100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Being a cop is not an easy job. We know this. But there are still some aspects to it that should not be that difficult to execute. Like, for instance, shooting a suspect. It should not take 84 attempts to hit a target. And yet, that’s exactly what happened last Friday when NYPD officers got in a gun fight with an attempted murder suspect in Bushwick. As the Huffington Post reports, out of the 84 shots fired at the man, only one actually hit him. Early that morning, 27-year-old Jerrol Harris ran from the cops after attempting to steal a Brooklyn man’s car and shooting him in the arm. Police chased Harris who fired at them with a black .40-caliber Taurus Millennium pistol, according to The New York Times. After 84 shots fired by six different police officers, Harris was finally struck in the calf and brought down. Harris has 12 prior arrests, including four robberies and gun possession. He’s facing several counts of first-degree and second-degree attempted murder, as well as other felony charges. Meanwhile, the NYPD should consider beefing up their target practice lessons http://news.yahoo.com/police-fire-84-shots-man-233124390.html seems they need some serious training all around! Maybe lengthen the time they spend at the Police-Academy! They are starting to look like the Misfits in the Movie,"POLICE ACADEMY"!  I know most cops never have to fire a gun, but that averages out to 14 shots a piece!  Mandatory Range time. That is just... scary & sad. Agreed :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep posting things like this? For a cartoon Smurf your scary. If you don't like the truth, don't post... you can RedBox a Disney movie Let me bring out the standard reply to such post: "If you have nothing better to do than to whine about the post here why don't you tell it to someone who really cares?". If you don't like what I have to say then stop responding :) Unless you have nothing else better to do :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SM8
on
Sun 09/06/15 11:04 PM
|
|
Analysis Stephen Harper avoids recession label on eve of GDP numbers Statistics Canada to release GDP figures on Tuesday By Mark Gollom, CBC News Posted: Aug 31, 2015 6:45 PM ET| Last Updated: Sep 01, 2015 9:25 AM ET Media placeholder Play Media . RAW: Stephen Harper makes campaign stop at a Tim Hortons 0:45 Close Stephen Harper highlights his record on the economy Stephen Harper highlights his record on the economy 1:48 Media placeholder Close Defining recession Defining recession 12:38 Media placeholder Close Philip Cross on recession talk Philip Cross on recession talk 7:14 Media placeholder 300 shares Share Related Stories ■How a recession would shake up the election campaign ■Recession? Knowing if we're in one matters: Don Pittis ■Jason Kenney touts broader definition of 'recession' ■Stephen Harper planning discussion of next steps in fight against ISIS If the GDP numbers to be unveiled Tuesday do indeed indicate that Canada is in a technical recession, one could hear Conservative Leader Stephen Harper just dismiss it as a "modest recession, a tiny recession," a "so small you can hardly see" it recession. It would be the same language he used, minus the mocking tone and the word recession replacing the word deficit, when he sneered at Justin Trudeau's plan to go in the red in order to spend money on infrastructure. ■How a recession would shake up the election campaign ■Recession? Knowing if we're in one matters: Don Pittis ■Jason Kenney touts broader definition of 'recession' Back in May, Statistics Canada recorded that Canada's economy had shrunk by an annualized rate of 0.6 per cent in the first three months of 2015. It was the first time the economy had contracted on a quarterly basis since 2011. According to Thomson Reuters, economists expect StatsCan to report Tuesday that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 1.0 per cent in the second quarter. FedElxn Conservatives 20150831 Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he has avoided wading into the debate of what defines a recession. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) With two consecutive quarters recording negative GDP, that would, at least by some definitions, indicate a technical recession. Where Harper seemed to be a big fan of repeatedly pounding home the politically charged D-word with Trudeau, he now has become label averse when it comes to describing Canada's overall economy and negative GDP growth. 'Haven't got into that debate' On Monday, while campaigning in Ottawa, Harper said it was more important to describe the realities of the economic situation, rather than using labels or definitions. "I haven't got into that debate," Harper said. Harper instead explained this downturn is really all about one sector of the economy (oil), while other sectors of the economy are growing. Canada's fiscal position, he said, remains very strong, proof of which can be found in the $5-billion surplus recorded in the three months of the fiscal year — although the Finance Department said a big chunk of that was due to the selling of Ottawa's GM shares. While Harper wasn't delving into the "what is a recession" debate, he seemed to be more than happy, or at least amenable, to allow Conservative candidate Jason Kenney to wade in on the issue. Kenney delved into the minds of economists when he appeared on CBC's Power & Politics on Sunday, explaining what they really mean by a technical recession. "I'm suggesting a recession is typically defined as a widespread downturn, not a discrete sectoral downturn," he told host Rosemary Barton. Unfortunately, for the Tories, and as Barton pointed out in a recent column, the government's own anti-deficit legislation states that "recession means a period of at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real gross domestic product for Canada, as reported by Statistics Canada." Interestingly, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, in Saskatchewan on Monday pledging millions in new funding for women's shelters, didn't seem to get too hung up on the recession label. Asked about the definition, Mulcair simply declared that it means two consecutive quarters of negative growth and that "we're talking about a technical definition." More importantly, he stressed, was that 400,000 good manufacturing jobs have been lost, unemployment is up since the last recession in 2008, all because, he said, Harper's plan isn't working. Trudeau wasn't out campaigning today, but the Liberals, so far, also seem to be somewhat muted on the whole "recession" thing. Writing for Maclean's, Mike Moffatt, an assistant economics professor at Western University's Richard Ivey School of Business and economic adviser to Trudeau, noted the different definitions of the word and the complexities of identifying a recession. 'Economy was quite weak' As Moffatt says, in real terms, "it matters little if the economy grows by a tenth of a per cent in the second quarter or shrinks by a tenth of a per cent. Regardless of which side of the line we end up on, the economy was quite weak." It may mean little to the Tories that some economists say that any kind of contraction would be short-lived. Words, definitions and labels matter in politics, which is why the Tories seem intent on broadening the definition of the R-word or avoiding the label altogether. On Monday, Harper was invited behind the counter of a Tim Hortons in Gananoque, Ont., where he told the staff, "Tell me what to do, just don't let me handle the cash." Said as a joke certainly, but that last bit may not have been the best-timed quip for a leader who is seeking to boost his government's economic credentials on the eve of the GDP report. With files from The Canadian Pre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immigration aside. Ending the free ride, will encourage ALL of the deadbeats on welfare, to actually work and make something of themselves. Yeppers! I said it. Welfare recipient = deadbeat. Welfare should be in place for those who really need the help. Some examples are people who are recently laid off, spousal abuse, work place injury and so on. Well then... *You* can support them. There are innumerable excuses made for continuing to aid and abet laziness. The longer someone has been the beneficiary of taxpayer largess, the more excuses they'll have for it. Truth is, anyone who refuses to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, amounts to them being nothing more than a leech on society. there is a difference between 'refusing to' and 'needing time and resources to' some people are left without even bootstraps,,,others who take their straps for granted find it hard to believe they exist,,, Don't worry about it arguing with him will only go around in circles and or the link will eventually be locked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep posting things like this? For a cartoon Smurf your scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immigration aside. Ending the free ride, will encourage ALL of the deadbeats on welfare, to actually work and make something of themselves. Yeppers! I said it. Welfare recipient = deadbeat. Welfare should be in place for those who really need the help. Some examples are people who are recently laid off, spousal abuse, work place injury and so on. for anyone who has fallen on hard times, with children,,,,especially I 100 percent agree with you there. Have two boys that depend on me :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immigration aside. Ending the free ride, will encourage ALL of the deadbeats on welfare, to actually work and make something of themselves. Yeppers! I said it. Welfare recipient = deadbeat. Welfare should be in place for those who really need the help. Some examples are people who are recently laid off, spousal abuse, work place injury and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
ending disagreements
|
|
OK guys you get into a disagreement with your lady, you feel its getting a little bit out of hand. how do u cool it down? diffuse it?? and not get walked all over. Tell her she looks cute when she's angry :) Sometimes it works for me. Apologizing works pretty good or clarifying :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
HAPPINESS IS...
|
|
Happiness is a quiet day spent with my two kids after a hectic week :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
HAPPINESS IS...
|
|
And here I thought someone was going to tell me how to figure out what true happiness is? True happiness is whatever makes yourself happy :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SM8
on
Sun 09/06/15 03:03 PM
|
|
company requiring employees to show proof of citizenship...required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility So they're both U.S. citizens? One being, what, naturally born and the other being naturalized? Is the problem the company only knew they had green cards and didn't know that they became citizens? So they're asking the naturalized people to prove they became citizens and didn't just let their visas or green cards expire? Or did the company know they were all legal citizens and just rechecked the naturalized ones to make sure, because they were being petty or whatever? That's not all that clear from the article. And the article keeps repeating "non-U.S. citizens." Based on the crappy journalism of today it's not all that clear if that means "citizens of some other country outside the u.s., immigrant labor, but we want to avoid using the term immigrant where we can so we can avoid the connotations," or, "a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities associated, that was naturalized rather than born in the U.S., they are from somewhere other than the U.S., so they're non-U.S. but a U.S. citizen." If they're immigrants, that could make the problem just the company checking people they know aren't u.s. citizens to make sure the papers they have granting them the ability to work in the u.s. haven't expired. They may be eligible to work at the date of hire, but their papers could expire. That makes what the government is doing stupid. The statement from the DoJ seems to support this as the problem: "The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States..." That implies the people aren't U.S. citizens, but people that only have visas, or green cards, documents authorizing work in the U.S...which expire. And if the company continues to employ them in the U.S. when they are no longer legal, that could create fines. It would be in the interest of the company to check the status of "non-U.S. citizens" authorized to work here and not U.S. citizens being employed by them. ...IMO this is a better example of crappy journalism than anything else. There is to many pieces missing something does not make sense. How did the company get in this mess. How did it get to the point that they are now being watched. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the facts are new and ambiguous here did they single out EMPLOYEES (those already working), or are they talking about asking APPLICANTS to prove citizenship? these would be different scenarios in the latter, the applicant signing they are a citizen would require further information for future verification(social security number, card,,etc,,) in the former, if they were already employed, singling them out as opposed to doing an employee wide verification,, would be a case for discrimination,,, DiscrimiWhat? Obeying the Law?  The company was not obeying the law that is the problem Why are there so many typos in this article? With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy. The DOJ issued a� statement� after the settlement saying they committed to protecting individuals against unnecessary discrimination in barriers to employment. “The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SM8
on
Sun 09/06/15 02:33 PM
|
|
i don't understand the stupid liberals on this.... ALL jobs ask you to prove your legal to work in the US... Except for the under the table ones I agree.something else is probably going on. Business is usually about cutting corners and they got busted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the company had to pay back wages. The company is also being monitored to make sure they comply so sounds like discrimination was the problem.
But yes I agree the company before hiring the employees should have asked for verification . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
restorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Words ending in "ER"
|
|
banter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refugees can't be blamed for it...it's a war going on & they caught in the mix just trying to survive...like everybody else... Agreed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Nice Guys
|
|
I would rather date a nice guy who is confident and is not to stuck in his past. I admit my past is not to shiny beautiful but that's life and at least its not boring :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
"Children" with experience
Edited by
SM8
on
Sun 09/06/15 07:10 AM
|
|
Thank you PacificStar48 as well as Pansytilly. I should have been more careful in choosing my ex.
Thanks for your support. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
YOUR FAMILY TREE
|
|
How many times have a been married? twice
How many children do I have? two 12 and 5 Do I keep in contact with my ex's? yes because of the kids. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
