darkSpyro

Awesome QuickDraw rattle shake

Get Ripto like now

What? e.e

How I into dorkspyro?l

Quote: CommanderGame

How I into dorkspyro?l

No! Kevin!
Please! Kevin, stop!

? ? ?

Isn't it fairly obvious this is an alt account.

He's Gnorc'd for 2 weeks. In about a month he'll be Ripto'd. Poor thing, never to see the daylight of the Blue Sparx.

I see he's watching the message boards as we speak.

Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933.[1] The dry movement, led by rural Protestants and social Progressives in the Democratic and Republican parties, was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. Prohibition was mandated under the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Enabling legislation, known as the Volstead Act, set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law; however, in many areas local laws were more strict, with some states banning possession outright. Nationwide Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the introduction of alcohol prohibition and its subsequent enforcement in law was a hotly-debated issue. Prohibition supporters, called drys, presented it as a victory for public morals and health. Anti-prohibitionists, known as wets, criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant, and Catholic life. When federal prohibition legislation was passed, effective enforcement of the ban during the Prohibition Era proved difficult and the law was widely flouted. Without a solid popular consensus for its enforcement, Prohibition led to some unintended consequences and its ultimate repeal in 1933: the growth of criminal organizations, including the modern American Mafia and various other criminal groups, disregard of federal law, and corruption among some politicians and within law enforcement. Despite these criticisms, overall consumption of alcohol halved during the 1920s and remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s.[2]

Guys, I don't get it

Quote: Metallo

Guys, I don't get it

The U.S. Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Upon being approved by a 36th state on January 16, 1919, the amendment was ratified as a part of the Constitution. By the terms of the amendment, the country went dry one year later, on Jan. 17, 1920.[3][4]

On November 18, 1918, prior to ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the U.S. Congress passed the temporary Wartime Prohibition Act, which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcohol content of greater than 2.75 percent.[5] (This act, which was intended to save grain for the war effort, was passed after the armistice ending World War I was signed on November 11, 1918.) The Wartime Prohibition Act took effect June 30, 1919, with July 1, 1919, becoming known as the "Thirsty-First".[6][7]

On October 28, 1919, Congress passed the Volstead Act, the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, over President Woodrow Wilson's veto. The act established the legal definition of intoxicating liquors as well as penalties for producing them.[8] Although the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, the federal government lacked resources to enforce it. By 1925, in New York City alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.[9]

While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity.[10] Many were astonished and disenchanted with the rise of spectacular gangland crimes (such as Chicago's Saint Valentine's Day Massacre), when prohibition was supposed to reduce crime. Prohibition lost its advocates one by one, while the wet opposition talked of personal liberty, new tax revenues from legal beer and liquor, and the scourge of organized crime.[11]

On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Cullen–Harrison Act, legalizing beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent (by weight) and wine of a similarly low alcohol content. On December 5, 1933, ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. However, United States federal law still prohibits the manufacture of distilled spirits without meeting numerous licensing requirements that make it impractical to produce spirits for personal beverage use.[12]

Quote: StriderSwag

Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933.[1] The dry movement, led by rural Protestants and social Progressives in the Democratic and Republican parties, was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. Prohibition was mandated under the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Enabling legislation, known as the Volstead Act, set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law; however, in many areas local laws were more strict, with some states banning possession outright. Nationwide Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the introduction of alcohol prohibition and its subsequent enforcement in law was a hotly-debated issue. Prohibition supporters, called drys, presented it as a victory for public morals and health. Anti-prohibitionists, known as wets, criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant, and Catholic life. When federal prohibition legislation was passed, effective enforcement of the ban during the Prohibition Era proved difficult and the law was widely flouted. Without a solid popular consensus for its enforcement, Prohibition led to some unintended consequences and its ultimate repeal in 1933: the growth of criminal organizations, including the modern American Mafia and various other criminal groups, disregard of federal law, and corruption among some politicians and within law enforcement. Despite these criticisms, overall consumption of alcohol halved during the 1920s and remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s.[2]

Quote: StriderSwag

Quote: Metallo

Guys, I don't get it

The U.S. Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Upon being approved by a 36th state on January 16, 1919, the amendment was ratified as a part of the Constitution. By the terms of the amendment, the country went dry one year later, on Jan. 17, 1920.[3][4]

On November 18, 1918, prior to ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the U.S. Congress passed the temporary Wartime Prohibition Act, which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcohol content of greater than 2.75 percent.[5] (This act, which was intended to save grain for the war effort, was passed after the armistice ending World War I was signed on November 11, 1918.) The Wartime Prohibition Act took effect June 30, 1919, with July 1, 1919, becoming known as the "Thirsty-First".[6][7]

On October 28, 1919, Congress passed the Volstead Act, the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, over President Woodrow Wilson's veto. The act established the legal definition of intoxicating liquors as well as penalties for producing them.[8] Although the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, the federal government lacked resources to enforce it. By 1925, in New York City alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.[9]

While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity.[10] Many were astonished and disenchanted with the rise of spectacular gangland crimes (such as Chicago's Saint Valentine's Day Massacre), when prohibition was supposed to reduce crime. Prohibition lost its advocates one by one, while the wet opposition talked of personal liberty, new tax revenues from legal beer and liquor, and the scourge of organized crime.[11]

On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Cullen–Harrison Act, legalizing beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent (by weight) and wine of a similarly low alcohol content. On December 5, 1933, ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. However, United States federal law still prohibits the manufacture of distilled spirits without meeting numerous licensing requirements that make it impractical to produce spirits for personal beverage use.[12]

tl;dr

Quote: Troll Slug

tl;dr

Consumption of alcoholic beverages has been a contentious topic in America since the colonial period. In May 1657, the General Court of Massachusetts made the sale of strong liquor "whether known by the name of rumme, strong water, wine, brandy, etc." illegal.[13]

In general, informal social controls in the home and community helped maintain the expectation that the abuse of alcohol was unacceptable. "Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion."[14] When informal controls failed, there were legal options.

Shortly after the United States obtained independence, the Whiskey Rebellion took place in western Pennsylvania in protest of government-imposed taxes on whiskey. Although the taxes were primarily levied to help pay down the newly formed national debt, it also received support from some social reformers, who hoped a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[15] The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which opposed the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, came to power in 1800.[16]

Benjamin Rush, one of the foremost physicians of the late eighteenth century, believed in moderation rather than prohibition. In his treatise, "The Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind" (1784), Rush argued that the excessive use of alcohol was injurious to physical and psychological health, labeling drunkenness as a disease.[17] Apparently influenced by Rush's widely discussed belief, about 200 farmers in a Connecticut community formed a temperance association in 1789. Similar associations were formed in Virginia in 1800 and New York in 1808.[18] Within a decade, other temperance groups had formed in eight states, some of them being statewide organizations. The words of Rush and other early temperance reformers served to dichotomize the use of alcohol for men and women. While men enjoyed drinking and often considered it vital to their health, women who began to embrace the ideology of "true motherhood" refrained from consumption of alcohol. Middle-class women, who were considered the moral authorities of their households, consequently rejected the drinking of alcohol, which they believed to be a threat to the home.[18] In 1830, on average, Americans consumed 1.7 bottles of hard liquor per week, three times the amount consumed in 2010.[10]

Quote: StriderSwag

Quote: Troll Slug

tl;dr

Consumption of alcoholic beverages has been a contentious topic in America since the colonial period. In May 1657, the General Court of Massachusetts made the sale of strong liquor "whether known by the name of rumme, strong water, wine, brandy, etc." illegal.[13]

In general, informal social controls in the home and community helped maintain the expectation that the abuse of alcohol was unacceptable. "Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion."[14] When informal controls failed, there were legal options.

Shortly after the United States obtained independence, the Whiskey Rebellion took place in western Pennsylvania in protest of government-imposed taxes on whiskey. Although the taxes were primarily levied to help pay down the newly formed national debt, it also received support from some social reformers, who hoped a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[15] The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which opposed the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, came to power in 1800.[16]

Benjamin Rush, one of the foremost physicians of the late eighteenth century, believed in moderation rather than prohibition. In his treatise, "The Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind" (1784), Rush argued that the excessive use of alcohol was injurious to physical and psychological health, labeling drunkenness as a disease.[17] Apparently influenced by Rush's widely discussed belief, about 200 farmers in a Connecticut community formed a temperance association in 1789. Similar associations were formed in Virginia in 1800 and New York in 1808.[18] Within a decade, other temperance groups had formed in eight states, some of them being statewide organizations. The words of Rush and other early temperance reformers served to dichotomize the use of alcohol for men and women. While men enjoyed drinking and often considered it vital to their health, women who began to embrace the ideology of "true motherhood" refrained from consumption of alcohol. Middle-class women, who were considered the moral authorities of their households, consequently rejected the drinking of alcohol, which they believed to be a threat to the home.[18] In 1830, on average, Americans consumed 1.7 bottles of hard liquor per week, three times the amount consumed in 2010.[10]

I would give you an A+ on copy and paste from Wikipedia if I could.

In the week between the broadcasts of "200" and "201", the website for the New York-based radical Muslim organization Revolution Muslim posted an entry that included a warning to creators Parker and Stone that they risked violent retribution for their depictions of Muhammad. The entry stated that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show." Van Gogh was a filmmaker who was murdered by a man named Mohammed Bouyeri in 2004 for making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting provided the addresses to Comedy Central in New York and the production company in Los Angeles. The author of the post, Zachary Adam Chesser, said it was meant to serve as a warning to Parker and Stone, not a threat, and that providing the addresses was meant to give people the opportunity to protest.
The entry included audio clips of a sermon by al-Qaeda imam Anwar al-Awlaki calling for the assassination of anyone who has defamed Muhammad, saying, "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that."[14][15] Subsequently, the website for the organization was hacked, temporarily redirecting web traffic to images of Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his head and an older Muslim man kissing a young boy passionately.[16]
Before "201" aired, the New York City Police Department increased security at the Comedy Central headquarters in direct response to the threats. Law enforcement officials said Revolution Muslim itself was "all talk" and had never engaged in any actual violence but they were concerned that the website post could inspire violence from others.[17][18]
During the original broadcast of "201" on April 21, 2010, all references to Muhammad's name were replaced by audio bleeps. Several other portions of dialogue were also censored, including almost the entirety of three consecutive monologues spoken by Kyle, Jesus and Santa Claus at the end regarding the moral of the episode. Muhammad's name appeared in the previous episode, "200", without any such censorship. Both episodes obscured all images of what was apparently Muhammad with a black "CENSORED" box. Immediately after the episode "201" aired, the series website South Park Studios posted a notice that said Comedy Central had inserted "numerous additional bleeps throughout the episode" after Parker and Stone submitted their final cut to the network. The network later confirmed they were responsible for the audio censorship, as well as obscuring images of Muhammad.[19][20]
On April 22, 2010, South Park Studios released a brief statement:[19]
"In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."
Some of these developments had been anticipated in the 2006 South Park episodes "Cartoon Wars Part I" and "Cartoon Wars Part II". These episodes showed South Park's reaction to a controversy regarding censorship of Muhammad depictions on two (fictional) episodes of Family Guy.
"201" has not aired since its original debut as South Park would usually repeat during the week, and episodes from earlier in the season were shown instead. Although South Park Studios generally makes unexpurgated versions of their episodes immediately available to view, the notice indicated Parker and Stone did not have network approval to show their original version, and thus no version of "201" could be seen on the website.[11][21]
The Canadian Comedy Network aired "201" on April 25, 2010, though the episode was censored as the American broadcast was, breaking the network's multi-year practice of airing South Park completely uncensored.[22] Neither "200" nor "201" were shown in the version of Comedy Central in the Netherlands,[23][24] and neither episode is available on the Dutch South Park Studios website.[25][26] The Swedish affiliate of Comedy Central also refused to broadcast "200" and "201" in Sweden, claiming:[27]
"Comedy Central has decided not to air these two episodes of South Park. It is a decision we've made with great reluctance. Comedy Central believes strongly in creative freedom of expression; when unique and deeply insightful creative talents like those behind South Park are able to express themselves freely, we all benefit. However, the safety of our employees is our unquestioned number one priority, and therefore we have decided to take these precautionary measures."
"Super Best Friends" was also pulled from the South Park Studios site following the increased media attention from "201".[21][28] Episodes "200" and "201" are also unavailable on Hulu, the iTunes Store, and other streaming and download services.

Quote: MoonHorizons

I would give you an A+ on copy and paste from Wikipedia if I could.

The American Temperance Society (ATS), formed in 1826, helped initiate the first temperance movement and served as a foundation for many later groups. By 1835 the ATS had reached 1.5 million members, with women constituting 35 to 60 percent of its chapters.[19]

The prohibition movement, also known as the dry crusade, continued in the 1840s, spearheaded by pietistic religious denominations, especially the Methodists. The late nineteenth century saw the temperance movement broaden its focus from abstinence to include all behavior and institutions related to alcohol consumption. Preachers such as Reverend Mark A. Matthews linked liquor-dispensing saloons with prostitution.[citation needed]

Some successes were achieved in the 1850s, including the Maine law, adopted in 1851, which banned the manufacture and sale of liquor. However, it was repealed in 1856. The temperance movement lost strength and was marginalized during the American Civil War (1861–1865).

Following the war, the dry crusade was revived by the national Prohibition Party, founded in 1869, and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), founded in 1873. The WCTU advocated the prohibition of alcohol as a method for preventing abuse from alcoholic husbands.[20] One of the WCTU's methods to achieve that goal was education. WCTU members believed that if their organization could reach children with its message, it could create a dry sentiment leading to prohibition. Frances Willard, the second president of the WCTU, held the aims of the organization were to create a "union of women from all denominations, for the purpose of educating the young, forming a better public sentiment, reforming the drinking classes, transforming by the power of Divine grace those who are enslaved by alcohol, and removing the dram-shop from our streets by law."[21] While still denied universal voting privileges, women in the WCTU followed Frances Willard's "Do Everything" doctrine and used temperance as a method of entering into politics and furthering other progressive issues such as prison reform and labor laws.[22]

In 1881 Kansas became the first state to outlaw alcoholic beverages in its Constitution. Carrie Nation gained notoriety for enforcing the state's ban on alcohol consumption by walking into saloons, scolding customers, and using her hatchet to destroy bottles of liquor. Nation recruited ladies into the Carrie Nation Prohibition Group, which she also led. While Nation's vigilante techniques were rare, other activists enforced the dry cause by entering saloons, singing, praying, and urging saloonkeepers to stop selling alcohol.[23] Other dry states, especially those in the South, enacted prohibition legislation, as did individual counties within a state.

Court cases also debated the subject of prohibition. Although there was a tendency to support prohibition, some cases ruled in opposition. In Mugler v. Kansas (1887), Justice Harlan commented: "We cannot shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact established by statistics accessible to every one, that the idleness, disorder, pauperism and crime existing in the country, are, in some degree... traceable to this evil."[24] In support of prohibition, Crowley v. Christensen (1890), remarked: "The statistics of every state show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at these retail liquor saloons than to any other source."[24]

Proliferation of neighborhood saloons in the post-Civil War era became a phenomenon of an increasingly industrialized, urban workforce. Workingmen's bars were popular social gathering places from the workplace and home life. The brewing industry was actively involved in establishing saloons as a lucrative consumer base in their business chain. Saloons were more often than not linked to a specific brewery, where the saloonkeeper's operation was financed by a brewer and contractually obligated to sell the brewer's product to the exclusion of competing brands. A saloon's business model often included the concept of the free lunch, where the bill of fare commonly consisting of heavily-salted food meant to induce thirst and the purchase of drink.[25] During the Progressive Era (1890–1920), hostility toward saloons and their political influence became widespread, with the Anti-Saloon League superseding the Prohibition Party and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union as the most influential advocate of prohibition, after these latter two groups expanded their efforts to support other social reform issues, such as women's suffrage, onto their prohibition platform.

Prohibition was an important force in state and local politics from the 1840s through the 1930s. The political forces involved were ethnoreligious in character, as demonstrated by numerous historical studies.[26] Prohibition was supported by the drys, primarily pietistic Protestant denominations that included Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, New School Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans, but also included the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America. These religious groups identified saloons as politically corrupt and drinking as a personal sin. Other active organizations included the Women's Church Federation, the Women's Temperance Crusade, and the Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction. They were opposed by the wets, primarily liturgical Protestants (Episcopalians and German Lutherans) and Roman Catholics, who denounced the idea that the government should define morality.[27] Even in the wet stronghold of New York City there was an active prohibition movement, led by Norwegian church groups and African-American labor activists who believed that prohibition would benefit workers, especially African Americans. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported prohibition, believing a ban on alcohol would increase sales of their products.[28] A particularly effective operator on the political front was Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League, who made Prohibition a wedge issue and succeeded in getting many pro-prohibition candidates elected. Wheeler became known as the "dry boss" because of his influence and power.[29]

Main article: History of South African labour law
The Native Labour Regulations Act 1911 prohibited strikes by trade unions, introduced wage ceilings and a pass system for moving around jobs. Over 70,000 Chinese labourers were brought in, and used by landowners to undercut the wages of other workers. Among white workers, there was significant unrest, and major strikes took place in 1907, 1913, 1914 and 1922
For a period of sixteen years, from 1979 to 1995, several critical developments took place in the field of labour law in South Africa, beginning with a radical change in the first of these years, when a significant Commission of Enquiry was held, resulting in the establishment of an Industrial Court, which was given extensive powers to mould, change, shape and develop the law. Prior to 1995, most labour relations were based on contract. In 1995, much of the law developed by the Commission and the Industrial Court was put together in the Labour Relations Act 1995 (LRA). Since then, most labour law has been based on statute.
Prior to 1995, an employee could be dismissed in terms of the contract of employment, which could permit any reason for dismissal. Since 1995, an employee may be dismissed only for misconduct, operational reasons and incapacity. The Labour Reactions Act 1995 is a pivotal piece of legislation, as it recognises the need for fast and easy access to justice in labour disputes. The Industrial Court had the status of a High Court, and therefore was not accessible to all labourers.
1995 also saw the introduction of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) which is an administrative tribunal. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration endeavours first and foremost to conciliate between the parties. If it is unsuccessful in this, the matter moves on to arbitration. The entire process is very informal, and at no charge, and is therefore very accessible to labourers, who often utilise it: About 300 new cases are brought before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration daily. In addition to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, 1995 saw the introduction of bargaining councils, which allow for communication across the industry. A bargaining council is organised collectively and voluntarily, and must be registered. In order to be registered, an alternative-dispute-resolution mechanism, similar to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, must be put in place.
The Labour Reactions Act 1995 also regulated the issue of fairness, not only in termination but during employment, too. In 1998, however, most of the law on unfair labour practises was removed from the Labour Reactions Act 1995 and put into the Employment Equity Act (EEA). The Employment Equity Act also deals with issues such as fairness regarding a worker's human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status or disability, as well as the issue of affirmative action.
The Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), the Health and Safety Acts and the Skills Development Act, must be read with the Employment Equity Act. The Skills Development Act provides that a small percentage of a labourer's salary must be contributed to the Department of Labour, enabling certain workshops to be run which are designed to develop skills.
Constitution[edit]

Chapter 2 of the Constitution contains several provisions of relevance to employment and labour law:
the right to equality;
protection of dignity;
protection against servitude, forced labour and discrimination;
the right to pursue a livelihood; and
protection for children against exploitative labour practices and work that is hazardous to their wellbeing.
It is important to interpret all labour legislation in light of the Constitution.
Section 23 of the Constitution deals specifically with labour relations, providing that everyone has the right to fair labour practices,[1] and specifically the right
to form and join a trade union;
to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and
to strike
Every employer, meanwhile, has the right
to form and join an employers’ organisation; and
to participate in the activities and programmes of an employers’ organisation.
Every trade union and every employers’ organisation has the right
to determine its own administration, programmes and activities;
to organise; and
to form and join a federation
Finally, every trade union, employers’ organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining.
Section 23(1) is an unusual provision—only South Africa and Malawi expressly protect the right to fair labour practices—as it is so broad and overarching. An exact definition of fair labour practices is impossible, since this is a dynamic field of the law, rooted in socio-economic rights. Section 23(1) refers to "everyone," encompassing far more than merely employees and workers; it also includes would-be workers, employers and juristic persons.
Section 23 is not entirely universal, however, as soldiers are excluded from its ambit insofar as they may not strike at a time of war.
The Labour Relations Act was promulgated as the "national legislation" referred to in subsections 23(5) and 23(6), which provide respectively that "national legislation may be enacted to regulate collective bargaining," and that "national legislation may recognise union security arrangements contained in collective agreements." Both subsections stipulate that, to the extent that such legislation may limit one of the rights in section 23, the limitation must comply with section 36(1), the limitations clause of the Constitution.
The current Basic Conditions of Employment Act is also designed to give effect to the right to fair labour practices. Both Acts are bolstered by the Employment Equity Act, which replicates the equality clause in the Constitution in its totality, adding that one may not discriminate on the basis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status.
The general guarantee of fair labour practices has far-reaching effects on the civil courts’ approach to the interpretation of the rights of parties to employment contracts.
All courts are enjoined, when applying and developing the common law, to have due regard to the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. This calls for a reconsideration of some of the assumptions underlying the common-law contract of employment, in particular the employer’s power of command and unfettered rights in respect of promotion and dismissal.
Furthermore, the labour courts’ judgments on such contentious issues as the dismissal of striking workers are subject to review by the Constitutional Court, so long as the applicants have exhausted the procedures available to them under the labour legislation.
In NUMSA v Bader Bop,[2] the Constitutional Court overturned a decision of the Labour Appeal Court which restrictively interpreted the Labour Reactions Act 1995. The court recognised the necessity of collective bargaining and bargaining councils which facilitate the

Organized crime received a major boost from Prohibition. Mafia groups limited their activities to prostitution, gambling, and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging emerged in response to Prohibition.[84] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful criminal organizations corrupted some law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering.[citation needed] Prohibition provided a financial basis for organized crime to flourish.[85]

Rather than reducing crime, Prohibition transformed some cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs.[citation needed] In a study of more than thirty major U.S cities during the Prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24 percent. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9 percent, homicides by 12.7 percent, assaults and battery rose by 13 percent, drug addiction by 44.6 percent, and police department costs rose by 11.4 percent. This was largely the result of "black-market violence" and the diversion of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the Prohibition movement's hope that outlawing alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to Prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.[86]

Furthermore, stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. To prevent bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal beverages, the federal government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols. In response, bootleggers hired chemists who successfully renatured the alcohol to make it drinkable. As a response, the Treasury Department required manufacturers to add more deadly poisons, including the particularly deadly methyl alcohol. New York City medical examiners prominently opposed these policies because of the danger to human life. As many as 10,000 people died from drinking denatured alcohol before Prohibition ended.[87] New York City medical examiner Charles Norris believed the government took responsibility for murder when they knew the poison was not deterring people and they continued to poison industrial alcohol (which would be used in drinking alcohol) anyway. Norris remarked: "The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol... [Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."[87]

Another lethal substance that was often substituted for alcohol was "canned heat," also commonly known as Sterno. Forcing the substance through a makeshift filter, such as a handkerchief, created a rough liquor substitute; however, the result was poisonous, though not often lethal. Many of those who were poisoned as a result united to sue the government for reparations after the end of Prohibition.[88]

Making alcohol at home was very common during Prohibition. Stores sold grape concentrate with warning labels that listed the steps that should be avoided to prevent the juice from fermenting into wine. Some drugstores sold "medical wine" with around a 22 percent alcohol content. In order to justify the sale, the wine was given a medicinal taste.[88] Home-distilled hard liquor was called bathtub gin in northern cities, and moonshine in rural areas of Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia. and Tennessee. Homebrewing good hard liquor was easier than brewing good beer.[88] Since selling privately distilled alcohol was illegal and bypassed government taxation, law enforcement officers relentlessly pursued manufacturers.[89] In response, bootleggers modified their cars and trucks by enhancing the engines and suspensions to make faster vehicles that, they presumed, would improve their chances of outrunning and escaping agents of the Bureau of Prohibition, commonly called "revenue agents" or "revenuers". These cars became known as "moonshine runners" or "'shine runners".[90] Shops were also known to participate in the underground liquor market, by loading their stocks with ingredients for liquors, which anyone could legally purchase (these include: benedictine, vermouth, scotch mash, and even ethyl alcohol).[91]

Prohibition also had an effect on the music industry in the United States, specifically with jazz. Speakeasies became far more popular during that time, and the effects of the Great Depression caused a migration that led to a greater dispersal of jazz music. Movement began from New Orleans and went north through Chicago and to New York. This led to the development of different styles in different cities. Because of its popularity in speakeasies and the development of more advanced recording devices, jazz became very popular very quickly. It was also at the forefront of the minimal integration efforts going on at the time, as it united mostly black musicians with mostly white audiences.[92]

Along with other economic effects, the enactment and enforcement of Prohibition caused an increase in resource costs. During the 1920s the annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4 million to $13.4 million. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard spent an average of $13 million annually on enforcement of prohibition laws.[93] These numbers do not take into account the costs to local and state governments.

When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market profits from alcohol in most states, because of competition with legal liquor stores selling alcohol at lower prices. (States still retained the right to enforce their own state laws concerning alcohol consumption.)[citation needed]

yeah this threads gone to heck.

Quote: MoonHorizons

yeah this threads gone to heck.

Oh Hades no!

Cheese is a food derived from milk that is produced in a wide range of flavors, textures, and forms by coagulation of the milk protein casein. It comprises proteins and fat from milk, usually the milk of cows, buffalo, goats, or sheep. During production, the milk is usually acidified, and adding the enzyme rennet causes coagulation. The solids are separated and pressed into final form.[1] Some cheeses have molds on the rind or throughout. Most cheeses melt at cooking temperature.

Hundreds of types of cheese from various countries are produced. Their styles, textures and flavors depend on the origin of the milk (including the animal's diet), whether they have been pasteurized, the butterfat content, the bacteria and mold, the processing, and aging. Herbs, spices, or wood smoke may be used as flavoring agents. The yellow to red color of many cheeses, such as Red Leicester, is produced by adding annatto. Other ingredients may be added to some cheeses, such as black peppers, garlic, chives or cranberries.

For a few cheeses, the milk is curdled by adding acids such as vinegar or lemon juice. Most cheeses are acidified to a lesser degree by bacteria, which turn milk sugars into lactic acid, then the addition of rennet completes the curdling. Vegetarian alternatives to rennet are available; most are produced by fermentation of the fungus Mucor miehei, but others have been extracted from various species of the Cynara thistle family.

Cheese is valued for its portability, long life, and high content of fat, protein, calcium, and phosphorus. Cheese is more compact and has a longer shelf life than milk, although how long a cheese will keep may depend on the type of cheese; labels on packets of cheese often claim that a cheese should be consumed within three to five days of opening. Generally speaking, hard cheeses last longer than soft cheeses, such as Brie or goat's milk cheese. Cheesemakers near a dairy region may benefit from fresher, lower-priced milk, and lower shipping costs. The long storage life of some cheese, especially if it is encased in a protective rind, allows selling when markets are favorable.

A specialist seller of cheese is sometimes known as a cheesemonger. Becoming an expert in this field requires some formal education and years of tasting and hands-on experience, much like becoming an expert in wine or cuisine. The cheesemonger is responsible for all aspects of the cheese inventory: selecting the cheese menu, purchasing, receiving, storage, and ripening.[2]

Etymology
History
Production
Types
Eating and cooking
Health and nutrition
World production and consumption
Cultural attitudes
See also
Notes and references
Further reading
External links
Read in another language

*insert longggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggg post here*

A dik-dik is a small antelope in the genus Madoqua that lives in the bushlands of eastern and southern Africa. Dik-diks stand about 30–40 cm (12–16 in) at the shoulder, are 50–70 cm (20–28 in) long, weigh 3–6 kg (7–16 lb) and can live for up to 10 years. Dik-diks are named for the alarm calls of the females. In addition to the females' alarm call, both the male and female make a shrill, whistling sound. These calls may alert other animals to predators.

Contents

1 Physical characteristics
2 Habitat
3 Diet
4 Reproduction
5 Predators
6 Classification
7 References

Physical characteristics

Female dik-diks are somewhat larger than males. The males have horns, which are small (about 3 in or 7.5 cm), slanted backwards and longitudinally grooved. The hair on the crown forms an upright tuft that sometimes partially conceals the short, ribbed horns of the male. The upper body is gray-brown, while the lower parts of the body, including the legs, belly, crest, and flanks, are tan. A bare black spot below the inside corner of each eye contains a preorbital gland that produces a dark, sticky secretion. Dik-diks insert grass stems and twigs into the gland to scent-mark their territories.

To prevent overheating, dik-diks have elongated snouts with bellows-like muscles through which blood is pumped. Airflow and subsequent evaporation cools this blood before it is recirculated to the body. However, this panting is only implemented in extreme conditions—dik-diks can tolerate air temperatures of up to 40 °C (104 °F).[2]
Habitat

The dik-dik lives in shrublands and savannas of eastern Africa. Dik-diks seek habitats with plentiful supply of edible plants such as shrubs. Dik-diks may live in places as varied as dense forest or open plain, but they require good cover and not too much tall grass.[3] They usually live in pairs in territories of about 5 hectares (12 acres). The territories are often in low, shrubby bushes (sometimes along dry, rocky streambeds) with plenty of cover. Dik-diks can blend in with their surroundings, because of their dusty colored fur. Dik-diks have a series of runways through and around the borders of their territories.[4]
Diet
Dik-dik eating
Male, Tarangire National Park, Tanzania
Family of Kirk's dik-dik, Lake Manyara, Tanzania

Dik-diks are herbivores. Their diet mainly consists of foliage, shoots, fruit and berries, but little or no grass. They receive sufficient amounts of water from their food, making drinking unnecessary. Like all even-toed ungulates, they digest their food with the aid of micro-organisms in their four-chambered stomachs. After initial digestion, the food is repeatedly eructated and rechewed, a process known also as rumination, or 'chewing the cud'. Dik-diks' tapering heads may help them eat the leaves between the spines on the acacia trees, and feed while still keeping their head high to detect predators.[2]
Reproduction

Dik-diks are monogamous,[5] and conflicts between territorial neighbors are rare. When they occur, the males from each territory dash at each other, stop short, vigorously nod their heads and turn around. They will repeat this process, increasing the distance each time until one stops. Males mark their territories with dung piles, and cover the females' dung with their own.[6] Monogamy in dik-diks may be an evolutionary response to predation;[7] surrounded by predators, it is dangerous to explore, looking for new partners.[8] Pairs spend about 64% of their time together. Males, but not females, will attempt to obtain extra-pair mating when the opportunity arises.[5]

Females are sexually mature at 6 months and males at 12 months. The female gestates for 169 to 174 days and bears a single offspring. This happens up to twice a year (at the start and finish of the rainy season). Unlike other ruminants, the dik-dik is born with its forelegs laid back alongside its body, instead of them being stretched forward. Females weigh about 560 to 680 g (1.2–1.4 lb) at birth, while males weigh 725 to 795 g (1.5–1.7 lb). The mother lactates for six weeks, feeding her fawn for no longer than a few minutes at a time. The survival rate for young dik-diks is 50%. The young stay concealed for a time after birth, but grow quickly and reach full size by seven months. At that age, the young are forced to leave their parents' territory. The fathers run the sons off the territory and the mothers run off the daughters.[9]
Predators

Dik-diks are hunted primarily by monitor lizards, caracals, lions, hyenas, wild dogs and humans. Other predators include leopards, cheetahs, jackals, baboons, eagles, hawks and pythons. Dik-diks' adaptation to predation include excellent eyesight and the ability to reach speeds up to 42 km (26 mi) an hour.[4]

The domestic cat[1][2] (Felis catus[2] or Felis silvestris catus[4]) is a small, usually furry, domesticated, and carnivorous mammal. It is often called the housecat when kept as an indoor pet,[6] or simply the cat when there is no need to distinguish it from other felids and felines. Cats are often valued by humans for companionship and their ability to hunt vermin and household pests.

Cats are similar in anatomy to the other felids, with strong, flexible bodies, quick reflexes, sharp retractable claws, and teeth adapted to killing small prey. Cat senses fit a crepuscular and predatory ecological niche. Cats can hear sounds too faint or too high in frequency for human ears, such as those made by mice and other small animals. They can see in near darkness. Like most other mammals, cats have poorer color vision and a better sense of smell than humans.

Despite being solitary hunters, cats are a social species, and cat communication includes the use of a variety of vocalizations (mewing, purring, trilling, hissing, growling and grunting) as well as cat pheromones and types of cat-specific body language.[7]

Cats have a rapid breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering, and the abandonment of former household pets, has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[8]

Since cats were cult animals in ancient Egypt, they were commonly believed to have been domesticated there,[9] but there may have been instances of domestication as early as the Neolithic from around 9500 years ago (7500 BC).[10]

Why the **** is there so many paragraphs!?! Especially in a topic that's more mean to be moved to the SwapForce section?

And if Gnarly returns, quit posting in the stuff and nonsense section. I mean you're posting Skylanders related crud on the wrong section, plus this section is not exactly rated E for everyone.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Why the **** is there so many paragraphs!?! Especially in a topic that's more mean to be moved to the SwapForce section.

And if Gnarly returns, quit posting in the stuff and nonsense section. I mean you're posting Skylanders related crud on the wrong section, plus this section is not exactly rated E for everyone.

Staples, Inc. is a large office supply chain store, with over 2,000 stores worldwide in 26 countries. Based in Framingham, Massachusetts, United States, the company has retail stores, serving customers under its original name in Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, while operating subsidiaries in Argentina as Officenet-Staples, Netherlands as Staples Office Centre, Canada as Staples Canada (Bureau en Gros in Quebec), and in Italy as Mondoffice. Staples also does business exclusively with enterprises in the United States and multiple European countries as Staples Advantage.

Staples sells supplies, office machines, promotional products, furniture, technology and business services both in stores and online. Staples is growing its industry beyond office supplies. The company opened its first store in Brighton, Massachusetts on May 1, 1986. Staples opened its 500th store in Vero Beach, Florida on July 5, 1996, its 1000th store in Duluth, Georgia on July 31, 1999 and its 2000th store in India in 2007.[2]

rattle shake better return in skylanders 4

- - -

Quote: MagicFizz

- - -

MIMIMIMIMIMI..........

Quote: Big Green

Quote: MagicFizz

- - -

MIMIMIMIMIMI..........

MIMIMIMIMIMI?????

MIMIMIMIMI.

MIMIMIMIMIMI!!!!!!!!!

MIMIMIMIMIMI?!?!?!???

MIMIMIMIMI....??????

MIMIMIMIMIMMAMEMIMOMU....!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote: Trix Master 100

Why the **** is there so many paragraphs!?! Especially in a topic that's more mean to be moved to the SwapForce section?

And if Gnarly returns, quit posting in the stuff and nonsense section. I mean you're posting Skylanders related crud on the wrong section, plus this section is not exactly rated E for everyone.

(Bold) This. -.-

Quote: gnarlytreesnex

rattle shake better return in skylanders 4

go away