Jump to content

TurkeyChew

Full Members
  • Posts

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TurkeyChew

  1. I think the distinction is that, a party evolving and morphing to what it's constituents want (polling) is the job, versus a single politician changing to remain in power or to get elected for the sake of being elected. A single politician (he used Beto as an example) who will change stances and oscillate based upon polling is someone without integrity/honesty/steadfast belief. That person is an opportunistic politician versus the political body which is being a good steward of constituency. In the individual case if you say and get elected because you believe A but the tide turns and now B is in fashion, by changing to B just to remain elected means you are a power-hungry politician and not a true representative. The individual who believes B should then be elected. Did I get that right?
  2. The reality is the Austinites who in theory see a practical and pragmatic way to help people get their fix in a safer way (because they know they will get the fix no matter what) are also the same people who who will melt down when this is implemented by a Greg Casar-like pol and all the druggies are walking around the city like walking dead and openly using and being an eyesore and bringing their dark demons from the hidden corners of society into the light. Homeless people camping out front shoulda told ya.
  3. Ignoring crackpipe-gate for a second and getting back to this; how does the math not work exactly? And do you have access to more data than I do to make determinations?
  4. I've never said otherwise, wildcat. Maybe it's because all the left/dems on this site in 2022 are former R's and moderates, or maybe because we've run off the most honest and true-blue lefties (@bad_teammate) but I still do find it strange on surly that we don't have any of this honesty when it comes to censoriousness:
  5. I've long stated that lightning fast connectivity and technology is the rope we are (have begun?) to hang ourselves with.
  6. Oh geez, I just saw it was the biggest attention horse wannabe celebrity/twitter CEO Dan Price. Of course it's disingenuous.
  7. Why are we assuming they are correlated? Profit went up 31%. Could it be because YoY people were not going out for coffee as much during an epidemic? Could it also be true that prices went up (and were passed along to the customer) due to supply and raw goods pricing going up (e.g. almond milk, milk, coffee beans, etc.)? Couldn't it be the case that the raising of the prices were a 1:1 to the raising of the cost of raw materials, and unrelated to the profit number? Also, could a 39% raise also be in comparison to past pay during an epidemic where raises/wage growth was delayed, in a true-up? Could the raise be in response to it being an extreme buyers market in the labor market and as a retention method? Seems like the answer is E) Not enough information to answer the question, but of course you have people on twitter ad libbing together some percentages and a big company name and trying to make a "big bad company" narrative out of it.
  8. This is interesting if for not other reason than introducing the term which I've been looking for that fills the void and quiets those who want to be pedantic (censoriousness):
  9. Historically I think the genesis of it was meant to describe a situation where someone got the negative spotlight put on them and their entire digital life was combed through in order to find things (e.g. go dig up tweets from when a current older celebrity was a non-celebrity teenager, etc.) to create a mass hysteria and situation where their current situation was negatively impacted (e.g. the celebrity is fired from their job due to pressure of the negative backlash). I think "cancel" in "cancel culture" has morphed come full circle to what you are saying Pato where it's just a part of the play, as it's always been. This I think brings up a tangential issue of how words and language evolve and morph as society/culture changes in parallel.
  10. "The terms ‘silencing’ and ‘canceling’ are false equivalencies that distract from the situation. Spotify can’t silence or cancel a podcaster whose audience would likely grow if it went back to being available on all other podcasting platforms. (Especially since Rogan has since been offered a matching deal from Rumble, which wants to distribute all of his content without censorship)."
  11. It seems that the most people (at least those watching) are enjoying the big air scenery which was part of a steel mill:
  12. Yes the IOC leak was a big eye-opener for a lot of people, but still, nobody wants the Olympics anymore whether the IOC is corrupt or not. It's a fool's errand:
  13. "...on Friday, you had a Uyghur athlete lighting the flame at Opening Ceremonies. To have a Uyghur athlete lighting the flame, and showing that she’s happy and her family is proud — that’s trying to send a message"
  14. What is interesting is not that the ratings suck in America because we hate China (host) and Russia (banned but yet again competing as ROC), but that the IOC is coming around realizing they are boned. They essentially awarded the 2032 Olympics to avoid the embarrassment of having nobody bid for it.
  15. Just read in the Observer that the city has voted to shut down sex oriented businesses (notably strip clubs) right at 2am. Seems like there was a bit of pushback and protest, but ultimately a unanimous decision to tamp down on crime. There was a report and data-driven analysis referenced that DPD provided about crime statistics and how this would cut down on crime. I'm not saying I don't believe it because I actually do, but I'd like to read that.
  16. Do you have cops set up a block away to pull people over from these sites like they do at bars after 2am? Seems like a problem.
  17. Serious question: why do people think making comically outlandish and absurd analogies to make a point on a topic or position that is far from unanimous and in fact hotly contested and sometimes evenly split, a good rhetorical device? That's like me saying "Look, you think that the water that everyone is drinking is poison and causing morgellons to crawl out of your skin, so stop drinking it, but because not everyone is suffering from a psychiatric condition we can drink the water and enjoy it on occasion."
  18. "Consumer prices are projected to have jumped 0.5% from the previous month and 7.3% over the past year—which would be the biggest increase since 1982." Let's see though, because analysts did think the job reports would be bad and it was surprisingly good.
  19. Why do you think that? Because you disagree with my last post or what?
  20. Donkey Cigars = Monkey Cigarette = Turkey Chew I would argue against the term sock in this case as I am same person and making zero attempts to obfuscate. In fact I expect this to be the last iteration as the neg rep harassment from a cabal of two or three people has been outlawed and the offenders warned.
  21. I "walked out" buying a luxury car, gently used, one year old low miles, etc. They could not only not care, but we get half a block away and my wife is laying in on me that if someone else buys it I'm in the dog house. So I turn around and walk back in tail between leg "uh, I changed my mind, let's do it".
  22. We've gone around and around, circularly, on this before. I'll remind you: just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it is correct. So yes, if you think that this thing being disseminated broadly is poisonous, then stop ingesting it. Because as of now, it has not been proven to be poisonous and in fact a contingent of people the same size that shares your opinion (or possibly larger) of people think it's not poisonous.
  23. Seeing your interpretation and perspective, if I were you psychiatrist I would prescribe for you that you probably should stop listening to JRE since it's very vexing for you. (This is not medical advice).
×
×
  • Create New...