|
Post by Pharozonk on Mar 10, 2019 8:50:45 GMT -5
^She does not. And is a pretty gal. I may not be a fan of large tattoos (even though my wife has five small ones). Now for my rant: Spell words out you lazy millenials!!! Not doc it’s documentary. Not uni it’s university. If this tired drunk old timer can take the time to fight autocorrect and spell out words so can you. And don’t actually say uni in vocal communication. Also stop saying “full stop”. There I said it. "Uni" is mostly an abbreviation used by Europeans though. Most Americans just call it college.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 25, 2019 20:52:31 GMT -5
That's some real nightmare fuel, Mecha
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 21, 2019 7:06:15 GMT -5
Back at the State Of The Union address "No Socialism!!!" became the rallying cry for 2020. I don't truly understand how that works any more than flag hugging or baby kissing or Bible waving, but it really seems to with a large chunk of voters. And from a party where many were openly admiring how 'strong' Putin is (usually in contrast to that 'weak' Obama) well before Trump joined. They think nothing of subsidizing big Oil as 'development' or the government finding business outside the U.S. for arms manufacturers. Certain people in the political arena are working hard to equate socialism with Cuba or the USSR rather than with Sweden or Denmark. The problem is not socialism, it’s totalitarianism. On the flip side, a lot of the people in the U.S. waxing poetic about Sweden or Denmark fail to mention that they are very capitalist countries with far fewer regulations on their markets. They don't have that much money to throw around toward social programs without cutting back somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 21, 2019 4:47:43 GMT -5
IRT the bolded, that is the laziest and stupidest argument about "socialism" ever, because you know damn well that is not what "socialism" is or what people against "socialism" are railing against. Most people, outside of a handful of libertarian kooks, accept that you pay your taxes and in return, you get publicly-maintained roads, police services, fire departments (except around here, where most of them are all volunteer), national security via the military and all of the other things you mention. It's the confiscatory taking and redistribution of wealth not for the good of all citizens, but using it to make things "fair" for everyone. It's the promises of "free college for all", except it's only "free" for those who don't pay income taxes, and "free childcare from birth to school age" (as proposed by Elizabeth Warren), which is only "free" as long as you are under a certain income level. They want to tell people making even modest livings that they make too much to qualify for the goodies, but they're part of the problem and need to pay more in taxes to support everyone else, bringing those folks down to the level of the folks getting the freebies but still having to pay for their own. The Green New Deal, despite its innocuous sounding name, is really about redistributing wealth once you read what they really are proposing. We just see things differently, and that's OK. I don't believe government should be in the business of making things "fair and equal" for everyone, because the only way to do that is to take from one group to give to another. You seemingly feel that the government should do everything possible to make things equal for everyone, regardless of what has to happen to make that occur. I don't think any less of you for that, but I fundamentally disagree with you, and that is what makes for a good society, because if everyone thinks the same way, there is never anyone to ask the counter-questions. You've established that we agree on the philosophy that citizens pay taxes for the government to provide certain services. We are just arguing about the details and where the line is. I do not necessarily agree with all of the details of all the particular proposals on these lines, but I would like us to be able to have an honest discussion and crunch the numbers at the national level without old conservatives shouting "SOCIALISM!!!" like a slur and shutting down any good faith discussion. It comes back to my earlier point about how no one is trying to work across the aisle with different philosophies but the same goal of doing what's best for America and Americans. It's shot down for party political spectacle. I don't recall who it was off the top of my head, but someone crunched numbers comparing the proposed Medicare-for-All I think it was and literally found we would pay less than with the current system. It's completely asinine to not as a nation collectively go whoa, wait a minute, let's take another look at the very least. If it's not feasible, it's not feasible, but let's put in an actual honest effort and analysis and see. If we could actually provide medical care to all Americans and spend less in the process, why would we not even look into it? If we don't do something and keep doing everything as we have been, I can tell you America will be left behind in the dirt by China and India and the rest of the world. America being left in the dirt by China and India has almost nothing to do with our failure to embrace socialist policy. If anything, they’re just doing capitalism better than we are.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 20, 2019 20:25:35 GMT -5
The current leaders of the Dem Socialists (Sanders and Warren) are both well past the age of retirement and are likely going to be gone within the next 10 years or so, leaving the younger upstarts like AOC to be the leaders of the coalition. Let's not pretend that she isn't rising to be a dominant force within the Democratic party within the next few years.
In terms of potential Democrat candidates I'm interested in, none of them particularly strike my fancy. Despite her past in regards to incarceration of drug offenders, I could see myself voting for Kamala Harris, albeit reluctantly. I have no interest in Sanders or Warren. In all honestly, I'm hoping O'Rourke throws his hat into the ring, but that's probably a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 12, 2019 16:46:01 GMT -5
Sad to see you leave the discussion, Richard. Your input is always valuable in any discussions in this thread.
Let's make sure to keep it civil here folks from here on out. We don't want to turn this into a place where people don't feel comfortable sharing their views out of fear of being dogpiled.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 11, 2019 18:05:40 GMT -5
I got the Job guys! I'm moving to Austin, TX! Congrats! I have family in Austin. Let me know where you're going to be working, and I'll ask them for recommendations. My office is in north Austin, near Allandale.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 11, 2019 12:26:04 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad. Business men aren't inherently bad. But in my experience (and it's pretty extensive) being a businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being successful in political positions. In particular, deciding to start at the very top with no political administrative experience is a recipe for disaster. Governments are not businesses. And the mantra "Run government like a business" is nonsensical. The one plus that Schultz has is that he actually ran a large successful business, unlike the current Charlatan-in-Chief who ran the functional equivalent of a family business and failed miserably every time he tried to take it big. I was being facetious with my comment if that wasn't clear. I don't think Schultz is a bad candidate for either party, especially when compared to the current GOP crop or the more left wing Democrat mavericks. I'd be curious to see his actual platform and debate performance before developing an opinion on him though.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 11, 2019 9:37:31 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 10, 2019 10:08:56 GMT -5
Elizabeth Warren is an odd character. By all accounts, she was a corporate neoliberal for most of her career, yet she's trying to placate the Sanders/Cortez crowd now with dem-socialist stances. Is it all lip service or is she actually moving further left?
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 10, 2019 10:06:31 GMT -5
Damn, I haven't been a regular there for over a year at this point, but sad to see them go. Best of luck to the community there.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 10, 2019 10:05:05 GMT -5
I got the Job guys! I'm moving to Austin, TX!
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 30, 2019 20:31:49 GMT -5
RIP to legendary character actor Dick Miller (Gremlins, Terminator, Piranha, Bucket of Blood, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 26, 2019 11:39:29 GMT -5
Got an invite to a final round interview for a job. They're flying me out even!
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 11, 2019 20:31:53 GMT -5
Stouts and porters are the worst kinds of beer. Where have I gone wrong, my son? My parents ask the same question.
|
|