Soxbadger

Never heard of it either, but this is it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/

Thats not exactly what happened. The Starbucks employee called the police. The police asked them to leave. When they refused to leave the police really had no choice but to arrest them. Thats why the police werent disciplined at all. The police cant really take sides when a private company asks someone to leave their premises.

The Starbucks story should have gotten 0 press. It was a stupid decision by 1 manager. Given what Starbucks actual policies are, its mind boggling that the manager did that.

Maybe Im old fashioned, but Im just not sure why this is news at all. It seems like the snowflake party is now trying to expand safe spaces to private companies. I dont think anyone should be threatened in public, it really seems like this should be up to the Cheesecake Factory how it wants to handle it. Their employees seemingly acted poorly, its up to them how to handle it.

I think that the only guys guaranteed to be gone by the Bulls pick are Ayton, Bagley and Doncic. Any other player could fall to 7. That being said, Im not a huge Mikal Bridges fan and think that there are other guys who will be at 7 who are better. I feel like Jaren Jackson will also be gone, so possible the Bulls will be picking from whoever is left of Bamba, Young and Porter. Thankfully they only moved down 1 spot.

It could easily be Wendell Carter or Porter. 7 isn't great but it's a pretty deep draft so a lot will depend on who is there.

Well that would be on the front page of Breitbart. If you go there today, you wont see anything about Trump and China, nothing about saving 75k foreign jobs at the expense of "hard working Americans." You will find an article about a CIA/FBI mole in the Trump campaign though.

Look mom I got you a burrito!

Eh walking Schwarber isnt even the worst. The one change up was a good strike out pitch, Fulmer just hasnt earned anything so hes not getting the close calls.

Why is that not stylized in a form of a motion? Where do they find all of these lawyers?

I tried to find them. I couldnt. Just thought you might have more insight as to why she is "a bright, young individual with some good themes", so that maybe I could read up on her ideas and how she proposes to make change for the better.

But what policies does she support? Sure its great saying A didnt do anything for me. But that isnt a good reason why I should support B. I should be able to say "I support B, because B has views that align with mine." For example (and not saying I support these), I support charter schools because they give a better chance at education. I support tax cuts for the wealthy because I believe that it will increase my wages. I am against abortion because I believe that fetuses should be protected. I am against free trade, etc. Those are policy positions, and I cant seem to really find where she stands on anything. Maybe your search found those?

Oh for sure. Kim is going to get regime security, money, food, etc. Just Trump is going to argue that since he got the prisoners first, he didnt have to pay for them.

I dont think it was a money bribe. I read somewhere that China thinks NK screwed up its test facility during the last round of nuke tests, so now they cant test anymore. Basically Kim is negotiating his staying in power, getting aid because they simply cant do anymore tests. https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-koreas-underground-nuclear-test-facility-is-damaged-experts-say-1524643948 https://www.wsj.com/articles/damage-to-north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-worse-than-previously-thought-1525975203 http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un The WSJ articles are behind a pay wall. The other one says similar thing, but just not a reliable source that Ive heard of.

Jerksticks, The IRS qualifications are irrelevant because they are only for tax purposes. The only part that matters is the IL employment rules (and every state has different ones, but some use the same ABC test that I posted above.) As for your other arguments, the Uber lawyers would have an uphill battle. The most recent decision on this matter ruled by the California Supreme Court: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34584 With an article explaining: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6a195a4-7ab9-4670-9ccc-f9aa57f10cd3 http://uberlawsuit.com/ So I disagree that its as easy as a case as you think. Uber already tried to settle in California for $100mil but the court rejected the settlement due to the fact that California wanted to fine them more. I would suspect that in the next few years Uber will require people to create Corps/LLCs to work for them. That is the only way I allow clients to use independent contractors unless it is a clear IC relationship. IE The other person fits the bolded above. Whether or not that is shady, is not my problem. My job is to make sure that my clients arent hit for improper classification. Its really easy. Uber was just sloppy and they may have to pay because of it. (edit) And its an interesting conversation, I think that my interpretation is more right, but that doesnt mean a judge couldnt disagree with me. I have a pretty good amount of experience in the area, but I have actually never litigated the case because none of my clients have been sued for it. I usually am advising the entity hiring the independent contractor, so my job is to take your position in the argument. But for liability reasons, the safest answer is I make a condition of the work be that the worker form an entity. I presume in the future they will make rules to prevent this. But thats not my job.

Before this thread Id never have even heard of her. What do you like about her positions? I tried to look into her, but all I can really find is stuff like "Why not try being a Republican?" I saw she is pro-life, anti-planned parenthood and had some other personal opinions about things like police brutality, but I cant really find anything else about her positions. The best I could find is that when she was younger she had a personal situation that involved a Democratic Governor's son and a settlement due to it. So I guess the better question is, what do you like about her policy positions?

Thats okay, I more meant I wouldnt be making comments and taking sides publicly.

Then id really stay out of it.

Who are you to decide what people do for a living? The rules for independent contractors are clear, very few people are actually independent contractors if you apply the law (ironic because one party is always telling me about us being a "nation of laws). Why does uber fail? Lets take IL. In IL everyone is PRESUMED to be an employee. The key to the failure of Uber is C. In order for an uber driver to be a true IC, they must basically be a driver for a living. Now if someone drives for both Uber and Lyft, they could be a IC. But again, the presumption is that they are an employee. The reason most people fail C, is because C is the true test. If you are a plumber, you work for me, you work for my neighbor, you work for the guy across the street. That is a true independent contractor. The Uber driver only works for Uber. He does not really work for me, because I dont pay him directly. He cant charge me what he wants. (edit) In fact your argument that its not a career, actually proves that they are not independent contractors as the test requires that it be a trade, occupation or profession... Now most companies have found a way around this, which is, you force your independent contractors to form LLCs/Corps, and then you contract with the company not the person. That way it is impossible for them to be an independent contractor. Also, how did Uber outsmart Taxi companies? Taxi companies are subject to laws that make them uncompetitive. In Chicago Taxi cabs are required by law to charge X amount of dollars per mile, per minute, per flag. These laws were created to originally protect the consumer. But Uber is able to operate and not forced to follow these laws, so they undercut taxis. Taxi cab costs roughly 2x as much as an uber, so as long as the uber surge is less than 2x it is cheaper than a taxi.

Consumer fraud act! They promised me a good team and all I got was a 75 wins.

I wouldnt have a day job if people always did good work

Youre really trying hard to parse a statement that is supported by multiple posts on this board, let alone other places including talking to Sox fans off the board. Not sure what the problem with it was or is. I dont think the Sox should call up Kopech or Eloy this year. Kopech is even easier because last year he only pitched 134 innings. By the time its September hed be pushing way to many innings to let him pitch the whole month. So youre basically burning a full year of control over a handful of starts? That doest seem economically sound. It depends on what you mean by competing in 2020. I think that making the playoffs/ being competitive in the AL Central is a lot different than being competitive for the World Series. I dont think it will really take much for the Sox to be competitive in the AL central. But Yankees/Red Sox seem to be primed to be really good those years.

Ptatc, That is the part of the equation that it is a little harder. With all of the stupid control rules, its just hard to tell whether 2 extra months (give or take in the majors) outweighs a full year of control. If the Sox were closer to being good and didnt have so many young players, Id be more inclined to maybe burn the year of the control. My concern is that Eloy is really part of the "first wave", I think that many of the Sox prospects wont be debuting until late 2019 or possibly even early 2020.

Then you misinterpreted my post. I meant people saying Eloy should be called up this year for the instant gratification of seeing a player in a lost season. Or people who were hoping Kopech would pitch this weekend against the Cubs, or that Eloy being called up this weekend to face the Cubs would be a great "troll" of the Cubs. This comment was not limited to this thread. And its well supported by multiple threads suggesting prospects should be called up this year.

Before I couldnt pass up the irony, but now Ill post legitimately. I think Hahn is smart. If he says "We are going to purposefully hold back players to get 1 year of extra control" it opens the Sox up to player grievances and potentially losing that year of control (I think Boras tried something like this with Bryant.) So there is literally nothing to gain by saying anything other than "We will of course call up players as soon as they are ready." You cant really worry about 6 years from now and what may or may not happen with Eloy's contract because its just to uncertain. The Sox could call him up today, do everything he wants and he still may leave for money 6 years from now. So the Sox have to use what control they have. The Sox are not going to be good this year and they probably arent going to be a World Series contender next year. But 6 years from now? Maybe they will be good, maybe losing him 1 year early will mean 1 less shot at a WS. That is something entirely in the Sox control and why it is extremely nearsighted to risk that. As for FA's, I have to be realistic. The chances the Sox are going to outspend the Yankees etc, this offseason is really low. The Sox have no Lester-Epstein connection where if things are close you can hope that a guy like Machado etc will give the Sox a chance. Its just not reasonable to believe that. And given the current state of baseball, its just a bad year for an "up and coming" team to make a splash, unless they significantly overpay. The Yankees/Red Sox are teams hitting their primes, with cash to spend. Then you have the Dodgers etc, all loading up for this class. The Cubs got lucky with their timing. But in reality, the trade for Arrieta was just as important as the signing of Lester. That is the type of thing the Sox could accomplish. Getting a guy with talent, who hasnt performed and giving him a shot. The sad part about this statement, is that Arrieta should have been on the Sox but for a failed physical of Jesse Crain. How different would all of this been had that trade gone through?