Jump to content

US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

But don’t states have any health and safety powers? 

To add to what DMC wrote, it's fair to assume that if you're in a red state there's going to be less robust regulations, be it in instances like this one or like when Texas' power grid failed. Being in a blue state doesn't protect you per se, but chances are on the whole they'll be making more of an effort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've handled claims with OSHA components.  an employee might be killed through the fault of the employer and OSHA might fine $10,000 for the violation, but that sum can be waived if the hazard is abated timely.  

one of the problems under the trump regime was staffing.  people retired or resigned, and the trumpites didn't fill the positions.  it's not just OSHA, but all across DoL.  OWCP is dreadful--many of the districts were combined so that they needn't hire a retiring district director.  it's comically kafkaesque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right - the problem wasn't just funding under Trump - it was deliberate neglect and horrible leadership. That's what we saw for a large amount of government agencies. Some more visible than others, like the Post Office - but it happened everywhere. Park management, land management, OSHA, EPA, basically anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wanna emphasize how small an agency OSHA is.  Its budget is a little less than $600 million with ~2300 employees.  In comparison, the EPA's budget is $9 billion (nearly 14k employees), the Park Service's is $3.1 billion (~20k employees), and even the BLM is $1.3 billion (over 10k employees).  Bezos could finance OSHA out of his pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear that the topic of his speech is, Brave Patriot Under Fire: How To Run To Safety -- subtitle: The Scourge Of Black On Black crime on The Suburban Committees That We Work As A Lifeguard In.

No, it'll probably be about just some bullshit about CRT and/or cancel culture. Or maybe the dearth of male movie role models after the 'feminization' of Dr Who, Ghostbusters, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Week said:

I hear that the topic of his speech is, Brave Patriot Under Fire: How To Run To Safety -- subtitle: The Scourge Of Black On Black crime on The Suburban Committees That We Work As A Lifeguard In.

No, it'll probably be about just some bullshit about CRT and/or cancel culture. Or maybe the dearth of male movie role models after the 'feminization' of Dr Who, Ghostbusters, etc.

 

If only he let the crazy man saying he’d kill rittenhouse and man firing his gun whilst chasing Rittenhouse kill him. After all doesn’t angering lefties mean his life is forfeit?/s

 

 

55 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

But guys, he totally supports BLM, dontcha know? 

Can one support BLM and see the value in protecting small businesses some of which black people depend on to meek a living?

Or are they mutually exclusive in your eyes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going full vigilante and palling around with police and proud boys absolutely casts doubt on any claims of BLM sympathy. What exactly Kyle Rittenhouse is and why he was there is not in question, even of you think he was justified. You have taken your defense to a weird level of stanning and admiration, the unfailing willingness to believe the best about this guy is confounding. You think he acted only in defense in the killings? I disagree, but fine. There is, however, no reason to believe his intentions were good. He was playing out a tough guy fantasy, not being an upstanding citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Going full vigilante and palling around with police and proud boys aboslutey casts doubt on with any claims of BLM sympathy.

Can you describe what each individual he shot was doing before he did so?

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

What exactly Kyle Rittenhouse is and why he was there is not in question, even of you think he was justified.

What is he? Why do you think he was there?

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

You have taken your defense to a weird level of stanning and admiration, the unfailing willingness to believe the best about this guy is confounding.

Eh. I hypothesized it may be a long-term gimmick. I’ll not be suprised if/when he gives a different opinion.

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

You think he acted only in defense in the killings? I disagree, but fine.

Would you not feel your life is under threat a pair of men one armed, the other shouting he’ll kill you begun time chase after you? 

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

There is, however, no reason to believe his intentions were good

Because no one ever relies on a business to pay any imports bills such as for rent and food etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

You have taken your defense to a weird level of stanning and admiration, the unfailing willingness to believe the best about this guy is confounding.

Yeah watching such an irrational radicalization unfold should be fascinating but it's more just pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his victims shouldn't sue him cause he's got no monies

definitely a consideration for any plaintiff attorney working on contingency. it'd be an expensive case, laden with time-wasting defense counsel and a roll call of experts whose predictable opinions anyone could write.  but it might worth taking the matter to judgment, if you can find someone to fund the case.  maybe the parental liability statute up there would help in joining a viable defendant, maybe join the business and its carrier that retained his services, maybe the state itself under 1983, though that's likely to be a long shot.  even longer would be to shoehorn rittenhouse into 1983 as some sort of state actor, working in conjunction with law enforcement. further complication includes how each person shot could name the other two persons shot as parties defendant, as well as other 'rioters' not shot. it'd be a mess, legally and politically, but that's sometimes what makes it worth doing.

 

regarding rittenhouse at the conservative convention circuit, one can only think of benjamin's sixth thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah watching such an irrational radicalization unfold should be fascinating but it's more just pathetic.

It’s unfortunate that so many leftists have let their bloodlust to turn a stupid kid(now man) into a martyr.

Because other side bad. Therefore anything they like bad.

Ergo rittenhouse bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s unfortunate that so many leftists have let their bloodlust to turn a stupid kid(now man) into a martyr.

Of course, it's the leftists that are forcing him to speak at a conference for kool-aid drinkers along with Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz, and Trump Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of course, it's the leftists that are forcing him to speak at a conference for kool-aid drinkers along with Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz, and Trump Jr.

Of course not; but many of their unjustified hysteria surrounding Rittenhouse’s actions made him some one those deplorable assholes would clamor to get in contact with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please for the love of Satan, relitigate the past Rottenhouse discussion in another thread.

If you want to discuss his CPAC appearance or position in the right-wing GQP community then please continue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...