But I wasn't asking if it was good for government; I was asking if it was good for (all) workers.
In Oregon a rising minimum wage has increased consumption to the point of offsetting the job losses from a rising minimum wage?
And note that fewer jobs is the price of fairness; it's not fair that some have more than others, so more must be taken from them, with whatever downsides that result.
That sounds like a religious statement.
Right because somone who does not possess electronics knowledge can tell the difference between a PCB for a cheap electronic clock and one that is some kind of detonator.
The school officials, and the police, all asserted that they had exactly that ability, as none of them actually invoked a single procedure that they had in place for dealing with a suspected bomb.
Schools get evacuated on the basis of a single anonymous phone call which says there's a bomb in a locker. It happens on a regular basis. Yet when they had the device IN HAND, they very obviously made the determination that it was in no way, shape or form dangerous. They did not evacuate the school. They did not call in bomb disposal. The teacher kept it in a desk drawer for a fair length of time. The police transported the 'device' in the same vehicle that they used to perpshame Ahmed.
They didn't just believe it wasn't a bomb, they made a specific determination, at every level and at every point in the debacle, that it wasn't a bomb, and SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to not invoke the procedures that all start with 'If there is ANY possibility that there is a bomb, do this....'
Being arrested requires that charges be filed.
Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.
Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless.
Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.
TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.
I haven't been regularly visiting
"You never criticized X during period Y, therefore Z is privileged"
Isn't that just a specific implementation of the more general case, of "if X, then you're not allowed free speech about Y", where X is anything they can think of?
TL;DR: I wouldn't let the resemblance to an argument there make you think that sound reasoning on things is a shared virtue. Any more than Democrat politicians throwing in an occasional accent from the hood means they have street cred.
"He entered the motorcycle hall of fame after he was already dead and he remains dead today."
And all this time I believed the motorcycle hall of fame had resurrecting power.
p.s. Congrats for posting a link to site that doesn't have a fucking popover for a change.
Maybe Mayhicko is de facto non- birthright citizenship. Either way, it certainly doesn't matter to me. It's strange they would use that -- a Left-wing tactic -- as "support" for a Right-wing position. When Rightism certainly isn't about relativism, or being overly concerned about others. I know I don't look to my neighbors to decide how my life should be, so why would I think America should take cues from other countries. Especially arbitrary categorizations of them; why on earth would I think that nations belonging to the "industrialized" community, to use you guys' lingo, should think and act the same.
p.s. Congrats on your frosty piss.
Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang