Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Gaoics79

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11
51
General Comments / Re: Uber self-driving car hits and kills pedestrian
« on: March 19, 2018, 06:05:20 PM »
There is simply not enough information yet to make a judgment. However, without a hint of hyperbole, (and a large amount of experience in this area) I would suggest that if this technology turns out to replicate human levels of reliability and safety, it would best to write off the whole enterprise, as the legal liability would be astronomical and unsustainable for the manufacturers :)

52
General Comments / Re: The new Cold War
« on: March 18, 2018, 07:37:28 AM »
Yes, Putin wants to let his former spies (and current spies who might one day want to become former spies) know that one day, they will die a horrible death at the hands of their former country.  And he doesn't want there to be any ambiguity that it was Russia pulling the trigger.

Yes, he wants to call the west's bluff; he wants to show that the west is weak, ineffectual, indecisive.  And until the west grows a couple, he will keep pushing that envelope as far as he can.

And yes, there is a Russian "election" this week.  Although the outcome is a foregone conclusion, he is fighting a growing wave of domestic antipathy.  This is partly Putin riding a horse, bare chested, while snorkelling and finding buried treasure.

So the prevailing wisdom is that Putin wanted to be "caught"?

53
General Comments / Re: The new Cold War
« on: March 17, 2018, 05:10:44 PM »
Can someone explain something to me? Why would Russia use this exotic nerve agent to conduct a simple assassination? Why not just shoot the victim with a gun? Or employ any number of other means presumably available to murder people that can't be traced unequivocally (and obviously!) back to Russia?

I'm not being rhetorical; what possible reason does Russia have to kill in this way? Does Russia want to be caught?

That latter point isn't me being rhetorical either. Maybe Putin wants the west to look weak and his enemies to be terrified? Is this attack some kind of message?

Until someone can answer these questions in a convincing way, I have to be with Fenring on this one - it just doesn't seem right. It smells wrong.

54
General Comments / Re: Possibility of peace with NK
« on: March 14, 2018, 04:55:35 PM »
For what it's worth, it's been my observation that "crazy" people frequently secure the best deals in a negotiation compared with rational ones.

I truly hope that some kind of deal can be reached. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that any deal with lead to NK abandoning its nukes. The US is just going to have to live with that reality. They can live with it with a peace treaty or without one - and I'll concede I have no earthly clue which is the better option.

55
General Comments / Re: Tariffs are a problem?
« on: March 09, 2018, 07:28:53 PM »
I saw on the news yesterday that Trump might be willing to forget the tariff for Canada if the NAFTA negotiations go the way he wants.

Since his authority to impose this tariff requires it to be an issue of national security, doesn't this admission undermine Trump's ability to do this without Congress? If it's a matter of getting leverage in negotiations then how can it be an issue of national security? Unless Trump is willing to trade national security for a new market for dairy farmers?

China would be the national security problem, not Canada. They control what? Half the world's steel manufacturing? Without steel no military.

56
General Comments / Re: Trump just won the 2020 election
« on: March 06, 2018, 05:31:47 PM »
Wayward I am not really disputing what you said although I am not qualified to comment intelligently.

I am certainly not one of the people who this policy would be calculated to appeal to anyway.

But imagining myself as one of this group I think I'd feel that the status quo has *censored*ed me. That isn't rhetoric or speculation or "fake news" - just cold hard fact. Thus "Economics 101" has not made my situation better but measurably worse. And to the extent that this policy has made anyone richer, it has only made others richer, co-incidentally those exact people who advocate for it.

Do I know if the sleazy orange liar can really make my situation better? No, but I do know that the same smug *censored* who got rich sending my job overseas and putting me in the unemployment line sure are squirming.

Are you familiar with psychological studies that posit that people are often willing to sacrifice their own well being to curtail a perceived unfair benefit to someone else?

Don't underestimate the power of spite.

57
So let me get this straight: I buy a gun. Then I sell it to you. Then you sell it 10 years later to your uncle, who gets burglarized and has it stolen. Then the burglar shoots someone. And I am fined $1,000,000?

I would not agree with this approach because it's *censored*ing stupid.


58
General Comments / Re: Trump just won the 2020 election
« on: March 03, 2018, 04:19:56 PM »
Slipstick agreed that 2020 is totally unpredictable. But I just feel this steel tariff thing is one of the rare things in politics that will stick in peoples' minds. And in the words of Michael Moore, this is music to the ears of a big chunk of the Democratic base.

The DNC has its work cut for it. They had better have learned the right lessons from 2016.

59
General Comments / Trump just won the 2020 election
« on: March 02, 2018, 06:18:51 PM »
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/trumps-steel-tariff-draws-global-backlash-just-st

I think the people who got Trump into power just had a collective orgasm with this news. Even if it never brings a single job back to the USA the symbolism of picking steel is brilliant. And the more the globalist technocrats bash this, the more Trump will win in the next go around.

Be afraid.

60
General Comments / Re: The right to bear arms
« on: February 28, 2018, 08:33:07 PM »
Quote
The problem is, how do we stop--or, more practically, make more difficult--mass murderers getting firearms?

No I don't think this is really the question.

Firearms have been reasonably accessible to everyone, including would-be mass murderers, for far longer than there have been school shootings of this type, yet school shootings essentially didn't exist and came out of nowhere in the past 20 years, starting with Columbine. This isn't a problem you can fix by rejigging some regulations.

I'm not saying gun control couldn't mitigate this social contagion by limiting the carnage in specific instances, in the same way that a mass circumcision campaign might mitigate the spread of HIV or wearing a seatbelt might mitigate getting hit by a transport truck - but to focus on the guns as the cause of the problem strikes me as being myopic to say the least.

I'd like to know what it is in American society that's fueling this.

61
General Comments / Re: The right to bear arms
« on: February 24, 2018, 10:24:08 AM »
The right to bear arms is a fiction agreed to between those who govern and those governed.

I don't disagree in some sense - any "right" can be extinguished through force, right up to and including the right to be alive. I'm curious, what rights in your mind are not "fictional"? It seems what you're implying is that all rights are illusory or subject to the whim of those in power, which is six of one, half dozen of the other.

62
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 19, 2018, 07:43:32 PM »
Quote
I've just realized that Fenring probably hasn't read the text of the actual indictments...http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

Uhh huh. Let's see some convictions and then we can talk about how "deterred" the Russians are.

63
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 19, 2018, 07:35:10 PM »
Quote
You're right.  I can't STOP this from happening again.  It's impossible.

Neither can I STOP all murder from happening again.  Therefore, we should close all prisons, shouldn't we?  Because we don't have any effective way of preventing murders and crime, we should just give up and accept it, shouldn't we?  Because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate...  ::)

Assuming, for argument's sake, you believe that trolling Facebook and posting fake articles is some awesome propaganda - the propagandist's equivalent to *murder* in its effectiveness, what pray tell do you propose to do to deter such an act? What punishment or sanction do you think can be imposed on Russians that would deter them from employing a form of propaganda so mighty that it can sway elections to the candidate of their choice?

Again, please be specific.

Quote
But we can make it harder and costlier. 

Yes because apparently they can mess with our democratic elections, even sway entire nations to their will, but I'm sure if you freeze some bank accounts or wag your finger at them they'll just give up all that power. Sure.

Quote
It is this deceit, specifically aimed at destroying our democracy, that we must fight against.  Making us think we are more against each other than we are.  Spreading lies and making us blame ourselves.  In other words, the dirty tricks.

But don't lie down and take it because you think it might be abused in the future.  That's a coward's way.  Figure out how we can reduce these cold war attacks, and make sure it isn't abused in the future.  That's what an American would do!

Funny you mentioned the cold war. Joe McCarthy was very much concerned about the very thing you seem to have gone hysterical over. The difference is, he was probably concerned about actual spies and saboteurs, whereas you seem mostly concerned about some stupid Facebook ads and internet trolls. He was fighting the influence of the actual evil empire.

Sorry, I just think it's kind of funny and ironic that red peril is back in vogue, and that left-wing liberals are leading the charge.
 

64
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 19, 2018, 02:25:13 PM »
Quote
And seriously, jasonr, are you saying we can do nothing about foreign governments influencing our elections, and we should just give up?  Let anyone sow discord and disinformation from fraudulent accounts without restraint or resistance?  Just pretend it really doesn't matter, even though Russia is paying premium salaries to these guys to influence our elections?  Rely on the belief that Russian intelligence is silly and ineffective?

Or have Republicans simply ceded the responsibility of protecting our national institutions to the Democrats? :P

Let's break this down:

Quote
are you saying we can do nothing about foreign governments influencing our elections

I am saying that thus far, you have proposed nothing as far as actually preventing this sort of thing happening in the future. Others have suggested that the "cure" in this case would be vastly worse than the disease, which I agree with. But if that's wrong, then put up or shut up - what kind of "sanctions" do you actually propose that would effectively prevent this behaviour in the future? No more vagueries about investigations and sanctions. How do you actually STOP this from happening again? Please be specific.

Quote
and we should just give up?

If nothing effective can be done without going down the China path (and even that strikes me as being unlikely to significantly alter the situation - any real digital solution would require North Korea level intervention) then yes, we should "give up" trying to stop what cannot be stopped.

Quote
Let anyone sow discord and disinformation from fraudulent accounts without restraint or resistance?

Acknowledge the fact that foreigners, both state and non state actors, can and will seek to influence things to their benefit and that you cannot prevent this from happening. Maybe Facebook can crack down on fake news, or colluding politicians can be prosecuted, but actually stop this? Again, through what means? If someone wants to troll Facebook and newspaper forums with pro Kremlin propaganda, you're going to do what, execute them for treason? Good luck with that bucko.

Quote
Just pretend it really doesn't matter, even though Russia is paying premium salaries to these guys to influence our elections?  Rely on the belief that Russian intelligence is silly and ineffective?

I don't really know how to respond to this, because as of right now, there isn't even any evidence that this "attack" actually changed the outcome of the election. Nor is it evident to me that such manipulation will ever significantly move the needle. I know the DNC is desperate to believe that it did, for reasons that should be obvious - it makes them look so much less incompetent to believe that dastardly Russian propagandists sabotaged Clinton's campaign than to believe that she just suck as a candidate and ran a *censored* campaign.

You seem to be of the view that the fact of them spending the money is proof a priori that such propaganda "works", that the mere fact of diverting resources to something is proof that this something is powerful and effective. One thing is certain, I don't for a second believe that the Russians expected Donald Trump to win, unless they were smarter than every pollster in America. I think they were just as shocked at the outcome as the rest of the world.

If Russia's plan all along was to hand the white house to Donald Trump, they are either geniuses or they were very lucky idiots.

Personally, I don't for a second believe that this was their plan. I think their plan was to undermine Clinton, who they assumed was going to win, and to undermine the integrity and the public's faith in the electoral system - which you and and the DNC have been happily helping them accomplish since the day after the election.

Actually, this has to be the ultimate home run scenario for Russia. Not only did Clinton miraculously lose (mostly due to her own incompetence I'll add) but now the DNC is helping subvert the electoral process just like they hoped to do. Why pay Facebook trolls to do it when the DNC is willing to do it for free?

65
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 19, 2018, 07:57:27 AM »
Quote
Well, jasonr, how about at the very least doing what Congress and the President have already signed into law?  Sanctioning certain Russians for this attack on our democracy?

You mean economic sanctions? Political sanctions?

What are you talking about, specifically?

What do you want to *do* other than talk about the attack? Be specific please.

66
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 18, 2018, 06:13:33 PM »
Quote
I see a lot of hand waving what-aboutism recently - "oooh, our government does it too" but generally, there is little equivalence when you dig down onto the details.

Since you propose nothing concrete, have 0 idea how to prevent it in the future and 0 indication of what you want to do about the "attack", yeah, it's easy to hand-wave it away. The Russians lately called it "blabber" - that's as good a description as any.

67
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 18, 2018, 06:08:27 PM »
So bottom line Donald, if you (and others) are convinced purchasing fake Facebook ads is some unprecedented "attack" by Russia, what exactly are you proposing as the solution? Should there be a military response? Should the US go full on PRC and build a massive firewall to block foreign content (assuming such is technically feasible)?

I mean practically speaking, I see nobody on your side proposing anything as a solution to this problem. You say that there should be an investigation - to what end? You say you're not hoping to overturn the results of the election - but in a way that makes it worse. Not only do you have 0 practical solutions to this "attack", but you don't even demand action against it, other than just somehow acknowledging it with no practical outcome. So it sounds like your solution is just to cast a vague shadow of doubt and division over the result of the 2016 election.

In effect, your position amounts to doing to Trump what Russia (apparently) hoped to do to Clinton, which was undermine her presidency and likely the institution of the presidency.

When Trump declared that the election was "rigged" shortly before the election (apparently assuming he was going to lose, as virtually everyone did at that time), the whole political establishment was aghast at this undermining of the democratic process. What happened? Why are you so eager to accomplish Putin's work for him?

68
General Comments / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
« on: December 17, 2017, 07:13:29 AM »
Sorry, spoiler in my comment above.

69
General Comments / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
« on: December 17, 2017, 06:53:05 AM »
I have zero intention of seeing this movie. I'm done with Star Wars. I am gratified though to hear that Rey is a nobody. To all the people who poo pooed my criticism of TFA and told me that Abrams and his crack writers were hatching some ingenius explanation for what Rey can do in TFA - HA! Serves you right.

I just don't care. Wow, I don't care about Star Wars. I feel like I just renounced a religion or something. But no worries to Disney - I am sure this will make a stupendous amount of money.

70
Quote
Totally ignoring Reagan's attempt to kill Gaddafi - not an equivalent but the same freaking guy. Seems if you're going to condemn Clinton here, you'd pretty much have to condemn Reagan with the same stone.

Except Reagan didn't succeed and Libya didn't burn on his watch. What more is there to say? If my Aunt had an Adam''s Apple she would be my Uncle.

This kind of argument pisses me off, because you seem to think that proving some conservative icon from 30 years ago is equally bad somehow wins the argument. This is Trumpian reasoning if I ever saw it. The topic was Clinton not Reagan.

Quote
So I guess we could add Hillary "going along" (at least publicly) with Obama's efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood "into the fold" by pretty much letting them dictate much of US Middle-Eastern Policy for awhile is pretty high on the list of reasons she was unfit for the job of PotUS.

She did more than "go along" with Obama's policy.

The Caesar quote is quite explicit. The strong implication is that she was instrumental in his death, and she bragged about it. Given her position as Secretary of State at the Time, I would speculate that she was in a position to be more than just a cheerleader for Obama's policy.

Now given Clinton's propensity for exaggeration, one could be charitably inclined to view the comment as just that. But even then, the bragging tells us something key about her, namely that she utterly failed to learn the lesson of Iraq 2.0, despite claiming otherwise profusely during the 2008 primary campaign.  She must really have thought that Ghadaffi's death was a win for her. She wanted to be associated with it . She wanted to be credited, personally. That tells you it was not cynicism, but incompetence on her part. She stepped right into the same trap she claimed she never would again.

71
To me the murdering of Gaddafi is a uniquely black mark on her CV. I mean that has to be the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. I don't see how that gets mentioned in the same list as, say, lying about getting shot at. Let's be honest, lies like that Trump pulls off weekly.

But Trump never murdered a foreign head of state and then took credit for it. Trump never helped destroy a country. Where are all the people who wanted Bush and Cheney brought up for war crimes because of Iraq? Suddenly not so down on regime change, are we? Oh wait, I know this script: but but he was a baaad man. And it all turned out well in the end? I mean Libya is doing okay now, right?

72
Quote
We came, we saw, he died

Bragging about supporting the murder of a foreign head of state. But but but - he was a baaad man.

Good thing Libya is so much better off now.

Wait a sec, did I see this story before? Does it sound familiar? Deja vu?

Quote
I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors.

73
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 25, 2017, 09:03:33 AM »
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...

74
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 23, 2017, 12:33:38 PM »
I don't think there is any evidence that he's a pedophile.

But regardless, it's naive to expect people to slit their own political throats in such a polarized environment. In the same situation, Democrat voters wouldn't be any different.

75
General Comments / Re: Gators!
« on: November 16, 2017, 05:38:07 PM »
I'm not talking about closed sidewalks - I'm talking about fully open ones that have construction going above with warning signs.

76
General Comments / Re: Gators!
« on: November 15, 2017, 07:09:19 PM »
Quote
I have to walk my position back a bit. I spent the past few days really paying attention to how many warning signs there are in my life. Right near my office is "do not drive on shoulder". It is regularly disobeyed and used as a right hand turning lane for a few hundred meters.

There's almost nobody, anywhere, in my experience, who does not break 1,001 little rules daily.

Context is everything, isn't it?

I had a case a while back where someone used a product and got badly burned by it. The only warning label on the product was "caution, avoid contact with skin and eyes" or something to that effect. Apparently, someone thought that was good enough for a product that can cause major burns to human skin. It's the same warning that I see on some kitchen spray cleaner I use to wipe up my counters. The same you see on any number of common household cleaners and products. Except those products don't burn a hole in you if you get them on your skin, lol. Sure, in a perfect world, everyone would take such warning literally and treat Lysol spray with the same care and caution as they treat sulphuric acid, so it wouldn't matter. But that's not the real world, is it? One might give you a rash, while the other might lead to your hand being amputated.

On a total tangent, anyone ever notice those "caution, men working above" signs you see on the street from time to time when they are doing construction?

I always have a bit of a laugh when I see a sign like that. What good is such as a sign? Other than simply not walking down that particular stretch (despite it being an open public sidewalk), what could one possibly do to mitigate such a hazard as men working 50 feet above your head? Use a steel umbrella? And if someone drops a brick on your head, does anyone seriously think that this "caution" sign is a defence for the company that put an innocent passerby in a coma? Just cracks me up.

77
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 07:02:30 PM »
Quote
Note they were not just saying that the allegations were false but that making those allegations hurt US democracy.
Making those false allegations does hurt US democracy. Making particular true claims would be painful, maybe, but would in the long term allow the country to address the identified issues...  in a perfect world, where partisanship hasn't caused the country to fall into insanity.

Yet the facts supporting these claims, true or not, were known prior to the election night, and no new evidence emerged that significantly changed the picture yet at no point did Brooks or any of the Democrats claim that if Clinton lost the election it would be because the process was rigged. Their rhetoric did a 180 degree turn immediately following Hillary's defeat.

The Brooks interview stood out in my mind because I specifically remember him being interviewed immediately before the election and making explicit claims that Trump's rhetoric was dangerous and irresponsible because it would undermine the electorate's faith in the process .

I nearly burst out laughing when I watched his interview immediately after the election and he was pretty well doing the very thing he accused Trump of doing.

It was like watching a baseball player who just got beat by a comeback grand slam in the bottom of the 9th inning, rage against a bad umpire call against his team back in the 4th inning, after claiming in the top of the 9th that the other team were a bunch of babies for making their own complaints about the umpiring. It was just so nakedly self-serving and disingenuous. It was rhetorical whiplash.

78
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 02:24:06 PM »
The hypocrisy comes from the fact that Brooks and others like him were lambasting Trump for undermining the integrity of the system by making unsubstantiated claims. Note they were not just saying that the allegations were false but that making those allegations hurt US democracy.

It was not about the content of the allegations and whether or not they were correct, but the impact of making those allegations on the integrity of the process. Trump's opponents, including Brooks, were essentially accusing Trump of scorched earth tactics designed to destroy the legitimacy of the next President, thereby undermining her ability to govern and perhaps even future Presidents. That is until the next President became Trump and not Clinton.

Brooks's discomfort, in my view, was not due to a fear that his allegations would literally be conflated with Trump's but rather that by using the same wording as Trump, it would be obvious that he was doing the very thing he and others had accused Trump of doing - poisoning the well for the next President and for future presidents. In this context the truth or falsehood of Brooks's allegations were utterly irrelevent.

The facts Brooks used to justify his claims, whether regarding Russian interference or voter suppression, were nothing new and were well understood prior to the election. It's not like Brooks had new evidence. The only thing that changed was who won the election - which is why the radical change in his rhetoric (literally overnight!) came across as so utterly disingenuous, partisan and hypocritical.

79
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 07:16:29 AM »
I know that's what you like to present, but your actual words and unintentional slips tend to disprove that.

Go back to the old forum search and enter keywords Bush and Fenring. You're barking up the wrong tree friend.

80
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 07:14:21 AM »
I've said this before but between Assange and American intelligence agencies I believe Assange and I don't believe them. They are proven liars. Being a proven liar has consequences to your credibility. Or when James Clapper perjured himself to Congress and got away with it with 0 repercussiom do I just believe him and those around him and take them at their word.

I suppose as Letterip suggests he could be mistaken or deluded. But either way I see the issue as far from settled.

Getting to the point, I'll tell you my most vivid memory on this issue: a post election interview of William Brooks of the NAACP by Wolf Blitzer. After going off on all the ways in which Trump stole the election Blitzer puts it to the man: so you're saying the election was rigged?

And you see the cogs turning in the man's head and the sound of the machinery screaching. And then the man evades and evades again - he won't answer the question. Why? Because he knows it's a trap - and a great one. Kudos to Blitzer for exposing the hypocrisy.

And by the way Donald by that time I had practically tuned Trump out - so no there is 0 chance that Trump convinced me with his shining rhetoric.

81
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 02:56:44 PM »
The point of the criticism against Trump was not merely that his claims were unsubstantiated but that it was irresponsible to make them because it undermined faith in the integrity of the system.

I also note that *immediately* after the election the narrative coming from the Clinton side did a 180 degree turn even though the only fact that had changed in the interim was that Trump won and Clinton lost.

Even if it is true that Russia "rigged" the election it is evident that no one cared until 5 minutes after Clinton lost the election.

So you can forgive some for wondering if the Russian story is less about the integrity of the election process and more about who won and who didn't.

82
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 02:01:45 PM »
In which case I would suggest you stop biting off your nose to spite your face.  Russia doesn't become less of a bad actor just because some US partisans want to take advantage of the domestic political opportunities.

Your position would have more credibility if the alarm bells rang before Trump was elected since the essential facts of these allegations were already known. Indeed I distinctly remember many in the Clinton camp expressing outrage and horror at Trump's imprudent claim that the election was "rigged" only to radically change tunes when Clinton lost.

Of course they didn't expect her to lose at that time so I imagine they didn't care.

The time to decry Russian interference was before the election night. It may not be purely motivated by anti Trump sentiment but there's more than a whiff of self serving hypocrisy.

83
General Comments / Re: Etiquette question?
« on: November 05, 2017, 08:41:55 AM »
Ugggh maybe we will just get another sweater.....

84
General Comments / Etiquette question?
« on: November 04, 2017, 03:36:33 PM »
Is it okay to give a single sports ticket as a gift? My wife's uncle has done us a fantastic favour looking after our cats and we want to give him a gift. We know he loves hockey, so we thought he'd enjoy a live game. But the tickets are ridiculously expensive. We could give him two mediocre tickets or one kick-ass ticket.

He's separated and tends to himself (he's a bit of a loner) but he does have three sons who love hockey.

We'd rather give the one great seat than the two mediocre ones.

Is it okay to give just one ticket in this circumstance?

Note: if we gave him the one great ticket, there is 0% chance that anyone could go with him because they wouldn't be able to sit with him, even if they had the money to pay for their own tickets. All games are resale only at this point. Unless you buy through Stubhub you aren't getting anything.

85
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 04, 2017, 03:07:02 PM »
Quote
That's one of the things that makes the Russian government interference more insidious. There's no mechanism to hold them accountable as a citizen of the US. The DNC/RNC have mechanisms by which they can be influenced by their membership.

Well getting back to my lawyer example, of course my lawyer is more accountable to me than your lawyer; I can fire him and get a new lawyer, whereas I can't fire your lawyer. Yet, the fact remains, my lawyer owes me a duty that yours doesn't. I take it as being far more of a problem when my own representative betrays me than some foreigner.

Yes, Putin doesn't answer to the US electorate and isn't accountable to them. That falls into the DUH category.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether your own representatives deceiving you is less big a deal than Putin deceiving you.

86
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 03, 2017, 05:53:37 PM »
Quote
But you have to remember, Sanders is not a Democrat.  He has never been a Democrat.  He was an Independent competing for the Democratic nomination.  He may have been a Democrat during the primaries, but he bolted the second they were over.

Yet people are outraged that the Democratic Party gave more support to the Democratic contender than to the outsider.  ???  Seriously, what did you expect??

This is the fallacy that I object to: the implication that the DNC is some kind of private club that ought to be able to just do whatever it wants, break its own rules, rig its own system. But I reject this characterizaton, just as I would with the RNC.

The DNC and RNC are an oligopoly that directly control the machinery of government. They are the government. They have this control at the suffrance of the electorate, which presumes it can choose a leader through a fair vote.


87
General Comments / Re: Gators!
« on: November 03, 2017, 04:04:13 PM »
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/03/disney-knew-its-park-was-full-of-alligators-it-caught-hundreds-before-a-boy-was-killed.html

There you have it. I do think the parents would have had a pretty good case given the facts.

Disney should be paying through the nose on this one.

88
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 03, 2017, 03:47:52 PM »
Quote
It's okay for our own government to manipulate and lie to us but if Russia does it then the sky is falling.

It's okay for our own government to gerrymander districts, but...
It's okay for our own government to buy campaign ads on TV, but...
It's okay for our own government to X, but...

Of course it is always a very different thing when a foreign government does something to us that ours does to us. As I've stated before, Republicans, Democrats, and Russians should all be reviled for their actions. Minimizing the important difference of Russians doing this is foolish.

Everyone is colluding with everyone. It's enough to make you want to join Antifa, at least they hate everyone equally.

If you don't want collusion, start voting Libertarian, Green, Socialist. Anything but the two majors. Stop donating to them. Stop going to their rallies. Stop buying their books.

TheDrake I'm not merely mentioning the DNC in this context as a deflection against Russian meddling allegations, as if the two things had nothing to do with one another.

The most serious allegation re Russian meddling was that it hacked DNC servers and leaked internal emails to the public.

Rather than outrage over the true things the emails revealed about how tge DNC conspired to rig the primary process for ine candidate, we're told the real problem is Russia because if our leaders lie to us well that's cool but God forbid a foreign nation expose their duplicity fir self serving reasons!

To use a legal analogy, it's the difference between YOUR lawyer lying to me and MY lawyer lying to me. Neither is great but I know which of the two is the real scandal.

89
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 03, 2017, 03:39:50 PM »
Quote
I think it's important to emphasize that the DNC is not just some private club or organization. It is part and parcel to the machinery of the Federal government in the two party system you have.  Its processes are the government's processes. It is defacto a branch of the Federal government and should be accountable in its processes to every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

That's a pretty cool principle you state there, jasonr.  I think it will be very useful in American politics in the future.

I, for one, have a strong opinion about how the Republicans count primary votes, which allowed a candidate with a tiny plurality to get the overwhelming number of delegates.  This allowed a small, fringe faction of the Republican party to basically take over the party, and ultimately lead to the candidate being elected President.

Now I never thought I would be able to change this counting system, since I don't belong to the Republican party.  But once this principle has been established, I can, being an American citizen, demand that the Republican reform their system, in order to prevent another Donald Trump from being elected.

Of course, I don't think any Republicans will agree with me right now, but perhaps this incident will help persuade them to open up their party to the will of people like me. ;) :D

Wayward it's depressing that you immediately presume I'm going to take the bait and defend the Republican party as some kind of RNC cheerleader.

I meant what I said: you as a citizen have every bit as much interest in how the Republican Party is run as anyone else. I am not talking about its policies or ideology, but in the integrity of its primary process, which is an integral mechanism of the Federal Government and iys executive branch.

The RNC runs the country in one form or another pretty much always - it is an arm of the Federal Government.

No idea if your complaint is valid mind you.

90
General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 03, 2017, 07:58:23 AM »
I think it's important to emphasize that the DNC is not just some private club or organization. It is part and parcel to the machinery of the Federal government in the two party system you have.  Its processes are the government's processes. It is defacto a branch of the Federal government and should be accountable in its processes to every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

So when there's duplicity or corruption or the case that someone has managed to buy or co-opt the DNC, that is indistinguishable from buying or co-opting a part of the Federal government.

This is one of the reasons why I saw the DNC scandal as so far reaching in its implications. Russia is a foreign power. Putin doesn't answer to the American people and isn't accountable to them. But somehow his duplicity is a bigger threat to American democracy than the corruption of the DNC, which represents a vital piece of the machinery of the Federal government?

As Fenring noted, it seems like people have lost the plot. It's okay for our own government to manipulate and lie to us but if Russia does it then the sky is falling.

91
I think you all need to reread the quote,

Quote
She said she overheard Lanza say that he "planned to kill his mother and children at Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut."

So no, not just his mom.

Reread the specific quote that I was replying to.

Quote
Oh well, nothing to be done. "Allahu Akbar" I guess is scarier than "I plan to kill my mom"

I took it to be making a general comment that the public irrationally fears terrorist type violence more than more common types - along the lines of why aren't we as concerned about gang violence as truck bombs or mass shootings despite a much larger body count. I disagreed with this point.

92
Quote
Oh well, nothing to be done. "Allahu Akbar" I guess is scarier than "I plan to kill my mom"

Well yes, by definition a threat to one specific person is scarier to the public than a threat against the public. Perfectly logical.

93
General Comments / Re: How to defend yourself against a pointed stick
« on: September 20, 2017, 07:20:31 PM »
Incidentally, I am reminded of the courageous streetcar driver who tried to talk Sammy Yatim down prior to his shooting by a cop (who has recently been convicted of attempted murder).

Watch the video:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/10/21/court-watches-surveillance-video-from-inside-streetcar-at-sammy-yatim-murder-trial.html

This streetcar driver, a civilian, stays on the car and tries to talk the knife wielding guy down, calmly standing there.  What a brave guy. Aren't the cops supposed to be brave? Aren't they supposed to be the heroes who take personal risk to protect the public, even a confused and mentally ill man? Or is that all cop drama myth, that cops are heroes? Unarmed unionized streetcar drivers, apparently, are the real baddasses. Go figure. Watch at the end how these heroes taser the guy's twitching body after riddling it with bullets. Because you never knows when the bullet riddled teenager is going spring back to life and stab everyone.

94
General Comments / Re: How to defend yourself against a pointed stick
« on: September 20, 2017, 07:14:01 PM »
Quote
Does that mean officers are supposed to simply wait and hope someone doesn't kill them?

Well to refine the question further, does the fact that a person with a knife does not instantly throw it to the ground and kiss the curb at police orders mean he's a target to be killed?

I mean there are lots of people who might not follow police orders immediately for a variety of reasons, from confusion to mental illness, to intoxication. That doesn't mean they're automatically out to kill the cops.

But okay, let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. You'll agree with me that a 14 year old boy with a knife is potentially lethal at close range, just as well as a 24 year old man. Heck, a 12 year old girl with a knife could also be deadly - it doesn't take massive strength to stab someone, and at close range, you don't need to be Usain Bolt to close the distance quickly.

You okay with the police gunning down a 14 year old girl that doesn't immediately obey orders to drop the weapon?

At what point do we say that the police have to shoulder some degree of personal risk rather than kill a civilian with uncertain intentions?

95
General Comments / Re: How to defend yourself against a pointed stick
« on: September 20, 2017, 05:59:25 PM »
Quote
Their job is not to withdraw. They can't just run away any time someone threatens them, that's ridiculous. If you expect the police to run away every time a suspect confronts them, then we might as well not have police. Reframing the situation as "holding a pipe within 20 feet of me" is not what happened and is a false framing. He was not simply "holding a pipe within 20 feet" of the officers. He was approaching them, refusing to stop.

Okay, but there is a middle ground between shooting someone in the chest and running away.

And yes, even as a layperson with no fire arms training I know that shooting to wound is fantasy, not reality. I would never suggest that police shoot to do anything but kill. Once you are shooting, we are passed the point of half-measures.

Yet, I also think that this idea that someone holding a stick (or a knife) at a certain distance should automatically result in a shooting is open to debate.

Yes, in theory, if a person with a weapon were to charge full throttle into an officer with intent to kill at that distance 28 Days Later zombie style with no regard for his own life, he'd probably succeed. Well okay - but does that mere risk mean that every officer should pre-emptively shoot and kill anyone with any weapon based on that theoretical danger?

That's what I'm talking about when I say the cops would rather see 1,000 civilians die than one of their own get injured. They adopt a mentality that the safety of the police trumps everything - better to err on the side of everyone but the police ending up dead than take the slightest risk of serious injury. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? I mean maybe I'm naive, but aren't the cops supposed to be the heroes, the ones who put their own safety on the line to serve and protect the public? Or are the public like wild animals to be put down the instant they pose a threat? Is this like when the SWAT team shoots a dog dead for no reason, on the theory that it might pose a potential threat?

96
General Comments / Re: How to defend yourself against a pointed stick
« on: September 20, 2017, 09:52:53 AM »
Well you know the cops live by the motto better 1,000 civilians die than one officer get a hangnail. Safety first.

97
General Comments / Re: Equifax
« on: September 16, 2017, 07:27:26 AM »
Yossarian normally I'd bristle at the implication that we can deign to "allow" a private company to exist or not exist based on its treatment of its customers. Yet, that is the problem: most never chose to be Equifax's "customers". Anyone with a credit card, a car loan, a mortgage, heck even a cell phone is forced to be a "customer" to one of these agencies, Equifax included. This type of situation is not unlike a BP oil spill where I'd welcome government coming in and putting a boot on the neck of private industry.

98
General Comments / Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
« on: September 01, 2017, 04:47:34 PM »
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

I know, and it's sad.  I don't agree with that reasoning.

But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.

I actually don't have a problem with taking down Confederate statues and agree with you they should be taken down - but not by mobs. I am worried that this sort of thing will be a flashhpoint for more violence. It mightf even be the shot in the arm the white supremacists need to revive their largely faded and marginalized movement. Start seeing videos of mobs of minorities tearing down statues of white people on the news and they might just get the "race war" they have been hankering for. Complete madness and totally predictable.

I agree that these statues should not be pulled down by mobs.  We have legal means to do so, with reviews and input from the community.  That is how it should be done, or not at all.

But it should be noted that the Confederate statue in Charlottesville was being taken down through the normal, legal means, with meeting and reviews and all the other niceties of our government system--precisely the way everyone wants it to be done.  But then a mob showed up, brandishing guns and shields and truncheons, trying to intimidate anyone who disagreed with them and decrying those they felt were less worthy than them.  One of them even decided to try to kill people over it, and succeeded. :(

Yes, a number of people have overreacted to them.  But remember that it is an overreaction.  The white nationalists have already threatened violence, and have killed far, far more people in the past couple of decades than any Anti-fas.  So while we should worry about violence from the mobs against these statues, they cannot be responsible for violence from the other side.  People are responsible for how they react.

Not that I would be shocked if KKK members used intimidation but in this instance I'm going to request specifics about the acts of intimidation leading up to the confrontation with Antifa. In what way did they intimidate or attack others prior to being attacked themselves? And speaking of guns - how many shootings were there in Charlottsville anyway?

You keep bringing up the car attack but I have seen no scintilla of evidence that ehite supremacists have EVER used cars as a method of terror, let alone that this one man premeditated an "attack". Rather all evidence thus far points to it as an escalation of violence Antifa started.

It's not like they didn't have Nazi marches 30 yrs ago or that those guys were pacifists or something. Yet I cannot recall white supremacists rioting in my lifetime. Funny that, it took a bunch of black clad masked vigilantes with clubs and batons to bring out the ugly violence in Neo Nazi marchers. Who knew?

99
General Comments / Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
« on: September 01, 2017, 02:03:54 PM »
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

I know, and it's sad.  I don't agree with that reasoning.

But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.

I actually don't have a problem with taking down Confederate statues and agree with you they should be taken down - but not by mobs. I am worried that this sort of thing will be a flashhpoint for more violence. It mightf even be the shot in the arm the white supremacists need to revive their largely faded and marginalized movement. Start seeing videos of mobs of minorities tearing down statues of white people on the news and they might just get the "race war" they have been hankering for. Complete madness and totally predictable.

100
General Comments / Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
« on: September 01, 2017, 12:58:20 PM »
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11