dimanche 31 décembre 2023

Target lied about why it closed stores.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/targ...er-nearby.html

Looks like Target lied when it said it closed 9 stores because of crime.

So how many other chains lied about why they closed their stores?

Quote:

There was just one problem with the explanation Target gave for closing stores: The locations it shuttered generally saw fewer reported crimes than others it chose to keep open nearby, a monthslong CNBC investigation has found.

CNBC’s findings cast doubt on Target’s explanation and raise questions about whether the company’s announcement was designed to advance its legislative agenda — seeking a crackdown on organized retail crime — and to obscure poor financial performance at the stores as it grapples with sliding sales.


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/qSWmz61

samedi 30 décembre 2023

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Compares Abraham Lincoln to Osama bin Laden

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Compares Abraham Lincoln to Osama bin Laden

I am so ashamed to live in the same U.S. state as people like this.

Quote:

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has decided to join the conversation around the U.S. Civil War.

On Thursday, the party’s X, formerly Twitter, account wrote, “Oh we’re talking about the Civil War today?”

It also shared a graphic comparing President Abraham Lincoln and the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Osama bin Laden.

The graphic featured several categories, such as the number of Americans “murdered,” the “economic cost” and the “justification” for the Civil War and the terrorist attack.

However, it compared the death toll from the Civil War to just the terrorist attack.

It claimed the Civil War was designed to “expand DC control of Southern lands,” while 9/11 was designed to “regain Arab control of land from DC imperialism.”

:crazy: :dl: :crazy: :dl: :crazy: :dl:


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/Ro20VE9

vendredi 29 décembre 2023

U.S. Border and Immigration

Because we don't seem to have a thread about this, despite it being a pretty dominant item on the news; and to avoid further derail in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

Here are some recent posts from the other thread lightly edited to remove on-topic Russia/Ukraine stuff:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrinker (Post 14230816)
Would somebody please summarise for a non-US person why Biden doesn't just give the GOP the border measures they want in return for passing the Ukrainian aid measures?

I know it could go off topic very quickly, so I'm only after the briefest explanation and my left-wing sources never seem to give it. What is it that the GOP wants at the US border which is so intolerable that Biden would rather see Ukraine lose the war?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX (Post 14230838)
[disclosure]Former Republican who left the party because of Trump.[/disclosure]

The Democrats tend to favor something resembling open borders, partly for ideological reasons, and partly because they believe that the great majority of immigrants and their descendants will eventually become reliable Democratic voters. Republicans tend to oppose high levels of immigration for the same reasons. Additionally, certain elements of the historical Democratic coalition, notably organized labor, tend to oppose high levels of immigration, because they see immigrants as competitors for jobs.

There's also the question of exactly what House Republicans will accept. Speaker Johnson has stated that they will not compromise, and will only pass the aid bill if it contains everything they want on immigration. I believe he's just posturing, but whether or not that's the case remains to be seen.

Until October 7 of this year, I was confident that a Ukraine aid bill would pass the House even if the Speaker refused to schedule a vote on it. As I've discussed in the past, a House bill can be brought to the floor by means of a discharge petition, if it is signed by a majority of House members. If all Democrats signed such a petition, only a very few Republicans would need to buck the Speaker and sign. However, because the bill will also contain a large amount of aid for Israel, I expect that a significant number of Democrats will oppose it, and I'm far from certain that enough Republicans would sign a petition to compensate.

All that said, I think the Democrats should give the Republicans at least a large chunk of what they want on immigration, partly because Ukraine aid is that important, and partly because taking action would be a net political win for Biden. The great majority of Americans think that the situation at the border is a disaster and would like to see the US government attempt to fix the problem. There would be an outcry from the immigration supporters among the Democrats, of course, but the fact is that very few of those people would vote Republican or stay home and risk another Trump presidency.

Hope this helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aridas (Post 14231023)
More accurately, restricted borders with the restrictions based on what will objectively benefit the country most while upholding human rights in the process. "Open borders" is a misleading term, to say the least, not least because of the GOP's misuse. It's also worth noting that the GOP efforts to over-restrict border passage have played a significant role in encouraging crime, which they've then used to justify restricting things more, which encourages ever more crime, which...

Yeah, moving on.



This is fairly certainly closer to the truth - and likely understates the issue at hand, no less. To risk delving into these matters because of their relevance to the Republican excuses to block Ukraine aid...

It's not just the large donors. A large majority of illegal immigrants are employed by Republicans - for example, it's estimated that about 40% of farm laborers in the US are working illegally now. The actual issue in political play was not actually about immigration or legality. Rather, it was more about Democrats being willing to leverage the government so that farm workers are treated as people. People who are essential workers, no less, to the foundation and success of our county. This would normally involve paying them a living wage, for example. Republicans, especially the Republican politicians from more agricultural-based states, have consistently sabotaged efforts to treat these people as people, so that they can be better exploited by Republican business owners (with similar effects in play, albeit less pronounced, among the rest of the employers of those who lack legal status). For more general reference, the slave trade would likely still be alive and well if not for current cultural norms suppressing it. The factors that drove it still exist and there are plenty of people who would welcome its return if they thought that they would benefit from such.

Further, the whole border crisis scaremongering is largely an artificial crisis that has its roots in the efforts to prevent farm laborers from being treated as people. It's become a political tool largely created by and then immensely exaggerated for political purposes by Republicans. If you want a really short version why "GOP demands bad," it's because they seem to almost inevitably be aimed at making the actual problems at hand worse in the bigger picture and to further GOP efforts to sabotage the nation and then leverage that for political gain.

If you want some specifics, H.R. 2 would seem to provide some.

Besides the more direct sabotage things, to poke at an example of a wonderfully kind GOP demand that they've packed in -



Ahh, the GOP's rallying cries to save the kids. Ahh, their totally honest claims to want to save the victims of human trafficking. Oh, why won't we think of the children!

Now, with a bit more context to work with, Biden HAS stated that there's willingness to compromise for the sake of Ukraine aid. That Ukraine aid is being tied to an extremist demand to give saboteurs everything they want, including stuff like that, is little more than a demonstration of bad faith, though. For the Republicans, of course, it's likely a win-win, though, given that even if it's a lose-lose for the US, they can pretend to be actually trying to do something about the problems that we face, nevermind that it's likely to generally make things worse.

Now, why are they targeting Ukraine aid in particular? That's harder to say, but there are a few things that can be pointed at as clues. Trump and all the myriad and unfortunately submissive connections he has to Russia is a pretty obvious one. The Republican politicians actually driving the targeting have largely been quite pro-Russia in line with Russia's "God, Guns, and hating Gays" line of courting of the extremist Right-Wing. There's the authoritarian angle, of course, that has often exalted Russia in so many ways for justification and would really, really hate for Russia to flat out lose, on top of the constant embarrassment of Russia being exposed as overwhelmingly weaker than they wanted to pretend. There's the political contrarianism that likely arises from demonizing the Democrats to the point where agreement or compromise is largely counted as a bad thing, no matter what. On the political side, they also want to deny Democrats any "win" at all, as a general matter.

On the propaganda side, they have made fine use of the "Russia is overwhelming and cannot be resisted" mindset that they've encouraged. They've made use of the relative lack of compassion that conservatives tend to have for those they label as "the other." They've made use of the fear based short-sightedness and selfishness about money that they've long encouraged, nevermind that in both cases, the danger and losses are pretty well guaranteed to be significantly greater in the future if action is not taken now.

It's not for nothing that so many saw Republican politicians as a very real threat to Ukraine aid long before most Republicans were willing to admit such. Those like me were hoping to be wrong. Those like Russian propagandists have been trying hard to prove such right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 14231417)
With apologies for the OT, what makes you think the Republicans actually want or would accept border concessions from Biden? It's the strongest election issue they have. They want -- they NEED the current mess to continue until Nov 2024. Biden could agree to everything they're demanding now and they'll just move the goal posts tomorrow.

So, thoughts: I stand by my statement that the R's really don't want Democrat concessions because the current state of affairs gives them a political advantage, but concede I don't know what the Republicans actually are demanding. Can someone enlighten me? And if you're a "libtard", what exactly is terrible about it?

For the conservatives, exactly what has Biden done to change Trump-era policies from "Best Border Control Ever" to "Open Borders"? Are not more migrants being rounded up than ever before?

I probably won't participate much in this thread, but I promise to read every post, including from those on The List That Shall Not Be Named, and try to learn from it, responding where I can.


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/35FmaEK

AE911T Taking It to SCOTUS

I happened upon this earlier today and have not had a chance or enough desire to wade through it, but it seems AE911T are intent on taking their case of the NIST is naughty (therefore 9/11 was an inside job) all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

First there's this hour long video from Nov 22, 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcwQ...nel=AE911Truth

Worth noting in the description it says:
Quote:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that AE911Truth doesn't have standing in our case against NIST and has claimed that federal agency reports are not required to be accurate or scientifically sound, as long as they meet statutory requirements.

AE911Truth has now filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc seeking to have the entire set of active eligible judges who sit on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the three-judge appellate panel's decision in our case.

In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall, AE911Truth's attorney, Mick Harrison, joins Andy Steele to go over the details of this important case, and how AE911Truth intends to move forward and fight this breathtaking ruling, as well as the implications of this ruling if it's not reversed.
Then a week ago on December 22, 2023 they posted this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXlq...nel=AE911Truth

From the description;
Quote:

A federal court has ruled in our case against NIST that U.S. government agencies are allowed to issue knowingly false reports, and that their reports are NOT required to be scientifically accurate.

Now we are taking our case to the United States Supreme Court to challenge this Orwellian logic!

In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall, host Andy Steele is joined by AE911Truth Chairman, Roland Angle, and the attorneys involved in the Supreme Court filing, Mick Harrison, and John M. Clifford, to delve into the details of not only the case itself but also the process ahead. And they’ll discuss the implications of this important case for the entire country.

Our case is one that not only affects the World Trade Center issue but any issue in which science sits at the center. We are now not only fighting for 9/11 justice but for the future of the United States!

As we prepare to wage this important battle in the new year, we are holding our year-end fundraiser.

We need to raise $5,000 by December 31
That last part was a real shocker. Never saw it coming :D

Not having the intestinal fortitude right now to sit through 2 hours of AE911T propaganda, has anyone else looked at this yet?

Thoughts (beyond the usual)? I suspect there is really absolutely nothing new here and this is just the latest end of year fundraising special that will go nowhere and quietly fizzle out.


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/8rC4YRp

mercredi 27 décembre 2023

Why I should vote for Trump?

Here is your chance Trump supporters. Tell us what Trump promised and accomplished as President. How he improved your lives and the lives of your countrymen. What made his Presidency better than Biden's. Why the future of this country and the world will be better by going back to Trump.

Tell us;

About the Mexican wall that he built and how Mexico paid for it.
About Trump the builder was America's infrastructure President.
About the great construction projects that he built.
About how he was going to replace the Affordable Care Act with something better.
How he united the country and improved our lives.
What made Trump's Presidency better than Biden's.

Tell me why I should vote for Trump. And if you can't do that. Why are you?


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/PfwQhcK

Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after fight over Christmas gifts

Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after fight over Christmas gifts

And then gets shot by his 15-year-old brother.

Quote:

A 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister in Florida after a family argument over Christmas presents, officials said Tuesday.

The teen had been out shopping on Christmas Eve with Abrielle Baldwin, his 23-year-old sister, as well as his mother, 15-year-old brother and sister's children, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said during a news conference.

The teenage brothers got into an argument about who was getting more Christmas presents.

"They had this family spat about who was getting what and what money was being spent on who, and they were having this big thing going on in this store," Gualtieri said.

The boys continued to argue at their grandmother's house in Largo — a city about a half hour's drive from Tampa — Gualtieri said. They'd gone there so the grandmother could babysit Baldwin's baby boy and her 6-year-old son while Baldwin was at work.

Once inside, the 14-year-old boy allegedly pulled out a semiautomatic handgun, pointed it at his brother and told him he was going to shoot him in the head, Gualtieri said. The older teen said he didn't want to fight and told his brother to get out of the house. One of their uncles separated the teens and got the 14-year-old boy outside, where Baldwin was with her baby.

"'You all need to leave that stuff alone,'" Baldwin said to her brother, according to Gualtieri. "'Why you trying to start it? It's Christmas.'"

The 14-year-old boy called his sister several derogatory words and told her he was going to shoot her and her baby. He allegedly shot her in the chest around 1:45 p.m. local time.

The baby, who was in a carrier, was not injured, Gualtieri said.

The 15-year-old brother came outside with his own semiautomatic handgun and allegedly shot the younger teen in the stomach, police said. He then ran, throwing the gun into a nearby yard. The teen was taken into custody at a relative's house.
This is where I usually insert an attempt at a humorous comment, but I'll refrain. And please don't bother turning this into yet another gun control screamfest.


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/Dm7CX2M

Catholic Education

I hope this fits in Social Issues.

Anyway, my school education was entirely in the catholic system in Australia. The first six years of primary (elementary) school was with nuns, and the last six with Marist Brothers. It is only now that I am connecting the dots.

All I remember of the nuns was their cold, bitter demeanor. Any question about religion (like my sincere question about "what is adultery" when told about the commandments) were treated with utter contempt. I guess they taught me to read and write.

My six years with the Marist Brothers left me with no positive memories at all. I have a sister who is a school principal and two daughters who are teachers, and none believe me, but it's true. All I remember is the intimidating brothers and sadistic bullies.

I was bullied daily (the Brothers knew). I was younger than most, shorter and with no athletic ability (that came later). But I just carried on and topped my grades year after year.

Anyway, years 11 and 12 were critical then as now. Back then they had three levels, one, for the true brainiacs, two for those destined for university, and three for the rest, who no matter how well they went, would never go to university. I was put in level 3. When I asked why, I was told that it was a school decision. At the final year exams, I completed each three hour exam in under 30 minutes. And passed. And started my first job in a factory.

Soon after I visited an employment agency which looked my sad scores, and sent me off for an IQ test (this was the late 60s). When I went back for my results, the administrator, clearly angry asked "why were you doing level 3?" I said I didn't know. He said that I was in the top 1% and said I should be in university doing medicine or engineering.

It is only now that I have realised that it was my decision in year 9 to decide not to go to weekly confessions and the four or five masses a year that sealed my fate. The brothers punished me, and now 50 years later, I am about to take them on.

And for those who say "IQ tests mean nothing", you have a point. But I joined the public service in the 1970s and in my 30s was the youngest person to progress to the Senior Executive Service. So I was no numpty.

Anyway, I have now decided to take on the Marist Brothers. 50 years too late, but they are still teaching children, and should be held to account.


via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/0X4Lud5