I think any company that NEEDS a union to force it to treat its workers with respect, is a bad company that will constantly be trying to undermine the union. Any company that sees "human" resources as a threat, and not an asset, is a toxic company.

However, ideal vs reality, are often not the same thing.

Likewise, unions DEFINITELY work in industries with lots of contractors where there's no "I see you every day" kind of human biology at play. People come and go and it's easier-than-not to treat people like commodities. The voice acting industry became unionized and it has GREATLY improved work conditions (safety/health, hours worked in a row, pay structures) and the quality of work as well. This is all from the voice of Duke Nukem himself:

I think basic, minimum work conditions should be regulated, at the federal level. Why should the government protect us from robbers with guns, but not bosses employing people? (see Wage Theft) Seems pretty reasonable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft

And another thing with that whole "people own the means of production." People. PEOPLE? Not person, but PEOPLE?! When have you ever had a group of ten people (even five) agree on ANYTHING? Basically every good, amazing thing, we have, has come from one super-driven person and a bunch of people associating and helping that one person. Engineer 13022-B didn't get to tell Steve Jobs jack crap on whether or not to build the iPhone. Steve Jobs said "make it" and it got made. The engineers, designers, etc were all instrumental, but they weren't leading the thing. Can you imagine an entire society "designed by committee"? That means people who have no real "drive" or passion, or even experience, get equal votes on how a factory should function? That means do-nothings will spend their time debating and vying for power instead of actually working. ... And isn't that's what happened in every communist country?

I mean, god, dare to look at Twitter or YouTube comments to see that not everyone equally deserves a voice. Any time you let random people talk with no barrier-to-entry, it becomes full of monsters. Those same toxic people... also try to run companies and governments. They don't just magically keep their sadism on chat platforms.

My hobbies are C++, resistance and futility. Take that bam-bams.

This is so true!
{"name":"611673","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/5\/55459ef40bba26722f761c9192b33119.jpg","w":480,"h":346,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/5\/55459ef40bba26722f761c9192b33119"}

Never heard of it.

I think this thread is getting sleepy. I think it needs a Jiggly Puff.

{"name":"maxresdefault.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/4\/e4db4ff5510ca214c320cd83d071bc75.jpg","w":1280,"h":720,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/4\/e4db4ff5510ca214c320cd83d071bc75"}

Oh wait, I was thinking of a Snorallax.

It doesn't seem to work properly in Firefox-ish. Plays OK in Chrome, but goddamn if I can last past 40. It's too damn hard. I don't have that kind of time. But super neat for a free Web game.

Yes, because dumb ass Trump supporters endorsing the Kremlin is beyond ironic.
Yes, because Trump is trying to cover up his sons involvement with Russians.
Yes, because the Russians interfered with our national elections.
Yes, because Trump is trying to cover it all up by firing Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller.

It's a sad state of affairs when you get tired of caring about the truth.

MAGA!!!!^[1]

It is kinda funny how the communist allied Democrats are... worried about Russian intervention. Maybe because they're the ones colluding?

Here they are chanting that... to kick a black woman out of a restaurant.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/06/antifa-protesters-drive-candace-owens-out-of-philly-restaurant-video/

Amazing how the left has turned into the 1950's era of segregation.

{"name":"111011_CB_margolick_EX.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/1\/f1f6dc4bec918b22197495df17058eaf.jpg","w":590,"h":391,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/1\/f1f6dc4bec918b22197495df17058eaf"}

1950's? Or 2018?

Keep pounding that horse Edgar, I think I seen it twitch!

I get so sick of the hatred from the left. Can't seem to escape it. On the news, online... I almost never watch the news anymore and I unsubscribed from all news sources because I just get sick of hearing it.

I may have to stay away from this website like I did before as well.

What I'm sick of is people crying "left" and "right" and not realizing that they're following behind a bunch of greedy, selfish, stupid cunts. Stop following and start having your own ideas. We don't need to fit into "left" and "right". You can just stand for what you believe in. And you should because when you fall in line with some generic category you're giving power to ideas that you don't believe in.

I would love if a real third party existed.

I looked up the Green Party yesterday out of desperation. Stances: "Gun control: Ban all of them." O_o Welp, that was quick.

Presumably that means prohibit guns that are predominantly used for crime: i.e., pistols, machine guns (already pretty much prohibited), and short shotguns and rifles. For all intents and purposes, none of these guns are very useful for hunting. Their only other purpose is violence: either crime or defense, but the defense is only really necessary because the criminals all have guns. The odd criminal in Canada still has an illegal gun (I mean, they're criminals, so the laws don't mean much); however, it's certainly more difficult to get them, and instead of having MAC-10's and AK's they're lucky if they can have some shit pistols and sawed offs.

I think that gun control in the USA is going to be very, very hard. I think that such a strong stance overnight would be too extreme. They'll need to slowly ease you all into surrendering your guns by convincing you over time that it's insane for everybody to have them. Which it pretty much is. They need to change America's concept of guns at home before it'll be possible to prohibit guns for violence. This will take time so I don't necessarily agree with jumping straight to banning them all. But certainly they can start by tightening the laws on the trade of guns, and tighten the flow of guns between state borders, and increase background checks on all types of guns. And for example, if you want to have a pistol, you should be required to complete and pass safety training with one as a bare minimum. That would be good for all guns honestly.

Guns are cool. There's no doubt about that. But they're also used for a lot of evil. And the excuse that you can use them to defend yourself from an evil government is bullshit: we've already seen that you cannot. The government is far too strong already for that. So that's not an argument. You can argue that you need guns for self-defense, but by tightening the restrictions on guns and destroying them as they come into the system you can limit the number of guns that are in the wild and therefore reduce the need to use one for self-defense.

I don't think there's a valid argument against guns for hunting. True hunting guns (which in Canada does NOT count AR-15's and the like; magazine capacities are also limited) aren't very effective for crime. In Canada, you can only legally own guns of a sufficient length (law enforcement can be licensed for more access to guns, but regular civilians are limited in how much permission they can have). Basically it cannot be practically concealable. Which makes it pretty unwieldy for robbing a store or resident. Not impossible, but pretty damn inconvenient and much less effective.

Of course, in Canada you also need to have trigger locks on the gun and separate locks on the ammo, and the gun needs to be locked up and unloaded while in a vehicle, and you can only have the gun in the vehicle to go straight from home to a shooting range or hunting site and back. Legally possessing a gun in Canada is kind of a drag, but also gun crime is pretty limited.

This is somewhat of a drag. Despite being drawn towards guns I have never actually fired one. Not a real one. And honestly I don't think I'm missing much. It's expensive to operate them anyway. Even if I did have the right to own them (I do, but not fun guns) I probably couldn't afford to maintain and feed them. So what's the point? I don't hunt. I basically have no need for a gun. And not having easy access to a gun means that I don't have an easy way to go on a rampage when something or someone in my life inevitably flips upside down.

Gun crime still does happen in Canada. I just heard two police officers were shot and killed in New Brunswick, but I haven't looked up the story. But those stores are really rare. I imagine in America that kind of thing happens several times per day every day. Which is still somewhat insignificant on the grand scheme of the country, but obviously certain parts of America get the worst of that and I imagine there are a lot of people in those neighborhoods that wish everybody didn't have guns (i.e., all the women, children, and mature adult men, for example).

I wouldn't rule out the Green Party only on the premise of gun control. Firstly, even if they tried it would take a century to actually prohibit them. Secondly, you can always join the part and help to steer their politics to better align with yours. If they're a reasonable group of people that you'd want to vote for then they should be open to changing their ideas, just as you should be. Of course, I am not familiar with the Green Parties in the USA. I'm only familiar with the Green Party of Canada and Green Party of Ontario. And I don't agree with all of their ideas, but I agree with much more of their ideas than any other party. So I support them anyway.

You already don't get everything you want from the other parties in the USA. So at least compare the harm that the existing parties in power are doing and weigh that against the idea of having to surrender some of your guns. Honestly, it's not that bad if you put it into perspective. Most of your life is unaffected by that.

The other parties have no support because people won't support the losing parties. Well if that's going to be your stance then there will NEVER be another party. If you want there to be another party to vote for then you need to support the underdogs to help build the momentum so they have a chance! I've been doing this for nearly a decade, and we actually have had 2 Green MP's in Canada's parliament, and there are now a few Green MPP's in the provincial legislatures. Compared to when I first started supporting them they've grown a lot of support and are starting to get a piece of the power. If you never try you can't win.

Append:

On another note, if both of the parties in power are bad then choosing between them is a wasted vote. If you want to change the government then start voting for the underdog candidates/parties that you actually support. They won't win, but you weren't going to win anyway. At least this way the parties in power will see that they're BOTH losing support, and if they continue the way they're going the powers that be are going to lose all power.

Out of all the guns bamccaig mentioned, hand guns (ie. pistols) are realistically the only ones that are significantly used for crime in the USA. That doesn't mean their only defensive use is against assailants armed with guns. Hand guns are easier for people to carry, and realistically the only legal firearm people can carry concealed. Women are overall physically weaker than men, and I would not deny somebody the means to carry a weapon and defend against a physically stronger attacker. I do not believe guns will be banned wholesale in the USA unless the VERY far-left wing takes over control of the country and amends the Constitution. Even if that were to happen, there would be insurrection.

The CDC projected there being between 500,000 and 3 million defensive uses of guns per year. As far as I'm concerned, this far outweighs the 8-15 thousand gun homicides per year. I agree all gun owners should take safety and proficiency training, that is a good policy. The point of having guns for self defense is that you can effectively use them.

The claim that an armed United States could not defeat an evil government is speculation. An armed citizenry is a deterrant no matter how much one would claim its significance. If a tyranny developed, you can bet money there would be a subset of the citizens building and distributing banned weaponry among themselves.

Bam is not fully against guns, but is skeptical of their usefulness and admits never having used one. A difference in cultures is widely the reason USA and other countries are so far apart on this issue.