Winners only.

Status
Not open for further replies.
'"The media should do a much better job explaining to Americans that the reason they're at heightened nuclear risk right now is because the US government **knowingly chose to put them at heightened nuclear risk**," Tracey said. "Pro-war ideological zealots deliberately imposed this risk on them."'

 
I am curious what they need all this "proof" for. It's like he grew up not paying attention in school and didn't believe anyone because all his friends lied to him all the time. Now he thinks he is a game show co-host "FACT OR FICTION!!" You must give your answers in the form of "proof"!!



Person A) Hey look I posted a fact

Person B) Well my personal experiences and what I know about it contradict your facts

Person A) PROVE IT . . . my fact is better then your fact because its my fact

Its a never ending cycle that often leads me laughter instead of engaging too far.

There is usually a diminishing return on entering conversations with idiots like Bobby
 
There is usually a diminishing return on entering conversations with idiots like Bobby

4F2A04BA-F963-4803-9170-A11E3CB7CB54.jpeg


I notice how arguments just circle around within the same limited bounds. It’s like no matter what, you can pretty much guess what the response from some others will be, like a computer interface with a limited set of data, like arguing from the standpoint of headlines and not going any further.
 
I am curious what they need all this "proof" for. It's like he grew up not paying attention in school and didn't believe anyone because all his friends lied to him all the time. Now he thinks he is a game show co-host "FACT OR FICTION!!" You must give your answers in the form of "proof"!!

Nah, they just ignore what they don’t like or emotionally don’t agree with. I’ve responded with obvious proof on some things, and there’s usually no response, like I never posted anything. It’s awesome, then the circular logic arguments continue, despite some level of proof being offered directly to the eyes of those asking for it. That shows you the difference in those who are looking for the truth vs those who are looking to be right.
 
Go ask your HR department fucko... you are the one doing it, not me.

However, since you're an asss...

"Under the FLSA, “employ” is defined to mean “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. §203(g). What this means is that an employer must compensate its employees for work even where it is not expressly authorized as long as it is performed with the knowledge and acquiescence of management. As one court has explained, “one’s motivation for performing off-the-clock work is not relevant for FLSA purposes if the employer knows or should have known about it.” Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 47 F. Supp. 3d 300, 309 (D. Md. 2014).


The regulations specifically address this issue. 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 provides:




This rule also applies to work “performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.12. If the employer knows or has reason to know that the employee is doing work away from the job, it must be counted as hours worked. Id. Furthermore, the regulations specifically provide that it is “the duty of management to exercise its control and see that the work is not performed if it does not want it to be performed.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.13. Management “cannot sit back and accept the benefits without compensating for them.” Id".
In other words it’s illegal for an employer to make you work without compensating you, or to refuse to compensate you when they know you are working for them. What you provided was law regulating what employers do, not employees.

No law prevents anyone from doing uncompensated work at their choosing.

You tend to speak a little too fast without understanding the things you are speaking about, dipshit.
 
View attachment 43231

I notice how arguments just circle around within the same limited bounds. It’s like no matter what, you can pretty much guess what the response from some others will be, like a computer interface with a limited set of data, like arguing from the standpoint of headlines and not going any further.
Like thinking everything that happens is some deep state conspiracy run by a government that is both entirely inept, but able to pull off the most Machiavellian plots ever.
 
'The Israeli military has installed an artificial intelligence-powered weapon at a busy checkpoint in the West Bank, over a gate Palestinians use to cross to the Old City of Hebron. Israel’s military said the weapon system is designed to fire non-lethal projectiles to “disperse riots”.'


F8F671D7-6C19-4C7E-9837-35FDD2017488.gif
 
I am curious what they need all this "proof" for. It's like he grew up not paying attention in school and didn't believe anyone because all his friends lied to him all the time. Now he thinks he is a game show co-host "FACT OR FICTION!!" You must give your answers in the form of "proof"!!
If this is a question for the masses, I'll answer: It's how debate and argument work. When people are debating something and each side has a different argument, the opposing sides then prove their theory.

You don't prove a theory with feelings, opinions, beliefs, faith, or "because I said so". You prove it with facts, empirical evidence, proofs. This is how debate and argument have worked since the days of ancient Greece. It's not new, and it's a pretty simple concept.

If you are not familiar with it, give it a lookup. Far more interesting reading now than it was in high school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Slo_Ride

5,000+ posts
Regulator
Thread starter
Slo_Ride
Joined
Location
ATLANTA
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
33,976
Views
1,119,705
Last reply date
Last reply from
Buck
IMG_20260506_140749.jpg

74eldiablo

    May 22, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
design.jpeg

WNCTracker

    May 22, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top