Jump to content

WhatTheBuck

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    23,431
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

WhatTheBuck last won the day on July 4 2019

WhatTheBuck had the most liked content!

Reputation

19,730 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

7,048 profile views
  1. Hope Hicks has a new job. It seems New York Knicks owner and huge Trump donor James Dolan used facial recognition technology to identify people who were critical of him, people like lawyers working on cases against him, and have them ejected from events at Madison Square Garden. Amid the PR fallout, he hired Hicks to “advise” him. https://nypost.com/2023/01/31/james-dolan-hires-hope-hicks-to-consultant-him-on-msg-facial-recognition-scandal
  2. Interesting. I might have to test that. I get a screen that says, “Are you using any reusable bags today?” That was added shortly before they eliminated the plastic grocery bags. There are two different fields you can select, one of them is a counter. I can’t remember exactly what’s on there, it’s been so long since I’ve done anything but just hit the “Continue” button to accept whatever the defaults are and move on. If I “test” it, I’ll be sure to use a pack of ribeyes and not a bag of beans.
  3. Has he given up on “Ron DeSanctimonious” already?
  4. I’m not sure to which Ben you’re referring. Shapiro? I don’t know if I’ve heard his voice. Carson would be up there. Jim Jordan is capable of speaking calmly and when he does he can sound like a normal person. It’s when he’s in bullshit mode that he gets hyper and starts screaming a.mile-a-minute. And he spends a lot of his time spewing bullshit. I’d probably have to go with DeSantis. But is he any worse than Mike Pence? Nobody is worse than Trump. Whether it’s sleepy Trump reading someone else’s prepared speech from the teleprompter, unhinged Trump ranting and raving off the cuff, or even just speaking conversationally. Just the sound of his voice is like nails on a chalkboard. Others that are really painful to listen to are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ted Cruz. Lindsey Graham probably deserves mention. There’s Rudy Giuliani. I don’t think I’ve heard him speak since his confirmation hearings but how about Brett Kavanaugh? He also comes with an exceptionally punchable face. Same goes for Tucker Carlson.
  5. Didn’t he already win a court battle against her for her violation of the NDA she signed about their affair?
  6. “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” - TFG, 7/24/18
  7. If Operation Eagle Claw had been a success, you’d probably think differently. Carter had nothing to do with Vietnam. That alone sets him apart from his predecessors in a pretty significant way. Egyptian-Iasraeli peace accords were a pretty big deal. If your going to give credit to Nixon for opening up relations with China, you’ve got to give Carter credit for sealing the deal. Carter promoted democracy and human rights, something that not too long ago was expressly omitted from our foreign policy (along with a rejection of our postwar alliances and support for authoritarian regimes). Carter didn’t start any wars, let alone launch an invasion based on lies. Compared to some who came both before and after him, he could’ve done a lot worse.
  8. I agree that it’s generally best not to talk to cops and I avoid them as much as I can. But there was this one time when I was high on LSD and trying to find my hotel in some Wisconsin town (probably Lake Geneva) after a show at Alpine Valley. I stopped into a convenience store to ask for directions and wound up asking a cop who was there. Some other people who were at the show were there and they said they were trying to find the same hotel. The cop volunteered to lead us there. I was first in line behind him and there were at least two cars behind me. Well, that cop was not an experienced road tripper because he didn’t know that when you’re leading a caravan you don’t go through yellow lights. You stop at them otherwise you’ll leave followers stuck at a red light. Well, he drove through a yellow light. I figured fuck it, I’m following a cop, so I drove behind him through the intersection even though the light had turned red. We left everyone else behind. He got me to my hotel, I thanked him, and he took off. So that was a positive experience. I went and checked in, dropped off my bags at my room, then hit up the bar to have a few cocktails and people watch while I came down. Good times.
  9. FFS, after your first item is scanned at many terminals, but not all, you cam run your card and your payment will process after the last item is scanned This leaves you free to bag your shit up and gtfo Does it take less time to run your card after the first item is scanned than it does to run it after the last item is scanned? Whatever time is spent running your card is either spent not scanning items or not bagging them, right? If you run it after the first item then you’re taking a break from scanning while you run your card. If you keep scanning items and wait to run your card until after, then you’re putting off bagging for presumably the same amount of time. Do you see what I’m saying? I’m still not seeing why one way is faster than the other Are the terminals marked so you know ahead of time which ones will let you run your card before all your items are scanned? If not then trying to run your card early at a terminal where it’s disallowed is a definite time waster. Seems to me that in that case the safest practice would be to just always wait to run your card until after you’ve scanned all your items. Suppose you’re buying white onions. Do you go to the item look-up screen, select the “O” tab, then find and select the entry for “Onions, white?” Or do you just punch in “4663” and save those extra steps? I don’t know how much time you’re saving by running your card early, if any, but if you’re looking up each item of produce then at some number of different items I could pay cash, exact change even, and make it through self checkout faster than you. That’s a real time saver.
  10. Yeah, but come on. Joe was sellin’ it a little bit there.
  11. First, I think my atheistic bona fides are pretty well established around here. I still own a Bible and other religious books. I don’t own a Koran because I understand that it’s important to find a good translation and I don’t know which is best. So I’m limited to online resources. I don’t believe in religion but as an American I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they choose even if I don’t respect their actual belief. I think religion is a problem and that we’d be better off without it. I also know that we’re a superstitious people prone to hallucination and we’ll never get rid of it. If we did get rid of religion then we’d create new ones. So I don’t agree that we shouldn’t allow the Bible on school property. I think that’s ridiculous. We should allow the Bible and the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and any other religious texts. There’s nothing wrong with teaching about religion. We should neither endorse nor promote any religion in public schools. And that includes athletic coaches using it as a recruiting tool. The government and all its institutions should be secular. Religion of any kind should be left up to the individual to pursue in whatever way they see fit so long as they’re not trying to force it on anyone else. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way... I invite you to share with me the clinical data which demonstrates that viewing pictures of people engaged in sexual activity can “provide...value to teenagers in developing emotionally or sexually in a healthy way.” Show me the studies. I invite you to find some sexual deviant about whom you can credibly say, “If only they’d had a graphic novel to read in high school that showed a woman eating pussy, then they’d be totally normal right now.” Why haven’t I heard anyone say before that what we really need in the schools are graphic novels depicting people engaged in sexual activity in order to develop healthy and well balanced adults? Where has that been? Why did nobody exclaim, “Finally! I’ve been saying for years that we need more books in school showing pictures of people engaged in sexual activity!” when Macanudo first posted that pic? I see some people here defending a practice that I’ve never seen them advocate before. I believe there’s a strong possibility that you haven’t actually held this opinion until just now and are defending it arbitrarily. But if there are studies which demonstrate that comic book illustrations of a couple of rug munchers help children develop into healthy and balanced adults whereas children not exposed to such images might be less likely to do so, then I look forward to reviewing your data. I doubt they exist. I believe sex ed should be taught in schools. Kids are interested in sex, they’re curious about it, and some are going to do it. I believe we should hand out free condoms. Kids are going to have sex anyway whether we teach them about it or not. We want to keep them all healthy and well informed and we want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the public schools to demonstrate various ways of engaging in sex regardless of the genders of the participants. They can figure out what works for them and their partners on their own. Sure, we all knew what oral sex was when we were young. And yeah, a lot of us were eager to experience it. I’ve met a number of women who were not at all good at giving a blowjob. I didn’t conclude that their high school had failed to adequately prepare them for adult life. But let’s suppose that, as you claim to believe, that showing pictures to kids in school of people engaged in sexual activity helps them the develop into healthy adults. Obviously you’re in favor of showing pictures of cunnilingus. We’ve established that. What about fellatio? Should we teach that? Should we teach that their partner will appreciate it if they swallow? What about anal sex? Should we show that? Should we teach little Suzy that she might enjoy it if her boyfriend licks her anus or slips a finger in there while they’re copulating? Some chicks dig that. Should we teach her that gay men aren’t the only gender that might like being anally penetrated by a man’s penis? What about sucking on toes? Some people like that. What about rubber and leather fetishes? What about spanking and BDSM? What about role playing or dressing up as Catholic schoolgirls? Or dressing up as cartoon characters or animals? We could devote a whole separate discussion just to masturbation. What exactly is the public school’s responsibility to teach the children? I think a large part of the subject falls outside their jurisdiction. Teach them the basics and let them figure out the rest on their own. I noticed you didn’t address my comments about the real problem being societal ignorance and the fact that, for example, homosexual children are told that they’re bad (and all of the things you said that together boil down to basically that). Presumably that’s the religious tie-in to your post I quoted. I’ve seen it claimed that showing pictures to homosexual kids of people engaged in homosexual activities will help normalize it for them, to help them see that it’s not deviant behavior. Can’t we just tell them that? Do they need to see the sex act? What about just seeing queer people presented as normal and accepted in the media and popular culture? What about those poor kids whose parents are ignorant and cruel and tell them they’re evil or beat them or kick them out of the house when they find out they’re queer? Is seeing an illustration of a same sex couple engaging in oral sex in a graphic novel really going to make things better for them? Again, I’m going to need to see the data because I have a hard time believing that it is. I don’t think it’s inherently bad for kids to see pictures of nudity or of people engaging in sexual activity if they’re mature enough to see it. I’m not convinced that it’s the public school’s responsibility to show it to them and I think responsible parents should probably have some say in the matter. I was surprised when Macanudo posted that pic. I wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t think that was the sort of thing that was being made available in any schools. I wouldn’t call it pornography but there are people on the right who will and that’s exactly the sort of thing they’ll use to promote their agenda of discrimination against the LGBTQ community in general. Do you really believe that’s appropriate material for the public schools or are you just defending it in order to stick it to those people?
  12. It’s almost like “professional rioters” isn’t even a thing.
×
×
  • Create New...