1
Belgian_Rofl 1 point ago +1 / -0

My sister works as a teacher and complains she's underpaid. 30 hour work weeks, (she works from 7:30-2:30, with (2) 1 hour "prep periods" where she's not in front of any students, and a 1 hour lunch break), 20 days paid leave a year, 3 months off because of holidays.

She makes more than 60K.

If she worked a normal job, 40 hours/week, 2 weeks off, that's 110K equivalent.

I hear a lot about prep and grading that's not accounted for in school hours, and I can tell you after the first year, there's barely any prep ( or at least she didn't have to do any more) and grading had her working until 5pm once a week a semester. You know, like the rest of us.

Oh and they could take that grading home with them instead of doing it at school.

Growing up my neighbor across the street was making 90k teaching 3rd grade art, and her husband was making 130K in administration.

1
Belgian_Rofl 1 point ago +1 / -0

I get it because it's child level logic:

Bathrooms are slippery when wet

Need an external factor to explain why he slipped to excuse the real reason behind it

The real reason is probably because he had a minor stroke, and fell down stairs or something similar. I just don't see any way that you can fall in such a way that fractures your foot, like hyper flexion/extension, but leaves the leg unharmed.

1
Belgian_Rofl 1 point ago +1 / -0

I read his dissenting opinion, and it's not completely unreasonable.

Essentially he's saying because the governor walked back the restrictions on religious ceremonies that they don't need to rule on an order that no longer exists.

I think that's a cucked response, however.

In law almost everything revolves around a 'reasonable' person. I think that it could be applied to this as well, just because it no longer exists, doesn't mean you can't rule on it to nip in the bud, especially because you also found it to be an unreasonable restriction. I think that any reasonable person would view the governor's removal of orders as an attempt to circumvent the court and avoid an unfavorable ruling.

Therefore, even though Roberts is technically following the letter of the law, he is not following the spirit which would allow these abuses to continue to happen until another such case would reach the supreme court.

Similarly the liberal justices' dissenting opinion, which is separate than Robert's, follows that route of logic. The churches are no longer in those zones anymore, and thus the restrictions do not apply.

Questionably they make the argument that even if they did apply the coronavirus is deadly enough (of which they quote the NY times, not any medical journal, all while laughably appealing the medical authority) to entrust reasonable restrictions as we rely on the state to keep us healthy.

I find this argument to be especially repugnant because what they are saying is that the state determines how we can use our first amendment rights. They are saying that reasonable regulations when imposed equally, that is not a danger to our first amendment rights.

To which I would respond, fuck you. Who are you to tell me that any regulations imposed with a virus of a survivability rate of 99% is reasonable.

To the degree that the state is "responsible" for my health, is another fuck you. You beat us down using the 4th amendment (privacy) and stretching it to apply to abortions, but when it comes to actual infringement of our privacy and our health records you want the state to take action, step in, and restrict our bodies. Unironically our bodies, the state's choice.

The liberal's dissenting opinions really are the most anti american drivel that I have seen, using technicalities to follow the letter of various laws to get their desired results, not following the spirit of the law, and going so far to disregard them.

10
Belgian_Rofl 10 points ago +10 / -0

He's a fucking racist.

You have unprecedented statistical irregularities, affidavits, and his argument is YOU'RE SAYING BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T HOLD A FAIR ELECTION BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO DUMB.

Nobody said that except for him implying it, which means that it's logical to him, because that's what he's thinking.

5
Belgian_Rofl 5 points ago +5 / -0

Does this mean people can call in racism instead of sick?

2
Belgian_Rofl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Correct. She had a deadly weapon and she was screaming she was going to kill people. This gives you the presumption of reasonableness in most states.

The only thing that would remove that presumption is if you were not legally allowed to be there or if you were actively commiting a crime.

2
Belgian_Rofl 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wonder in these extreme cases if that can be revisited at the local administrative level. Say the mayor not only orders police officers to selectively enforce the law, but actively pursues people on the basis of their political affiliation.

I would think a civil case could be made that would be a form of violation of free speech, as well as damages being easy to prove.

2
Belgian_Rofl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hell, if there ever was a case of mental illness being contagious.....

35
Belgian_Rofl 35 points ago +35 / -0

I also love how she's purposefully wearing the mask wrong by twisting the ear loops which pulls the mask away from the bottom of the face and opens the sides. It allows more air in but also more air (and deadly virus!) out.

Covid is canceled so I guess it doesn't matter!

18
Belgian_Rofl 18 points ago +18 / -0

I noticed they stopped fact checking about the election when people called them out for deleting legitimate testimony/calling ongoing lawsuits disputed.

Of course the damage is done and we need to hold these 230s for interfering with an election.

8
Belgian_Rofl 8 points ago +9 / -1

Less than that, even though that was the case for the entire population for the American Revolution. What's 2% of 70 million? 1.4 million. What's the size of active service members in this country? 1.3 million.

The reality is you need less than one half of one percent of the total population.

10
Belgian_Rofl 10 points ago +10 / -0

They don't even have to look at your house. The mail is all collected and all it takes is one supervisor to tabulate all the likely Trump supporters by looking at their mail history.

If you donated just once to any candidate that will tell them who you lean because of all the political donation request you receive.

They can make a list in the weeks leading up to the election and just collect those ones and toss them.

A coordinated effort state wide could even be automated as they have photographic receipts of all your mail, and then a list of likely Trump supporters could be generated and distributed to supervisors.

5
Belgian_Rofl 5 points ago +5 / -0

The orange line is impossible to have naturally.

What that orange line implies is they calculated the exact totals they would need per voting precinct.

Look at it this way, they looked at the total number of votes they needed to win the state. Then they distributed it as a portion of the population in each area to hide that all the votes were fake and try and make it look like organic voting.

The reality is they tabulated the exact number needed after all the voting was counted to push Biden to win, hence why the data set looks like it follows a linear path.

The green line is the average of the organic votes he received. The averaging there shows there are points above and below the line, indicating a true average and deviation.

The orange line is straight along the average with no deviation which is statistically impossible and shows election fraud.

2
Belgian_Rofl 2 points ago +2 / -0

She lost my vote. She never had it in the first place, but that right there is a politician with a poltical response meant to minimize controversy.

As if calling statistical impossibilities and anomalies was controversial.

4
Belgian_Rofl 4 points ago +4 / -0

You can confirm if they used the same voter ID number

3
Belgian_Rofl 3 points ago +3 / -0

No ID, no chain of custody. Just a machine that you hope tallied your vote correctly with no receipt. Mail in ballots sent to everyone, even people who have been dead for over a decade. I mean why wouldn't they cheat at that point?

It's telling that the states with the lowest elections security always swing for democrats.

4
Belgian_Rofl 4 points ago +4 / -0

They are simply hiding their counts until the end of the week, probably to prevent those graphs that have been circulating showing a massive vertical leap(with no correlating leap for Trump that would indicate votes counted and reported), just large enough for Biden to take the lead.

1
Belgian_Rofl 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well this is the third time it died this year alone, so...

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›