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 - DJQuag

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 23
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 03, 2021, 03:58:40 AM »
Am I the only one who is thinking, "Ya'll had your chance." Like anyone who was legit susceptible or working in a dangerous industry, they've *all* been given the choice of getting a vaccine and if they say, "No," and then get it and die I'll be real sad and all but I'll also be thinking about children playing games that involve them running across freeway traffic.

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:46:19 PM »
DeSantis not Christie.  Christie is NJ not FL.

Truth, my apologies. Remember I'm keeping an eye on it all as an ex pat from across the ocean lol.]

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:35:18 PM »
Florida just passed a law preventing Trans people to participate in a sport other then their birth sex.

Yeah this is Christie thinking he's going to be the next Trump.

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:29:27 PM »

Yeah, whether you agree with the message or not 2021 is definitely a year for conservatives to suddenly get worried about trans people.

General Comments / New trans laws
« on: June 02, 2021, 02:41:54 PM »
Gonna be real for a second, I don't and never have gotten the whole trans thing. Think it's like when my Dad couldn't understand gay marriage. Probably a generational thing.

Anyway I've got no issue with anyone doing whatever they want with their own body so I'm cool with it all, and I'm also kind of curious about the recent rash of laws aiming at trans issues. Is this just an acceptable blowback against BIDEN STRONG 2020 or are right wing politicians in right wing states trying to get votes locked in with...their electorate.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 02, 2021, 02:25:39 PM »
It's funny because I remember comparing the two transitions with my work colleagues, UK residents. In 2017 I was super proud, was like, "Look at this a massive pile of *censored* is now president but the leader of the opposition is giving him a ride in his limo, treating him with respect. Peaceful transition of power, the best example the US can hope to give the world."

Then 2021 happened and I was like..."Look, even the Republicans aren't going to cover for this. They love this country too."

And now here we are!

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 02, 2021, 02:19:07 PM »
For two straight months leading up to Jan 6th you had numerous Congressmen running right along with Trump in his Big Lie. The election was rigged, it was stolen, Dominion, etc. Ted "I guess my wife IS ugly" Cruz was right there up front.

Were Congressmen making secret plans to lynch Pence with people on the scene that day? Probably not. Is it a generally accepted legal precedent that you don't get to yell fire in a crowded theatre and try to duck out on responsibility for the trampling deaths? Yep.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 01, 2021, 03:14:28 AM »

Oh yeah, and now this.

Benghazi needed a dozen or so congressional investigations but the Dems want to look into just what exactly happened on Jan 6th and who supported it and now it's all eye rolling and comments about political attacks. F outta here with that nonsense.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 01, 2021, 01:35:32 AM »
The Republican attacks a woman for having sex, how utterly surprising.

General Comments / Gun rights
« on: April 11, 2021, 05:00:34 PM »
As an ex patriot I just want to note how hilarious it is that when lockdowns and whatever stop happening ya'll start having weekly or biweekly mass shootings. Literally, the rest of the world saw this coming and are laughing.

General Comments / Re: Packing the Court
« on: April 11, 2021, 04:35:11 PM »
Do you all want everyone to vote, or do you not?

No judgment. There are arguments for and against. God only knows I don't want some redneck deciding on how to deal with China. So I get it.

Seems to me though the whole idea is about allowing, encouraging, and enabling as many people as possible to participate in the electoral process.

If ya'll have such sh*try ideas that ya'll have to start making excuses for people not to vote, maybe it's time to examine your ideas.

General Comments / Re: Packing the Court
« on: April 11, 2021, 04:26:07 PM »
FDR literally only lost his "grab" for power because he died in office. People were *all about* everything he had to say.

Reps literally added a Constitutional amendment because of him being too popular.

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
« on: April 11, 2021, 04:23:18 PM »
Trump  setting up his donation sites as auto recurring donations, with the opt out options hidden below layers of pages.  Opt in and hidden auto doubling of donations auto checked by the sites.

530,000 refunds for $64.3 million. More examples of how Trump is just griffting his followers.

AOL did the old folks similar.

"AOL" you say? How are they still a thing?

Yeah, it's because back when it was a reputable company AOL got a lot of people to sign up for their modem service. Some of the people keeping to it are rural, true, but the rest of em don't even remember they're signed up to give ten dollars or whatever a month.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 04, 2021, 05:36:48 AM »

You all have good points worthy of thought.

If we're to separate women's sports due to women being physically lesser in sports, I'm really not seeing why this is an issue.

If you let someone who has an entire lifetime of genetic and metabolic BS tune their entire body into being a man, and then at the end point we all decide that they're actually a woman, it doesn't change the fact that they're coming in swinging with the body of a man.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: April 04, 2021, 05:21:19 AM »
Wrote a whole thing and it got deleted. Thanks, internet.

You're a punk bitch, Josh. For once in your life just take a f*cking stand beyond "Well Aristotle told me this."

Paladine informed your way of thinking and fair enough. Just quit pretending. It's embarrassing for you and the rest of us, when you keep on pretending you have some Uber logical reason from why you say what you say and do what you do.

Just so you know? I don't give a sh*t about metaphysics in the same way I'm not really concerned about how the car industry is concerned about horse carriages.

DJQuag: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: April 02, 2021, 03:57:44 PM »
A patriot died tonight fighting against...something.

Look, some crazy *censored* did some crazy *censored*, but in this difficult time I feel it's really important that we all decide it's Obama's fault because reasons or maybe it's Biden's fault because he's old.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 02, 2021, 10:57:10 AM »
Also got my second Oxford vaccine yesterday. No side effects. I can now go back to licking door handles safely.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 02, 2021, 10:55:41 AM »
Eh. Food deserts in urban areas have been talked about for quite a while. This isn't new.

By all means though, I agree that government money should be spent to ensure long term nutritional needs are met in disadvantaged communities.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 16, 2021, 07:45:36 PM »
That long?  We got the Pfizer and our second shot is in middle of  April. So hopefully by the end of April we can have dinner with the in laws again. 

Ohio, where I live, just announced that by the end of March everyone will be allowed to sign up for the shot. That means by Memorial Day all of the family should be through the protocol and we can have a small cook out at my place.

I'm in the UK, seems like they took the route of getting as many people as possible the first shot for that sweet 65 percent immunity before switching over to the second one giving 95.

Tbf even one shot has shown a nassive potential in reducing the seriousness of infection even if you do catch it.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 16, 2021, 07:41:24 PM »
They are the mother, or they're not. If they are, abortion is just elective surgery on your own body. If they're not, then they're a foreign presence in the body.

I believe that this is the fundamental premise behind your general position, and as such it is a syllogism that is non-functional. You have a loose term "foreign" being introduced without definition, and actually "presence" is also a peculiar and probably misleading word as well. You may not know it, but by the terms you're using in this proposition you are setting up a circular axiom that will serve to establish the point you are trying to make in the first place. Change some terms in your axiom, for instance "If they're not, then they're a new and unique person totally dependent on their creator", and suddenly the axiom would appear to lead to totally new conclusions. Watch out for creating an argument structure whose only purpose is to prove a point you already believe.

I'm having trouble finding a more clear explanation here.

If by magic, Fenring, you were attached by an umbilical cord to me for nine months, I have to provide you food, my health is negatively affected, and when we finally cut the cord I have a non zero chance of surviving that, are you going to say I have no right to cut that cord?

If the fetus is it's own viable, unique, god-loved human being, that's fine. The issue is why does being a human being give someone the right to do what fetuses do to their mothers without the mothers having a possible recourse?

If the fetus is defined as it's own being then it is by definition foreign when it is enclosed and depending on the mother's body.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 16, 2021, 07:29:36 PM »
I got the Astra Zenaca shot in early February as a front line worker, only symptom for me was soreness in the arm. Which tends to happen when you're stabbed in a bundle of muscle.

Second shot is 31st of this month.

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: March 14, 2021, 06:21:42 PM »
If some movie star came out in 1942 and said Hitler wasn't so bad, would we blame the studio holding their contract for letting them go? Of course not.

These days it's thankfully not (usually) on that level but, still.

Companies respond to the customer base. If the customer base has made it clear that they won't put up with a certain level of BS, I'm not going to blame the company for firing people who go beyond that level of BS.

It's not censorship. Those people still have the same level of ability, and more often then not beyond, to talk to and interact with society as you and I do.

Cancelling people IS free speech.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 14, 2021, 06:06:13 PM »
Why are we talking like the inevitable result of sex is a child?

It's a possibility, it's natural, sure. So is juvenile diabetes. Pretty sure I've not heard people ranting against insulin. There are all sorts of natural things that the human race has found answers to. From alcohol to excessive eating there are all sorts of ways people get themselves into bad spots that society via the medical establishment are standing and waiting by to fix.

Anyway. You're talking on one hand about a sovereign entity that has rights, on the other hand now you're asking why we're talking about them as a foreign entity.

They are the mother, or they're not. If they are, abortion is just elective surgery on your own body. If they're not, then they're a foreign presence in the body. A foreign presence that drains nutrients, energy, and has every possibility of killing one or both people involved. There's a word for that, and to be fair it doesn't technically apply in intraspecific cases. Sounds like me using it has triggered you, though, so in fairness I'll just call them uninvited symbiotes. Even if symbiote implies the mother is getting something out of it.

Anyway, answered the question, back to you. Which human right is being violated by an uninvited symbiote being stopped from attaching itself to a sapient being, draining their health and endangering their life? What right does anyone have to do that to someone else?

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 14, 2021, 02:27:31 PM »
The magic words for me are, "Are we forcing a sapient human being into a parasitical relationship against their will?"

I agree that these are magic words, in that you have conjured them up using your own powers. I understand the argument completely, but am routinely astounded at how someone with this view cannot also see the possibility that the 'parasite' may be entitled to human rights. It's fine to acknowledge both sides and choose - perhaps on aesthetic grounds - to prefer the rights of the mother. But the re-definition of human into parasite is a complete dodge of the (potential) issue.

Yeah, it's really not. A human being is chained into a nine month relationship where another human is draining them of nutrients, altering their body, and putting their life at risk. The closest analogue to that in history is slavery and even that term falls short. I'm going with the term parasite because it covers most of the bases.

Call them human, call them fetuses, call them god's will.

Doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that no human should ever be enslaved to another in that way against their will. If the fetus can be removed, given life support, and live? All power to them. Let's fund that. Otherwise? Tough sh*t.

Edit - In other words, Fenring, can you please detail the human right that is being violated when one human being tells another that they have no right to attach themselves and endanger lives?

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 13, 2021, 06:24:39 PM »
I'm not trying to address the personhood question here, because frankly that is boiling down in America to little more than faith vs faith. In one case, faith in one kind of common sense (i.e. that a person has to look like a bona fide person to count as a person) versus another kind of common sense (i.e. that we should not judge a person by his/her level of development, and that personhood is not a privilege granted as an anniversary present). Ironically both sides also argue that science is 'on their side', even though of course it does not take sides because science is not a person with an opinion. Anyone can create moving goalposts and say that personhood requires brain waves, science says that brainwaves start at X age, therefore science is ok with early term abortion. But the error of this type of argument should be painfully evident. Likewise arguments about heartbeat, human-like appearance, birth itself, or even technical minutiae such as the timing of implantation; each of these are arbitrary sign posts that due to a person's ego he has decided this criterion makes the most sense, therefore becomes some kind of formal definition of personhood, and will hang their hat on that even though in principle lives may be at stake.

But here we go again, at 20 weeks a fetus would look like a human baby(albeit a very small one) if delivered. It also has a chance of surviving into (somewhat) normal infancy, albeit a very poor chance. Once you get to 24 weeks, the chances of surviving without long term health consequences increase considerably.

That is part of my issue with a number of the pro-abortion activists. If that fetus had been delivered under any condition except an abortion procedure, that infant becomes a human being entitled to a list of rights, and charges of murder or malpractice if deliberately killed.

But by some magic handwaving, they can terminate that same fetus by any number of means because of where it is, or more importantly, where it isn't.

If these people are being consistent, either killing that delivered infant should be legal as "a post-birth abortion" option, or killing a fetus after achieving that level of development is infanticide, and an act of murder.


If a baby is alive after an abortion procedure I'm okay with every effort being taken to keep it alive. I accept there are radical pro choice elements out there that don't accept that, but that's where I draw the line.

The magic words for me are, "Are we forcing a sapient human being into a parasitical relationship against their will?" That's it. That's my line. I kind of feel it's pretty clear cut.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 12, 2021, 07:29:44 PM »
I'm not as hopeful as you, but I would be overjoyed if Roe and Casey were overturned.  They are both horrible rulings contrary to reason, contrary to the natural law, and without any basis in the Constitution. The child is a child. We cannot kill children because we find them inconvenient or a burden.  Abortion is the modern political equivalent to slavery: somehow there are two sides and somehow both sides have influence over people's minds, when the "pro-choice" side (much like the pro-slavery side) is completely wrong and abhorrent in their beliefs. History will eventually (and rightly) look back at our age and say "how were they so barbaric". You are on the wrong side of this issue, and it stains your hands with blood.

A faithless wretch, ladies and gentlemen. Guided completely by logic.

Honestly the only thing worse then some religious wacko shutting you down by declaring, "I have faith it's true, I don't need evidence," is someone else pretending like they're better then that by declaring how logical they are, while putting forth the same arguments.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 12, 2021, 07:23:58 PM »
I actually don't think my opinion is too complicated.

If the fetus is developed enough to have a reasonable chance of living as something besides a dangerous parasitical lifeform, by all means scoop them out (so long as it isn't too dangerous to the person the parasite is attached to,) and give them their shot. If pro life fervor is genuine I'm sure the funding for that will go right through.

If the fetus isn't developed enough then oh well, thems the breaks, the god I reference and infer all the time but who I totally don't believe in because I'm just a faithless wretch should probably do something about that. Anything else and what you're really saying is that by having sex a woman should be chained to a life threatening parasite for nine months without any recourse. Screw that.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 12, 2021, 07:07:14 PM »
Sex in the grander evolutionary view is about procreation. Granted.

It's not all it is. Our closest living relatives, bonobos, use sexual contact and stimulation as tools in intraspecific bonding and conflict-resolution techniques.

Sometimes people have sex because they want to procreate.  Cool. Most of the time it's not and it never, ever was like that. At any time in any culture in any religion. People like banging. Hell, they like it so much that whatever genetic aspect to homosexuality exists has managed to survive to the present day despite not producing offspring.

Namedropping Aristotle isn't going to change any of that, and it's not going to change the fact that pregnancy is unpleasant and dangerous for a woman but at least you can stand on high and lecture women without the risk of getting pregnant, right Joshua?

General Comments / Roe might be in woe
« on: March 10, 2021, 02:04:25 PM »
Looks like Arkansas has won the right to be the test for whether our new Supreme Court will rule on whether women should be forced to incubate a dangerous parasitical human for nine months before expelling them in a manner that is dangerous to the both of them. Well done on winning *that* particularly disgusting point of American history!

Bonus points for adding in that rape and incest don't amount to sh*t, people are trying to play it off as "It's just to put it to the courts," but yeah buddy if they're confident and looking just to overturn precedent it's either they thought it wouldn't work or they thought that sh*t would go through. Either way if you win that law is law and then what're you gonna do? *Defend* it?

Me? I think Barrett is the lynchpin. Call me whatever names but somehow I am not seeing a lifelong Catholic with her amount of kids, her connections, and her jurisdicial writings and history coming along and turning heel on the antichoice crowd. Roe and Casey are done, at least until some more Conservative members of the court stroke out.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 08, 2021, 02:15:18 PM »
Yeah, not surprised.

The technology and knowhow is right there. Various states have shown that given just a little bit of funding they'll set up something the private companies can't match. Of course, if you do that, the private companies get annoyed and complain to Daddy.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 08, 2021, 05:17:38 AM »
There are victories out there and, spoiler alert, they don't revolve around corrupt government spending being directed whereever.

There is some state which set up and maintained a socialist network that threw everything else into the tank. It was so much better. Want to say Kentucky but I might be wrong.

Kentucky, Kenmaybe, blah blah. Why aren't people looking on them for how to be successful?

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 08, 2021, 03:23:42 AM »
That was a valid talking point right up until the companies received massive amounts of government funds to put infrastructure in for those rural communities and then they didn't.

You're shocked by this? Government graft and corruption never went away, and the Democrats, who funded most of that, are some of the worst offenders. Rural areas are slowly getting brought up to speed, but it isn't the major telecoms doing it. It's local small/regional operations(at the stat level, not national) that are making it happen. And government regulations and subsidies on the matter complicate things nearly as much as they help at this point.

I'm calling BS here.

Yes, there was corruption and graft. It wasn't in the government.

Companies were given billions to expand rural infrastructure and they didn't. Oh, it was due to corruption, sorry, we'll try harder next time? F*ck that. The companies took the money and played it on the insurance company game and they came up short. I don't really care about the details.

The extended distance between communities was identified, it was analyzed, and then an answer was given in "socialist" money given to private companies to address the deficit.

They didn't deliver. They straight up robbed the every day taxpayer. They got away with it and now they have everyday friendly people like you defending them.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 08, 2021, 02:56:25 AM »
I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?

Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.

You also live in a place where more people live within 200 miles of you than do within 200 miles of any arbitrary point in the US which isn't also within 150 miles of a port capable of handling either barges or ships.

That was a valid talking point right up until the companies received massive amounts of government funds to put infrastructure in for those rural communities and then they didn't.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 08, 2021, 02:52:29 AM »
I will say though I'm wondering why someone would say they're paying 66 percent higher and shrug it off with a quip about how it ain't so bad.

The US, with all of its varied advantages in just about everything, *should,* by the metrics, be giving it's citizens a top notch service. Better then anywhere else.

It doesn't, and it won't, because the country holds corporations as being more important than people.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 08, 2021, 02:46:35 AM »
I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?

Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.

You also live in a place where more people live within 200 miles of you than do within 200 miles of any arbitrary point in the US which isn't also within 150 miles of a port capable of handling either barges or ships.

That might be a good reason for why people in remote Montana have expensive internet, but not people in Austin Texas. That said, most urban areas have multiple choices and competion. They are all roughly $50/month, which isn't really some kind of terror.

Hey, fair enough, if prices have improved since I moved that's a good thing.

Did they ever get rid of that bug in the system where Comcast or whoever was the only man in town, and therefore they didn't have to give a sh*t? Honest question.

Well, obviously they did in Austin. My memories of Phoenix and Cox Communications aren't so positive.

Just asking because living in socialist hell under our system everyone has cheap access to service and are able to not just switch supplier, but to play them off against each other. 

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 08, 2021, 02:39:23 AM »
That is why I am surprised that Republicans do not support more immigration from Latin countries.  They would seem to be a very good fit for what they stand for.  Family, hard work, religion.

I would say if the Repubs were not following the racist part of the party by being against anyone brown entering the country, they would win 75% of the Latin vote.


You can see it now with the expatriate Cuban vote in Florida.

At some point the R's had their core values - which you mentioned above - and then they saw an opportunity for extra votes so they went all in on anti-immigrant fervor.

Unfortunately for them the streams have crossed and dogs and cats playing together did not, in fact, turn out to be good thing. (Ghostbusters.)

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 07, 2021, 04:57:23 PM »
The answer there is that we should make it easier for the people playing by the rules to get in.

It's not a matter of space, it's a matter of intent.

An astonishingly high amount of empty property is held by the government. There is room.

But what about the public facilities being overwhelmed?

Dude, any person willing to walk across untold miles of jungle or desert, I'm totally willing to let them in. They have a vision and a purpose in life, and they're willing to put forth effort to achieve it. Why wouldn't we want those types of people?

Take those people and train them to make up the difference in facilities. Easy.

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past
« on: March 07, 2021, 04:39:03 PM »
There is a vision of representative democracy that asks and encourages and enables as many people possible to just go on and vote.

Then there's the other side.

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past
« on: March 07, 2021, 01:00:12 PM »
If we allow Jerry Redneck his vote, we should also allow Tyler McWeedsmell to leave college long enough to cast his.

Or maybe we should restrict voting to certain educational achievements? Either way, the R's lose.

That's the issue here. If we make it super easy and encourage people to vote, R's lose. If we go back to olden values and say only "educated" people should vote, R's lose. I was going to say at least they hadn't yet gone the "Under emergency powers Chancellor declares himself Emperor," route and then I remembered January 6th.

It's gerrymandering in electoral participation form. Under sane rules R's can't win, so they will twist them until the laws make it just a little too hard for the people who would vote against them to bother.

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past
« on: March 07, 2021, 05:32:42 AM »
Several edits should have been tucked in there via context alone. If they're not obvious ask I guess.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 07, 2021, 05:12:58 AM »
> Wayward Son

"You're afraid that some illegal immigrant might give you the virus?"

I mean I've explained it before so the problem is encouraging these mass migrations right now the way Biden is doing is the exact opposite of what the scientists and healthcare professionals say we need to do to combat the virus. I thought those were the people we were supposed to be listening to but apparently we just ignore them when their advice is politically incorrect just like the BLM protests. Now of course I'm opposed to illegal immigration anyway, and abuse of the asylum claims system as well, and I don't deny that, but the point is that this is a particularly bad time to resume encouraging it.

And this isn't just about it being brought here either, although of course there is that. But it's also about it being carried from one end of the Americas to the other and spread everywhere in between. If a dangerous variant happens to arise in someone but they are not traveling around so much then there's a much better chance of it dying out, but with everyone going all over the place and meeting thousands of people along the way those variants are allowed to spread. And not just the more dangerous and transmissible variants but the regular old virus itself.  And who is to say that encouraging all of this migration right now is even the best thing for people who are suffering? It may well be that while traveling across two continents and spreading the virus to various people who are also struggling, we end up taking in a hundred thousand people while getting another hundred thousand or more across Latin America killed by the virus who otherwise might have dodged it long enough for them to get vaccinated in a few more months or protected by others who are vaccinated. Remember how this all started? Travelers. And it doesn't matter if you're going to a conference, a ski resort, taking a cruise vacation, or you are traveling because of gang violence or lack of jobs or even lack of food. It matters to us of course but it doesn't matter at all to the virus.

I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Just like the masks are pretty easy to understand too.

But people often just don't want to admit the obvious when it conflicts with their emotions.

It's not about making it personal like you're afraid some illegal is going to personally infect you or is going to personally take your job away. It's about policy and the big picture. It's about should we have limits based on our needs and safety and how many people we can handle coming in at a time or do those not matter and the only limit is based on how much poverty and hardship there is in the world because if that's the limit then for all practical purposes there is no limit and the kicker is when our kind-hearted policies end up doing more harm than good.

I'm not saying that in some ways, you might not be right.


Everything you write around here makes you sound wildly xenophobic. Probably not the right phobia, but for whatever reason you always, always, zero right in on how bad the migrants are. Covid has given you a talking point but you've been talking the same spiel since they made you switch your name from LibDisembowler.

I'm the first person to stick up for a poor American worker but honest to God your obvious fixation makes it so very easy to dismiss whatever valid viewpoints you're looking to share. Have you ever considered that?

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past
« on: March 07, 2021, 04:56:21 AM »
It's kind of hilarious how brazen the R's are.

They're *setting up places where poor people could easily hand off a valid ballot!*

"Yeah boss we'll call it vote harvesting." Might hurt the R's otherwise. God forbid ya'll bring along either an acute, "Here's why we're all sh*theels, we're sorry, but it really will disadvantage you all in the end."

Or something like, "You're only poor because the Dems have sabotaged you, we'll help you do better."

Intead it's just beaurcratic BS lined up to make it more difficult for the people who are suffering the most.

People on this topic on this board have definitely given off vibes of, "They're just too young to understand." or "Do we really need college kids deciding our future?"

You want to trumpet democracy and I'm cool with it, but I'll tell you now, until ya'll systematically try to remove the votes of the young, poor, and disenfranchised I won't be quiet.

Every single person on this board knows that the conservatives are out voted by the liberals. They've not tried to make a compromise.

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?
« on: March 07, 2021, 04:35:47 AM »
It's like there might be some people hoping to cash in on the broadband racket.

You know, where the company itself is undeniably sh*t but sadly there are no competitors.

I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?

Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 03, 2021, 09:47:26 AM »
I mean, what is a mask.

"Oh, sounds like they're going to ask me to wear a mask to go to my doctor. Guess I need to oil my guns."

I mean, really?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 03, 2021, 09:38:36 AM »
Way too early.

We should wait at least until after everyone who wants a vaccine can get one and it has time to go into effect especially with the mask mandate.

Do you mean we need to stop giving handjobs out amongst ourselves with this great victory, or do you mean like, "Oh shot homeboi popped off before we were ready?"

Shutting down masks, right now, even if it's just the government call is BS and it needs to be called out.

Christ. It's a thin layer of fabric or *even* paper laid between the nose and mouth of people. Why, given the *scientifically proven* facts on this virus and how it is would any conservative say, "ya man f* the masks."

Ya'll are embarrassing yourselves here.

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
« on: February 01, 2021, 07:10:08 PM »
Jesus, why do you keep giving the orange man toad more power then he really has?

"She had an audience?!?"

Who gives a *censored* who that little toad wants to talk to these days. He is *done.*

After Jan 6th even the majority of his own party want absolutely nothing to do with him. Impeachment aside, and I truly do get the idea of telling someone, "No, really, you need to go *censored* yourself," but these are people just like us who need to answer to their constituents. If the will isn't there we don't need to be blaming them, we need to blame the people they answer to.

He's a 75 year old fat man. I don't expect GRRM to give us an answer to AGOIAF, I never have, and I'm just fed up with the rest of you giving this one guy power he doesn't have. Not anymore.


Christ. Have a little I don't know, something or other in yourself. He's going to stroke out or heart attack.

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
« on: February 01, 2021, 02:33:55 PM »
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.

Course they can!

We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold? Course not! They're a piece of *censored*!  Find some other way to remove him, not interested.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 01, 2021, 02:25:51 PM »
You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

Not really sure what any of this means. Many businesses that do involve a high degree of people close to each other (like standing behind a cash in a store) obviously could not social distance while maintaining the same work methods. It is possible to make concerted efforts to modify or renovate these practices, and I doubt that most types of business cannot avoid close social contact. Whether it requires special training from management to find a way to do it is another story.

Oh. Thankful to hear you're unable to control close social distancing. I suppose we need to look at the severity of the disease now. Huh. Look's kinda bad!

I have an idea, how about we all stay away from each other. I know the very idea must be difficult but your own anti-vaxxers(jk cousins) must have enough people to keep you entertained

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 01, 2021, 01:58:27 PM »
Social distancing and masks are complementary. There are absolutely times where it's impossible to social distance even for short periods of time: for example, in the case where someone needs to work in the presence of others. It's not either/or, and neglecting mask use at this point in time will significantly aggravate the current situation.

What do you mean "needs" to work in the presence of others? There are a few situations where it is unavoidable to be within 6 feet: for instance movers lifting a heavy object together. But in most cases I doubt there is any need at all to be within 6 feet. In most cases I suspect that breaking social distance is a result of not feeling like going through the often arduous step of establishing how to do things without coming near each other. Schools involving young children are an exception to what I'm saying because obviously they just don't understand.


You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

General Comments / Re: Unprecedented Attacks on Capitol Hill
« on: February 01, 2021, 01:45:22 PM »
Americans. Entertaining the rest of the world since 1776.

Gotta refer to your hated enemy as "The Honorable Gentleman from such and such," in chambers, otherwise they're planting bombs.

Or just beating you senseless.

The Caning of Charles Sumner, or the Brooks–Sumner Affair, occurred on May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate chamber, when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely criticized slaveholders, including a relative of Brooks. The beating nearly killed Sumner and it contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery. It has been considered symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse" and the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War.

Nah my friend one of the reasons I end up respecting the American system.

I mean, in that case we needed better security but if you're going to run your mouth watch your back. Basic gangland procedure.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 23