Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Mar 16, 2015, at 6:31 PM:
Here is a place for the people with hurt feeling to post so we don't have to go through half of the thread and see mostly whining posts. Also a good place for the St. Louis history stuff.
Replies (168)
Rick,
I was unaware of that museum, been through the Civil War displays when it was at the Missouri History Museum, but I was not that impressed.
If this focuses on Missouri's part in the war, it is a must see for me.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Mar 16, 2015, at 7:47 PM
Good move regret. I thought about doing this myself.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Mar 16, 2015, at 8:31 PM
Rick & Wheels: I would rather visit the actual battlefields of the Civil War and absorb the history of that moment in time.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM
Rick & Wheels: I would rather visit the actual battlefields of the Civil War and absorb the history of that moment in time.
-- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM
They're both interesting. I went to the MO Civil War Museum last fall and visited Fort Sumter in December (as well as the SC History Museum).
Both were great learning experiences!
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:01 AM
How ironic is it that one of the biggest whiners and doomer and gloomers on these threads would establish this? It's more than funny !!
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:30 AM
How ironic is it that one of the biggest whiners and doomer and gloomers on these threads would establish this? It's more than funny !!
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:30 AM
My guess is he did it for you Lefty....
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:32 AM
Mic2: What did you think of the boat ride out to Ft. Sumter?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 12:19 PM
-- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 12:19 PM
I wish the weather would have been better so I could have sat outside; I think there would have been some really good views. Since it was cool and drizzly, though, the inside of the boat was just a crowded boat ride.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 12:29 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 3:59 PM
"Look, I thought I made it clear a few days ago that I was not going to get into a never ending, go nowhere, question and answer session with you."
Then don't answer my questions! How hard is that?
"You asked a question..... I gave you an answer. In my opinion that was being courteous to you. (I am not the subject of an interrogation on here with you as the moderator.) But no you start picking apart what I said, and you may be going there.... but you and I are not. "
When two parties have a discussion, there is back and forth. That's how it works. Again, if you don't want to answer my question, fine. Don't!
"In my absence you started your harangue about open minded, closed minded etc. etc.. Who really cares?"
No one, but we're on a discussion forum. We discuss things. If you don't like the topic, don't participate!
As an aside, I'd hardly call one question a "harangue".
"You minded my business while I was gone for a few hours, now I can handle it myself from this point on."
No, I didn't. I asked a follow-up question. That was it. You're response might be appropriate had I posted every fifteen minutes until you came back, but that wasn't the case.
Reasoning (I think, maybe Theorist) said the other day that there are some posters here who view these forums as their private coffee shop where they can hang out with friends. I think that applies perfectly to you. You seem to hate the fact that people you don't like can post here, and ever attempt to converse with you. Rather than simply ignoring those people, you do your best to start trouble with them and then blame them for your behavior.
"PS: I am also capable of picking the threads I want to read and post on."
Of course. Strangely, though, you don't seem very capable of not posting when you don't want to without letting everyone know.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 4:14 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 4:14 PM
And you have a hard time comprehending an answer....
PS...Next time post your exhausting rebuttal on the right thread.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:20 PM
Next time post your exhausting rebuttal on the right thread.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:20 PM
This is the right thread. That's exactly what this thread is for, so the ridiculousness doesn't clutter up threads for those of us who do actually want to have a discussion.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:28 PM
I look at it this way , there are a whole lot of worse things posters could be doing
-- Posted by Turtle. on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:36 PM
Oh, definitely. But it's still annoying. Had I not moved my reply over here, that thread would have devolved into Wheel's whining about everything he thinks I've every done, with people like Bon Scott, semo, and RELee trying to jump on the pile anytime they see the opportunity.
That sort of atmosphere isn't very conducive to productive discussions.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:41 PM
God all mighty, you still don't get it.
We need to take a survey on who is the most hard headed, won't let anything go poster on speakout. I would bet good money on who would win.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:45 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:45 PM
Don't get what?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:47 PM
Where are the Irish jokes today?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 7:19 PM
Same thought here,OJ,so here ya go:
An Irishman walks into a bar in Dublin, orders three pints of Guinness and sits down, drinking a sip out of each one in turn.
When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.
The bartender approaches and tells him, "You know, a pint goes flat after you draw it; it would taste better if you bought one at a time."
The Irishman replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers.
One is in America, the other in Australia, and I'm here in Dublin.
When we all left home, we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together.
So I drinks one for each o' me brothers and one for meself."
The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it at that.
The Irishman becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way: He orders three pints and drinks them in turn.
One day, he comes in and orders two pints. All the other regulars take notice and fall silent.
When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your great loss."
The Irishman looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawn in his eye and he laughs.
"Oh, no, everybody's just fine" he explains, "it's just that me wife had us join that Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking.
"Hasn't affected me brothers a bit though."
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 7:35 PM
Rock, I can relate to that joke!
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 8:03 PM
Oh, definitely. But it's still annoying. Had I not moved my reply over here, that thread would have devolved into Wheel's whining about everything he thinks I've every done, with people like Bon Scott, semo, and RELee trying to jump on the pile anytime they see the opportunity.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 6:41 PM
But instead it appears we have you whining over here on this thread. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:02 PM
Just wondering since I tend to forget: Anyone remember a thread that " for those of us who do actually want to have a discussion" continued on subject after miccheek joined in?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:47 PM
I was astute?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 6:37 AM
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:47 PM
Noticed that.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 7:58 AM
Just wondering since I tend to forget: Anyone remember a thread that " for those of us who do actually want to have a discussion" continued on subject after miccheek joined in?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 17, 2015, at 9:47 PM
Gee, I wonder why?
"Mickey,
...Now I see you have been trying to bait me into another of your famous circular loops or you have a really poor reading comprehension level."
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:38 AM
Want some cheese with your whine?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Want some cheese with your whine?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Who's whining?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:47 AM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:09 AM
A lot of ERs have clinics like that. I like the $10 fee. I could be wrong, though, but I think it will take a lot more than $10 a patient to operate the clinic. Even if the clinic could see 20 patients an hour, that's only $200 for that hour, which doesn't seem like enough.
If that's correct, someone will have to make up the difference. In your vision, would that be other hospital patients, kind-hearted people who make donations, or the general public?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:14 AM
There are some docs that take a monthly fee and promise anytime services at no cost. It makes sense if you have a very high co-pay.
Seems medical expense that insurance pays for continues to rise as expense for services paid for by clients goes down. How much has Lasik eye surgery cost gone down?
Another thing that is hard to understand is the amount of money the two major hospitals spend in advertising while they are always looking to government for funding.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:32 AM
any outstanding bills be deducted from Tax returns
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:32 AM
Interesting idea. I never would have thought of that.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:37 AM
If that's correct, someone will have to make up the difference. In your vision, would that be other hospital patients, kind-hearted people who make donations, or the general public?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:14 AM
It would be the same people that are subsidizing other's obamacare through their tax dollars.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 11:30 AM
I recently found something to whine about. I occasionally enjoy tuna salad on bread or crackers and noticed the cheaper brands all say product of Taiwan or China, so I figure I need to move up to the name brands such as Starkist, BumbleBee, Chicken of the Sea etc. Well, they all say product of Korea, Indonesia and one said American Somali. I do a little research and learn there is only one company left in America that catches, processes, cans and sells tuna; appropriately named American Tuna.
Now why is that? Well, a 6oz. can of American tuna is between $4 and $5. It is cheaper to catch it here, freeze it send it overseas and have it returned in a can.
From what I know about catfish look alike products from Vietnam, I don't think I want tuna from Taiwan or Thailand or wherever.
Further research hints that American food companies are held to the rules of safety and their competitors over seas are not.
Now why is that.
If the internet information is true, [ :) ] even Green Giant frozen vegetables are all imported.
Also companies are required to prove a carbon track estimate for shipping to market and there's less carbon footprint from a big boat to and from China than airfreight from California to New York.
The smaller tuna caught on lines are supposed to have less mercury than the tuna caught by foreign countries in nets and of course some eastern countries raise tuna in ponds.
Reckon I'll eat less but better tuna from now on.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:08 PM
"Now why is that? Well, a 6oz. can of American tuna is between $4 and $5. It is cheaper to catch it here, freeze it send it overseas and have it returned in a can."
You answered that here:
"Further research hints that American food companies are held to the rules of safety and their competitors over seas are not."
Compliance with those rules costs money, which is passed on to the consumer, making American tuna cost between $4 and $5. If you are concerned about the safety of the product, you will shell out the $4 to $5 per can. If not, you will eat the cheaper stuff. Most people, obviously, are not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:45 PM
Now, the busybodies among us will believe we ought to force the Asian tuna companies to comply with the same rules, mak8g their tuna also cost between $4 to $5.
Freedom lovers, on the other hand, will hold that people ought to be free to buy and est the cheap tuna, just don't expect us to foot the bill if you get sick from doing so.
To the busybodies, the fact the government has opted to foot the bill means the government ought also have the authority to tell you you have to pay more for your tuna, and eat only approved tuna to mitigate the risk to the national pocketbook.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM
Shapley, I'm surprised, was expecting someone to point out big greedy corporations using cheap overseas labor.
I think you describe the situation well. Some may see a solution in taxing the tuna and giving tax rebates to the companies that agree to reduce their profit margin and hire more local illegals. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:03 PM
We try not to eat any food products from over seas especially from China. Sometimes we have to grin and bear it when no American product is available.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 9:25 PM
semo, Same here. I have been happy with a lot of store brand products but they always say distributed by....and don't say where they come from. I think it time for some regulation about country of origin labeling and I'm the guy that abhors more regulation.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:02 PM
Freedom lovers, on the other hand, will hold that people ought to be free to buy and est the cheap tuna, just don't expect us to foot the bill if you get sick from doing so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM
Let's say I'm a business owner: who "foots the bill" for me when half of my workforce is unable to work due to tainted tuna?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 6:38 AM
"Let's say I'm a business owner: who "foots the bill" for me when half of my workforce is unable to work due to tainted tuna?"
What do you do when half your workforce is unable to work for other reasons, such as the flu, the weather, transportation strikes, or any of the myriad other reasons people miss work? Who do you think ought to foot the bill for half your workforce missing work due to their penchant for cheap tuna?
What are the odds that half your workforce will be eating tuna for lunch, anyway, unless you are feeding it to them?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:41 AM
"We try not to eat any food products from over seas especially from China. Sometimes we have to grin and bear it when no American product is available."
There are over a billion Chinese, and only about 350,000,000 Americans. They have over 4,000 years of history, and we have only a little over 200. They've probably learned a bit about food preparation and serving in that time, methinks.
I think I'd rather take my chances with Asian food than with most American fast foods, anyway. When I was in China, the Chinese ate Chinese food, and so did I. When I was in Japan, the Japanese ate Japanese food, and so did I. When I was in the Philippines, the Filipinos ate Filipino food, and so did I. I'm still here.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Shapley, Reckon those foods could account for your flawed conservative SO salon logic?
"Let's say I'm a business owner: who "foots the bill".....
You would sue into bankruptcy the mom and pop store that sold the tuna most likely.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:59 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Shapley: Don't know what food plays in life expectancy but I'll take grown in USA over grown in China. USA ranked 36 and China ranked 65.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:00 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:41 AM
Yes, I was being intentionally extreme, in an attempt to make a point. I obviously wasn't clear enough.
Your choices don't effect just you. Your decision to eat unregulated meat doesn't only effect you and the costs aren't only related to treating any illness.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:03 AM
"Shapley, Reckon those foods could account for your flawed conservative SO salon logic?"
A broad range of experience, including food and travel, contribute to my worldview, I would say. :)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:05 AM
"Your choices don't effect just you. Your decision to eat unregulated meat doesn't only effect you and the costs aren't only related to treating any illness."
It's still a silly point. The choice of employees to ride off-road vehicles, participate in rodeos or risky sports such as sky-diving and skiing, drive long distances, perform their own home maintenance, etc., all carry risk, which affects more than just them. Ought we, then, to be able to prohibit "free" men from participating in such things if we decide the societal cost is too high?
My point is simple: either we are free men or we are nor free men. If we are free men, then we have the freedom to engage in risk, even down the food we eat.
I stand on the side of freedom. I take it you do not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:09 AM
Ought we, then, to be able to prohibit "free" men from participating in such things if we decide the societal cost is too high?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:09 AM
Absolutely. That's exactly what society is.
I stand on the side of freedom. I take it you do not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:09 AM
I do not believe you are an anarchist, so you believe there are limits to your freedom as well. Am I wrong?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:22 AM
Time for a song about choices, we are all free to make them.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:25 AM
"I do not believe you are an anarchist, so you believe there are limits to your freedom as well. Am I wrong?"
I have said before that men gather to form governments in which they exchange a limited amount of freedom for an attainable level of security. Ergo, there are agreed-upon limits imposed as part of the establishment of government.
But, in our government (as established) those limitations are minimal. While the government can limit commerce in uninspected fish, it lacks the authority (as it should) to limit its consumption by those willing to acquire it through unregulated means.
This goes for such things as raw milk and moldy cheeses, too.
When I buy milk, it sells "sell by" on the date stamp, or perhaps "best before" or "last day of sale", indicating that the milk cannot be sold after that date (regulation of commerce). It can sit in my refrigerator for months, and I can still drink it if I am so inclined (and it can get past my nose), because we have not given the government the authority to inspect my refrigerator for expired foodstuffs.
When it comes to foodstuffs, there is a cost associated with all regulation, and thus there is a trade-off between regulatory costs and safety gains. That is why I speak of an "attainable" level of security. When the costs exceed the gains, the regulation becomes simply burdensome, and impinge unfairly upon the freedom of the people, who ought to be more free.
We still sing, laughably, about being the "land of the free and the home of the brave", yet too many of us are not brave enough to eat uninspected foodstuffs and prefer that no one be free to do so. Perhaps we ought to relegate that song to the archives, no?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM
"Absolutely. That's exactly what society is.
No, it is not. That you think so is a sad reflection on what our society is becoming.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:38 AM
I would suggest that you do not leave the comfort of your home. Should you ever find yourself overseas, or even is some parts of this country, you will find food preparation practices that would make you shudder, and sending you running for the comfort of the nearest Cracker Barrel (which may be thousands of miles from some places I've been).
We have regulations in place that prevent Americans from producing some of the same foodstuffs we buy in droves from other nations: moldy cheeses, liquors, fish products, etc. The busybodies devise regulations to keep people safe from their own desires not to be so. They cite those "societal costs" as the basis for this.
There is reason to believe our over-sanitization is actually making us less healthy, rather than more so. Much has been written about this recently, but my grandfather commented upon it ages ago. Now, we learn, that our government is backing off its cholesterol concerns, finding out (after billions have been spent trying to control it) that it may not be the health factor they thought it to be. This is not the first time such a thing has happened. This is the risk we run in being overzealous in our desire to protect the people - and we have no way to recoup the costs their "good intentions" have imposed upon us.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:46 AM
No, it is not. That you think so is a sad reflection on what our society is becoming.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:38 AM
Yes, it is. "I have said before that men gather to form governments in which they exchange a limited amount of freedom for an attainable level of security."
We may differ in our view of what "limited amount of freedom" is or how much security is attainable (or desirable), but you said yourself you believe in exchanging certain freedoms for certain securities.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 10:28 AM
So far as eating foods from China. I avoid them because they are packaged for export to the US not for the Chinese to eat.
I go back to my very first overseas trip and listening to sound advice from our guide. Do not drink the water while you are here. Your immune system is so weak from drinking the water in your country, our water will make you sick. Those who did not believe her paid the price.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 10:56 AM
"...but you said yourself you believe in exchanging certain freedoms for certain securities."
I said myself that we limit the authority of government (constitutionally) to the matter of commerce, and not what acts free men may participate it.
I have argued that our expansion of the definition of "affecting commerce" has become so broad as to be meaningless as a restriction, since the government now believes it can regulate anything. That ain't right, and that ain't what we ought to be.
So, no, that ain't what society is supposed to be. It bothers me that so many think society exists to save us from ourselves.
Just because you may employ me does not mean you own me, and thus you do not have the authority to tell me I can't eat Asian Tuna, skydive, nor ride in an ATV. You should (in a free society) have the authority not to hire me if I do those things, or even ask me to sign a contract that says I won't, and I should (as a free man) enjoy the freedom to agree or not agree depending on whether or not I value the job more than I value the freedom to those things. That's what society is supposed to be.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 11:19 AM
Just because you may employ me does not mean you own me,...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 11:19 AM
What am I missing? I thought we were talking about what society legislates in an attempt to provide attainable security, not what your employer tells you that you may or may not do?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 11:26 AM
"What am I missing? I thought we were talking about what society legislates in an attempt to provide attainable security, not what your employer tells you that you may or may not do?"
Is your memory that short?
"Let's say I'm a business owner: who "foots the bill" for me when half of my workforce is unable to work due to tainted tuna?"
There's two parts to my answer: Society (via the government) ought not to be dictating what I can eat. An employer, as a condition of employment can, however, request that I avoid undo risk as a condition of employment - a voluntary agreement which I may reject (at the cost of not getting the job).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 11:48 AM
As society (through the government) assumes more and more responsibility for societal costs (health coverage, retirement, etc.) it seeks to mitigate those costs by imposing restrictions on citizens freedoms to incur risk. Many understood this long before it happened, which is why right-thinking men opposed government assuming those costs in the first place.
"A government which takes control of the economy for the good of the people ends up taking control of the people for the good of the economy" - Robert Dole -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 11:52 AM
Yet another example of how our nation is shedding its one-time love for Freedom:
Apparently, he is so upset at the Democrats who stayed home in the last election he wants to fine or jail them if they don't vote the next go-round.
He is no lover of freedom, that much is evident. He has a particular love for that despicable word "mandatory", as in "mandatory insurance" and "mandatory voting".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Speaking of Asian diets, here is Lệ Mật, Vietnam, which is known for eating snakes and serving their still-beating hearts in shots of vodka.
No, I haven't been there, but I have eaten snake. I suppose the busybodies would want to prevent that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 12:37 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 12:30 PM
As I stated earlier, you admit you are willing to give up freedoms in the name of security.
As an example,I seem to recall you are OK with laws restricting your freedom to harm other people.
Therefore, the question is not whether someone is a "lover of freedom" or not, but rather what level of freedom vs. security they find most pleasing.
Why do you find the freedom to vote more important than the security of having a government more representative of the people?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 1:14 PM
"As an example,I seem to recall you are OK with laws restricting your freedom to harm other people."
Actually, no such restrictions exist. We have laws which provides sanctions for having done so, but no pre-emption is put in place. That is as it should be. You, however, have favoured pre-emptory laws to prevent it - such as gun control laws, which unduly restrict freedom based on the concept that I "might" hurt someone with a firearm if I have the freedom to do so. There is a clear difference, even if you don't see it.
"Therefore, the question is not whether someone is a "lover of freedom" or not, but rather what level of freedom vs. security they find most pleasing."
Not really. Those who are willing to trade an undo amount of freedom for a little temporary security clearly do not love nor value their freedom.
"Why do you find the freedom to vote more important than the security of having a government more representative of the people?"
There are a number of reasons people don't vote. I suspect the largest number of those non-voters are people who do not care enough to learn the issues or candidates. I do not think it is a good idea to force those people who do not know nor care to cast votes.
Another group would be those who don't vote for religious reasons. Their freedom of religion ought to be respected.
Another group would be those who withhold their vote because they do not like the options given. Forcing them to vote for either of two bad choices is another bad choice.
"Mandatory" anything is anti-freedom. This nation is founded on the idea of freedom.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 1:49 PM
Mandating clean air and water is not anti-freedom.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 2:06 PM
We have laws which provides sanctions for having done so, but no pre-emption is put in place.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 1:49 PM
No one's going to come busting down your door if you buy a black market can of tuna. Ask the millions of users of "illegal" drugs.
However, if you're caught selling tuna on the black market, there are punishments in place.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 2:14 PM
Back to food, Saying what I can eat is one thing. Saying what someone can sell is another. I think transportation charges on new cars is the same if the car is sold a mile or 500 miles from the factory. Not sure if that should be either but food should at least be labeled as to where it came from.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 2:17 PM
"No one's going to come busting down your door if you buy a black market can of tuna. Ask the millions of users of "illegal" drugs."
Apparently, you don't watch COPS. Nor do you hear the laments of the many, many victims of "zero tolerance" in the War on Drugs.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 2:21 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 1:49 PM
Exactly, they are victims of the punishment, not of the pre-emption (for the most part)
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 2:27 PM
Mandatory voting would lead to picking up a reward check on the way out of the polls.
The more uniformed people you get to vote the more democrats you get elected.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 2:53 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:43 PM
"At one point in America's history , a person had the Right to ingest anything they wanted into their own personal body ."
And that's my point. Today's society is so brainwashed with the collectivist ideas "it takes a village", or "what about the children", or "if it saves just one life", or even "Who could possibly be against clean air and water" that they are no longer even know what Freedom is. Read the posts above, and see what I mean. They have made themselves subservient to the system, and if you refuse to submit yourself to it, you are the enemy.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:47 PM
"Not sure if that should be either but food should at least be labeled as to where it came from."
A simple, free market solution to that would be to not buy food that isn't. If enough people take that approach, then all food suppliers would label them accordingly, lest they not be able to sell their food.
If the people in general don't care where it comes from (and I get the impression most people don't), they won't.
Having a law to require it merely means that those that don't care have to pay extra to have something done to their food packaging that is of no benefit to them, just to satisfy the minority that do care.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:51 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:43 PM
That's why I added "for the most part". Yes, people can be actively pursued for drug possession. However, for many, many more people, there is nothing preventing them for using drugs if they so choose.
In none of those articles does it state the police were entering the homes to prevent people from using drugs.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:51 PM
"Mandating clean air and water is not anti-freedom."
Yes it is, ultimately.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:52 PM
"In none of those articles does it state the police were entering the homes to prevent people from using drugs."
They were drug raids. They were entering the homes to arrest the occupants for possessing drugs (which they didn't possess), and to deprive them of liberty or property for the sin of having possessed them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:54 PM
I will admit I agree with Shapley's tuna logic but if a couple of people start reading labels, at least I have had a part in the start to the free market solution available. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:00 PM
and to deprive them of liberty or property for the sin of having possessed them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 3:54 PM
Right...so the raids were punitive, not preemptive.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:22 PM
"Right...so the raids were punitive, not preemptive."
Possession means they haven't consumed them yet, doesn't it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:34 PM
Possession means they haven't consumed them yet, doesn't it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:34 PM
If I understand you correctly, you believe the reason for drug possession laws is to prevent people from taking drugs rather than punish them for possessing drugs. Is that right?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:42 PM
Why are we even talking about this? No one here has proposed or support laws allowing law enforcement to prevent you from eating what you want, so the similarities to that sort of drug enforcement aren't applicable.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:48 PM
Too much consumin' going on!
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 4:55 PM
"If I understand you correctly, you believe the reason for drug possession laws is to prevent people from taking drugs rather than punish them for possessing drugs. Is that right?"
Originally, they only applied to quantities that would exceed that one might reasonably use for personal consumption, on the theory that it was sufficient quantity to suggest sales (regulation of commerce). However, the "zero tolerance" laws made possession of any quantity sufficient to get one punished. Given the "zero tolerance" laws, the only logical purpose for search and seizure of such small quantities is to prevent use, ergo the goal is pre-emptive.
"Why are we even talking about this? No one here has proposed or support laws allowing law enforcement to prevent you from eating what you want, so the similarities to that sort of drug enforcement aren't applicable."
Actually, you did:
You fired this volley: "Your choices don't effect just you. Your decision to eat unregulated meat doesn't only effect you and the costs aren't only related to treating any illness."
I responded: "Ought we, then, to be able to prohibit "free" men from participating in such things if we decide the societal cost is too high?"
To which you replied: "Absolutely. That's exactly what society is."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 5:05 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 5:05 PM
I apologize if my statement implied police would knock the sandwich out of your hand if they suspected it was made with unapproved tuna. That was not my intent.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 5:19 PM
Too much nit-picking. Eat what you want when you want and how much you want.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 5:26 PM
I may have to give up tuna and become mackerel smacker.
Maybe as many lives have been ruined by imprisonment via drug laws as the drugs themselves ruin.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 5:33 PM
"I apologize if my statement implied police would knock the sandwich out of your hand if they suspected it was made with unapproved tuna. That was not my intent."
I know that, but that is the ultimate end of laws. Laws, ultimately, are enforced at the point of the gun. Consider the young man shot recently by the police for selling untaxed cigarettes. Surely no one thought, when they passed the cigarette tax, that anyone would be shot over its enforcement, but that probability always exists. That is why you do not pass laws haphazardly.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM
OK. Using that example, it seems to me that the regulation didn't remove Garner's freedom to sell cigarettes, but rather punished him for doing so.
You said earlier laws against harming another person weren't preemptive but punitive and that you were OK with that (as a rule).
I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see the difference in the basis behind the law against selling untaxed cigarettes and the law against assault, for example.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 8:48 PM
"You said earlier laws against harming another person weren't preemptive but punitive and that you were OK with that (as a rule)."
No. I didn't say I was OK with it. You said that. I am okay with laws making it illegal to kill people. I am generally not okay with laws requiring pre-emptive actions, such as gun control or camera monitoring to prevent them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:01 PM
"I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see the difference in the basis behind the law against selling untaxed cigarettes and the law against assault, for example."
Then I am afraid there is no point in continuing this discussion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:06 PM
My comment: "As an example,I seem to recall you are OK with laws restricting your freedom to harm other people."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:01 PM
What you said earlier:
"Actually, no such restrictions exist. We have laws which provides sanctions for having done so, but no pre-emption is put in place"
And above
" I am okay with laws making it illegal to kill people."
To me, a law making it illegal to kill people is a law restricting your freedom to kill people. From what I understood earlier, you objected to that classification because the law didn't actually prevent your from killing someone, just punished you for having done so.
Did I misunderstand?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 9:10 PM
A law against killing people imposes no up front cost to my freedom. Unless and until I kill someone, the existence of such a law does not hamper me in the least.
Sin taxes, on the other hand, are generally passed with the intent to discourage the "sinful" behaviour taxed. If I want to exercise my freedom to smoke, the tax is designed to make it more costly to do so. If you will read my original posts on tuna, you will see that this still talking about is the same thing. The busybodies don't want me smoking, so they seek to pre-empt it by making it more costly to do so.
In addition, the prohibition against murder is designed to protect others from my bad choices: a prohibition against smoking, or eating uninspected tuna, is designed to protect me from my own bad choices.
That is as clear and straightforward as I can make it. If you still cannot see the difference, then I can help you no further.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 6:54 AM
A law against killing people imposes no up front cost to my freedom. Unless and until I kill someone, the existence of such a law does not hamper me in the least.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 6:54 AM
That's simply not true. The police will certainly actively (and forcefully!) prevent you from killing someone if the need arises.
In addition, the prohibition against murder is designed to protect others from my bad choices: a prohibition against smoking, or eating uninspected tuna, is designed to protect me from my own bad choices.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 6:54 AM
Again, your choices affect others. Whether it's the employer who loses money while you're not at work or the patient in the emergency room who has to wait because the staff is treating you instead.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 6:54 AM
I think you're right. I still can see no reason these laws are fundamentally different except due to distinctions you've created in your mind to prevent the cognitive dissonance that is inherent in your ideology.
At the end of the day, we all believe we must give up certain freedoms to have certain securities in a society. The only difference is which freedoms we are willing to give up and witch securities we believe necessary and worth the cost.
If one is willing to give up any freedoms for any reason, then the reasoning "Because I'm a free person" is never sufficient to oppose any change.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 7:29 AM
"That's simply not true. The police will certainly actively (and forcefully!) prevent you from killing someone if the need arises."
How? I have to be actively in the process of trying to kill someone before they act. That is to say, they do not act until I do.
"Again, your choices affect others. Whether it's the employer who loses money while you're not at work or the patient in the emergency room who has to wait because the staff is treating you instead."
Now you're being absurd. By your convoluted logic, everything a person does affects everybody and everything else, and thus we ought not be free to do anything without first having cleared it with society. That is a very scary mindset!
" I still can see no reason these laws are fundamentally different except due to distinctions you've created in your mind to prevent the cognitive dissonance that is inherent in your ideology."
"Cognitive dissonance"? That's a bit of an ego trip. What you are saying is that any ideology with which you do not agree is inherently dissonant? What you are saying is that you don't see the difference between leading a mule with a carrot and smacking him in the rump with a board, as long as the mule moves. There is a very real difference.
Consider this simple example: Your mother tells you "you'd better not go in that room and mess it up, or you'll get a spanking". The threat of a spanking may or may not be enough to keep you out of the room, but the room is still open and the opportunity (freedom) to enter it and mess it up remains.
On the other hand, if you mother shuts the door an locks it, your freedom to enter the room and mess it up has been pre-empted. You may say they are the same thing, but they are clearly different. The one entrust you as a person who can be given the freedom and yet exercise the restraint necessary to not act contrary to good order while the other says you are not to be trusted and must be barred from having the freedom to act.
If you cannot see the difference between the two, then I would say it is you who suffers from cognitive dissonance. You want, on the one hand, to support the idea of "freedom" while, on the other hand, you want to legally pre-empt any negative actions that might be brought about by free men acting contrary to how you think they ought to act.
As I said before, people have surrendered so much of their freedom to the idea of the collective good they no longer know what it is to be free.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:28 AM
"If one is willing to give up any freedoms for any reason, then the reasoning "Because I'm a free person" is never sufficient to oppose any change."
And there you show how the "slippery slope" reasoning is actually valid: Your argument is that, once a person has agreed to surrender some freedom for the "common good", there ought to be no limit on how much freedom the "common good" can lay claim to.
Freedom ought always be sufficient reason to oppose change. Men have fought and died to gain freedom. Men, right-thinking men at least, have long been willing to shake off the yoke of oppression and chosen freedom. And yet, today, we see so many willing to surrender hard-fought freedoms in order for a false sense of security.
Spartacus weeps.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:33 AM
Freedom ought always be sufficient reason to oppose change. Men have fought and died to gain freedom. Men, right-thinking men at least, have long been willing to shake off the yoke of oppression and chosen freedom. And yet, today, we see so many willing to surrender hard-fought freedoms in order for a false sense of security.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:33 AM
Shapley: Very well stated and I'm in agreement 110%. How many died with "Freedom" as their last words spoken.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Now you're being absurd. By your convoluted logic, everything a person does affects everybody and everything else,
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:28 AM
That's not convoluted logic, that's the truth.No matter how much you want to say "I'm the only person affected by my decisions", that's simply not true.
"and thus we ought not be free to do anything without first having cleared it with society. That is a very scary mindset!"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:28 AM
That is far from the logical conclusion to the above.
Your argument is that, once a person has agreed to surrender some freedom for the "common good", there ought to be no limit on how much freedom the "common good" can lay claim to.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:33 AM
No, my argument is that once a person has agreed to surrender some freedom for the "common good", the "but it's my freedom" reasoning is no longer valid. There may be myriad reasons to favor the freedom over the common good.
you want to legally pre-empt any negative actions that might be brought about by free men acting contrary to how you think they ought to act.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:28 AM
Here's what you have to remember about my ideology: it's not "me based". You're projecting your own beliefs onto mine. I don't create opinions on public policy based on what I think people should do, or how I think people should act.
I think there are some things people should be allowed to do that I personally would prefer they not and I am willing to accept that there I things I would like to do that I can not because of how it would affect society.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:50 AM
The idea that everything I do affects others is reflected in the great fear of second hand tobacco smoke festering into laws against smoking in one's own home or in open spaces. How long until we have an extra tax on charcoal?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:55 AM
This is in reply to earlier discussions on this thread. How come fish don't sing....because you can't tuna fish.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:00 AM
Tell that to Billy Bass :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:02 AM
"That's not convoluted logic, that's the truth.No matter how much you want to say "I'm the only person affected by my decisions", that's simply not true."
Except that I've never said that. However, simply because my actions have ancillary effects upon others, that does not give them authority to restrict free men from doing things that do not act directly upon them.
"I don't create opinions on public policy based on what I think people should do, or how I think people should act."
Yes it is, you just don't want to admit it. You couch it in terms of the common good or societal benefit, but ultimately it is what you think serves the common good or what you think benefits society.
This morning it was reported that an effort in Los Angeles to curtail obesity by banning fast-food restaurants in certain locales has failed - obesity has increased in the targeted areas. There, again, we see the effects of putting someone's boneheaded idea of promoting the "common good" into legal action failing badly. Freedom was curtailed, to no benefit. So, how do the people get their freedom back? Who eats the cost (pun intended) of the failed effort?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:19 AM
Yes it is, you just don't want to admit it..ut ultimately it is what you think serves the common good or what you think benefits society.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:19 AM
Again, that's not correct.
that does not give them authority to restrict free men from doing things that do not act directly upon them. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:19 AM
If your freedom infringes upon the freedom of others, then something has to give, no?
how do the people get their freedom back?-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:19 AM
They change the laws.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:30 AM
"They change the laws."
That gives them future freedom (assuming the government will relent), but the precedent has been set that allows them to make such decisions based on dubious assumptions about their effectiveness, and the government's authority to make enact such restrictions. Also, the failed law likely cost many people money and time, which cannot be recouped.
"If your freedom infringes upon the freedom of others, then something has to give, no?"
So, you are saying the employer has the freedom not to have me get sick from eating uninspected tuna? That the person who arrives at the ER after me should expect to have the freedom to be seen without waiting? From where do those "freedoms" emanate?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM
Also, the failed law likely cost many people money and time, which cannot be recouped.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM
And I'm sure there have been plenty of times when money and time could have been saved by restricting freedom. Unfortunately, we can't see the future and our actions sometimes don't work as planned.
So, you are saying the employer has the freedom not to have me get sick from eating uninspected tuna? That the person who arrives at the ER after me should expect to have the freedom to be seen without waiting? From where do those "freedoms" emanate?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM
I said neither of those.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:43 AM
Twenty, thirty years ago, this argument would be a non-starter. Americans believed they were free. Now the collectivist mentality of this generation has resulted in such absurd notions. We have created a generation that has no idea what it is to be free, a generation of slaves to the state.
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp." -- Milton Friedman --
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:50 AM
"I said neither of those."
Technically, you did, because you used those examples as the basis for restricting the freedom to eat uninspected tuna.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:51 AM
"And I'm sure there have been plenty of times when money and time could have been saved by restricting freedom. Unfortunately, we can't see the future and our actions sometimes don't work as planned."
Which is why we should always err on the side of freedom.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Technically, you did, because you used those examples as the basis for restricting the freedom to eat uninspected tuna.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:51 AM
No, I used those as examples of how your decision to eat tainted tuna affects others.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 9:54 AM
"No, I used those as examples of how your decision to eat tainted tuna affects others."
And then you said:
"If your freedom infringes upon the freedom of others, then something has to give, no?"
So, I ask, what freedom of others is infringed upon if I eat uninspected tuna?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:01 AM
So, I ask, what freedom of others is infringed upon if I eat uninspected tuna?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:01 AM
The right to use the bathroom when you are keeping it busy maybe? ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:17 AM
So, I ask, what freedom of others is infringed upon if I eat uninspected tuna?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:01 AM
In that particular example, I can't think of anything.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:21 AM
"In that particular example, I can't think of anything."
And yet we have wasted all this time as you argued in favour of that authority?
Good day!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:26 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:26 AM
I'm sorry you found our discussion a waste of time.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 10:39 AM
May I share another whine? This one is not based on why butter sticks are wrapped the way they are but concerns Charter TV, Phone and Internet.
In 2008 I signed up with Charter and had no problem with the phones still hooked to the hardwire jacks in the house; still don't. It took over two years for the TV to stop losing signal each day at the same time. It still does it once in a while. Internet was always giving trouble as in "sorry we are doing upgrade" and like messages. A friend helped me change browsers and for a while the only concern was the increase in the monthly bill that I had to call about. They would promise to give me credit and revert back and two months later the bill would show I was behind the amount of the credit. That stopped when they went to no contract but I pay $50 per month more now than when I first signed up.
OK, I reckon I can afford it and don't need to have another service drilling holes in my walls and roof. What really sucks is their new format that won't allow enough time to compose and send an email without getting the "session ended" message and all that was typed gone never-never land.
I communicated with a live chat rep and of course it had to be my browser, my ignorance, anything but Charter. Then when I confirmed I had tried all his other suggestions, he recommended I send a suggestion to Charter to increase the session time using one of the convenient links of communication and feedback provided.
If no one replies, at least I think I'll feel better for typing this at least until I realize no one cares! :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 5:35 PM
Old John
Have had Charter cable forever. Never a problem.
Never have used their internet or phone service.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 6:02 PM
OJ: Dropped Charter a long time ago due to all their increases. Have DirecTV and AT&T hotspot for Internet no problems. Every time DirecTV tries to increase I get on the phone to their customer service and threaten to cancel then they give me a reduction in price for a year. With
AT&T starting their rollover on their data plans I have plenty of data units for the internet.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 7:20 PM
semo, Are there that many that want to watch TV on a phone screen while away from the big screen at home? I think not although Charter keeps drilling it in as a great selling point. I don't watch a lot of TV past flipping back and fourth between news channels and a couple of weekly shows of soap opera design that I find entertaining. I find myself watching C-Span sometimes to help with my self esteem in knowing I'm smarter than a lot of the folks elected to congress. But then again most people are smarter than congress.
Oh well, I guess I'll muddle through it and either change or not. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM
OJ: The data units I was referring to are for surfing the net while away from home. For your email problem may I suggest when composing save your draft before you get logged out. You can then go back to your draft and will only have lost what you typed after the save was done.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 8:53 AM
semo, That's how I was doing it. Now the "Save as Draft" button is gone. An auto-saving notification shows up at the bottom but I've yet to find one saved.
A wise friend offered an easy solution for now by composing on Word Pad then copy and paste into mail. :)
I Searched Charter Email problems and found nothing positive about Charter.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 9:20 AM
Want some cheese with your whine?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Welfare cheats like you seem to whine a lot.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 4:21 PM
Yet another example of how our nation is shedding its one-time love for Freedom:
Apparently, he is so upset at the Democrats who stayed home in the last election he wants to fine or jail them if they don't vote the next go-round.
He is no lover of freedom, that much is evident. He has a particular love for that despicable word "mandatory", as in "mandatory insurance" and "mandatory voting".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Mr. Obama said no such thing. Find the full interview in its context and you will see how wrong you are. Not that you would ever admit it. I await your nonsensical word salad rambling.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 4:38 PM
How many died with "Freedom" as their last words spoken.
-- Posted by semo471 on Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Not you. Did you serve semo471?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 4:41 PM
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 4:41 PM
Spaniard: Apparently, you didn't die with those words being your last. BTW, are you one of those 12 million illegals?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Mar 22, 2015, at 10:09 AM
Republican small govt idea. LOL
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Mar 22, 2015, at 6:01 PM
"Some lawmakers are wary of another government database with personal information, but both bills have safeguards so that the database is state-controlled and confidential."
Would these so called "safeguards" be anything like the those on the database on CCW permit holders that the Dept of Revenue with the cooperation of our governor passed on to the Feds against state law.
You might as well understand there is no safeguard that is not going to be defeated by politicians who violate existing laws to carry out their own agenda. They violate laws and how are they punished I would ask?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Mar 22, 2015, at 6:39 PM
They violate laws and how are they punished I would ask?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Mar 22, 2015, at 6:39 PM
Reminds me of the 2 times that Governor Nixon's administration released the "conceal and carry"list *twice* to the Obama Administration when they were asked - in clear violation of Missouri law.
I would have expected our Attorney General Eric Koster to have immediately filed charges - since it is in clear violation of Missouri law to do this.
Nothing happened. Nixon has a (D) behind his name and so does Koster (D).
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Mar 23, 2015, at 8:40 AM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 8:09 AM
Rick: IMO, there is more to this crash than they are letting out....first impression of mine is a suicide by the co-pilot.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 8:32 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 8:32 AM --
That would be a murder-suicide. In this case, a mass-murder-suicide.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 9:45 AM
It seems a bit bizarre that the French prosecutor would make such claims a day or two after the incident.
What if the co-pilot had an aneurism? Or stroke? Or something else? The only thing that is a mystery to me in those possibilities is how the plane descended. Usually the plane is on autopilot at cruise altitude and would have to be taken off for the plane to descend by itself.
Crazy...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Dug knows more what happened than anybody on the scene including investigators and rescuers. So, all you Dug suck ups get on board with him.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:28 AM
So, all you Dug suck ups get on board with him. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:28 AM
One liners and personal attacks. You've learned well from your thin skinned president.
Please keep posting - America needs to see the *real* Obama voters. Who they are and how nasty and angry they are. Don't stop revealing yourself.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:37 AM
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:28 AM
Left: What about all the Pres. Pinky suck ups?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Just after the plane crash the experts were talking abut how smart the Airbus is. It was smart enough to override pilot input at the air show and cause a crash, so why didn't it override the inputs of the co-pilot to avoid the mountain? It was said that alarms were sounding, bells ringing.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 11:01 AM
Rick, if you are not a Dug suck up, then why are you offended by my post? If you are not, it would have been best to ignore it. Now you evidently by your backlash have confirmed you very well might be. Why be defensive about it if you're not?
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:04 PM
So, all you Dug suck ups get on board with him. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:28 AM
It's confusing why you're so bitter. You've gotten everything a liberal could dream of:
-higher taxes from the middle class (a record)
-"free" health insurance for yourself
-riots in the street, chaos in the country
-higher debt and billions of paper money printed (Keynesian economics)
-US military being used as a socialist experiment in diversity and affirmative action
-promoting Islam and condemning Jews
-ignoring allies and comforting enemies
===
I ask again, what more could you have dreamed of?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:07 PM
I ask, what more s___ can you dream up? When did I show I favored your imaginary items on your list? You don't know what position I hold. There is one thing for sure and that is if Israel invaded the USA, I would be supporting the USA and not Israel like you and the rest of the republicans in this country. You, undoubtedly are the most pathetic poster that ever graced the pages of these forums. There is a special place for fools like you so as a hint dress lightly.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:19 PM
Dug: Left Turn is like all the blood sucking freeloaders with his hands out for all the free stuff....in short he wants it all including what you've got because you didn't earn it, the government did.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:22 PM
Ok scremo471, you have opened your big mouth about me. Now either prove what you are saying about me or crawl back under your rock and STFU. Do you understand this? I would guess that people like you and Dug who are always mouthing off about free stuff are actually the ones getting it. You're another Dug suck up for sure.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 1:07 PM
Left: Well aren't you a find one, have you ran out of booze?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 1:37 PM
Oh shut up you blow hard. Who gives a ______ what threats you pose on a public forum. Go ahead and get ugly simpleton why would I care? Two can play that game, son.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 1:56 PM
You don't know what position I hold. . -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:19 PM
All things Obama. I'll give you credit for being consistent.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 2:04 PM
Go ahead and get ugly -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 1:56 PM
more s___ can you dream up? -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:19 PM
crawl back under your rock and STFU. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 1:07 PM
Oh shut up you blow hard. Who gives a ______ what threats you pose on a public forum. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 1:56 PM
patriots something more to p___ and m___ about. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:11 PM
===
I know. It's tough. You've been pushing all-things-Obama on this site for years. You've never disagreed with him and told us all how great he is. You attack those that don't agree with his policies.
And now you realize what a failure he is so you lash out. It's tough to look in the mirror I guess. Cursing. Angry. Bitter. And thin skinned... you should be happy. You've gotten everything on my list above. And you still worship the man.
Be happy lefty. Enjoy Obama's success. Brag about your support for your "man".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM
Left: Are you just upset that Pres. Pinky is having some rough days....you feel his pain.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 2:16 PM
Wrong Dug. I opposed him turning Obamacare over to Nancy Pelosi, who I've stated many times I am no fan of. I oppose him on TPP. There are a lot of things I've not agreed with. I just don't spout off at every turn like you and your flock. Nice try though. Thanks for reposting some of my comments. It means a lot to me that you and others are paying attention.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 2:23 PM
It means a lot to me that you and others are paying attention. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 2:23 PM
I think you spout off all the time... reposting some of your comments is easy as cake. No need to thank me. I don't necessarily pay attention to you as much as your constant support of Obama.
I'm having a great day. It just shocks me how angry Obama supporters are lately. Doesn't make sense. You got everything you wanted from a far-left, inexperienced Acorn attorney. Why you would be so angry? So thin skinned? Cursing and hurling personal insults?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 2:48 PM
Not only that...but I support the President, and I am still having a great day! -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 3:16 PM
Great. Maybe you can help your friend "left turn".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 3:40 PM
Obama is right now in Birmingham Ala. lying through his teeth to a bunch of young people. He thinks it funny that congress has passed a budget that will give 50 people in Alabama a $2million tax cut at the expense of middle class economics because they want to lower the deficit when he himself has lowered the deficit more than republicans propose.
I'm not good at retaining numbers and percentages but I have been following congress with its three budgets, one which is the Congressional black Caucus plan.
Now he is interpreting scripture to blame lenders..............
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 3:51 PM
I think Agent Orange has finally set in on Lefty...wow.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 3:57 PM
"and I couldn't say a word to him, without also speaking to you..."
Couldn't or wouldn't? ?
Doesn't seem to restrain you when speaking out against a conservative poster.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 5:23 PM
Wheels: Liberals make up and change the rules at will. Just like their fearless cross that red line Pres. Pinky tries to change the Constitution to suit his ends.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 6:18 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 4:39 PM
Who are you speaking to Theorist?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 6:40 PM
You guys, Dug, scremo471, Regret and Wheels and a few others on here are very lucky. We liberals won't be able to criticize a republican president. You know why? Because there won't be one. Ha ha ha.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 7:27 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 7:27 PM
Left: They are many doctors who could treat your extreme behavior pattern....could use your Pinkycare in making your appointment.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 7:42 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 9:09 PM
Still wondering who you were talking to Theorist...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 9:46 PM
Lefty, if you disagree with everything Dug stated about Obama and the "liberal" agenda; what do you agree with?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 9:50 PM
Theorist, I think you are right on one thing. Upbringing and manors are a bit less restraining on an open forum. I have engaged many times with folks on the tired people bench and seen right away they were fools but didn't call them such, rather just listened and learned. I suspect if we were ever sharing the waiting bench I would be polite with listen and learn.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 9:55 PM
You guys, Dug, scremo471, Regret and Wheels and a few others on here are very lucky. We liberals won't be able to criticize a republican president. You know why? Because there won't be one. Ha ha ha.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 7:27 PM
Anything is possible Lefty, especially knowing there is a certain element out there who would vote for Lucifer himself if he hung a D behind his name and told them some pretty lies. Kind of pathetic, isn't it?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:22 PM
Wheels, I think Lefty is one of those guys that doesn't realize his democrat party died on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 10:50 PM
BonScott,
It is certainly not my Grandfather's Democratic Party.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 11:14 PM
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it is off to bed I go. Got to pack it up tomorrow for the move back to reality.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 11:18 PM
What happened this morning? Missourian not have their string stretched tight enough? No response from the site from when I got up until just a few minutes ago.
Gone again, now back.... like a yo yo.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Mar 27, 2015, at 8:50 AM
Rick: Left Turn isn't worth getting upset about. His comments to me just rolls off my back because I know he needs medical/mental/booze help and I feel sorry for him.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Mar 27, 2015, at 9:39 AM
I'm trying to get this into my mind. Old John and Theorist sharing a bench and he notices her cargo pants and she sees his ruffled dress blouse and blue jeans. He takes a peek at her sandals and toe ring while she gets a whiff of stale tobacco. The cutest little four year old in the world sitting in a cart loaded with stuff we are both too cheap to buy passes with her parents and at that time we both smile and continue our silence.
:)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 27, 2015, at 5:55 PM
Theorist, We all have first impressions of who shares the bench.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 27, 2015, at 9:44 PM
OJ & Theorist: Come to think of it I saw two folks like the ones you described sitting on a bench at Wal-Mart yesterday.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Mar 28, 2015, at 9:34 AM
Well, Here I go again. Wife had some of those hard to ignore coupons for $10 off any purchase and I went with her to find a something we didn't need but might need just over $10. :)
And we were successful. Thing that I gripe about is the person dressed in a bunny suit and all the young mothers so exited to introduce children to the easter bunny. Just doesn't seem to fit somehow. Kind of rubs me the same way as when the management staff at the Christian non-profit I worked for that didn't recognize Easter as a holiday all ran around the building wearing reindeer antlers at Christmas time.
I'm I some kind of nut or what?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 7:40 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 7:40 PM
OJ: Nuts are good for you, they have all kinds of vitamins.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 12:08 PM
Good grief. I was gonna whine about how utterly long and boring this thread was until I stumbled upon John's post. John, that's free money. How can u pass that up? If your sweet, she may use it on you. ;o)
-- Posted by Turnip on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 12:51 PM
oh yes, and how painful it was to watch Rick's latest video. :o)~
-- Posted by Turnip on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 12:53 PM
Today on SO.
-- Posted by Turnip on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 2:30 PM
Turnips,
You best be on your good behavior. I am still around to help you mind your manors you know. ;-)
Good Afternoon! Good to see you still around.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 2:48 PM
Turnip, I am sweet, got a $70 shirt for $7 and she got $23 worth for $3.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 8:44 PM
-higher taxes from the middle class (a record)
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 12:07 PM
Huh? Gonna have to post a link.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 5:04 PM
Menu
Here is a place for the people with hurt feeling to post so we don't have to go through half of the thread and see mostly whining posts. Also a good place for the St. Louis history stuff.
Replies (168)