Fixing and upgrading our crumbling infrastructure could easily create enough of those jobs at least short term, by which I mean one to two decades, to employ every single able bodied American....granted, that's less than 1/3 of us, but would make unemployment rare.

Some countries have tried the free check/minimum income. It turned out to have zero effect on employment, no one decided they shouldn't work and just live on the stipend, it was under $600 a month, but they did find a huge benefit in well being and homelessness.
I don't see a huge difference from social security except age.

That said, I agree, what I've read of this new deal is overreaching pie in the sky dreaming that only made those supporting it seem unrealistic and not serious.

My new deal would trade all these benefits for sterilization after one child. Anyone with two kids pays more and is excluded from benefits, those with 3 or more go to work camps to pay society back for their irresponsibility. Lower the population by 1/2 and solving all these issues becomes exponentially simpler....many solve themselves.

I disagree, you are never responsible for someone else overreacting irresponsibly.
It's like saying if you don't run, bad things are going to happen, and even if you've done nothing illegal you also have to accept some responsibility for the charges they make up to see what will stick at your expense, and the abuse or even death you may be subjected to if they decide they don't like you or your attitude.

Someone else acting wrongly is not the victim's responsibility in any way.

I think it's quite irresponsible to go around flushing out your trash into open space. People have to work there.

"Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…"

okay

"(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces."

okay.

"(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media."

I mean, with reports of social media "shadow banning" conservative accounts (and other one sided controlling of content), it troubles me too.

"(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first."

True statement. Remember this: https://youtu.be/WhHAPsXhbR8

"(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control “exactly what people think” … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy."

aka opinion as fact. also bad.

"(B) At KOMO it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically “left nor right.” Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."

so, they pledge to do their job. okay.

"(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you."

when they screw up, we have a way to tell them. how is this bad?

"(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual. … We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day."

again, they pledge to do their job.

"(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback."


I don't see the big deal.

That is an awful argument......and it kind of makes you an anarchist. Let me explain.
No law ever has completely stopped the crimes they outlaw. By your measure, no law should exist.
E.g. speed laws don't prevent speeding by all cars, theft laws don't prevent theft by all thieves, bribery laws don't prevent bribes by all real estate tycoons, drug laws actually increase drug related crimes, but firearm laws must prevent all misuse of all weapons, not even just all firearms, or forget it?!

Your requirements of gun control are completely...insanely... unrealistic.

Also...crazy cat lady is "using those cats to claw your face" just like shooting wildly into a neighborhood is "using a gun to shoot you". Her irresponsibility directly created a situation that endangered the neighborhood and caused damage, no? Damage caused by firing unguided fur missiles is always the shooters responsibility, not the missiles'.

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

Except NZ's gun laws were already stricter than Australias. To get an AR15 here, buyers must have a standard, current firearms licence and an approved police order form. If the clip has a higher capacity than 7 rounds, you need a special endorsement. Also, you must have proper storage for firearms which the police will inspect before granting a licence.

Oh, and you will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

a history of violence
repeated involvement with drugs
been irresponsible with alcohol
a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

That's a direct quote from the police licence page

I agree with Mass Bike that the truck driver was responsible. Not sure that he should be criminally charged, that's a really big hammer to use on someone that almost certainly did not intend any harm. But he wasn't even cited, although he left the scene. He called the Boston police many hours later, from New Jersey.

That said, I would advise any cyclists to avoid ever putting themselves in the position that Dr Kurmann found herself in. It is dangerous to ride beside large vehicles with limited visibility, as we see. Also good to note that semi trucks frequently swing left to set up a right turn -- I don't believe she realized the danger she was in until the truck was close to actually passing in front of her.

The symbol in the middle lane is a "sharrow", which really indicates that the middle lane is not a bike lane. The sharrow is supposed to indicate to motorists that bicycles may be expected in the lane, and to remind cyclists that they are allowed to use it. The Boston police report gets this wrong, irresponsibly making the driving public stupider. At the time of the crash the right lane was used as a turn lane, and there was a bus stop just before the crash site, making it likely that cyclists would use the middle lane.

It's fun to say that you never trust anyone, but that can't literally be true. For example, I trust thousands of drivers standing at red lights or stop signs not to charge out and run me over. It would be almost impossible to move in traffic without relying on most drivers to do the right thing most of the time.

No.
When friends and family do something wrong, they're still wrong, and I tell them.


And you fucked up your non quote...all police are suspect to me and must prove their honesty and responsibility. This one proved his irresponsibility and demonstrated that his department doesn't need more officers or funding.

Cops are liars, murderers, and bullies....and I suppose some of them are good people...but not the ones who stand with the liars and murderers. ;-)

I don't wanna grow up, I'm a toys R us kid.

I've gotta say, people have vastly varied ideas what 'growing up' means.

Adopting responsibility can happen in childhood....some of us are raised that way.

Women are at least as good at being irresponsible children as men, perhaps they are infantile about it less often. I think he needs better data.

Women at my wife's job are paid less than men. Women with 10+ years experience and seniority are paid the same as entry level men with zero experience, but entry level women are not paid the same. There is no other factor, these new men haven't shown their skills or personality at all when they get hired at the same pay rate as their established, competent boss.

My experience differs from his gender conclusions at every turn, and I found his estimations of women horrendously dismissive and wrong.

Physical conflict is off limits to women? Somebody better tell Rousey.

The market doesn't define positions, the boss does. If a position has certain responsibilities, it's the same job no matter who's doing it. It doesn't become a lesser job because the employee has no penis.

There's actually plenty of evidence that treating workers with respect and empathy is beneficial to both retention and work quality. He's flat wrong on that.

She's totally wrong to imply a right to not be uncomfortable for anyone. No one has that right. She's also a fairly bad interviewer.

Bullshit....they were asked and they answered honestly that they'll save millions per year, said repeatedly and clearly it helps the rich, and they're rich.
Trump and Republicans just flatly lied about the bill.
He just lied, blatantly, daily, about tax law that affects us all....lied about who it benefits (him) and who it hurts (anyone making under $150k, and every American citizen because it bankrupts the nation) and you ignore it? Be assured I'll bring this up the next 3 dozen times you complain about liberals being less than perfectly truthful.

Damn straight members would have voted against it....because it's a horrific swindle that will bankrupt us quickly....I know that makes you happy, Dimitri, but Americans are pretty pissed.

He wouldn't be damned if he had signed the law he claimed it was, he's damned because he's a consummate, pathological liar. You are damned because you support that no matter what the lie is.

My holiday was tarnished by a big orange baby and his cadre of anti American idiots destroying my country's finances and likely starting a class war. It will only be great again when we eat the rich (or force feed them to their families)....I don't think that will take 3 years at this point if things continue on this road to bankruptcy. $1.5 TRILLION to the DEFICIT...that's $15 TRILLION in 10 years for one person's gain (anyone else that gains is coincidental, this was written specifically to benefit Trump and his family.). You can't ever complain that liberals or democrats are financially irresponsible again....never. You support lying to the country so your guy can bankrupt the country for personal gain. No patriotic American would do that. If you aren't Russian trying to harm America, you're almost certainly a traitorous moron. I see no other possibility.

I hate crap touchscreens. Haven't really had a problem with them on dedicated devices like phones, tablets, etc.

I do think putting a touchscreen in something like a car is borderline irresponsible. There's some promising work being done with haptic touchscreens, but it's early days yet. https://www.cnet.com/news/tanvas-reunites-touch-with-feel-using-refined-haptic-feedback-ces-2017/

But there's really no substitute for a dedicated control surface.

It depends on who the potential winning candidates are. If neither poses an apparent threat to democracy, the US, or the rest of the world, I have no problem with it.

When one candidate is a Trump or worse, I think it is completely irresponsible not to do everything you can to stop that candidate from winning, even if it's an epic nose holding if you really hate the other candidate.

And Trump is that bad. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I trashed her on the email thing. And she doesn't take strong stands on things she absolutely should, like against big banks and what not. But she absolutely would not have emboldened racists and neo-nazis. She would not encourage hatred of the press and opponents to the point of dog whistling potential violence. I know that's a really low bar, but you can't have a functioning democracy without opposition that can feel free to oppose, a media that can resport basic facts without threats and being disbelieved simply because they report info contrary to what the President wants to be true, etc.

This was one of those elections that voting third party was simply not an ethical choice. Trump never hid what he was before he got elected. He was all these things in a very apparent way.

I am a moderate with no allegiance to any party. And I can say voting wise I did everything I could to stop Trump. I voted for the best chance against Trump in the primaries for my state, and I voted for Clinton in the general. I just wish more people did the same, because I think a year from now we are going to realize in a very big way how we really should have done everything we could to have stopped him from becoming president.

If the documentaries are focused on the dead bodies like this one is, probably.

The girl seemed to be in a lifestyle of unthinking foolishness. She will only not drive drunk again because she probably won't ever legally drive again. I doubt even this will teach her, some people simply cannot learn.

These films did little when they used to be the norm in drivers training classes, that's why they stopped using them. They simply weren't effective.

I can deny that this film made me think about being more cautious, because I'm not a moron that doesn't understand the outcome of a bad wreck, having seen a few in person, so beating me over the head with 'wrecks can kill you' is just boring. When I saw these as a teen, while learning to drive, I was titilated by the gore, but not effected otherwise. Most teens don't fully grasp that dangerous things are dangerous to them, and a large percentage are actually drawn to the dangers.

If humans were rational and only irresponsible by accident out of naivete, you would be right, but they just aren't. You have to be pretty brain dead to not grasp that high speed car wrecks can kill without a filmstrip telling you.

*snuff. This clearly doesn't belong here.

And @bobknight33, that idiot girl that murdered her own sister was allegedly not only streaming but also was quite drunk. It seems pretty clear that responsibility was not her strong suit, she was a ward of the state for years due to irresponsible behavior. It's unlikely that she didn't know she was being totally irresponsible, her first reaction after the accident is to say she's going to prison for life, she knew.