Booster4324
-
Posts
6,037 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Booster4324
-
-
The question is, who is not overqualified?
-
Que?Selmon's health class book is his special bathroom reading material.
UConn lost so many debates he is picking on 10th graders to restore his self image.
-
What?????????That was a mistake or it was just an owner seeing who would bite. I work by lax. U cant get more La, than that. I paid 4.21 yesterday. (chevron)
2 nights ago i filled up another vehicle and it was 4.15. (76)
Obviously I have seen some 4.30's but most were hovering around the 4.20's.
That doesn't fit into LA's overall scheme so hush. You are clearly lying.
As is this website.
-
I can't imagine any of the school kids messing with it.
A possible reason, but:
District tradesmen installed and watched over the panels during the day, but when their shift ended at 5 p.m., the cement was still wet.And I recall writing in cement and then someone pasting over it the next day in about a minute.
I'm paid 6 figures to watch grass grow. Got a !@#$ing problem with that????
Nah, as you get paid in Zimbabwe dollars...
-
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/951181-196/dont-ask-nashua-janitors-to-watch-cement.html
'Arbitrator John Cochran, of Newton, Mass., said watching cement dry was not within the “primary scope” of a custodian’s job, which is defined as maintaining school buildings and grounds in a clean, orderly and safe condition.'
'The custodial union, AFSCME Local 365, filed a grievance last spring after several custodians at Elm Street Middle School were asked during their regular work hours Oct. 8, 2010, to watch over a set of new concrete panels on the walkway leading to the school entrance.'
'In his ruling, Cochran called the work “qualitatively different” than their normal duties and therefore outside their classification.'
Umm, why are they paying someone to watch cement dry? Is that standard procedure? What a waste of money as they should simply put up a few warning signs and cordon it off. If someone manages to hurt/kill themselves through that, well, perhaps that is for the best.
-
No announcement could affect our profitability in one day - Reed Hastings
-
I'd challenge that statement. They certainly were not all very religious (although both statements are highly subjective. After all, what does that mean?). Furthermore, someone can also be "very religious" without thinking Satan is nipping at their heels.
Actually, all the Founding Fathers worshiped Satan.
"Today, there are more than twenty complete zodiacs in Washington, D.C., each one pointing to an extraordinary mystery. David Ovason, who has studied these astrological devices for ten years, now reveals why they have been placed in such abundance in the center of our nation's capitol and explains their interconnections. His richly illustrated text tells the story of how Washington, from its foundation in 1791, was linked with the Zodiac, with the meaning of certain stars, and with a hidden cosmological symbolism that he uncovers here for the first time." [Jacket flyleaf]
Immediately, we are told that the capitol city of the United States of America was founded according to the Biblically forbidden practice of Astrology from the beginning of its serious construction. Further, as we get into this material, you will discover that Washington, D.C. and its key government buildings, were specifically oriented and dedicated to the Dog Star Sirius, which we will later study, is the occult designation of Satan .
This book absolutely proves the Satanic nature of Freemasonry in its Invisible Fraternity, the vehement protestations to the contrary from Masons today. Surely, you say, this book was written by an Anti-Mason. Wrong! The author, David Ovason, is a noted Astrologer, and his work is highly acclaimed by none other than C. Fred Kleinknecht, 33 Degree, Sovereign Grand Commander, The Supreme Council, 33 Degree (Mother Council of the World), Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A., Washington, D.C. [Page viii].
-
Hilarious, and 15 whole minutes worth. Funny bit, Worf was right in a lot of those cases.
-
Now someone tell me again how pot is harmless...
Thanks Pete.
-
I heard Chef Jim was coming to town, but I wouldn't consider him a dinosaur...Tom on the other hand
The Pedanticaassasaurus.
-
Not my thread, but thanks guys.
-
Well...It's my birthday! Gonna go to Sol Ateca (An awesome mexican resturant) tonight, watch my fav movie (hopefully) and pend some time with my two sibs. Yay!
Happy Birthday. It so happens that today is mine as well, although I am substantially older. Oh, and if you are looking for good reading about comic book heroes check out a series of books called Wild Cards. Hope you enjoy the dinner and movie.
-
Then they'd just kill each other over something else.
They'll make meth and hard drugs in more quantity, and send them north for people who want an even bigger high. It's like the dude who used to jerk off to his imagination, then when that doesn't get him anymore, uses the Sears catalog, then Victoria's secret, then Playboy, then hardcore, then pornos, then gonzo, then kiddie porn. Each step just leads to a higher threshold.
If you think the Sears catalog leads to kiddie porn, then it is sorta pointless debating ANYTHING with you.
-
Even with taxes it would probably still be cheaper. It grows everywhere and has a short growing cycle. If it cost Company XYZ 50.00 per pound to produce, they could sell it for 100 bucks a pound, the government could tack on a 300.00 per pound tax, and it would still be below today's current market value.
And let's not forget, if it were decriminalized, lots of people would grow their own for personal consumption.
So yeah, in all likelihood most black market activities relative to pot would be gone.
That is completely correct (in the idea if not the actual numbers).
-
Don't forget the original poster. That's how I knew it'd be fun.
I am ignoring the fact it came from someone with a history...
-
Wow! Some of you guys are real dipshits! If it wasn't for our insatiable appetite and demand for drugs, there wouldn't be this violence issue. The idea that somehow cracking on supply is gonna solve the problem is absurd.
If you really want to crack down on the violence, then you legalize Weed. That way you cut off the illegal supply of weed flowing from Mexico, which weed by far is the #1 drug imported into the US from Mexico. You cut this off, then you cut off their funding, and a good portion of their reason of existence. But go ahead, and keep blaming the boogeymen.
That makes way too much sense, so of course no one will go for it...
-
No, I'm arguing that the real deterrence effect is the availability of a counterforce asset that is itself virtually immune to a counterforce strike.
That was the whole point of having thousands of weapons, way back when: the Soviets couldn't kill them all, so any disarming first strike against the US left enough over to nuke them back. Start putting them on a sub, and guess what? You need a hell of a lot less weapons. That's the deterrence effect - not what the sub can kill, but how hard it is to kill it. That's why the Russians always wanted US ballistic missile subs included in disarmament treaties, and why the US never agreed to it.
Ah, then I agree. That was my first hint in the thread.
-
I knew Tom was a cheap spambot. Just couldn't figure out what the !@#$ he was advertising.
It really does sort of fit. I mean he is a war historian with an emphasis on naval warfare...
-
Not "redundancy." Deterrence.
Christ...forget real sources. Has anyone on this board even read Tom Clancy???
I haven't argued either yet. Sorta obvious what I am going to argue, but are you arguing against the deterrence of 1 ship capable of taking out a country or whether redundancy is needed?
-
Redundancy.
What if that sub is taken out by a kilo class ? What if the Chinese or Russians find a way to jam coms to submarine force preemptive before launching an attack .
What if Russia wipes out barksdale and Whiteman afb before we can get our bombers up... etc...
And the fact those subs operate from 7,000 miles away?
-
Just the idea that they think they can do it is scary. What, the 4 year old kid is going to stand up to the adult? The problem is that government employees feel entitled to get away with this schit.
I will not argue with that. How anyone could take themselves seriously as a lunch box inspector is beyond me.
How does that work on a 1st date? "So, what do you do for a living?" "I inspect pre-schoolers lunch boxes."
<crickets>
"I also get to dust the chalk boards... "
-
Education for the parents is where government needs to focus its efforts IMO. I do not mean huge advertising campaigns, as the schools should direct them to websites that have appropriate education. Provide a free class (via the web) on what is appropriate in a child's diet and will help with their health, but also give tips on how to deal with fussy eaters (there are gov websites like that, but they have not been promoted properly IMO).
-
I'd say look at the surface of Pluto. I won't say the planet Pluto, as I am not sure if it qualifies as one today. It might tomorrow though.
Democrats will have to accept steep cuts to entitlements. Republicans will have to accept steep cuts to the military. We can get by with steep cuts to both. Failure will bring about the end of our country.
Agreed on the cuts. The point is that 24 warheads would wreck a continent if not the world. Not everyone would die, but 24 (I used 30 for a round number earlier, we can lower it to single warheads on Ohio class subs and be happy) nuclear missiles wrecks any country for all purposes. Each sub can kill any rival nation state. These are hidden ships, that the enemy really cannot find and who happen to have a 7k mile kill radius.
-
So what happens if the sub with all the firepower is half a world away from the launch site?
If you're in a situation so dire that it calls for the use of nuclear weapons you probably don't have time to put everything on hold and send your sub thousands of miles to the location. And what if your sub gets taken out and you don't have a back up plan? Then you're Jimmy Carter making excuses for how it should have worked but didh't.
Also, I think you overestimate the impact of a nuke. When your people are little more than furniture in your fiefdom you can withstand a nuclear attack and keep going.
Edit: And how much money will this move save?
The Trident-II has a range of like 7 thousand miles. Each missile can carry multiple warheads that exceed Hiroshima by at least a factor of 10. What Tom is saying, imo, is we have no idea what the strategic requirements are as we do not have access to that information. So some sub may be loaded with max missiles that are essentially nation busters. We may have 4 of those who move around. Others may be loaded with a different payload. Who knows?
My point is, what happens to a nation when you dump say 30 nukes on them?
Insult the previous poster
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by Booster4324
You are the guy who found it electrifying to push UConn over the fence. It took hours, but hey... bragging rights.