Current events discussion

So, I remember hearing about this coming into play, back in 2021. I felt like it was some right-wing propaganda because the story, we were told, seemed way to much of an arrogant and bold/in-your-face move. When it went into play, I read up on it and sure enough, it was exactly what we were told was happening. I was reminded of it when I saw this article pop up.

Here's a few $100 million of your tax money at work.

Here's a government site that explains what it's all about.
 
🤡🤡🤡

""It is illegal to import certain refrigerants into the United States because of their documented and significantly greater contribution to climate change," said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim, of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division..."

 
Depends. In Colorado they certainly can fire you without cause. OTOH, the fired employee could sue for wrongful termination.

In the case of POTUS, do we really want a court case for ever politician who has bitched about an election outcome? I think SCOTUS got this one right. I think they're also sending a message that SCOTUS doesn't want to be involved in elections.
And yet if the election for POTUS is under federal control (aside from the very basic stuff they leave up to the states), who else but the SCOTUS gets to decide on stuff like this?
Even though Rob had no clue before hand, before he accessed Googles search engine, about gravity, free falls, or anything not related to ruining peoples lives and denying them food, I have to say he isn't wrong on the gravity conversation.
Sorry kid, but I read it in Nat'l Greographic probably 5-6 years ago.

That's a cool thing about learning new stuff and having a memory: You can access it and use it in future conversations. You can even remember what you've posted in the past, and not deny it happened when someone quotes you.
 
Last edited:
Like Jimi77 and THXOne stated, there are more action taken place. An employer also has different civil laws to abide by. Like mentioned, you can be fired, but then sue for wrongful termination. If someone says you were seen smoking weed, then an investigation would come out.

To compare examples, if you were up for a promotion as CEO of a company, the current board members will not fire you for no reason. If other candidates went to the board and accused you of illegal practices, the board will review that evidence and make a decision from that. During this time, the board will keep in mind that it was a competitor that provided this information. If the evidence came up negative, the board will then look at the accusers as being an unethical and slimy people.
Yes but the hypothetical hinges on them firing you for breaking a law, not for the act.

Do they get to decide you've broken the law if you haven't been convicted?
 
Sorry kid, but I read it in Nat'l Greographic probably 5-6 years ago.

That's a cool thing about learning new stuff and having a memory: You can access it and use it in future conversations. You can even remember what you've posted in the past, and not deny it happened when someone quotes you.
I am pretty sure nobody cares where you claim you "first read it" now that I said you did a Google search for the information. I will however bite... show me the Nat Geo article that you claim to have read to obtain this knowledge that looks suspiciously like a modern article I read from a Google search not 24 hours ago. Proof it came from Nat Geo or it is a lie.
 
Says the guy who makes incredibly outlandish claims, then when called on them simply tells everyone they aren't smart enough to understand the magic behind the curtain
Sounds familiar...

Screenshot_20240228_095522_Brave.jpg
 
I was in a meeting today and a person, who is obviously a democrat, was triggered by the supreme court to not allow Trump being removed from any ballots. She complained about how non bi-partisan the supreme court is. I had to remind her that they court voted 9-0. She replied "yeah, but how many of those were appointed by him?" We all started laughing and another employee responded "not all of them, meaning even the democrat appointed ones voted in Trumps favor." She got mad and left the meeting.
 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

Similar threads

About this thread

Jimi77

Premium Member
CarAudio.com VIP
Thread starter
Jimi77
Joined
Location
Denver, CO
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
32,898
Views
471,488
Last reply date
Last reply from
deez283
IMG_20260516_193114554_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260516_192955471_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top