- Joined Jul 20, 2009
That's what I'm hoping because the only type of social distancing these fools understand is a right hook to da jaw. Not hard to maintain a 6 foot buffer when you are laid out flat on your back waiting for the ref to count to 10.This is following a nice pattern of "this is why we can't have nice things." At each step the government gives us a chance to show personal responsibility but we can't handle it so they have to increase the enforcement of rules.
At first cities tried encouraging social distancing... but people just huddled in bars. It kept getting upgraded so now it's stay-at-home except to go grocery shopping or for brief, solitary walks. But people are violating that too. So next is to shut down all parks.
Keep this up, idiots, and soon we'll have martial law.
This reminded me of the post in here a couple days ago (I think about Trump) along the lines of, "This is someone who's never taken a punch."That's what I'm hoping because the only type of social distancing these fools understand is a right hook to da jaw. Not hard to maintain a 6 foot buffer when you are laid out flat on your back waiting for the ref to count to 10.
This reminds me of that lady a couple days ago who bought dozens of boxes of toilet paper and was loading them in the back of her truck.Great post. Especially because it helps sharpen the class critique of the crisis. Did you read about the rich fleeing to the Hamptons, hoarding food and compromising the health of others? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/03/19/we-should-blow-up-the-bridges-coronavirus-leads-to-class-warfare-in-hamptons/amp/)
Let’s be clear: social distancing was demanded of black folks way before corona. Poor folks long had limits on their access to and enjoyment of public space. It has been the rich and the wealthy who have despoiled the planet and who, because money is no object, pose the greatest danger. The stick for the rich. That’s a message I can stand by.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. This clown will never keep his chin exposed like that again.This reminded me of the post in here a couple days ago (I think about Trump) along the lines of, "This is someone who's never taken a punch."
I can tell you the moment Richard Spencer's life changed forever.
This analogy is amazingBoeing asking the the Federal Government for a no strings attached bailout is like when Zel asked Big Mama to pay his back child support or else they gonna suspend his license.
And Zel says Big Mama has to do it because Zel is her ride to church and Bingo.
To get the money Zel refuses to go to AA, refuses to go to anger management, refuses to go get a job at the factory with Lester, refuses to stop any of his previous bad behavior.
He won't even accept letting her hold onto the keys, or selling the car to Big Mama; so he can have the funds.
Welp Zel and Boeing, take yo *** to Moneytree and if things don't work out we will cop your 2003 Altima and Defense Department at the local auction on the low low
So for the time being...
I don't think Boeing should be penalized for being the only company of it's kind (Large scale Commercial + Large Defense). That entanglement alone is almost a non-stop to nationalization. Do you think the government should control commercial airplanes? If not, who steps up to buy that segment of the company (this question is also relevant if they failed and the government didn't take control)? What expertise, outside of potentially leadership, is that entity bringing that Boeing Commercial Airplanes doesn't have access to? That just leads to a series of other questions that also make this unlikely. I'm not saying they operate as if they are too big to fail. They just simply are. If the government or world wants to change that then more competition would have to enter the market. China is trying that (although their using Boeing's Design Manuals and IP from Boeing and China ) so we'll see how a nationalized aircraft manufacturer goes.The aircraft manufacturing business is extremely complex and the barrier to entry is impossible to clear in the private sector.What does all of this have to do with Boeing being "too big to fail," so to speak, which appears to be the premise for access to certain segments of the corporate bailout, which you brought up yourself? If they're not too big to let them fail within the boom-and-bust cycle of capitalism that they, then we should let them ****ing fail. If they are too big to let them fail, then they should not exist as an entity in the private sector. I mean, stop for a moment and think about the ramifications of a private sector company which operates with the knowledge that the federal government considers them too big to fail. What part of that dynamic seems acceptable to you?
Why is this alternative better for employees, passengers, taxpayers, the US government, the allied nations of the US, the military, shareholders?But regardless of a potentially perverse short-term effect on stock prices, saying something like "nationalizing a major corporation would be tough" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against doing so in light of the alternative.
Yes, dividends and financial metrics are important to private sector companies. I would contend that it varies from industry to industry i.e. a financial services vs. a heavy industrial company. Safety at Boeing is paramount to the point that the 787 and 777X wing are structurally over-designed (which directly correlates) to account for safety because static, fatigue and damage tolerance issues are going to be your main sources of crashes. Overarching decisions were made to implement certain solutions to present customers with the optimal product, not dividends or EPS. Expecting the CEO or Board to know the level of detail that went into exactly what caused the crash prior to what happening is unrealistic. As I've said before, the individuals responsible for the issue getting passed along to the aircraft had no interest in dividends or stock price. A majority of them only owned Boeing stock through 401K or pensions but also weren't near retirement age. They were acting out of greed for themselves. If they argument is that the executives and Board only care about stock price there is no way this conversation is being had because it wouldn't have come to this.Lastly, the 737 fiasco isn't some anomaly in terms of utter disasters in the private sector driven by greed. It's just the most relevant example to the topic at hand. And, in that vein, it had a whole lot less to do with "a critical oversight" or a unique company "culture" than it did with the fundamentally sociopathic reality that quarterly stock dividends are the exclusive driving force of the private sector.
I don’t know how true it is, but I think there were reports that the early 787’s had airframes with questionable quality (and these are supposedly still flying today).And while we are talking about the 737. What about the Dreamliner. Poland’s airline Lot’s entire international fleet was Dreamliners. They’ve been leasing planes and crew from air Italia and Belgium airlines because their multi billion dollar contract has been grounded for over a year now.
Lets keep it real, Boeing is a shade of the company it once was. People became to focused on streamlined cost cutting and profit maximization.
The Dreamliner series in its current state is a joke. Aerospace such as this shouldn’t be outsourced all over the world for component making And then hoping quality will be as good as what you did or what your core 3-5 partners have done in the past. Again this was purely a cost cutting move and it backfired. And airlines like LOT and many others now have to deal with contingency plans to get out of this cluster****. **** they should have kept their old 747 rather than retiring them.I don’t know how true it is, but I think there were reports that the early 787’s had airframes with questionable quality (and these are supposedly still flying today).
I was in Japan and scheduled to fly back on a 787 when the report came out that their oxygen systems were faulty. I was definitely nervous on that flight home.
The decision to make the warning light for the MCAS sensors optional is an example of Boeing cutting corners.Not justifying the 737 MAX crashes but can you please point to me outside of that design flaw where Boeing has cut corners that has led to safety in-service safety issues?
I think he means the unemployment would pay 24 and hour. Either way he’s dumb af because no nurse is getting laid off now.at any nurse working for $24/hr
he housekeepers at my hospital make more than that
Yep all their families and children should be first. But under one condition. You lose access to ICUs if you do this.It is time to think outside the box and seriously consider a somewhat unconventional approach to COVID-19: controlled voluntary infection.thefederalist.com
If you thought the Florida spring breakers were bad...
maaaaaaaan nurses been clocking bank since they startedI think he means the unemployment would pay 24 and hour. Either way he’s dumb af because no nurse is getting laid off now.
“nah I’m gonna sit this out and take the lay off“ it’s nursing not construction.
I hope that extra 600 actually becomes a thing. I’m gonna be the unemployment king.
I’m saying, if I was to do it all over again I’d be in health care. Like my job is cool but it comes and goes. They make CONSISTENT bread.maaaaaaaan nurses been clocking bank since they started
i know one personally
showed me her check
lil over 15k from all the OT
cheesecake factory trash
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now