or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 76

post #1126 of 5129
Dad was 'sexting' with six different women (none of which was his wife) the day he left the kid in the car.


Is that evidence he did it on purpose, or is it proof it was an accident because no one could be that stupid?
post #1127 of 5129
Maybe Piob can muse on the issue of zero-tolerance policies. I waffle on them.

On the one hand, they're awful because they get kids expelled for gun-shaped Pop Tarts. On the other hand, without them, we get administrators and bureaucrats making judgement calls that often have similar outcomes, and the well-connected such as a teacher's kid or friend of a teacher's kid get off the hook.
post #1128 of 5129
The last summary of that judgement that I read made sense, basically, "your employer" won't pay for that part of your coverage, but Insurance Co 9000 has to. And you don't get a discount on opting out.

So basically, Hobby Lobby brings a case due to not understanding medicine (i.e.: IUDs/Plan B - not abortifacients) and it gets resolved by some wordplay and forms. Seems like a win-win for the lawyers. And for the people who get to write blog posts about it - on both sides.
post #1129 of 5129
Just read the fucking opinion, every summary I've read is dogshit talking points.
post #1130 of 5129
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Just read the fucking opinion, every summary I've read is dogshit talking points.

Ain't nobody got time for that, there's whisky to be drunk.
post #1131 of 5129
It's like a paige and a half if you reduce it down to 4 point type. You can read a paige and a half, can't you?
post #1132 of 5129
Read the court's syllabus. It's not technically part of the opinion but it's far shorter and usually better in every way than the actual opinions.
post #1133 of 5129
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post

Why is gender a mutable social construct, but race is not?

I suppose I'm trying to point out an inconsistency in the application and interpretation of gender traits vs. racial ones within the ivory tower. If I am a man who chooses to dress like a woman, then it is my right to "identify" as whatever I want, and that may include being "switchy" and choosing however I want to choose, and the gender-studies types will virulently attack "intolerance" of my choices. Yet if Iggy Azalea wants to speak with an urban accent typically associated with African-Americans, she is "appropriating."

Why is it not "appropriation" for a woman to get a buzz cut? Why is it not "intolerant" to suggest that Iggy Azalea should speak more like the white girl that she is?

This is a non sequitur. Race may also be a social construct and manners of dress, speech and grooming CERTAINLY are. This does not prescribes a proper reaction to it of any sort beside understanding that black afro-american females weren't genetically predisposed to painted nails, to use a stereotype that probably fits Iggy Azalea.
post #1134 of 5129
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Yes. And what liberals have effectively done is figured out a way to capture a portion of the vote that used to be elusive. These are people that aren't really passionate about much of anything. Consequently, they have unfulfilling careers (term used loosely) and lives in general. They don't care much for current events, or really care what's going on outside of their self-involved cocoon. It's difficult to get them to the polls. They don't care about issues, so that doesn't work. What will work is leveraging a two-pronged strategy - victimization and free shit. Sometimes one approach is used independent from the other, but most often it's a combination. Offer free shit, anyone who wants to deny you said free shit is therefore against you. Even the laziest shitbag will respond to an offering of free stuff. You don't have to appeal to them on any meaningful level. Democrats might have always done this to some degree, but most will say that our society wasn't the right temperature to really see it take off. That is changing - fast.

CEers are still mainly conservatives, your analysis is therefore entirely wrong.
post #1135 of 5129
Thread Starter 
In a much quoted speech Obama said:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

My question is: do you know anyone that believes the opposite of this? This was of course aimed at dispelling or disproving the "self made man" concept. Do you know anyone that ever thought this concept did not include roads and bridges to be in existence? A public school system? That a baby was born and never received help or nurturing?

Part of this argument includes pointing out some people started with more, i.e. Mitt in this case. Okay, again, because someone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth does this disprove the standard take on the self made man? Also, does this concept mean everyone that works hard will see financial success or that a little luck didn't help along the way? In sales there's an old line that goes along the lines of, "The harder you work the luckier you get." I think that sums it up pretty well.

What I'm getting at is that the issue was given a very disingenuous and poisonous framing.

Also, he needs to fact check, as the government did not "invent" the Internet (the government funded the research) and it sure as hell was not invented "so that all the companies could make money off it."
post #1136 of 5129
He was referencing that communist cuntbag from some shitty state in the Northeast and her bullshit ramblings. It's a nonsensical statement but since he's the result of Affirmative Action and knows he has no actual skills he has to try to tear everybody down.

I really do hate him.
post #1137 of 5129
I still cannot believe that he is not our god. He believes it so.
post #1138 of 5129
Happy Death to America day folks
post #1139 of 5129

A Harvard symposium I'm guessing?
post #1140 of 5129
That's like 3 years old.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob