Tsa gambling

Of course, a better example of this is the free speech discussion that was going on in the Popehat thread yesterday. We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. Because as bad as the Republicans are, they aren't nearly as awful as the socialist left and progressives, the latter of which are fundamentally hostile to individual rights. A mixture of both. Why don't you just build your own facebook and compete them out of the market? Yesterday there were people arguing on one of the threads that we should abolish all AoC law and that you should have to prove that the 4yo didn't consent to being sodomized.

Featured in Crimesider

Workers Allegedly Organized Sports Betting Pool On The Job

You cannot play the slot machines or anywhere else. You were supposed be working. Not a free time. You have stay at work. You cannot leave from the screening area without proper permission from supervisor or manager. Good riddance to TSA!!!! Sep 19, 13, 9: An office betting pool sure seems like a silly thing to fire workers over Now, if they better investigated all the claims of theft, sexual harassment, and failure to follow procedures I'd be much more satisfied.

Find More Posts by astroflyer. Sep 19, 13, Originally Posted by astroflyer. Find More Posts by PhillyPhlyer I haven't seen any mention about how much money was in play in any of the articles I've read. I did see mention, though, that the fired employees were getting a cut off the top.

I'd be curious if some of these pools didn't get up to a couple thousand dollars and maybe that's why it caught TSA management's attention. That information is conspicuously absent. Find More Posts by tom Sep 20, 13, Ok so it took from February when they got word of this going on until September for them the close the case about these evil doers?.?.?.

Issue statements that gambling is not tolerated and anyone seen oeprating or participating from here on out will be eligible for immediate termination. Find More Posts by Yoshi Sep 20, 13, 1: Originally Posted by Yoshi TSA's employee handbook bars employees from participating in any gambling activity while on duty or in uniform, including an office lottery or pool.

It makes an exception for buying state-sponsored lottery tickets. Sep 20, 13, 4: Originally Posted by tom Originally Posted by Yoshi Simple solution. The gambling not tolerated part is already in their policy manual. Surely the employees have read their manuals?

Sep 20, 13, 7: Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much. An additional aspect is how much time it takes on the taxpayer's clock to play these games and to administer the pools.

We had to put the kibosh on a fantasy baseball league back in my USAF days. Among other things, we discovered the large amount of time it took away from the job. Setting up league rosters, trades, etc, on government computers wasn't too cool, either. Sep 20, 13, 8: Americans have such a weird attitude about sports betting. Don't have an "age of consent" at all. Instead, have a standard that defines the transition to legal adulthood based on a performance metric that is intended to ascertain if a person is capable of giving consent in the first place.

So if you have a mature year-old that for all intents and purposes acts and behaves like an adult, then treat this person like an adult. Of course coming up with the standards would be difficult and ultimately politicized. But I think it's a more rational standard than just defining one age that is supposed to cover all situations.

Microsoft is a private company and if it wants to go along with banning any social media company that doesn't ban the 'wrong' people, that's their right. Does this hold true for every other social media company? How odd that you aren't the least bit concerned about the censorship here. As a professed libertarian what do YOU think Microsoft should do here? And no deflections about government coercision here.

And do you agree that as a private entity which now engages in publication versus merely providing a platform, Microsoft is now exposed to the full suite of libel laws?

Or is that different? See, here we go. Immediately the tables are turned against me. At what point does the Trumpian Right get held accountable for what they actually stand for, and not just for what they rail against? So here's what is going to happen. I will say what I stand for, and then the rest of the conversation will be spent criticizing my views.

And we don't come any closer to what the Trumpists think ought to be done with regards to free speech, censorship, and social media. I am fine with Microsoft having the liberty to use its property however it wishes. If it wishes to censor conservatives, or censor liberals, or promote conservatives, or promote liberals, or stay absolutely neutral, all of those are perfectly legitimate choices for them to do. I do not agree with libel laws that are so broad that they cover third parties in this way.

If for instance you were to libel me via Reason's comment boards, you would be the one who has harmed me, not Reason, and they should have no role in any tort to that episode. Dammit, only his whataboutism counts! Look at all of the concern about the trumpian right and the complete lack of concern about the left.

A senator from CT has called for internet censorship? Because reason does not curate. The fact that you're completely missing that point isn't coincidence anymore. A libertarian should think that Microsoft should do what it feels is in the best interest of their shareholders.

If they aren't good about it, other companies will take advantage and beat them in the marketplace. Microsoft is well within the safe harbor of the CDA. Section was explicitly written to make sure that providers could enforce standards without being sued for libel.

No, they are protected by assuming that they apply those standards neutrally. I know that the left struggles with that "is" is, but once you start curating you fall into another domain. Sidney Blumenthal sued for libel. That's the point of Section , to allow websites to remove content without making them liable for it. That was in reaction to Stratton Oakmont v.

The court rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds of Section immunity, ruling that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants wrote disparaging report titles and headings, and themselves wrote disparaging editorial messages about the plaintiff, rendered them information content providers.

The Web site, www. The court rejected immunity and found the defendant was an "information content provider" under Section using much of the same reasoning as the MCW case. But even better, section explicitly does NOT protect against copyright infringement. The difference here is that the badbusinessbureau people edited the specific pieces. They got in trouble for writing the words, not for curating. Youtube has always had standards for their videos.

They have not been held liable for copyright violations. Viacom tried to prove that they encouraged violations, and had emails that showed YouTube employees knew about it, and they still couldn't win. YouTube's mere existence proves that your interpretation is just wrong. As I suspected, Johnny Longtorso here is just a troll.

He has no ideas of his own about what the state ought to be doing with regards to free speech issues and social media companies. He just wants to see the left's terrible rules enforced on them, so as to make them cry. If you search for Internet Bill of Rights, you actually get some serious proposals. But they tend to be either centrist or left-of-center things like bring back net neutrality.

But if you search for Internet Bill of Rights memes, you get a bunch of gifs complaining about censorship of conservative views on social media. I think this pretty much sums up the debate about what to do. The serious people who have proposed something substantive are on the left and the center. The whiners and trollers are on the right. So much for "both sides do it. Well, that does qualify as a serious proposal in your eyes and it's not like we're talking about flag burning.

I just said that they have proposed actual ideas. I don't agree with Net Neutrality. I don't agree with government censorship of the Internet in the name of 'hate speech' or anything else. And yes I do believe that conservatives would want to censor the Internet if they had the power to do so, because they are not inherently opposed to government censorship as a rule.

But modern conservatives get far too much mileage just trolling and memeing and whining, and never having to defend what they actually believe. Because they clearly are unhappy with the status quo, which is basically the libertarian solution, and they are certainly unhappy with the proposals from the left. So what do they want? Once again, true or false: Just once I'd like you to acknowledge that fact beyond a vague reference of "them too.

As to what to do about it, I have now pointed it out twice to you. I expect that you will continue to pretend that it isn't a "serious" suggestion. Yes, one Democratic senator has called for government censorship of the internet. That is of course wrong. If you are going to say "the left is pro-censorship", then I'm going to say "the right is also pro-censorship", because both are accurate statements if you take a loosey-goosey view of who constitutes "the left" and "the right".

And it sounds like you want to use technicalities of current law to punish Microsoft for doing something that you don't approve of yet ought to have every right to do with their own property.

If you were to libel me on a comment forum hosted on a Microsoft server, how would Microsoft at all be at fault to any harm that resulted from that libel?

It would be as if I shouted slander at you in a public forum. Would "the air" be responsible for the slander? So you want social media companies exposed to charges of libel. At least you have said something of substance that you think ought to be done, which is more than can be said for trolls like Johnny Longstorso here.

But of course it goes without saying that you're not really interested in serious answers to your fake questions, which are really intended to be distractions and misdirections. Sorry, but I'm not going to repeat my same answers to your same questions over and over and over and over and over again. I have a better idea instead: You'll find my answer there.

That technology uses computers to help figure out what motivates people and influence their online behavior. It's built on age-old tenets of behavioral psychology that marketers and advertisers have long used to get people to buy their products. The difference is smartphones are ubiquitous and unlike human marketers, they don't get tired, said B. Fogg, a behavioral scientist at Stanford University who has been called the technology's pioneer.

Darn those companies for wanting people to use their products! The irony of Alex Jones being banned over conspiracy theories and Scott Horton and Daniel McAdams being banned for pushing against the Russia fever dream conspiracy theory. Sure wish Robby could muster as much righteous indignation for libertarians being banned as he did for people trying to get Ms Saigon fired.

You've been reported for hate speech and shaming oppressed minorities based on their skin. Expect to be banned from all social media forthwith. She was just kidding.

Just because she had hundreds of absolutely vile racist tweets over a period of years and never once gave any indication it was a joke and there is no evidence that anyone took them as a joke doesn't mean it wasn't a joke.

And just because none of them were in response to any racist tweets directed at her doesn't mean she wasn't giving them in response to all of the vicious racist harassment she suffered. All that harassment that she doesn't have any evidence ever occurred. But it occurred and it is racist that she has to provide proof anyway. There is no reason to think someone who tweets out hundreds of racist tweets it really racist.

That about covers Robby's position on the Sarah Jeong issue. Now, leave her alone, you big racist. You seem to be missing the point here. I could care less whether or not she writes for the NYT. I'm more scandalized by the fact that Van Buren, Horton, and McAdams are being banned because they oppose war.

You are missing the point. It all goes together. They got banned because they didn't toe the prog line. She didn't because she did. Volokh has more, and the comments provide a lot of context. Evgeny Morozov's "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom" saw this coming from , back when everyone was crediting Facebook and Twitter for overthrowing vicious dictators across the Muslim world. Even then, the vicious dictatorships of North Africa were using social media to track relationships between dissidents and their families like they never could before.

If there's anyone as consistently wrong about everything as the Malthusians, it's probably the techno-optimists. I am constantly amazed at how people will so willingly give up their privacy and freedoms if doing so comes wrapped in some piece of shiny new technology.

You should only be concerned if the government is spying on you, listening to every conversation, literally tracking your every movement and purchase. If it's private companies, you should be glad for their service.

They would ever abuse people or people because free markets or something. That is just a start. State Legislatures and Congress need to commence the impeachment process for all judges around the USA that refuse to follow the Constitution and strike down unconstitutional legislation or otherwise refuse to do their jobs. When we're talking to our friends and family over the coming weeks, we should probably talk as if the Republicans just got trounced in the Midterms.

If you wouldn't say what you were about to say the way you're about to say it if the Republicans had just lost the House, then you probably shouldn't say it now. For instance, the idea that the Republicans are going to impeach entire slates of judges probably isn't likely to help the Republicans keep control in congress.

That's something swing voters may not want. Maybe, instead, we should talk about how the Democrats are likely to impeach Trump without sufficient justification if they take control of the House. Swing voters don't like impeachment generally. It's just not a good way to make friends and influence people. Because as bad as the Republicans are, they aren't nearly as awful as the socialist left and progressives, the latter of which are fundamentally hostile to individual rights.

I think they're both pretty bad, Ken, and moreover, there's no reason for us libertarians to be cheering on either tribe. They don't need or want our help. If Republicans impeaching judges makes Republicans look bad, then that's on them. They don't need us trying to shill for them or offer them advice. There is if one side is fundamentally opposed to individual rights on principle, and that's the way it is with progressives.

On the Nolan chart, the progressives are fundamentally against personal liberty see their hostility to both the first ad second amendments and they're fundamentally opposed to economic liberty.

Because the Republicans especially the Tea Party types aren't libertarians doesn't mean they're in the opposite corner of the Nolan chart either.

Because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are libertarians doesn't mean one can't be more libertarian than the other, and the progressives that run the Democratic Party are fundamentally hostile to both free market capitalism and individual rights.

It's not like republicans are offering serious options for internet censorship like the left, right? In the US, much seems to spring from Protestant fundamentalism.

For example, this "one drop of taint makes them equally bad" notion is so obviously connected to the Protestant heresy that claims all sin is equal in the eyes of God, in contravention of the tradition that some sins are in fact worse than others. It is strange to watch these things evolve over time. Neither system creates a perfectly free market, so tariffs are just as bad as authoritarian communism! I didn't say they were "equally bad". I said that they are both pretty bad. If Republicans impeaching judges make them look bad, then they are free to come up with all of the excuses and rationalizations as much as they want to justify their views.

They don't need me or anyone else not in their tribe to do their work for them. Your statement implies that they are both so bad that you couldn't really distinguish or care to distinguish between them. It's entertaining to watch such a strange Christian heresy continue to evolve over several centurie.

We shouldn't care if he's a murderer or a thief, it doesn't matter. That is the implication of your statement. Now you can fall back off of that hill or not, it's no skin off my back. I was really just musing about the strangeness of the clown-world we live in, and how we got to this point. Of course, a better example of this is the free speech discussion that was going on in the Popehat thread yesterday.

Who is better than the other is situational, no? That's why Ken White looks like an ass hate, rather than pope hat, because on the situation of speech now conservatives are right. I would be careful about the "progressives are right on police" though.

They're merely right so long as they can't make the police crackdown on the "Nazis". If they get the chance, they'll ban speech and political organization by their opponents and use the police to enforce it. And they'll absolutely defend every abuse that happens in the aftermath. Don't get me wrong, Republicans need to purge this ridiculous "defend the guys in blue at all costs" mentality. And I think if libertarians didn't act so unhinged, they might have a chance at convincing many of them of it in the current climate.

They know they won't be in power forever. Here is a novel idea. Instead of worrying about which tribe is right or wrong, why not focus on each individual issue itself? So again, is microsoft right to close down gab for simply carrying the message of someone else? Recall that you think that reason should not be held liable if you were to libel me here, so why should gab be punished for simply providing an open platform.

If I were advising Microsoft, I would urge them not to close down Gab. But they are nonetheless free to use their property as they see fit. My statement implies that they both fall below an absolute threshold of worth that neither one is worth spending any amount of time or effort to defend.

As a simple example, let's take Charles Manson and Joseph Stalin. When it comes to mass murder, who is worse? Stalin, of course, by miles.

But if you were to ask me to defend Charles Manson because "he wasn't as bad as Stalin", I would absolutely refuse. And no I am not saying Democrats or Republicans are mass murderers. Just using that as an example. At least the Professional Fake Libertarians won't ever have to worry about getting banned. Lefty jackass Jack Dorsey and his nasty little minions know perfectly well who agrees with him and who doesn't, believe me!

I know Robbie opposes the NYT firing people for being rabid racists against white devils. I'm not sure if his thinking extends to not kicking racists off of Twitter--especially if the racists are white devils. Ohio race just got closer after county finds hundreds of uncounted votes. Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill 8. This guy is the chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections. You think he's cheating to help the Democrat? That's some really deep state stuff! West Virginia politicians want to impeach the state's entire Supreme Court.

Allegations of persistent sexual abuse at a Florida women's prison have the U. Department of Justice investigating. In Oakland, " there's mounting frustration that federal oversight " of police "and better data collection have not led to real change, despite a massive price tag.

Chris Collins was arrested yesterday for alleged insider trading. Argentinian leaders yesterday voted against legalizing abortion. It's that all guns are three dimensional. Or a chekhov gun in a script where characters aren't fleshed out well. Think of the JOBS! They are just jealous of people who can sleep on planes. I am very jealous of people who can sleep on planes. Damn people and their short privilege.

I can "sleep" on planes, but that isn't anything even closely related to sleep. As always, if you haven't done anything wrong And get that coveted promotion to the Department of Homeland Security. Never once been attacked! Well, obviously all those black people are just racist against themselves. Any polls that hurts Lefties are skewed to mitigate by magnitudes of percentage points. Only a racist would concentrate their anti-terror programs on Muslims.

Why would anyone do that? Islam is the religion of peace. All the suicide bombers say that right before they hurt someone else. The guy is the son of Linda Sasaur's spiritual mentor. Hey, at least Silicon Valley thinks you're relevant. Besides, just like Glenn Greenwald, these people were all just Russian bots.

More fever dreams, please. So you only defend the freedom of speech of people you like. Was Peter Van Buren wrong? Journalists are cheer leaders for war and pro-war libertarians are a disgraceful lot.

Like I said, pro-war libertarians are a disgrace. That's pathetic on a number of levels. I don't think any of them should have been banned? So, everyone is somehow entitled to the average salary of the whole population? China wants to peel CA off the US and make it a client state: Diane Feinstein is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. All new strategy for false flag ops to seize more government power.

They want it to be safer to be a pedo than a heterosexual male. Only if you define 'conservative' as defending the legal status quo, regardless of what it is. Do you not understand that it's the left in France that wants to change the law? All pictures and video should be covered by the 1st Amendment protection.

Yes, some people believe it's individual consent that matters. Those people are called libertarians. He is a 4 year old individual, thus not competent. Now do a 5-year-old. Now do a year-old. Now do a year-old with an IQ of Now do a 5-year-old with an IQ of whose mother's IQ is Who is going to protect the rights of year-olds to self-determination if not libertarians?

Cathy thinks the Earth is flat, so its not as clear as you think. Johnny Longtorso doesn't think year-olds can consent to feeling each other up. What about a 6-year-old? France wasn't thinking about making its age of consent 4 or 5, you know.

You know how you bitch about people who want to ban guns to save kids? That's you, right now. You do, when you say a 6 year old can consent to that relationship. I'm pretty sure it means the right for children to do what they choose. Adulthood starts at what, 26, these days? Why is pedophilia all the rage with progressives? Since when can a child give consent? That is exactly correct Kivlor. Calvin Coolidge speaking at the th Aniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Anyone who says there are more than two genders wants to make it legal to be a pedo. That's their decision" "We're going to give your child hormone treatments to transition them against your will because 'their body their choice'" This is why I'm in favor of some pretty draconian, far-right reactionary policies.

We just need to make the age of consent simple and stick to that. I must be missing something here. Who is pushing for legalizing sex with young children?

If 'consent' is a meaningless term, anything goes. Why are conservatives lying morons? She has been talking about 4,5, and 6 year olds all over this thread. Who should decide what is in the best interests of the child? The parents, or the state? It turns out only the child is capable of determining what his best interests are. And the obvious question that we're not supposed to dare to ask is why that would be. And here is a novel idea. The paperwork must be a drag on those trans-Pacific flights.

Should the government force Microsoft to host Gab? So that would be a "yes" I presume. So you want to make Microsoft an agent of the state enforcing First Amendment doctrine?