Jump to content

Serak The Preparer

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Serak The Preparer

  1. First, as @Viper states, these are allegations, not proof. But the allegation is that the ads were not on the tv channel Cartoon Network, but on the website. There may be more "adult" sections on that site, I haven't spent any time there, but I imagine the website attracts a younger audience (for streaming shows, playing games, etc.).

  2. Not epidemic related, but given that general vaping discussion was occurring in this thread, Juul may be properly fucked.

     

    From Ars Technica: "Juul bought ads on CartoonNetwork.com, NickJr.com, other kid sites, suit says".

     

    Specifically, the Massachusetts Attorney General alleges that Juul rejected advertising agency suggestions to focus on older models in favor of cool, young models. Even more damning are allegations that Juul bought adds on sites like Cartoon Network, Nick Jr., etc.

  3. 10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Oh fuck off.  Once again, you miss the entire point.  Bernie Bros are a detriment to our country's future, full stop.  

    I'll vote for Bernie.  Most Bernie Bros won't vote for a Democrat.  See the problem here?  Of course you don't.  You don't see it as a problem at all.

    How do you define Bernie Bro? Is that all Bernie supporters? Either way, how the hell do you figure that "most won't vote for a Democrat"? I would imagine certainly there are some who wouldn't, just as I imagine there are supporters of other candidates who also wouldn't vote for a Democrat, but I keep reading this without understanding the basis for the specific claim about Bernie supporters.

     

    Disclaimer: While Bernie is not my first choice candidate, he is my second. My first is Warren, but either way I'm going to vote for the Dem candidate.

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    ...it's nelly bar the door.

    ...

    Where the hell did that come from? I have never heard that (in place of Katy bar the door) before, and only Google hit I find is from Michigan law blog. Is this some weird regional colloquialism?

  5. 19 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    I don’t make assumptions and criticize people and shut down the conversation by throwing insults or assuming the worst about another poster.

    ...

    I have a visceral hatred for hijab because the Islamic bastards in Iran force it on women. The truth about Ilhan Omar and the Somali community she comes from is that their community has not integrated and assimilated into the broader community in Minnesota. They are an isolated, closed community that has a much higher rate of criminal activity with a percentage of radical Muslims that joined ISIS. They also practice female genital mutilation. Put it to a vote of citizens on whether they’d want people like that to immigrate to our country. The answer would be a resounding no. The cabal and liberals refuse to even discuss these issues and are quick to label those of us who care as racists. 

    You may not make assumptions and criticize individual posters but you sure as hell do these things to broad groups of people. For example, what is the "much higher rate of criminal activity"? Higher than what? What is the socioeconomic status of this community? What is the degree of assimilation? How does this compare to immigrants from Vietnam, Guatemala, etc? What is the "percentage of radical Muslims that joined ISIS"? I am aware of the doctor that was practicing or abetting FGM, which is absolutely reprehensible, but I am not aware that "they" practice it. What does this mean, how common is it?

    So much of what you say is in such broad and negative generalities that it makes it even more difficult to take you seriously than when you talk about shooting immigrants.

  6. 9 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

    Lol.  Glad you know me.  But...Who the fuck are you? 

    Wait. Are you saying it is surprising that someone would know you are a sooner fan? And that perhaps Oklahoma (as an educational institution and a state) appears to give not much of a shit about violence towards women?

    Shit, I hope nobody on here suspects you are well off!

  7. 4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    My wife taught elementary school for a long time, and is still in education.  The amount of parents who willingly send their sick kids to school is staggering.  "Oh, it's just an allergy."  "Oh, it's not much of a fever, he's fine."   etc. etc.

    A lot of fucking assholes who don't care if other people's kids get sick.

    Also a lot of parents who can't take time off work to deal with sick child. Doesn't make it right, still a shitty situation.

    • Like 2
  8. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    In case you haven't noticed, Cali has this regulation, known as Prop 65, that requires companies selling products containing ingredients linked in any way to cancer to label them with a warning.

    The state maintains a list of things that require the warning.  

    This would put acetaminophen on the list.

    The regulation is dumb, and this is probably dumber still.  But it's all a confederacy of dunces.

    It wouldn't give rise to lawsuits.

    100% agree that Prop 65 is dumb. By treating things as binary in terms of risk, it leads to silly things like labeling of coffee shops as hot-spots of carcinogens. The scare mongering of "CA strongly considering declaring XXX a carcinogen" is almost (but not quite) as dumb. Much dumber was the implication that labeling the glyosophates within Roundup as carcinogen resulted in the lawsuits awarded. 

  9. 14 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

    good grief.

    I cant wait for all the scumbag ambulance chasing lawyer adds on TV telling all the easily swayed stay at home people that they can join a class action lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol, Excedrin, Tusin and Sudafed

    of course, the FDA has explicitly warned states to not include acetaminophen as being a carcinogen because the study correlations are very weak and could be impacted by many other factors.

     

     

    "Strongly considering"? What does that mean? Given that this was not included within the title of the link you included, you added this for emphasis. What makes you think this is being strongly considered?

  10. 1 hour ago, Brew said:

    If the report came out and the Nationals had been implicated, the Astros fans would be up in arms. Fans (DD) are generally idiots who look the other way if their team/player is implicated in anything while other teams fans (Helo) are the first in glass houses to throw stones.

    It’s a bad deal and it went way too far. As a baseball fan, it’s a bigger issue to me than steroids and I think I would feel that way if my team was in the middle of it. It’s past the point of simple sign stealing. If other teams were doing it then they should get hammered as well.

    Astros fan here, so take with a grain of salt, but why is this a bigger deal than steroids? I think it's shitty, and I'm not thrilled. But how is this worse than steroids? If anythigng, I think it's more on par with corked bats, foreign substance on ball, etc.

  11. 53 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

     

    Unfortunately, we see this far too often in sports and life.  Recently in places like Baylor and Penn State and now Houston.

     

    This part is bad and you should feel bad. Baylor and Penn State are on a very separate level of awfulness. This is way closer to Auburn and Cam Newton. Still shitty but not raping women and children shitty.

    • Like 1
  12. 22 hours ago, PW119 said:


    No offense. But you’re fucking nuts if you think I can prevent him from finding this shit in seconds.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    First, I have two young boys myself. They are both under 10, so I am not super worried yet, but this is certainly on my ind. I understand this concern.

     

    That being said, what is your solution? Exactly what online content would you like blocked? I'll even grant you magical legislative powers to enact whatever you want for this thought exercise. What is the filter that can block whatever it is that you find objectionable without blocking a) international content and b) content that adults want to find for (and produced by) other consenting adults?

  13.  

    2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

    Whoosh.

     

    2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

    Whoosh x2.

     

    Unless your entire persona is a giant Scorpio / Futureman schtick then your "wooshing" is an indictment of yourself rather than others. You have a history of posting no content, just conservative tweets. It certainly seems as if you support these views as there is no analysis whatsoever, just presentation. Maybe these are meant to be critical (or maybe, as you indicate, just this one) but at least Scorpio (and to a much much much lesser extent Futureman) are funny.

    • Like 3
  14. 58 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

    This is the left wing war on Christmas thread. 

    Yes, you are completely correct.

     

    "On Friday, four Republican members of Congress — Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Banks, Vicky Hartzler, and Brian Babin — penned a letter to Attorney General William Barr over their “concern for the rule of law as well as the welfare of our people.” The representatives asked Barr to “declare the prosecution of obscene pornography a criminal justice priority” worthy of the full power of the federal government."

    is absolutely the same as getting upset because someone said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas!".

    • Like 1
  15. 2 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

     

    spacer.png

    Neg rep for all 4-circle "Venn Diagrams" that aren't really Venn Diagrams. In above image, for example, there is no universe with intersection of Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World that also excludes both A Handmaid's Tale and Nineteen Eighty-Four. A true 4-dimension Venn Diagram cannot be constructed with circles. <end nerd math rant>

    • Like 1
  16. On 11/24/2019 at 11:43 AM, Johnny Sack said:

    So your big example is Jeffress giving a comment to Fox News?

    That isn’t a pulpit and thus isn’t illegal.  

    Black churches are, by far, the most political of churches.  Because 95 percent of their members all vote the same.  And the other 5 percent wouldn’t admit to the way they vote.   You simply don’t see that any other churches anywhere.  

     

    1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Neither of those churches have 99% of the people all voting the same way.  So they are naturally constrained by church members and their contributions by staying quiet about politics while up on the pulpit.  Even the Baptist church in the reddest county in America is going to have 20-25% percent of its contributions from democrats (think the local attorneys and such)  Black churches do not have that constraint at all.  No group votes in lock step like black Americans do.  Just the way it is.  They can do Souls to the Polls and no one bats an eye. 

    Church leaders of any faith can politic when they are not in the pulpit.  They are citizens just like any other citizen.  What they cannot do is preach politics from the pulpit.  I have been attending a Southern Baptist church for a long time.  Serve as a deacon.  You just don't hear politics from the pulpit.  Ever.  I have been in churches in Houston, Dallas, East Texas, South Texas, etc.  Not once.

    If you have attended a church and heard political lobbying from the pulpit, please advise where it was.  The IRS won't go after black churches.  It's a sacred cow.

    Again, any statistical evidence to back this up? Is 99.99% next? One poor lonely black person in a black church who doesn't vote Democrat? And even if this were completely true and not pulled out of your ass, what does this "Political Engagement" mean? The church I go to is a sanctuary church, takes part in social justice, works with local immigrants, etc. We have even <gasp> offered transportation assistance to homeless, infirm, elderly, etc. for voting (among other needs). There may be a few Republicans in church, but not many (and no, I am not Surly black mafia). Was this political engagement?

    So, please, tell us how black churches are the most political, how you determined this, and how you define that (other than by being black).

×
×
  • Create New...