Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 575

Thread: Biden

  1. #526
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    But humans.
    True - however there are a few institutions that for the most part have remained impartial and fair, some of them hundreds of years old. I don't think it's a 'Humans' issue per se, I think a big part of it is being careful about how the institution is run and the sorts of people that work in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Watching Cruz, Marj, Trump, Bobert, Jordan, Rand, McConnel etc, etc - though I acknowledge the injustice, I just cannot raise a poffteenth of concern.
    This is, however, the very basis for the element of truth in the wider Conspiracy. If we bring this back to MJT - she raises this as a point, can cite specific examples and most people know it to be true on an instinctive level - so she says something that is true and then something that is wild speculation, the solution is to openly discuss (and maybe even Fix!) the problem and take the wind out of the sails of the 'extreme right'/


    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Just as well truth Social has ridden in on it's lilly white charger to save the day
    Speaking of - I saw that Trump has started using it, I suspect the Twitter acquisition has accelerated his plans. I saw on a conservative outlet the other day quite the criticism of the roll out of Truth ocial.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Actually they are very much neck and neck for mantle of best entertainment section liars.
    Which is fine - the Left have their set of Liars (whose biggest lie is that they are impartial) and the Right have their set of liars - the Public judges the truth with their viewership - and as you said - Fox is kicking CNN.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    But repubs love supression, there leader is all about suppression and obstruction. "Nope, nobody thought to ring the presidents phone for the 7 hours through the capital riots". You seem to have suppressed supressionitis to go with that eyepatchitus
    That's not even a close comparison. It's all sidestepping that there was a co-ordinated suppression of News, because it was damaging to one political side.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    I'm sure for the right money they could be convinced to convert.
    See, I'm not sure. Could you pay a Republican to adopt any of the Marxist pre-suppositions? I think not.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Oh, so no "We the dems all hate America" quotes?
    Not in those words, but calling it a white supremacist Capitalist patriarchy is close enough for me. As I said - any support of Marxist theories is antithetical to what the United States was founded on. They cannot co-exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Yep, he is not afraid to give both sides the bash - so obviously I'm a fan.
    Some of his political takes (for my tastes anyways) are still a bit too one-sided, but the more insane the radical left gets, the more he adjusts his tune.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    And this self inflicted blind spot has you believing obvious lies like "mah phone did not ring once in 7 hours during the riots".
    I didn't say I believe it. I said that which is submitted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. And given the high degree of scrutiny, I think I'm more than justified in the demand for evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    It is absolutely demeaning, it is your sheer pomp that blinds you. If you can find a bank branch these days, go in and look at the tellers average age. This is these middle aged and older tellers career. Your pompous words have definitely demeaned them. You will never see it yourself though, but others sure can.

    Pompous arse
    This isn't Pomp - This is choice.

    People make decisions and then there are consequences for those decisions. Choosing to live alone instead of flatting IS a choice, it has a cost and it has a benefit. Choosing to have children out of wedlock IS a choice, it has a cost and it has a benefit. Choosing to get divorced IS a choice, it has a cost and it has a benefit. Choosing to work in an entry level position, when you are 'middle aged and older' is a choice.

    Now, I know some people who fit that description - they range from being retired but wanting an easy job that's stress free and gives them steak and beer money to having a partner that does all the heavy lifting and it keeps them out of trouble.

    There are some people who you look at and you go 'wow, you really got unlucky' and for those I have a high degree of sympathy, there are others who when we look at their situation we see a number of choices that they made that led them to where they are now.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    A Great post, yes that should actually really happen asap.
    That, a reduction in GST and a reduction in the Fuel Tax would probably be the 3 biggest things that would help the poorest of the poor.

    Guess which 3 things will never happen under a Labour Government.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Nope, just drag wearing pollies voting (for the most part) down political affiliations. They are just lying pollies now.
    Okay - serious question for a moment: What Supreme court decisions of late do you disagree with, in reference to the Constitution?

    And I want to codify this: There are decisions that I might disagree with the decision, but I can concede that in reference to the Constitution and things like the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, it is the 'correct' decision in reference to the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    I've not looked, are they proposing to amend the constitution?
    I've noticed this amongst US politicians in my lifetime, there are a few issues where IMO the correct way to address the issue is to set out to amend the Constitution.

    The Dems weren't trying to Amend the constitution, I read the Act - it's full of Vomit inducing woke nonesense (some of which is patently untrue) - but the bit that I think raised the ire is that it said to allow Abortions after Fetal viability based on good-faith medical advice.

    Which is very VERY open-ended. Especially when people like me (Fundamentally Pro-choice) are going - after Fetal Viability, that's a Human - and that Human has a right to life. Not only that, but the Medical science on this is generally accepted - at this point it is safer for an emergency C-Section than it is for a late-term abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    From where I'm standing it looks like you are willing to prostitute your values on what is right and decent if it means the libs getting owned.
    Or... One has a direct impact on the quality of my life (and is therefore of more pressing concern) and one does not.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  2. #527
    Join Date
    8th January 2005 - 15:05
    Bike
    Triumph Speed Triple
    Location
    New Plymouth
    Posts
    9,841
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by oldguy View Post
    I don't know much about him, but on this I agree. He has also put a block on the 40 billion aid to the Ukranine, i think it will still go through.
    Paul only blocked the immediate passage of the bill. He has done this to other bills previously. If there was no objection the bill would have been passed automatically. He objected so now it has to go through the process.

    A while back he was attacked and physically assaulted by his neighbour. People have been asking where the neighbour is now.
    There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop

  3. #528
    Join Date
    4th November 2003 - 13:00
    Bike
    BSA A10
    Location
    Rangiora
    Posts
    12,492
    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    A while back he was attacked and physically assaulted by his neighbour. People have been asking where the neighbour is now.
    Probably in one of the FEMA camps
    "If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."


    Quote Originally Posted by scracha View Post
    Even BP would shy away from cleaning up a sidecar oil spill.
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Zevon
    Send Lawyers, guns and money, the shit has hit the fan

  4. #529
    Join Date
    8th November 2005 - 12:25
    Bike
    Aprillia RSV1000R 92 KX500
    Location
    Pirongia, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,116
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    True - however there are a few institutions that for the most part have remained impartial and fair, some of them hundreds of years old. I don't think it's a 'Humans' issue per se, I think a big part of it is being careful about how the institution is run and the sorts of people that work in it.
    the weakness of democracy is people getting voted in do not necessarily have the skills to do the job. This unwashed mob usually get to choose the chief bureaucrats - yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Speaking of - I saw that Trump has started using it, I suspect the Twitter acquisition has accelerated his plans. I saw on a conservative outlet the other day quite the criticism of the roll out of Truth ocial.
    I think he has "truthed" in total less than 5 minutes worth of his tweets when he was on twitter, so.....


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Which is fine - the Left have their set of Liars (whose biggest lie is that they are impartial) and the Right have their set of liars - the Public judges the truth with their viewership - and as you said - Fox is kicking CNN.
    Far from me to defend cnn, but to be fair there is a lot of left wing leaning media, where fox is pretty much it bar a few pesky wee sites that are tiny fleas on fox's back. The left ratings are split over at least 4 large sites.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    That's not even a close comparison. It's all sidestepping that there was a co-ordinated suppression of News, because it was damaging to one political side.
    Ahhhh, the side step - I'm learning from the best, see a bit down below.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    See, I'm not sure. Could you pay a Republican to adopt any of the Marxist pre-suppositions? I think not.
    cummoooon man, they are pollies, 99+% have a price.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Not in those words, but calling it a white supremacist Capitalist patriarchy is close enough for me. As I said - any support of Marxist theories is antithetical to what the United States was founded on. They cannot co-exist.
    You are correct, when I was there, I could not see marxisym having a chance. Really from what I can make out, the "progressive" part of the dem party are not really getting anything they want. I'm sure they are frustrated as all hell.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    I didn't say I believe it. I said that which is submitted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. And given the high degree of scrutiny, I think I'm more than justified in the demand for evidence.
    Ahhhh, speaking of sidestepping, you have consistently sidestepped this prickly bastard in such a way that Lomu would have been in awe
    But hey, if you want to stick with "needing proof trumps phone rang even once in that 7 hours" you are going to need some really sand proof lungs.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    This isn't Pomp - This is choice.
    You just do not get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    People make decisions and then there are consequences for those decisions. Choosing to live alone instead of flatting IS a choice, it has a cost and it has a benefit. Choosing to have children out of wedlock IS a choice, it has a cost and it has a benefit. Choosing to get divorced IS a choice, it has a cost and it has a benefit. Choosing to work in an entry level position, when you are 'middle aged and older' is a choice.
    My whole point, as I'm sure you are for some unknown reason side stepping is that one should not need a job requiring great skills and or a degree to live in a shitty one bedroom home. Any system that cannot provide at least that to someone working a full time job is not working for all the people in my opinion. The balance of wealth is all sliding in one direction, and I'm not for that.
    without divulging details, I have gleaned that you were born into a family that had the means to provide somewhat of a spring board. I'm not saying you were born into privilige so much, but more the means to be given sound advice and "perhaps" a little support to get a decent education. These days, those without any springboards get the choice of serious debt for educations where degrees do not any longer guarantee well paid employment, ot no debt and try and wing it on talent. Option B is nigh on impossible these days. Some "choice" huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    That, a reduction in GST and a reduction in the Fuel Tax would probably be the 3 biggest things that would help the poorest of the poor.

    Guess which 3 things will never happen under a Labour Government.
    Good ideas, but umm, cough, cough which was the last government to raise GST?



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Okay - serious question for a moment: What Supreme court decisions of late do you disagree with, in reference to the Constitution?

    And I want to codify this: There are decisions that I might disagree with the decision, but I can concede that in reference to the Constitution and things like the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, it is the 'correct' decision in reference to the law.
    Before I answer that, I require a straight yes or no answer to my earlier question that you used that spectacular sidestep to avoid answering, even though you quoted it
    In the leaked draft, are the pollies in drag proposing to amend the constitution?


    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    Paul only blocked the immediate passage of the bill. He has done this to other bills previously. If there was no objection the bill would have been passed automatically. He objected so now it has to go through the process.

    A while back he was attacked and physically assaulted by his neighbour. People have been asking where the neighbour is now.
    Rand has no shame in blocking any bill to extract everything he can before rubber stamping it, or not at all.
    He is a true cunt.

  5. #530
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    the weakness of democracy is people getting voted in do not necessarily have the skills to do the job. This unwashed mob usually get to choose the chief bureaucrats - yes?
    I wasn't thinking purely Politics, as for the unwashed mob choosing - there are some days where there are some pretty good arguments against it and others where there are some pretty good arguments for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    I think he has "truthed" in total less than 5 minutes worth of his tweets when he was on twitter, so.....
    I don't dispute that, my point was that Elon and Twitter have caused a large number of ripples.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Far from me to defend cnn, but to be fair there is a lot of left wing leaning media, where fox is pretty much it bar a few pesky wee sites that are tiny fleas on fox's back. The left ratings are split over at least 4 large sites.
    IIRC - the data doesn't support that. I think the problem is that they have moved too far to the Left for the Centrist majority, but not far enough left for the radicals.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    cummoooon man, they are pollies, 99+% have a price.
    On most issues, I'd say sure - on this issue, I'm not convinced.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    You are correct, when I was there, I could not see marxisym having a chance. Really from what I can make out, the "progressive" part of the dem party are not really getting anything they want. I'm sure they are frustrated as all hell.
    I think the problem is the progressive part started to go after Children - People can tolerate a lot of weird crap in Universities (even if they perhaps shouldn't) - but when some of that gets taught to Children - people get really conservative REALLY quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Ahhhh, speaking of sidestepping, you have consistently sidestepped this prickly bastard in such a way that Lomu would have been in awe
    But hey, if you want to stick with "needing proof trumps phone rang even once in that 7 hours" you are going to need some really sand proof lungs.
    Tis not a Side step, it's a dismissal.




    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    You just do not get it.

    My whole point, as I'm sure you are for some unknown reason side stepping is that one should not need a job requiring great skills and or a degree to live in a shitty one bedroom home. Any system that cannot provide at least that to someone working a full time job is not working for all the people in my opinion. The balance of wealth is all sliding in one direction, and I'm not for that.
    'The system cannot provide'

    Hold up, Imma stop you there - let's consider the AnCap scenario - you could have a shitty (very shitty) one bedroom home - no building regulations, no council permits - no cost of compliance.

    The problem is that the barriers put in place 'for our own protection' have a cost, and that cost has to be paid by someone and if that prices unskilled jobs out of the market, then they have to look at alternatives - Flatting, upskilling etc.

    So, that is part of the problem - but the other part of the problem is one of choice. There was a thread on here a wee while ago about a younger chap wanting to buy a house in Chch and giving the standard millenial piss and moan about how difficult it was and how expensive etc. etc. When myself and others pried a little more - turns out he had become accustomed to a certain standard of living and wasn't willing to compromise to buy a house, consequently he was excluding 70% of all properties that he could buy, because he didn't want to make that choice.

    And I see a LOT of people refusing to make that choice. Hell, when I first got a Motorbike, it was specifically because in order to buy a house in AKL we had to move all the way out to Gulf Harbour and I couldn't afford the petrol cost to commute to work in a Car. I made a choice and time rewarded me for it.

    In addition, there are a lot more things to spend frivolously on, that weren't an option 20-30 years go (cue a joke about Avocado on Toast)

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    without divulging details, I have gleaned that you were born into a family that had the means to provide somewhat of a spring board. I'm not saying you were born into privilige so much, but more the means to be given sound advice and "perhaps" a little support to get a decent education. These days, those without any springboards get the choice of serious debt for educations where degrees do not any longer guarantee well paid employment, ot no debt and try and wing it on talent. Option B is nigh on impossible these days. Some "choice" huh.
    It's not really gleaned when I've said prior that for the deposit on my first house, my Mum and Dad were a Guarantor. And yes, that did help. In terms of Privilege - I mean, I was born to a stable, 2 parent Family, who took active measures in my education (even if I hated it at the time) - I also had the privilege of inheriting certain traits, including skepticism - I saw the rort that modern University had become and chose not to pursue a degree (something that with Time I am increasingly thankful for) - I have certainly had my own unique advantages and likewise my own unique disadvantages, Luck has opened some doors for me and I've had the good sense and stubborness to walk through them.

    And I mean, I did Option B, so...

    In terms of Education and Well Paying jobs - To put it simply - there are number of Jobs where a Degree is a requirement (Engineering, Doctors, lawyer etc.) - most people who undertake those degrees seem to do allright. Then we look to the number of courses offered - at a guess, 70% of those have little to no job prospects (e.g. you have to be the top person in the class/country to get a sniff at a job in that field). And that's without accounting for the fact that some of the degrees are only applicable to those who want to work in Academia, thus necessitating the bloat of Academia to employ them, leading to increased courses, to pay for the course fees.

    Finally - we need to talk about Trades. A Good Tradie can make a very nice living, without getting Student debt. This is something that many people have been pointing to that as the Tradespeople who grew up in the era of trade schools age out of the profession, the shortage is going to get worse and worse - but there is the option for many people to do Option B as you call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Good ideas, but umm, cough, cough which was the last government to raise GST?
    Is it time for my Obligatory 'Fuck National' comment? Cause I think it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Before I answer that, I require a straight yes or no answer to my earlier question that you used that spectacular sidestep to avoid answering, even though you quoted it
    In the leaked draft, are the pollies in drag proposing to amend the constitution?
    The short answer is they aren't. The Longer answer is they can't. That is not the place of the Supreme Court - they do not get to make amendments nor advise on them - that is the sole purpose of the Legislature, and not the purview of the Judiciary.

    Does that answer your question?
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  6. #531
    Join Date
    8th November 2005 - 12:25
    Bike
    Aprillia RSV1000R 92 KX500
    Location
    Pirongia, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,116
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post

    I think the problem is the progressive part started to go after Children - People can tolerate a lot of weird crap in Universities (even if they perhaps shouldn't) - but when some of that gets taught to Children - people get really conservative REALLY quickly.
    Agreed. (notice my lack of detail in why I agreed - See, I'm learning! )

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Tis not a Side step, it's a dismissal.

    A dismissal you say? Sounds like you are taking Trump at his word his phone never rang in that 7 hours?



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    'The system cannot provide'

    Hold up, Imma stop you there - let's consider the AnCap scenario - you could have a shitty (very shitty) one bedroom home - no building regulations, no council permits - no cost of compliance.

    The problem is that the barriers put in place 'for our own protection' have a cost, and that cost has to be paid by someone and if that prices unskilled jobs out of the market, then they have to look at alternatives - Flatting, upskilling etc.
    OK, I'll try and explain my feelings on this as best I can. I'm sure once you have read it, you will assign me some political boxes for me to live in. I guess that will save me having to buy a house. Just don't put me into too many camps please. I can do Marxist Mondays, Theocracy Tuesdays, Totalitarianism Thursdays, Fascist Fridays, Socialist Saturdays, Secular Sundays (naturally), However I would really like to have Wednesday off if that is OK with you?

    If society cannot have people working good honest (and often essential) 9 to 5 jobs without the opportunity to live in a no frills modest abode - then the fucking system is massively flawed. I'm not looking to deny people a pathway to high paid jobs if they want to do so through education or gaining experience. I do not have the perfect answer, that sort of thing is not my forte so to speak. But as the system stands now, it sucks arse big time. Once the transfer of wealth gets to the tipping point of revolution, violence and bloodshed instigated by the disillusioned have-nots - it is all so tiresomely predictable. It would be nice to see this so called civility the modern age has reportedly produced, be applicable to actual real life living for one and all.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    And I see a LOT of people refusing to make that choice. Hell, when I first got a Motorbike, it was specifically because in order to buy a house in AKL we had to move all the way out to Gulf Harbour and I couldn't afford the petrol cost to commute to work in a Car. I made a choice and time rewarded me for it.
    Yes, your reward was a hayabusa that ate tires like tic tacs and higher fuel consumption than your average car
    I'm not really talking about those that want it all, but do fuck all to get it.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    The short answer is they aren't. The Longer answer is they can't. That is not the place of the Supreme Court - they do not get to make amendments nor advise on them - that is the sole purpose of the Legislature, and not the purview of the Judiciary.

    Does that answer your question?
    It does, so in my opinion with regards to this specific issue, the right leaning judges are definitely behaving like pollies in drag. Especially the ones that said they viewed roe/wade as settled law in their "job" interviews.

    Their latest move does not impress me either. As if the bloody american system is not already very susceptible to corruption
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/16/p...ruz/index.html

  7. #532
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Agreed. (notice my lack of detail in why I agreed - See, I'm learning! )
    Well, that's going to be no fun :P

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    A dismissal you say? Sounds like you are taking Trump at his word his phone never rang in that 7 hours?
    I neither believe nor disbelieve.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    OK, I'll try and explain my feelings on this as best I can. I'm sure once you have read it, you will assign me some political boxes for me to live in. I guess that will save me having to buy a house. Just don't put me into too many camps please. I can do Marxist Mondays, Theocracy Tuesdays, Totalitarianism Thursdays, Fascist Fridays, Socialist Saturdays, Secular Sundays (naturally), However I would really like to have Wednesday off if that is OK with you?

    If society cannot have people working good honest (and often essential) 9 to 5 jobs without the opportunity to live in a no frills modest abode - then the fucking system is massively flawed. I'm not looking to deny people a pathway to high paid jobs if they want to do so through education or gaining experience. I do not have the perfect answer, that sort of thing is not my forte so to speak. But as the system stands now, it sucks arse big time. Once the transfer of wealth gets to the tipping point of revolution, violence and bloodshed instigated by the disillusioned have-nots - it is all so tiresomely predictable. It would be nice to see this so called civility the modern age has reportedly produced, be applicable to actual real life living for one and all.
    Without wanting to sound like I'm picking what you've said apart - what do you define as a no frills modest abode.

    And before you answer - I just want to do a very quick thought experiment. Go back to when your Parents were children - what did a modest abode look like? I've got memories of both my Grandparents houses (one was a Council flat, the other was built by my Grandad).

    Go back another 2 generations - in NZ we are now talking frontier type houses, where the number of bedrooms was related to how much you could be fucked building, in the UK it was likely a 2 up 2 down house, built in rows.

    Go back even further and then you get stories of 14 child families in a one bedroom house, in conditions that today we would consider as appalling.

    If we draw the line somewhere as to what no frills and modest is, that will - depending on how generous or strict your definition is, we will still end up excluding some people. And that doesn't include all the additional things there are to spend money on - Electricity, Internet, Netflix, Gym Membership etc. etc. All things which are technically luxuries, but are viewed more and more as necessities - it all adds up.

    My particular ire with this 'issue' however is that I have first hand knowledge of my peer group, bitching and moaning about not being able to afford a house - and for the vast majority - the biggest impediments to them becoming home owners was their own decisions.

    People look to others to solve their problems for them, instead of doing the sacrifices necessary to solve it themselves - and that really irks me.

    As I said, I decided around age 25 that it was time to buy a house - I had to move out of the North Shore, out of Albany, all the way out to Gulf Harbour (which is a lovely place) - because I wanted a nice house in a nice area, the compromise was the commute. In hindsight, it was one of the top 3 decisions I ever made, but in the beginning it was tough, I got pinged for low equity, couldn't negotiate any decent rates, the banks didn't want to see or hear from me.

    I don't have a full solution either - but a big part of it is the removal of red tape. The other big part is a problem with our tertiary education system (too many student loans for useless degrees). The final big part of the problem is Personal responsibility for Personal Choices - I remember my parents telling me in my 20s to save more and to look at a house, if I had listened to them just 2 years earlier, I could have bought my house for $100K less than what I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Yes, your reward was a hayabusa that ate tires like tic tacs and higher fuel consumption than your average car
    To be fair, the Busa came later, first it was a mighty Hornet 250 (which you met)

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    I'm not really talking about those that want it all, but do fuck all to get it.
    But in a way, you are - this isn't the first time or the first venue I've had this conversation with people - and in most cases, when you dig into their situation, I mean really dig - you find that the biggest factors are they aren't willing to degrade their standard of living from how they live now, for the chance to own a home.

    And that it's 'My Generation' that is raising it, makes it closer to home for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    It does, so in my opinion with regards to this specific issue, the right leaning judges are definitely behaving like pollies in drag. Especially the ones that said they viewed roe/wade as settled law in their "job" interviews.

    Their latest move does not impress me either. As if the bloody american system is not already very susceptible to corruption
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/16/p...ruz/index.html
    See, this is where I draw a distinction between my personal feelings on an issue and what the Constitution says. I outlined why I disagree with the decision in Roe, but am Pro-Choice. Reading the article - their reasoning is simple: There's a chilling effect on Campaigning (and therefore Political Speech) if a candidate has to worry about their ability to pay for their campaign. Any law that has a chilling effect on Free Speech is contrary to the First Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

    Now, let's assume I agree with you on your concern for this (I honestly don't hold an opinion either way) - I can look at it and say that the constitutional basis by which they made their decision is sound, even if I don't like the outcome of it.

    To that end - The Supreme Court is doing exactly what it should be doing. If there needs to be a law in place, then either it needs to be much more tightly defined or it needs to be made via an Amendment.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  8. #533
    Join Date
    8th November 2005 - 12:25
    Bike
    Aprillia RSV1000R 92 KX500
    Location
    Pirongia, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,116
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    I neither believe nor disbelieve.
    So no passionate wall of text in defense. I'll file that one under indefensible then




    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Without wanting to sound like I'm picking what you've said apart - what do you define as a no frills modest abode. willing to comute up to an hour to get to work.
    Bare legal minimum to comply with code, 1 bedroom etc. No frills, no netflix, no kfc every night etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    My particular ire with this 'issue' however is that I have first hand knowledge of my peer group, bitching and moaning about not being able to afford a house - and for the vast majority - the biggest impediments to them becoming home owners was their own decisions.

    People look to others to solve their problems for them, instead of doing the sacrifices necessary to solve it themselves - and that really irks me.
    No quibble with that.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    To be fair, the Busa came later, first it was a mighty Hornet 250 (which you met)
    Yes, my post was to acknowledge your cheap motorcycle led to a more expensive one - I'm not going to diss that!



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    their reasoning is simple: There's a chilling effect on Campaigning (and therefore Political Speech) if a candidate has to worry about their ability to pay for their campaign. Any law that has a chilling effect on Free Speech is contrary to the First Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
    so your passionate words of live and act within your means does not extend to pollies wanting a campaign with every conceivable bell and whistle, so lets open it up to yet more corruption to make sure they can have their cake and eat it too. Wow, at least it conforms to free speech in the constitution.
    And if the pollies in drag voting to overturn roe/wade do not offer an amendment to the constitution as a fix, then no amount of wall of text you will surely present will sway my opinion even 1mm that they are not simply political hacks.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    If there needs to be a law in place, then either it needs to be much more tightly defined or it needs to be made via an Amendment.
    I think we can both agree the conservative judges in this case will not even begin to entertain that whimsical notion.


  9. #534
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    So no passionate wall of text in defense. I'll file that one under indefensible then
    Well, no - it's under 'Where's the evidence one way or another' - and without evidence AND given the level of scrutiny...


    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    Bare legal minimum to comply with code, 1 bedroom etc. No frills, no netflix, no kfc every night etc.
    Comply with Code - even that, however, is an ever increasing cost. I'm not trying to knock any Builders, nor am I saying that we shouldn't have building codes - what I'm saying is that the building code should only be concerned with making sure the house doesn't fall down, doesn't leak and doesn't burst into flame. Things like Insulation or double glazing should not be mandated, because they drive the costs up and therefore price some people out of the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    so your passionate words of live and act within your means does not extend to pollies wanting a campaign with every conceivable bell and whistle, so lets open it up to yet more corruption to make sure they can have their cake and eat it too. Wow, at least it conforms to free speech in the constitution.
    And if the pollies in drag voting to overturn roe/wade do not offer an amendment to the constitution as a fix, then no amount of wall of text you will surely present will sway my opinion even 1mm that they are not simply political hacks.
    The objection that you raise though is a non-starter. It's like in a Motor race - someone might find a cunning loophole in the current rules - The Race stewards might think it's BS, but if it complies with the rules, then it complies with the rules. It's the FIA or (insert governing body here) who is responsible for writing the rules. The Stewards (Supreme Court justices) have no basis to re-write the rules, that is the purview of the Legislature.

    In this case - there argument is very clear - if you limit funds, you limit speech. limiting speech is against the 1st Amendment, therefore it's unconstitutional.

    Should they live within their means for their campaign? Absolutely. Does that include living within their Donors means? Most likely.

    That is a separate issue and TBH I am begrudgingly at the point where I've resigned myself that there will always be some base level of corruption, there is literally no way to weed it out. So I would rather have the donations be a public record so I can know who brib... I mean 'donating' to my candidate and so I know on which issues to be more skeptical.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    I think we can both agree the conservative judges in this case will not even begin to entertain that whimsical notion.

    Neither would a liberal judge - because the Judiciary is not the legislature. They have literally no basis to make law, only to interpret law. That is the very reason for the Seperation of Powers in the United States system.

    Now to the video - interesting, but ultimately misses the mark on a number of things.

    There are implied rights in the Constitution and rights which are granted by the customs and traditions of English Common Law - for example, did you know that Supreme Court opinions in the US have cited the Magna Carta more times than anyone else? Even though the Magna Carta is not the US Constitution.

    He talks about Voting rights and how the constitution stopped them from being applied to Women - not strictly true. In order to vote you had to own a certain amount of property and unmarried women who owned above that threshold did get to vote (there are one or two documented ladies from this period).

    So whilst there are rights that are implied or are considered to have a basis in common practice, there same cannot be said for Abortion.

    His point about Benjamin Franklin falls flat when you read the detail of what he did - it's not an abortion, it's inducing a miscarriage early in the pregnancy - think of it like a Morning-After pill.


    Edit: And since this is the Biden thread.

    Have you seen the news article that half of Biden's Twitter followers are fake?
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  10. #535
    Join Date
    4th December 2009 - 19:45
    Bike
    I Ride No More
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post

    .... There's a chilling effect on Campaigning (and therefore Political Speech) if a candidate has to worry about their ability to pay for their campaign. Any law that has a chilling effect on Free Speech is contrary to the First Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

    ...
    Morning.

    So how did they manage in "the old days" ? When campaign funds might have been considerably less available.

    And do you feel that:
    1. the quality of the content - and debate - has improved as a result of the considerable increases in campaign funding ?

    2. third parties (other than the Donkey and Elephant teams) comparatively receive a "fair deal" , in being able to package up and present their political offer ?

  11. #536
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking01 View Post
    Morning.

    So how did they manage in "the old days" ? When campaign funds might have been considerably less available.
    Sure - the question is whether or not there is a federal limit on it. If you are good and lots of people donate (AKA the Market deciding) then you have lots of campaign funds, if you are crap, you don't.

    If the Federal government says 'You can't spend that much' or 'this is the limit' - then that is a government infringement on free speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking01 View Post
    And do you feel that:
    1. the quality of the content - and debate - has improved as a result of the considerable increases in campaign funding ?
    With the exception of maybe Thatcher, it all went downhill after Churchill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking01 View Post
    2. third parties (other than the Donkey and Elephant teams) comparatively receive a "fair deal" , in being able to package up and present their political offer ?
    See above on it being a free market. I do agree though that The Donkey and the Elephant have brand awareness that independents don't.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  12. #537
    Join Date
    8th November 2005 - 12:25
    Bike
    Aprillia RSV1000R 92 KX500
    Location
    Pirongia, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,116
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Well, no - it's under 'Where's the evidence one way or another' - and without evidence AND given the level of scrutiny...
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...te-house-logs/
    "The records show that Trump was active on the phone for part of the day, documenting conversations that he had with at least eight people in the morning and 11 people that evening. The seven-hour gap also stands in stark contrast to the extensive public reporting about phone conversations he had with allies during the attack, such as a call Trump made to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — seeking to talk to Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) — and a phone conversation he had with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)."

    You need more gloss, gags and blindfolds



    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    The objection that you raise though is a non-starter. It's like in a Motor race - someone might find a cunning loophole in the current rules - The Race stewards might think it's BS, but if it complies with the rules, then it complies with the rules.
    If course you are right, every good constitution needs good loop holes. And when they are found, the pollies in drag should congratulate both themselves and whom ever bought the case with said loop holes to the court for their creativity in circumnavigating laws and the will of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Edit: And since this is the Biden thread.

    Have you seen the news article that half of Biden's Twitter followers are fake?
    As is the case of any popular person on twitter.
    Should twitter do something about that? Yes. Why have they not? You can bet their bottom dollar the answer revolves around revenue.

    As an aside, I tried advertising on facebook. I compared their resulting stats with my web logs and concluded that facebook are their own largest click farm - outright fraud.

  13. #538
    Join Date
    5th December 2009 - 12:32
    Bike
    Waaaaaahhhhhhhh
    Location
    Te Mosgiel
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    With the exception of maybe Thatcher, it all went downhill after Churchill.
    Wash your mouth out.

  14. #539
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Berries View Post
    Wash your mouth out.
    I like Thatchers speeches and I grew up in post-Thatcher Britain - she was certainly... strident in her views. Probably one of the reasons I like her.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  15. #540
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...te-house-logs/
    "The records show that Trump was active on the phone for part of the day, documenting conversations that he had with at least eight people in the morning and 11 people that evening. The seven-hour gap also stands in stark contrast to the extensive public reporting about phone conversations he had with allies during the attack, such as a call Trump made to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — seeking to talk to Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) — and a phone conversation he had with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)."

    You need more gloss, gags and blindfolds
    Hold up one tickety Boo, now again - I have no opinion on this one way or another - however - in that article, we have the official minutes and we have a bunch of hearsay that he was supposedly on the phone during this time.

    Could the meeting minutes have been tampered? Sure. Does there exist a Cell phone log that would corroborate or disprove what is claimed? Absolutely. And if it showed that this wasn't true, then you can bet the Dems would be trumpeting it around the world. I'm saying that the lack of that bit of evidence given the intense scrutiny is the basis for my opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    If course you are right, every good constitution needs good loop holes. And when they are found, the pollies in drag should congratulate both themselves and whom ever bought the case with said loop holes to the court for their creativity in circumnavigating laws and the will of the people.
    This isn't even a loophole though - it's very simply 'Is this protected by the Constitution' - Free Speech (and therefore Political Speech) is definitely protected, so in the example given, their reasoning was sound - a financial limit has a chilling effect on speech, therefore not constitutional.

    With Abortion, there's nothing written in the constitution nor is there anything in any other foundational texts (Magna carta, English Bill of Rights etc.) that supports it being constitutionally protected.

    And remember - if it's not protected by the constitution, the individual states will be free to decide their own Abortion laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by sugilite View Post
    As is the case of any popular person on twitter.
    Should twitter do something about that? Yes. Why have they not? You can bet their bottom dollar the answer revolves around revenue.

    As an aside, I tried advertising on facebook. I compared their resulting stats with my web logs and concluded that facebook are their own largest click farm - outright fraud.
    Elon is currently wonderfully having fun with that - an audit on him found 20% of his followers are bots, whereas Twitters SEC fillings said only 5% of twitter users are bots....

    And I agree that Twitter have been hesitant to do something about it, for the precise reason you raise. I just found it interesting how the most popular president evertm has half of his twitter followers as bots.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •