Nailbender

4 hours ago, VakAttack said:

The thread title is a comment.  You asked a question, and I responded.  I'm only allowed to respond to you if I respond to every question you asked?  And just to be clear, now you're not saying that I'm trying to change the conversation, I'm just "pick[ing] out one sentence and respond[ing]"  and I'm talking about "what I want to talk about" which...sure, fine?  It's my thread?  I'm sorry my answer didn't comport with your requirements for a response, but I'm glad we can acknowledge that I responded directly to one of your questions, in my own thread, and did not shift the conversation to some unrelated issue.

 I could not have been more clear. I'm pretty sure you're trolling but if not you can just read it again until you get it...or not. For the fourth time, you do you.

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

You asked if there would be a thread about this if it was a different company.  I, as the poster who started this thread, told you that yes, I would, and gave you my reasons.  And you have now accused me of changing the subject.

    I posted before you even commented in your own thread. All I had to go on was a childish title and a link to a silly blog. I guess I didn't read your mind correctly.

    I figured by the title you wouldn't be interested in discussing corporatations governing themselves but it could be part of this conversation. I wasn't the only one to think so. You then ignored and continue to ignore most of what I wrote. You just picked out one sentence and responded to that because it favored what you wanted to talk about. I understand. I've stated twice you can do what you want. You did. It's fine...for the third time. I'm tracking this conversation just fine. Try and keep up with your own thread.

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Huh?  You asked if there would be a thread about this if the company were different. I said I would be commenting regardless if the facts were the same, just with different names, because of the free speech issues along with governmental retribution/hilarous legal wranglings, which were the reasons I posted this thread originally. I'm not twisting anything.

 You posted a link with no commentary but your thread title. I mentioned Disney reaching a status in their state that people could be against if it was another corporation. @Plasmodium addressed a similar idea about being uncomfortable with corporations reaching a level where they are the government. You just changed the subject back to laughing at Desantis and added free speech and retribution. If that's all you want to talk about, fair enough. It is your thread after all. It just doesn't interest me.

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

I promise you, if the government in any place changes the law in response (or as retribution) to a corporation or person exercising free political speech and I'm aware of it, I will be making a comment.  And when that attempt to subvert speech is defeated hilariously with very, very basic legal maneuvering, I will, in fact, laugh.  Just like I laughed at pretty much every legal filing post election by His Orangeness.

So this is a free speech issue for you. Great. It's also a government retribution issue. Fine by me. Neither of those address what I said. You changed the premise of my post to fit your needs. Which is also fine as I suppose I did the same to yours.

Would there be a thread about this if the company was different? Maybe Raytheon, Exxon or Twitter and the governor was say, Gavin Newsome or Phil Murphy? Disney has enough money to outsmart the government and keep control over the land they own. Is that good or bad? A corporation so big, the government gave up control over it to keep the tax coffers full and now wants that control back but can't get it. Is that good? I'm interested to hear the reason for posting it.

19 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

In my best LJB impression...
 

"them" - the opposite of "us"... 

They must be bad, since we are clearly good...

I've done the research; Hunter Hilary's email laptop server is where the answers will be found.

 

Adorable...

41 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Do you really think he comes up with his talking points on his own?

It's like Cliff's Notes for Tucker Carlson's show.

You watching a lot of TC? 

Alright, I'm sober...ish. I still feel the same way.

8 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I have long thought that the vast majority of the laws that needed to be made were made in the first 20 or so years this country existed.  You don't murder someone, you don't steal someone's property, etc, etc.  Anymore I think their primary objective is screwing the middle class by implementing all sorts of legal(?) shenanigans.  I've long thought "we" would be better off electing representatives that couldn't find their way to Washington, than electing the same turds that we elect over and over.

Technology laws are no different than nearly all laws coming out of Washington.  I think it's generally accepted that our representatives in Washington know very little about the laws they make.  They are written and worded by lobbyists who work at the behest of corporations who benefit from the laws being made.  Who would be naive enough to believe these clowns know the nuts-and-bolts about the economy, finance, science (of which "technology" as used here is only a small sub-set)?

I can assure everyone that the representative here in NYS-23 for way too long never received my vote.  He's only gone now because he resigned over an admitted sexual assault during an official function.  He now works as a lobbyist in Washington.  Great system, huh?  If you'd like Nailbender, I can tell you what party he represented, how he kept getting elected, and the resumes of a couple of the candidates of the other party that he defeated over the years.  However, you won't like it.

I don't care about the details. I still don't like it. You and I got off to a bad start. Now I'm drunk and we don't seem so different. Funny how that works.

56 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

If we only allowed congress to act on things they understood, they'd get nothing done.  Actually that's not such a bad idea.

Almost as bad as old fogies who don't understand "technology" is the youngins who equate TikTok with technology.  I'd kinda say TikTok would be the pimple on technology's azz.

I would be ecstatic if your first paragraph came true.

5 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Sounds like everyone is on the same page around here.  That was fast.

I very much doubt that. In fact, I'm sure of it. I just looked behind me and there were no flying monkeys. 

7 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

"Started it" and "ends justify the means" describe McConnell's GOP in 2016, eh?

Sure. So what? 

If he broke the law. Lock him up. Along with all the rest of them.

8 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Here's why I disagree:  under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett).  Instead, the Republicans "stole" one.  Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back.  In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled.

It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc.  These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country.  Another example:  registration for gun owners.  The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses.  I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks.  He swears his range buddies all feel the same way.  I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally.  I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too.  And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all.  The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. 

You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything.

You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you.

Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so.

These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me.

TLDR VERSION

You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".

7 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Here's why I disagree:  under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett).  Instead, the Republicans "stole" one.  Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back.  In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled.

It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc.  These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country.  Another example:  registration for gun owners.  The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses.  I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks.  He swears his range buddies all feel the same way.  I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally.  I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too.  And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all.  The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

 The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. 

You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything.

You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you.

Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so.

These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so obviously that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me.

TLDR VERSION

You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".

I'd let him. You don't do well with your own words. 

55 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

The polls do mean something.

They will tell donors which candidates are valid and will become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Biden's running and I'll enthusiastically vote for him.
Trump's also running and thinking he won't win the GOP primary is a losing bet at this point.

Is there something specific about Biden that has you enthusiastically voting for him, besides that he is not Trump?

Also, which polls mean something? All of them?

I'm honestly torn about what to be most mad about after this year's tourney. I mean I have to be outraged about something, right?

Spencer's loss

The ridiculousness of discussing this for 5 pages

That guy here who had me thinking Nebraska was going to have like 4 champs

That's it, I've decided! @jajensen09 is a false prophet!!!!

A sign that hangs next to my BIL's pool table has always rung true with me. "Pool is a game of luck, the more you play the luckier you get".

Wrestle your ass off and good things happen.

When my kids were little, I told them that leprechauns come out of hiding on St. Patricks day and if you can catch them, you can have their pot of gold. We used to set traps for them. Then after the kids were asleep, I'd put those chocolate gold pieces in the sprung trap and tell the kids we were so close to catching him, he spilled some gold. It was hilarious.

17 minutes ago, Packard said:

I’d give Glory a chance if DeSanto didn’t pull the upset in HS. 
 

Don’t think Lee is gonna fall for that twice in his career. 

He's mentioned more than once that if he wins, it will be the first time he's accomplished a goal.

Anyone can beat Spencer Lee. Fight of his life because Glory once but put him in "compromising positions" and couldn't capitalize? Poppycock.

The fight of Spencer Lee's life on Saturday will be in his own mind. He has already shown time and time again that he can dominate anyone. He's slated to be a historic programs first 4 timer and a 3 time Hodge winner. "Fight of his life" is an understatement, regardless his opponent.

1 hour ago, mspart said:

I thought you were going somewhere else with this.   First Zap is a warning, the next is injurious, and the next is..... 

mspart

If you really want a change in habits, don't give warnings. Anything less than enough correction to change behavior is just nagging, anything more is cruel.

Unless of course the zapping is part of the show!

25 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I am unable to find the video.  Can you hook me up?

Ask your members of Congress.