Jump to content

NameAlreadyInUse

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NameAlreadyInUse

  1.  

    6 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

    i heard a conversation on pbs newshour where they were saying that because of the frustration people have with washington they elect people that won't compromise, creating further gridlock and frustration.  i hear people say we are more divisive now than ever, and i dont know if that's true, but it would be nice to see someone from either side reach across the aisle.  it's no secret that if a republican were to run today and say in his campaign "i'll work with democrats to fix the problems of this country", his run would be over before it started.  that's a non-starter.  i dont think it would be as bad a campaign promise to the democrats.  we need compromise.  we need to find common solutions.

    I agree in general.  I disagree on marriage equality.  That issue has already been decided.  We don't need to do anything else with that.

  2.  Contracts require consideration for both sides.  It doesn't matter the language of the contract, if one side doesn't provide consideration, the contract is technically in breech and the other side has the right exit the contract and sue.  The people at Novartis are fucking stupid if they are telling the truth. I think the simpler explanation is they are lying now that this has come to light.

  3. I'm asking because I'm curious about this....Since you put 25% down, why did you decide to go with escrow rather than just paying your taxes and insurance separately? I killed my escrow account because I could, and I simply divert insurance and tax money into an interest bearing account and pay from that account.  Its not much interest but it pays better than escrowing does.  Are there other advantages to staying with escrow?

  4. 39 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    Socially, I don't care if you are gay, lesbian, LGBTQBBQ or whatever. Gays getting married doesn't make one shit to me. You're a guy who was born a girl but is now a dude who likes men? Ok, cool. I mostly just don't like people telling me how to feel or forcing their beliefs on me, but I'm pretty good with people doing what they want on the social front.

     

    Income taxes of course, but in what other areas does the Federal Government care about marriage?  Not looking to argue it, but maybe we aren't that far from the Feds uninvolvement?  At the State level it's different of course, and that's good.  Oklahomans can marry their sister, Texas can marry Cholas, etc.  Doing it that way seems like a worthy compromise.

    Compromise? I think that ship has sailed, man. 

    • Like 1
  5. So that's an average looking guy.  If an average looking guy has any conversational abilities at all, he can get laid.  If an average looking guy isn't getting laid, he's either not speaking around women, or the things he has to say are offputting to women.  Either way, that's a problem with you, average looking guy, not the rest of us.  Fix yourself motherfuckers.

  6. I don't think its more liberal.  Its definitely more reactionary.  But I understand why.

    I used to be a Republican, and then one day I was attacked by the Republican president. A Republican president I had voted for, to be clear.  It opened my eyes and made me look at my positions in a way I had never been forced to look at them before.  I became a libertarian, mainly because that was the wing of the Republican party that best represented my views.  I posted some about how my political affiliations had changed, wherever I was posting at the time, but that was it.  In West Mall, and then Cloak Room I had bought into the "both sides" team, and remained firmly libertarian in my views, until life got in the way and I started to realize that there are definitely situations where government is necessary, over and above national defense and roads.  I was  still mostly libertarian in nature, with a few exceptions.  But my posting on West Mall and Cloak room, for most of the lives of those forums, was related to gay rights and both sidesisms.  

    I will vote as a Democrat in the midterms, and for the foreseeable future, and that's not because my views have changed all that much.  I've adjusted my views some based on life experience, but mostly, I still want a government that is on the small side and that is sane.  What has gone off the rails for me is both sidesisms.  Yeah I don't like Republicans.  Yeah I don't like Democrats.  But, it is perfectly clear that the Republican party has been heading down this path for a long long time.  Evangelical leaders got us started, then guys like Limbaugh and Hannity put a political spin on this nihilism that's spread through that party like crazy.  You know things have gone off the deep end for a party when leaders in that party start taking Alex Jones seriously, and that has happened, repeatedly, in the last few years.  This is no longer a both sides situation, because the Republicans as they exist today are so much worse than the Democrats that both sides has no meaning.  

    All those things that Brisket brought up are insane. But all of them are true. There is not another president in my lifetime who could have actually done all those things and survived it.  Hell, most of them wouldn't have survived the bullshit they put up with from the Okie EPA guy. The fact that this hasn't really changed the popularity of Trump says a lot of things about the Republican party as a whole, and none of them are good. It tells me I can expect more of the same for at least the next decade.  Maybe the Dems will get worse or the Reps will get better, and I will go back to my both sides arguments.  Or maybe one of them will actually become a center right party who cares about the rights of all people, and I can actually find a home.  But for now, its time to go with the lesser of two evils with full voice, and that means I will vote with the Dems for the first time. 

    This is the legacy that is being left by this brand of Republicanism.  It's turned people who were happy enough just to throw away their vote and bitch on the sidelines into people who will actually cross the aisle and vote against them.  That's not because a change in ideology of the posters on this board, its because of a change in ideology of one of the parties.

    And for the record, since I got the right to vote, I have voted for President this way - 1992: George Bush, 1996: Bob Dole, 2000:  GW Bush, 2004: Libertarian candidate, 2008: Libertarian candidate, 2012: Libertarian candidate: 2016: Gary Johnson (only one whose name I even remember).  

    • Like 9
  7. I think Ghost pretty much nailed it.  I also think the sooner we get the baby boomers out of power, whether in office, industry, or the voting booth,  the better off we're going to be. Its a generation of folks raised by the Greatest generation who took it into their heads to do their worst, and have succeeded.

    • Like 2
  8. Tahoe Well, we like kids to have lunches and old people to have nursing homes, we just can't afford it.  Maybe we can in the future, but for right now, we shouldn't be spending money on that.  /Tahoe

  9. I don't know who is evil.  I do know that there are several associated with politics who do evil things in the name of $$.  Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson (and all his televangelist lookalikes) all make up shit and lie, knowing full well its a lie, because its what their patrons want to hear.  This makes them rich.  Those guys may not be evil, but they sure as hell are not living up to the standards they claim to hold dear.  Those people have gotten rich duping grandma and grandpa into being scared of their own shadow enough to enable our politicians to be the nincompoops they've become.  And they are the ones that would eventually pave the way for some more restrictive form of government within the US should we get far enough down this rabbit hole.   I'd put those a lot closer to the evil category than any politician that's coming to mind right now.

    Politicians are looking for 2 things.  Money and power.  They are going to say things to make and keep both, even if they have no intention of acting on what they are saying.  Most of them put country over party these days, and I find that sickening, but I don't think it rises to the level of evil.  At least not yet.

  10. It’s weird, it’s like when airplanes got invented and therefore the word airpllane has to get created, and some people are like, wtf is the new made up word, I’m not going to use it. 

    Also, one does not have to use pronouns to talk about people if one doesn’t choose to do so. 

    This whole thread is dumb. 

  11. 2 hours ago, Chrispy said:

    They created these words and I find them silly, but that’s beside the point 

    But “they” created all the words in all the languages going back to when we started having a launguage. Some of those words are weird or silly, like awkward or moist, but “they” created all of them. 

  12. 35 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    It’s a law, not a company guideline. I’m trying to follow you my man, but good lord. 

    I was responding to the point that companies don’t compel speech. With the exception of my last post I’ve been talking about that specifically since you kept saying it doesn’t happen. 

    I don’t like laws that restrict speech. I have a problem with laws that restrict speech. I don’t have a problem with companies that do the same. You seemed to have a problem with both. I was addressing one of those problems. 

  13. 38 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    His nonuse of these made up pronouns is considered hate speech to many under the new law, which they have made a criminal offense. It’s terribly written law that is extremely vague. 

    Every word is made up. You need to quit saying that like it’s a bad thing. What you mean is “this new word I don’t like.”

  14. I have been trying to figure out how to tell this story without too much detail, but I once quit a job over this very thing. My company ran at least one  sweatshop in China. I’d been told we didn’t do that. Our company acted as if we didn’t do that and marketed as if we didn’t do that. I had business that took me to China where I saw the sweatshop first hand. I had said we had no sweatshops before seeing we had at least one sweatshop. I refused to continue to say that after I returned to the states. My employer gave me an ultimatum to continue our public story about no sweatshops or they would fire me, so I quit. 

    I am being compelled to silence on several topics today by my current employer, but I’m ok with those rules so I’m not leaving.   

    Anyone compelled to speech or silence by their employer has the option to quit if they don’t want to follow those rules. 

  15. 1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

    Where is speech compelled? 

    It’s compelled in many ways. And it’s ok. You can always quit if you are asked to say something you don’t want to say. Same as this guy in Canada. If he doesn’t like it he can find another employer. 

    But this is a silly hill to die on. Saying “I’m happy to call you what you want to be called unless I’m compelled to do so” is like saying. “I’m happy to say the sky is blue unless the government tells me I must say it’s blue when it’s blue”. It’s still fucking blue, so call it what it is, and ignore the god damned government. 

  16. I don’t need to know what some guy on npr said to know what the constitution itself says. It is perfectly clear for anyone who wants to read it. 

    But with the inaction of Congress, at least they are all admitting to us now that not a single one of them cares to follow their oath of office, because none of them are defending the Constitution. 

  17. 3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    Again it was over a year ago when I heard the interview but the gist was “emoluments” is an arcane concept (think of a foreign monarch giving Washington a chest full of jewels rather than agreeing to buy all the yields from his farms at market price) and overly broad to be enforceable, which is why there is now a stricter anti-kickback law on the books

    And our Constitution is filled with arcane concepts. The ones we didn’t like we amended out. Can you point me to the amendment that says this new law which excludes the president takes precedence over what’s already stated in plain language in the Constitution itself?

×
×
  • Create New...