ExiledInIllinois
-
Posts
48,638 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ExiledInIllinois
-
-
-
We should just give 'em back historical Mexico that we annexed... They are mostly "red states."
-
-
Then expect to pay the price.
In the meantime? I don't buy the reasoning. Knowing EVERY aspect keeps you sharp. People are just flat out lazy and can't keep up the pace. I believe in the opposite... You want to stay sharp, you occupy yourself with task during the "down time."
IMO.
Just do it. It needs to be done, you do it. Cross-train everyone to be self-sufficient.
-
-
No... Not listening to the transition team lead to 911.
Transition in America is truly an ugly thing.
On paper, people don't suffer. Yet, I do agree with you on being decisive and "perfect option." We just differ on what your best idea is.
-
Too many contractors in the military, everything is farmed out.
What happened to the good ole days when a unit did everything?
They are marching down the Corps (USACE) door, gonna morph it like other parts of the military.
Where I work we do everything. Here, I see the days of specialized contractors doing everything.
You know what? It is gonna cost 'em more! And if pride isn't written into the contract? It isn't going to exist.
/End Rant
-
Guys who punch their wife and are convicted of assault fired EIL.
It is illegal to carry a firearm in the United States after a misdemeanor or better domestic violence conviction, right?
My entire point is NOT to protect abusive cops.
I just think it is OK for a US citizen to do legal things in their homes without Big brother barging in and terrorizing their families.
If Internal Affairs is SO legit, they should be able to catch offenders, right?
PS: An Internal Affairs Lieutenant recently shot an unarmed civilian while collecting back rent from a tennant. There will be no marches led by Al Sharpton because they both are the same race; however this officer is up against it right now.
I get really sad when Internal Affairs guys get jammed up. Can you feel it?
I see you point about assault.
There is a culture that needs to be brought down about "protecting your own."
I have a hard time understanding you. You say you don't want to protect abusive cops... Yet, you don't want the problems to be monitored.
I would much rather be happy if the problem cops and their drinking be terminated immediately.
We are talking about problem drinkers on the force?
You don't have a problem? Do not worry, they won't be coming for you?
All it is, is a mechanism to make sure that the force realizes not to go overboard drinking. If you do, you got a problem, you get monitored.
If you don't like it? The door swings both ways.
-
Did these cops deserve to lose their rights?
They are not coming down on the non-problems Bill.
They are coming down on the ones that go home, punch their wife or act like "hard-arses" in public.
If it were me, I would just fire 'em... Quit the dicking around.
-
Some day soon we will live in a nice tidy world where there are no bad guys to hurt me... I will be able to walk through life skipping and jumping without a care in the world!
Bush good!
-
Yes.
What is better? Nothing or something that cripples you?
Of course when an immediate rescue is out of the question... What is better? Treading water, keeping your head above water and breathing or drowning?
I will pick nothing for now.
-
You got it. So basically nothing's changed is what you're telling me? Even if someone was in the upper half of median income, so long as their expenses are equal or more than their income, they'll still be allowed to file chapter 7? If so, then that's the right thing to do, IMO. What pissed me off was it sounded like even IF your expenses equalled or exceeded your income, that they'd still force people into 13.
The other issue I had is with forcing Ch. 13. Like repayment plans it just keeps dinging people's credit scores. With 7, people get hurt for the first 7 years, but at least have a shot to improve their standing. With 13, it's however many years you're paying bak, PLUS 7 years after that. A little bit harsh, IMO.
Exactly.
Where are all these family friendly Bible toting Christians? Not working for the CC companies!
Where do you think that 7 year concept came from?
Of course things where a little bit different years ago?
-
True.
Out of say 40 billion in profit, they lost 2?
I understand nothing is pefect... Yet, in trying to make things perfect, don't the wheels fall off. You can over maintain things, over grease the workings before fail results. It is a happy medium. The CC companies have been screaming chicken little. We will see how getting their way pays out and the affect on a culture of spending.
The economy and this discussion reminds me of a Steven Wright joke. The one where he has a friend that names his dog "Stay." You know what happens? "Stay, come here... Come here, Stay!... Etc..."
What's it gonna be? We talk with forked tongue whenit comes to spending and the economy, budget, etc... All the while the consumers are being marketed to one way and then lectured the other. What's it gonna be?
-
-
Sorry Bill, but I agree with the city on this. This is only for police officers who have a troubled past, and have signed these as an agreement to retain their jobs. It would be easier for the city to just say, you are not a good cop because you have been caught drunk driving, abused your spouse while drunk, etc...
The NFL, the military and a lot of other organizations with a reputation to uphold have similar policies. I believe the NFL for someone who has been under alchohol or drugs can do a random test whenever they want. In the military if we had someone who had drinking problems they were put on anabuse, and in some instances we actually had guys who had to report to the duty watch every two hours to have their breathed smelled to ensure they were not drinking, especially those going through out patient rehab.
The NYC police have a reputation, and that includes off duty time. They are not going to randomly invade someones appartment that doesn't have a prior history of problems. Becuase if you think about it, it takes about an hour for each beer to filter through your system. If you have eight beers watching Monday night football, go to bed at 1 am, and have to report at 0600. You still have alchohol in your system, and to top it off drove to the precinct while drunk to get to your job.
Again, this is only for thse with previous drinking incidents who could not control it, and now are considered a risk. The choice is easy, either they agree to the monitoring or they lose their jobs.
Where I work, I need a clearance. If I get caught drunk driving, or some other alchohol related incident I can lose my job, even if it has nothing to do with work.
Exactly. That is a very valid point VA.
Just look at my story where the off-duty CPD officers tried to bully their way into a situation where a good chunk of the southeast side could have taken out.
It is a public safety issue. Cops in general, can act even if they are off-duty? It is almost like they are 24/7?
Don't you usually see problems with off-duty cops and alchohol? They usually get into a pissing contest with somebody... It is human nature.
What would happen if an off-duty cop failed to act in a public saftey situation? They probably could, it wouldn't look good.
Their job is never ending... Even if they get paid only while on duty.
I see it as this or put the screws to everybody.
They could very easily say: "You want to be a cop? Then give up drinking forever."
This isn't gonna go over well. Yet, one makes choices and sacrifices to attain things they want. A police officer' work is never ending and their life affects public safety and reflects on the department.
Question? Do the weapons that police officers use leave their place of employment when they "punch out?" Do some departments let you take a squad car home?... YOU BET!
-
lewis and clark got all the way to california and had to stay there - as it started to snow - pacific west coast style. they had no food, so they ate the dogs. they prepared them many different ways, they were delicious in many ways, so i have read.
but i would never eat one. but if you were starving, would you eat little rufus?
I just had to chime in on this one!
To think? In such a "land of plenty."
And to say that the Native Americans were confused beyond belief was an understatement.
It been said that the european settlers would rather starve than eat salmon. Seemed the red color grossed them out?
Anyway... I am a dog person... Yet, I have a cat.
-
[sARCASM ON]
Maybe the gov't can put public service messages out there to do this? Use it like an anti-drug commercial?
You think they would?
[/sARCASM OFF]
-
Did I mention they drew their weapons?
This was pre-911. Now... I would just let the clowns lock and sit there till the USCG (with expanded powers) took care of them.
Maybe they wouldn't have blown the place up?
-
Maybe the union knows that they are going after... May I say it loud?
PROBLEM DRINKERS IN THE PAST.
That means? Let me guess? Cops that had problems so bad that the department somehow got wind of them?
Here is a story.
One time I was looking about 5,000 ton of jet fuel. Commercial craft gets locking priority. They also have to lock ALONE with hazardous commodities. Pleasure boats CAN'T LOCK with HAZARDOUS commodities, they have to wait. The rule is if you can't accomadate them with in three lockages (one way) you can make a special pleasure boat lockage... Sometimes this may take 3 hours or longer.
To make a long story short, while we were locking the jet fuel, a boat with three off duty Chicago officers came in and demanded to lock with the tonnage... We told them to leave... They wouldn't... Of course they were boozed up to the hilt.
It took 4 hours, my supervisor, their supervisors to get them out of the chamber. After they threw around the death threats and other types of retailiation they finally got out... Probably because they SOBBERED UP?
These are exactly the clowns the PD will target. It helps when you have a non-partial agency (as in my case) to see first hand.
-
I guess there is an archaic meaning:
1 archaic : one who practices economy
Economy:
2 a : thrifty and efficient use of material resources : frugality in expenditures; also : an instance or a means of economizing : SAVING b : efficient and concise use of nonmaterial resources (as effort, language, or motion)
I never thought of it as a guy making a lot of money quick... Just one that saved very conservative and lost little.
?????
I just don't think of them as money makers. Just safe players.
-
"Ask five economists a question and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard."
Though what really convinced me that most economists were generally useless was the realization that any economist that actually knew something about the economy would be wealthy many times over and retired by now. By definition, since an economist with a clue should rightfully be a "former economist", it follows that a practicing economist probably doesn't have much of a clue.
The word economist, IMO, always invoked the image of an extremely frugal guy with black glasses and pocket protector... Kind of your computer geek before there were computer geeks?
-
That's where I take over KD?
45 degrees, drizzly and nary a screech from the marine band.
And to boot, at 0800 today I am off on my long weekend till Tuesday!
The only thing that would be better would be a compressed 12 hour on/off schedule!
-
True, it hasn't been eliminated. Cases like I noted are A LOT LESS prevalent then they were in the "good ole days."
Things are getting better with time.
What about the 2 rich kids in the early part of the century that abducted and murdered for "kicks?"
Things like this have ALWAYS been going on.
-
TD tells me what thread to post to and what to write!
I knew there had to be an excuse!
If You Enjoy having Rights....
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I knew this was coming from you Bill... I just don't see it.
I have faith we won't cross that line.
I do respect your concern and it does concern me. That is why they should just get rid of the problems on the department quick.