Botellines

I think it is quite different to remove all the pictures of a loved one that is not among us (either temporarily or permanently) than to order a full size print of a person to pu it in a living room. In the first case you are remembering one person and wether he is with us or not, that is facing reality. With the 2 dimension daddy, you are impersonating one person into a cardboard and that is IMO just wrong. Some questions (let´s asume we have a young child at home): When 3D daddy come home, do we have two fathers? If 3D daddy dies does 2D daddy takes his place or we get rid of 2D daddy. What will be the role of 2D daddy while 3D daddy is away? What if the dog chews on 2D daddy? If 2D daddy is meant just as a picture i think it is just tacky, if it is meant as something else, I think it is irresponsible for the child. When i die i want to be remembered as a person with 3D, so i am off to McDonalds to increase my 3rd D.

So, Skyrad, why don't you tell us about the good things we've done in Iraq? Do you know of any? You tell us about the good things you guys have done in Irak that makes up for all the bad things you guys have done in Irak.

That is a very good idea, the only drawback i see is that many muslims all around the world (and i mean all around the world) would begin to kidnap americans and probably executing them if bush doesn´t pull out the troops and close gitmo, etc, etc. And that wouldn´t be fun, would it? I was taught as a kid not to do to others what i didn´t want others to do to me, and that the "i can but you cannot" is full of shit. My 2 cents

Would you prefer that Zarqawi still be alive to carry out more of his murderous acts? I think Mr Zarqawi is fine screwing 72 virgins or whatever they think they do when the die. We should now move down to the next in the list, that would be Mr Bin Laden followed by Mr Bush and those pesky marines if it is proven that they did what seems they did in Haditha. Why should restrict divine justice to only one side. By the way john, what punishment would fit, in your opinion, those marines if it is proven they targeted innocent civilians? I asked before that question but no war-supporter have given me an answer.

And MAYBE they decided to kill eachother in a dispute over a kebab and the marines appeared afterwards. Anything so the mighty marines always look great. Were they shot while cuffed or kneeling?... Some of them were shot while in bed. (Unless the insurgency decided to fight in pajamas) where are the wounds located?.. Head and chest what caliber bullets and weight?... Not sure what you guys use but it was U.S ammunition. or dont we even know? Actually i do. This FACTS were today on the spanish newspaper. "El Mundo" If they are convicted of killing innocent civilians, What punishment do you think would be fair?

I bet the three years old girl in night clothes was their leader.

Not that i am aware of. My guess is that there is a limit at all because if there was not, the insecurity would lead people to save money (just in case they get laid off) rather than spending it, thus slowing the economy. I am not 100% sure in France, but in Spain, it would be considered as an unjustified laid off, being the employee entitled to compensation. However whereas the employeer have to pay 44 days of salary per year worked by the employee if the employee has been fired unjustifiedly, if the employee has been fired because of economical struggle of the company those 44 days get reduced to 22. Actually pretty much any that is documented. You can not fire an employee for being late to work once or twice, but you can fire him if he has been warned before and he keeps doing it. You can even fire him for performance issues as long as those issues are proven. When you sign the contract, it specifies what generic code of conduct (set of rules) you adhere too, and any specific rules that may aply to that particular company. And on top of that there is the constitution and the common sense. If the employee break any of the rules he has signed to follow he can be legally fired. He cannot be legally fire however to increase shareholders revenues. Yes, it is undeniable that they are having some issues with hiring people and therefore unemployment. The long term solution is to create more jobs, sustainable inmigration policies, etc. However there is other short term solution that may work as well as the proposed new law without the burden on the citizens, like tax breaks to those companies hiring and signing permanent contracts, early retirement plans to create more vacancies, etc.

You are way off the mark here... Rigth now, the employer can hire an employee for up to six month to see if he is the right person for the job. I think it is more than enough time. This new law pretends to increase those six months to two full years. During those two full years the enployee can be fired with no justification whatsoever, until he is 26. No, there must be other reasons. 6 months is more than enough time to test an employee. Even if it takes you a full year to find out that the person is not the right one, you can still fire him, although you will have to pay compensation. However that compensation is proportional to the time worked in the company, so to fire someone who has been working for a year is not that expensive at all. Again you are way off the mark. That law pretends to keep in power those who are stablished (The companies). When you propose a new law, you have to take into consideration how that law can be abuse. (And if there is a way, there is a will and viceversa) Example: Mr Pierre is 18 years old and is looking for a job in France. He finds a job in a field that initial training is either not necesary, not expensive or too general, (Waiter, Driver, tc). He performs very good at his work for 1 year and 11 months, but his boss doesn´t want the burden to permantly hire him and prefers to have a more flexible workforce. So instead of giving him his earned vacations, he fires him and hires him back one month later. Mr Pierre has another 2 years on which he can be fired with no justification. 1 year and 11 months later he is fired and hired back one month later... and on and on and on until he is 26 years old. It has happened before and will happen again. What this law would do is shift the unemplopyment from the youth to the elders, and create a great deal of insecurity among the young people. It will not create more jobs, The vacancies left from retired people will be filled with young people at a great gain for the companies and a lost for the citizens...

You are right. There was in Spain a couple of years ago a murder commited by 3 teenager. Two seventeen years old guy and one eighteen years old guy raped, run over with a car, and while still barely alive spill fuel and burn a mentally handicapped girl. The "adult" will be the one that goes to jail, the other ones will stay in a minor detention center for 5 years and go free. I very much doubt that their behaviour will improve a lot in five years.

Basicly the employer. However if the employee does not agree, he can take the case to a tribunal that does only those type of matters. In 2 or 3 weeks there is a hearing where the employer has to prove why it is justified to fire the employee. More often than not, the dissatisfied ex-employee does not need a lawyer (cheaper) because the burden of the proof lays on the employer, and the judge is not biased towards the company. If the company cannot prove that it was justified then they have two options, readmit the employee, or pay as if it was an unjustified dismissal. The employee cannot ask for more money than he is rightfully entitled, i mean if he wants more money for damages, then he needs to take the case to an ordinary tribunal.

It is not just that. Here is Spain your boss can fire you anytime he wants, but he has to write down the reason, and that will lead to one of three diferent type of situations. Unjustified: 44 days/years worked. unemployment pension. Bankrupcy: 22 days/year worked. unemployment pension. Justified. 0 days/year worked. NO unemployment. So here the way it works is that if your boss whant to get rid of you he better have a good reason or he will have to pay to the employee (tax free) 44 days of base salary for every year the employee worked for the company, and the employee will be entitled to receive a small unemployment pension for a small period of time paid by the government. Other option is that if the company is in bankrupcy that compnsation goes down to 22 days per year. The best for the company and the government is to say that it was justified so no one pays the employee anything. The french government is increasing the options for the company to fire people the "cheap way". Believe me when i tell you that firing people under the third case is being overused by the companies.

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Welcome back to SC, i can understand why people in Bonfire don´t like you. LOL, I would start learning some languages for when you get invited out from SC again... May i recomend spanish forum... Because the first one may not be working. Now, if you have a problem with how this law tries to fix the first law and think is stupid, i invite you to post some ideas on how you would acomplish it. Hey maybe there is some congressman lurking around SC and can get enlightened from your wisdom.

I agree, however it seems that the cops are shooting when they shouldn´t be way too often. You will agree with me that if the bad guy hasn´t drawn a weapon he is not an inmediate lethal threat no matter how agressive he is. Especially if the officer has backup, is not cornered or is feets way from the guy. It seems some cops think that they can get still kill the guy. It doesn´t make much sense the shoot to wound thing because any gun wound is potentially lethal, but the spirit of the law which is "do not kill suspects before the trial unless it is totally necesary" is okay with me.

Yeah, well, it all depends of the circumstances. If the officer is cornered or not, if the bad guy is already wounded, if the officer is alone or he has backup. In this especific situation you may be right, however if we generalize there is many situation when the officer faces a possible lethal threat but doesn´t warrant shoot to kill. You must be a heck of a runner. LOL, Depends on how much the bad guy likes beer. I have friends whose center mass is the belly with no doubt.

If he is like 50 feet away, he is still a threat to you if he has the intention. It is just not an inmediate threat. It is just that the law makes no distinction beetwen an inmediate lethal threat and a not so inmediate lethal threat or a possible lethal threat. And that is IMO what this new law is trying to acomplish. There is many people here that advocate for "2 to the chest (center mass) and 1 to the head", i remember reading it several times here. I am not so much for shooting first to the leg as shooting just enough to stop. One shoot to the belly (if you can afford it by the situation) is capable to stop an attacker with a knife and could be survivable. If you keep shooting and aim for the head even if the threat is stopped is not survivable. Not really because i am not expanding the definition of lethal threat. My understanding of this law is that it restrain cops from shooting to kill a non inmediate lethal threat. I agree with that. However i will concede that an opponent armed with a gun is always an inmediate lethal threat, so in that situation i agree with the shoot to kill (or until he drops the gun, whatever comes firsts)

Did he issued an order to disarm all law-abiding citizens or did he issue a law to disarm all citizens? Big diference.

Christel´s credibility is just fine. I think it is the American police credibility the one in check, thanks to you. I am sure that they are trained well enough that they don´t have to shoot the whole clip every time a punk shows a knife. You just make it look like if they don´t shoot 12 times at center mass they will get killed every time. I mean, if that is the case, you may as well replace their guns with AK-47 so they have some chances. If German police can do it, (and by the way, spanish police too) how come american police can not do it? I bet they can, it is just not as fun as the old western-style justice.

Source: New York Daily News If that guy especifically says you have to shoot first to the legs, i do not agree with that because it all depends of the circumstances. But i think that what he means is that if one shot to center mass is enough then, don´t shoot 5 times. My interpretation of center mass is the belly, and with one shot to the belly you have some chances to survive, with 5 most likely not. Besides, if the bad guy has a knife and is far enough that you can shoot three times, what is wrong with shooting twice to the legs before aiming for center mass?

+1 Bonus point for Humanity

And that has to do with... (Why do i have the feeling you didn´t read my post?) You must be kidding. U.S intelligence is far from good and/or accurate. May i remind you that WMD have still not been found. Yeah, Fuck that thing. Send the marines and sort out the terrorists (kill them) from the civilians (Don´t kill them) But some how you guys are still using it and killing everybody. Now i am sure you didn´t read my post. Anyway, i will byte. I will tell them that right after you tell this kids how important they are to the U.S. Wait, you cannot, they are dead...

Wrong. In fact, it's l'Espagne. LOL

I will teach you knew word.... Democracy... (Democracia my speaking spanish friend)

¿Have you ever heard of collateral damage? I am yet to see any right winger show some remorse for the innocents killed in Irak. EDIT: Fuckit. Cowardly countries are not worth the effort to show them as such... P.S. If you're going to talk about a country, learn to fucking spell its name correctly. Temper temper. Is your Spanish in as great shape as his English? Yes. I was hired to my current job partly to assist in serving Spanish-speaking policy holders. I doubt it, if you knew a bit of spanish, you would realize that i spelled Irak correctly, in my language.

Are you fucking kidding me? You would call me a "right winger" and yet you think I don't give a flying fuck about innocent people dying? Bullshit. It's horrible to see children, women and men killed or mamed who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hate to see death. Nonetheless, collateral damage is a part of war that has always existed and will continue to exist for eternity. There's no way to avoid it. However, it'd sure be nice if the media would report what we ACTUALLY do instead of 1/2 stories and journalized bullshit. War sucks, people die...good and bad. But as far as collateral damage goes, we do FAR FAR less of it than the media tells everyone. But don't worry, you don't have to believe me, no one will unless they actually live it. I'm still young, but my view and feelings have changed much...I don't want to see anyone die, but at the same time, I have no fucking problem turning a bunch of terrorists into mist. See, that is the fucking problem. Expressions like the ones in bold seems to me like just excuses... I don´t have any problem with turning terrorist into mist (Provided we agree on who is a terrorist and who is not), but to me, relaying on intelligence to blow up a terrorist in a house with an unmaned predator is a very poor way to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Still i am waiting for a right winger to admit that the last incident was a royal fuck up with no excuses by the U.S. military.