have a better image by somehow eliminating the "look at all these poor people here" stigma. Many of the people who make and support these laws are career politicians who will do what it takes to keep themselves in power. Let's think about this for a second. As I mentioned in my previous post, if you ban people from feeding the homeless and/or doing anything else to help them out, those same homeless people are going to have no choice but to turn to the government for welfare. This sets up a trap, because those people will then become dependent on those programs and will become reluctant to vote away the benefits. This means they'll inevitably keep voting for the politicians that want to keep the welfare coming, creating a constant cycle that screws the taxpayer twice over (once from the money required to pay for welfare and again for the politician's salary + benefits + pension). Then like you said there's the money from businesses and special interest groups that lobby these same politicians into pushing for such laws.
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
So yea, all in all a pretty weak argument that falls under conspiracy theory nonsense. Reality looks quite the opposite of it. Even just simple logic would deflect it. (How many businesses want homeless people bugging their clients? Zero - they want the cash from those clients and they don't want their clients feeling uncomfortable to come shopping there - as a soon to be business owner, I'd personally prefer an anti-homeless zone for my business area when I go shopping for locations since they'd turn off some number of potential customers)
Jay13x: Besides those ordinances he points to are actually a symptom of the "free market" its business heavy districts that felt that the homeless were scaring customers away that pushed for such legislation. That even in an anarchistic variant (like everyone knows SC wants) of the universe they'd just hire thugs to do the same if they felt that way for a completely "free market" variant.
What he's actually quoting as a symptom of a lack of free market is anything but, it's actually completely created because of the free market.
I think the "I stopped a X or Y incident from happening" cases are amusing myself. I personally have, as a Good Samaritan, pulling over to help someone out had a gun pulled on me (in a state with basically no concealed carry) when the only reason I was approaching the person was to give them a hand.
The number of times in non-hunting situations I've seen a gun brandished besides when I've had them pulled on me TRYING TO HELP SOMEONE (which has happened twice at this point) is literally zero.
I'd bet pennies to pesos 2/3-3/4 of those scenarios were something completely different in reality than the interpretation the armed person actually thought they were. Heck even the "he was holding a gun" thing is remarkably inaccurate more often than not based upon police statistics - for every crime report involving a supposedly brandished weapon a drastic majority of the time no weapon is ever proven to exist. (Quite often with other witnesses correcting the "He had a weapon" declaration)
The human brain likes to make up alot of things when it's scared. And considering the primary motivation to carry a gun is fear it's not a large jump to realizing how many of the self-reported "miracle stories" are likely nonsense, even if the people involved truly believe it themselves. Self-delusion is a powerful force.
Random searches are legal in a number of places - the NYC ones still continue today even after being challenged.
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)
Although do note, they're weird "stunted" packs - 5 cards, seem about 1 in 3 of having a rare/mythic.
I'd double check to make sure that is still correct before investing in accounts with that planned.
Shipping huge numbers of people back across the world isn't exactly a cheap proposition FYI - especially if you've got to do protective detail to make sure they don't just hop off and try to come back. There's a huge cost to be incurred even in the "send them back and do 'nothing' for them" approach.
And that's not even getting into our care standards that we make sure undocumented children get.
You do understand that "Cracker Jack" isn't marketed as a name of the kid on the box being Jack and him being a "cracker" right? His name is actually "Sailor Jack" (and the dog is Bingo for completeness of trivia).
The term "cracker jack" was old slang for "really good" and was commonly used on boats (not to mention the Navy in general being super popular at the time)... and the product was marketed towards children... which led to a logo with a KID IN A SAILOR SUIT. (Who happened to be white because when the logo was developed in 1918 the boxes were in monochrome and even barring the racism of the times preferring whites on products printing a black face on the monochrome printing they used would've lost any detail they cared to make [same reason his dog is mostly white])
As for "Redskins" I can't, as white person, say how much the word hurts to hear - I have no sense of the experience behind how painfully the word is used - but I as a white person who has heard "cracker" used offensively a few times (much rarer now that I'm not involved in hiring and firing with about 30-40% black folks working with me though - would hear it probably monthly back in my HR days) it's a world of difference hearing "Hey Rob, you want some Ritz crackers" or "Some Cracker Jack is over there on the counter if you want it" whereas if I walked into a screaming crowd chanting "CRACKERS, CRACKERS, CRACKERS!" like happens with a sports team I might be a bit annoyed/offended until the context became clear. And I'm not particularly bothered by the word cracker mind you - but the idea of an entire crowd chanting a term derogatory to me would likely still set me off a little because it's so blatant.
(Or even worse, think about a group chanting N***** multiple times and how huge of a deal that would quickly escalate to for obvious reasons - heck I seem to recall "Dago" chanting causing an issue in recent memory too from the local news coming out of NJ)
Linking the unbelievable pool pic, didn't see how earlier.
Of course the open that I had that was FOIL Time Warp and Ancestral Recall did help skew that figure some.
Without conspiracy theory reasoning, there's nothing there that says that.
What the police are saying in the article as easily means "We want them to stay clear of this area for their panhandling - send them elsewhere" - just in a PC way that can't come back to bite them in the ass if they just said "Get those homeless the $%#@ out of here!" like the strict interpretation of the law actually means.
Believe it or not most police aren't just about the letter of the law, especially those that get up to Police Chief tiers - they actually care about helping people and directing them to services they need to get them along - that doesn't mean the laws that lead them to giving those suggestions are intended for those purposes, just the nature of the job.
[Same way that police that show up for domestic disturbance calls will often offer suggestions on counseling - it's not actually part of what they're required to do - they do it because they care]
In fact the only person actually making the quote that he states in the article was THE COUPLE THEMSELVES - that was the interpretation of two people - likely angry over being asked to disperse.
[And again note, Daytona Beach (convenient spot FYI, it's only one hour north of where I'm planning to open my shop (Brevard County, hopefully Meritt Island as that's where I'll be buying my home in a few) - so easy to tap information on from my business groups) started it's ordinance at the behest of the business groups and only applies to boardwalk and main street areas - literally they could set up the same thing in an alley area and they'd be fine with how the ordinance there is handled. (Haven't read it, but that's how it's enforced regardless of how it's written - out of sight of the major businesses is how it's enforced) - so evidence in this case seems quite against the interpretation you theorize]
1) For now, most of the "random search" laws that I'm familiar with came up quickly to tamp down on a flurry of crime that started up. (NYC's went through in something like a month or two IIRC) Just because it's not that way today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.
2) Almost every single citizen breaks a law unintentionally now and again - I've got a completely clean record, but I could quote at least ten minor laws I've broken in the past week (and only one with the wife before anyone gets any ideas... most of the normal civil law kind not bedroom law...) knowingly plus there's likely some others I broke accidentally without even knowing it. [Minor speeding and running a red light were two - the latter was somewhat unintentionally since my brakes froze a bit and I was halfway through the intersection when they caught - so felt it was safer to break that law]
There's a huge difference between the slap on the wrist I'd get, and someone who's under greater scrutiny by an officer could potentially get for all those minor things.
3) Hope you don't like Chipotle and Starbucks amongst others that are a bit less vocal about it. Most grocery stores have an anti-gun policy as well, additionally most banks (for obvious reasons...). Guess any that are connected with places of law/politics you're not keen on patronizing either... Or airports... Or trains... or many bus lines... etc.
Most businesses that are near minimum wage are fractionally effected by payroll - food service industry for example are around 10-20% payroll for their overhead. So versus the case you quote (phone work) where 80-90% of the costs will be payroll based, they'd be impacted nearly ten times less on average by the same payroll increase. Also note that this was a symptom of your state creeping nearly $2/hr ahead of other states ($7.25 Federal minimum) if the rift was $1 the savings might not make sense to the same client - especially if it's universally raising. [And for phone work there's a big pushback against foreign call centers FYI - there's many groups boycotting companies that use foreign call centers because it's obnoxious to deal with someone with a thick foreign accent who doesn't understand the language fully...]
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
So yea, all in all a pretty weak argument that falls under conspiracy theory nonsense. Reality looks quite the opposite of it. Even just simple logic would deflect it. (How many businesses want homeless people bugging their clients? Zero - they want the cash from those clients and they don't want their clients feeling uncomfortable to come shopping there - as a soon to be business owner, I'd personally prefer an anti-homeless zone for my business area when I go shopping for locations since they'd turn off some number of potential customers)
What he's actually quoting as a symptom of a lack of free market is anything but, it's actually completely created because of the free market.
The number of times in non-hunting situations I've seen a gun brandished besides when I've had them pulled on me TRYING TO HELP SOMEONE (which has happened twice at this point) is literally zero.
I'd bet pennies to pesos 2/3-3/4 of those scenarios were something completely different in reality than the interpretation the armed person actually thought they were. Heck even the "he was holding a gun" thing is remarkably inaccurate more often than not based upon police statistics - for every crime report involving a supposedly brandished weapon a drastic majority of the time no weapon is ever proven to exist. (Quite often with other witnesses correcting the "He had a weapon" declaration)
The human brain likes to make up alot of things when it's scared. And considering the primary motivation to carry a gun is fear it's not a large jump to realizing how many of the self-reported "miracle stories" are likely nonsense, even if the people involved truly believe it themselves. Self-delusion is a powerful force.
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)