kimmy
-
Posts
11,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by kimmy
-
-
We had another thread on this topic a few years ago.
Personally I avoid restaurants where I know there will be screaming toddlers or annoying old-people. If you go to Denny's and IHOP and Tim Horton's and McDonald's, you can pretty much expect to run into that sort of annoyance. It comes with the territory.
Some of these parents seem to feel entitled... "I am a parent, my children are wonderful, everyone should shut up and enjoy my delightful children and their adorable antics." If your kids are using the restaurant as a playground, people WILL be disrupted and annoyed at you, and you will not be adored. Maybe getting a nasty note on her windshield will make her more aware of the other patrons around her next time she takes her toddlers out to eat.
-k
-
21 hours ago, Argus said:
Westmorland Fisheries, a lobster and crab processing company based in Cap-Pelé, N.B., found itself short of staff last March and applied for permission to bring in 217 temporary foreign workers.
If Westmorland Fisheries can't get people to work for them, they should try the Free Market approach-- increase their wages.
-k
-
1
-
-
On 4/1/2017 at 10:18 AM, Argus said:
This is a subject which has drawn heavy commentary locally, from all levels of media, from local government and local community groups, not to mention citizens.
I think police have brought the situation upon themselves.
I certainly agree that in many of these cases it is possible that the officers involved did nothing wrong. However we have also seen the most egregious and blatant police misconduct excused and whitewashed. People don't trust that police will be held accountable for anything, and that they can literally get away with murder.
We saw the RCMP willfully release false information before clearing the officers of any wrongdoing in the manslaughter of Robert Dziekanski. They attempted a complete whitewash of the situation, and only backtracked when citizen video proved they were lying through their teeth. How can they be trusted? We've seen how far they'll go to cover up for their own. Ultimately, Kwesi Millington received a slap on the wrist for lying to Judge Braidwood, and a $50 fine for loitering or something like that. Justice?
Many cases in the US have somewhat the same outcome. One recent example: the death of Freddie Gray. Gray was loaded into a police van uninjured, He was comatose and died shortly afterward. The van was a 3 minute drive down the street from the police station where Gray eventually ended up, yet the van took a 45 minute drive all over Baltimore. When Gray emerged he was a bloody pulp with a broken neck. Baltimore police have paid millions of dollars to compensate victims of "nickel rides" for damages, and only the stupidest of dumb-people would doubt that Gray's death was the result of a "nickel ride" gone wrong. Yet somehow none of the officers involved in Gray's death had even heard of nickel rides, and despite the best efforts of the Baltimore prosecutor, none of the officers involved received even a slap on the wrist for his death. Granted that Gray was a ne'er-do-well with a history of petty crime, what exactly warranted his execution in police custody?
Sure, this cop or that cop might have acted properly. But asking people to step back and have faith in "the system" isn't very persuasive. Peoples' faith in "the system" is irreparably damaged when it comes to police accountability.
-k
-
52 minutes ago, blackbird said:
What do you think?
I give him high marks for his extraordinarily high word count and for the pomposity and grandeur of his language, but low marks overall as he fails to present a coherent argument. He flails around miserably from topic to topic failing to deliver the goods on any of them.
Perhaps the closest he gets to making a point is when he complains about our culture's cowardice in the face of condemning Islam and our appeasement policy in regard to native claims. I think Argus has written better posts on both of those issues using a tiny fraction of the words that Mr Black employs.
-k
-
5 hours ago, Argus said:
The bathroom bills were, as I understand it, a response to court rulings.
Color me skeptical. Mike Pence and others used the famous story of the Christian caterer who got sued for refusing to bake for a gay wedding as justification for their attempts to legalize anti-gay discrimination, but I can't recall any lawsuit making bathroom bills "necessary". Another point, North Carolina's infamous "bathroom bill" is actually a right-wing omnibus in which bathroom access for transgendered people is just one point. Others include bans on municipalities creating minimum wage rules, bans on municipalities creating their own bylaws against discrimination, bans on municipalities discriminating against contractors who discriminate, and more. But it's the "bathroom bill" because they figured that was the part that would get suckers to support it. In other words, you've been played.
5 hours ago, Argus said:Not honestly. Conservatives mostly talk about economic issues
It's exactly as honest as the claim that liberals only talk about identity politics. In the US, I can' recall what's his name iterating any sort of economic ideology, other than "we're going to create so many jobs you won't even believe it" or "these trade deals are terrible, we're going to negotiate much gooder deals". Their primary message, as far as I can tell, was based on xenophobia and "traditional values" and generally a hatred for all things "progressive". In Canada, conservatives seem to also be primarily interested in xenophobia and fighting "progressives", not economic issues. In terms of the economy, the Conservatives' election message was "pipelines good" and "we're experienced and Trudeau isn't and also we are making fun of his haircut."
As I recall we recently had a conversation in which you told me that the Conservatives need to keep playing for social conservative votes, because if they don't have social conservatism then they don't have anything to distinguish them from the Liberals. Is that not the case? I think that if you look back over the 10 or so years of Harper government in this country you actually can't point to much that's substantially different from Harper's predecessor or his successor.
5 hours ago, Argus said:What you mean is liberals have abandoned the classical liberal attachment to Capitalism. Now they're addicted to Socialism, because that gives them more scope to 'fix' things they don't like about society.
Apparently nowadays anything less than total obedience to our corporate masters is "socialism." If you don't think coal mining companies should be allowed to dump their sludge directly into rivers, you're a socialist who loves spotted owls and hates Virginia coal miners. If you don't think banks should be subject to some kind of oversight and regulation to keep them from ripping people off or destroying the economy again a la 2007, you're a socialist who hates capitalism. If you don't think Nestle should be allowed to pump billions of liters of water out of the ground for free, you obviously hate entrepreneurship. If you think it's wrong that Starbucks Corp pays less tax than a lowly barista who works at Starbucks Corp, you obviously hate the rich and are talking about class warfare.
I reject all that. I don't believe that fair taxation and reasonable regulation are incompatible with the free market. I don't believe that corporations should get their way every time they complain that this regulation or that tax costs them money. I don't believe that increasing "shareholder profit" should be the primary goal of our elected officials.
6 hours ago, Argus said:But this is an attachment to equality of results, not equality of opportunity. In any level playing field there will inevitably be losers and winners.
I completely agree, but am increasingly concerned with whether opportunity is really equal, whether the playing field is really level, and with the increasingly low bar in regard to what qualifies as "winning".
-k
-
25 minutes ago, Argus said:
During the year leading up to the US election what were American liberals fixated on? Getting legal rights for transgendered people to use different bathrooms. This was an issue which was invisible up until liberals suddenly turned it into a huge cause celebre, enormously irritating and offending vast numbers of people
That's revisionism. Trans people have been quietly using washrooms for decades without trouble, and it only became an issue because angry conservatives decided to draw up "bathroom bills" to fight this non-existent menace. It was conservatives who thrust this issue into the spotlight, not liberals. Conservatives, having lost on gay marriage and anti-gay discrimination, went looking for some other fight they could win, and started drawing up these "bathroom bills". Blame them that this became an issue.
Your opinion is that liberals only care about identity politics now... one might just as easily claim that conservatives only care about fighting gays and banning abortions now.
I think you're wrong. Liberals care about a lot of things beyond the politically correct cause-du-jour. Liberals care about the growing struggle that regular people face trying to earn what previous generations have taken for granted. Liberals care that only the rich are getting richer, that banks can break the law at will without punishment, that politicians only care about the interests of large corporations, that the most profitable corporations don't pay any tax. Liberals care about a lot more than just SJW causes.
-k
-
2
-
-
Here in Kim City we don't seem to have the same sort of Bike Nazi problem that big cities apparently do.
We have three main groups of cyclists. We have ordinary bike commuters, who generally stick to marked bike lanes and seldom interfere with traffic.
We have athletes and enthusiasts, either road-bike or mountain bike, who are usually well away from major traffic areas.
And we have bike hobos who are usually weaving all over the road, riding down sidewalks, cutting across traffic, disobeying traffic rules and common sense, trying to operate their bicycles while they have a giant garbage bag full of cans and bottles in each hand, and so on. They're a menace to everyone, most especially themselves.
23 hours ago, OftenWrong said:I've noticed that many people get very aggressive once they get inside their car. They behave in ways they never would otherwise in public.
- Bad behavior by individuals related to their mode of transport.I have observed this as well.
We have meek, mildmannered people who turn into Immortan Joe when they get behind the wheel. I think part of it is that people feel powerful when they drive. At work you might be a computer-jockey and at home you might be a couch-potato, but when you're behind the wheel you're a 4000-pound, 250 horsepower super cyborg. RAWR.
As well, driving in some environments can be somewhat stressful, and feel quite competitive. I notice this when I go to Vancouver. Feeling that you're boxed in on the freeway and can't move into the lane you need to get into. It starts feeling like you're competing with other drivers for the space you need to be in. "There's an open spot... I'd better get there before that jerk does."
As well we have jackholes who have modified their vehicles to be as obnoxious as possible. If the little 1.3 liter engine in your subcompact car sounds like a propeller-plane taking off when you drive 20km/h, you are a loser. End of story. Motorcycles are the worst. People with big diesel pickups that they've modified for extreme noise are an increasingly large problem. If you want to look like a total jerkwad, here's what you do. Shave your head, get a bunch of tattoos and an MMA t-shirt. Then you go buy a big black pickup truck and get it jacked up. Get a super loud exhaust system installed. Get a "Metal Mullisha" sticker on your rear window.
But if you really want to be an asshole, become a "coal roller". These turds have gone the extra mile to make their vehicles obnoxious. Not satisfied with just noise pollution, they have also modified their trucks to create air pollution. That's right, they can apparently inject extra diesel somewhere into the system, such that their truck can create a giant black cloud of toxic smoke behind them at the press of a button. Often the target of these smoke attacks are pedestrians, cyclists, or Priuses. I got "coal rolled" onced, while riding my bicycle in the bike lane along a busy road. I am sure the drivers felt like real super-heroes. I remember the truck, and if I see it again I will customize it with some interesting modifications of my own.
-k
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, betsy said:
The speaker said: you can't turn off what's already off.
I think that's a mistaken attitude. Non-believers are not necessarily "off". Some are "off", but some are openminded, or questioning, or lost and searching for answers. Those are the ones who you can win over. And you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. A more interesting question would be what happened if that speaker tried to get the volunteer to turn the light back on. How would you get that volunteer to turn the light on? Ask him politely? Berate him? Blame him for the room being dark? Threaten him? Tell him that only stupid people or criminals like darkness? Obviously some of these approaches would work better than others. Starting a war of words with people you're trying to win over is the worst way to approach it.
In my own experience, the Christians who make me feel positively about Christianity are ones who lead by example, not with words. I have a couple of very religious co-workers who I think follow the example of Jesus in the way they act, and they're wonderful people. If I were still openminded, it is people like them who would get me to go to church one day. It's certainly not the ones who talk loudly about their faith but don't act like they actually believe in it. People who make a big show of being religious but don't seem to have actually understood the message. People who seem to think the message of the New Testament is judgment and bigotry and disdain for everybody who isn't them. They have pretty much the opposite effect... I don't want to join a club that has people like that as members.
There's a saying that goes something like "preach Jesus every day. If necessary, use words."
As well, people who are already "on" can be "turned off". I once saw some research by the Barna Group about why so many young people leave the church. They found that a lot of young Christians quit because they felt they saw a lot of hypocrisy, a lot of people who called themselves Christians but didn't act like Christians. On a related note Barna's current piece on "people who love Jesus but not the church" suggests that some Christians have quit going to church because it has become politicized.
-k
-
7 hours ago, Topaz said:
Sorry I can't this is what Grapevine gave me to look at
By any chance is your "grapevine" actually a bunch of Obama-hating couch-potatoes who share these videos around on Facebook?
7 hours ago, Topaz said:Nunes to get him to step down because he can expose the corruption
You seem to think these hearings are about wiretapping. They're not. The hearings are about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian agents. You know, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Rick Gates, Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, all these Trump associates who keep hanging out with Russian bankers and Russian billionaires for reasons that nobody seems to understand.
Devin Nunes isn't trying to expose the corruption, Nunes is trying to hide it. That's why last week he turned the open hearings into closed hearings, and that's why today he cancelled them altogether. It's why he went running to the White House in the middle of the night with privileged information last week to strategize with Trump.
7 hours ago, Topaz said:The committee was suppose meet today but the FBI and NSA refused to come back.
Is that what your "grapevine" told you? It's utterly false.
Devin Nunes cancelled the hearings today, because they are desperately trying to find a way to prevent Sally Yates from testifying. Sally Yates, the interim Attorney General before Jeff Sessions was appointed, was schedule to testify about what she knew about Michael Flynn's contact with Russia.
-k
-
7 minutes ago, Topaz said:
Newsflash...the following link is what I listen to on the weekend and its the documents that the Rep. leader of the Intel has that Trump was wiretapped.
Devin Nunes himself has walked back that claim. The information that has been revealed, by the way, is that Trump appears in these wiretaps because the feds were monitoring people he was talking to-- obviously people like Flynn and Manafort.
-k
-
There can be legal consequences when you make false claims that hurt others.
You can be sued for libel or slander. There is a current case involving a well-known fake news promoter-- let's call him Phallus Jones, for the sake of argument-- who is now being sued by someone he slandered. Phallus has now made public apology to the business owner he slandered, but it's probably not enough to save Phallus from getting sued for a lot of money.
-k
-
Latest member of the Trump team who had meetings with suspicious Russian contacts... the son-in-law! Jared Kushner, come on down!
-k
-
22 hours ago, segnosaur said:
Yes, it is true... most of the withdraw health care bill was authored by people other than Trump. However:
- Trump still supported the bill and claimed he was using his great negotiating skills to get people to support it.
To add to that point, Trump and Steve Bannon both went to war against the "Freedom Caucus" over this. Trump gave them an ultimatum... "if you don't vote for this, Obamacare stays while I move onto something else." And Bannon tried to bully them. "This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You don't have a choice." And the Freedom Caucus people gave them the finger. Ultimately, Mr Art of the Deal couldn't make a deal with his own party.
22 hours ago, segnosaur said:It wasn't just the republican's failure, It was Trumps.
There's a clear pattern emerging. Anything good that happens is because of the Great Leader. Anything not good that happens is somebody else's fault. That's how his supporters see it, and that's how Trump and his staff and his media outlets are spinning everything as well.
-k
-
16 hours ago, Topaz said:
What I'm talking about is....
Ok, that's a ridiculous, and that guy talks like Kasey Kasem drank too much Nyquil. I couldn't make it through the whole video but I read about Seth Rich from several other sources and it's more of the same tin-foil hat lunacy from the same people who think Sandy Hook is fake and PizzaGate is real.
But leaving aside how inane that is, you still haven't provided any motive why the Democrats would want to silence Roger Stone. Clearly they have every reason to want to hear what he has to say, because what he's already claimed is damaging to the Trump campaign. Clearly the Democrats aren't the ones with the a motive to silence him.
And if he had magic information that would exonerate him or the Trump campaign, do you really think he'd be keeping it secret? That's nonsense. If he had such information, it would be blaring 24/7 from Fox News, Breitpravda, Daily Caller, and every other right-wing media outlet in America. Sean Hannity would have Roger Stone on his show every night if Roger Stone had any such information. You know he doesn't.
-k
-
7 hours ago, Ash74 said:
Because maybe we care about a nation that has been a friend.
I guess as Canadians we just care more.
Turkey has been one of the more modern and progressive countries in the Middle East... it is a terrible shame to see them going down the same path as many of their dismal neighbors.
-k
-
4 hours ago, scribblet said:
They attacked the Koran because our Left wing politicians are giving preferential treatment to Islam, as in banning the Lord's Prayer but allowing Islamic prayers on Fridays.
Christian students can pray if they wish. Schools can no longer make the whole class recite the Lord's Prayer each morning, as used to be tradition.
The notion that Muslims are getting preferential treatment is false.
-k
-
On 3/23/2017 at 6:57 AM, Boges said:
The ROC must really hate the Leafs unexpected success.
This is why you pay Mike Babcock the ****ing money.
I am entirely okay with 5 Canadian teams making the playoffs this year, after zero last season.
-k
-
51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
There's something in this that actually favours Trump, sort of. He relied on politicians and political strategists to put this thing together, and tried to use his deal-making in a massive multiplayer landscape and it failed. This *could* spur him to:
- Engage different strategists to put together a real compromise that includes moderates, after all there are more moderate Democrats than Freedom Caucus people
- Ignore the FC
- Open up the field of possibilities to something that politicians might hate, but others might like
Mr "The Art Of The Deal" was out yesterday blaming Democrats for not supporting his bill, ignoring the fact that his party has a majority in the House of Representatives, and he couldn't even get enough of his own party to support his bill.
If he was willing to bend far enough to create a bill acceptable to Democrats, how much more of his own party would turn against him?
-k
-
19 hours ago, Cum Laude said:
The dynamic between spectator and participant has always been interesting, from sports to politics, from psychological projection to the emotional.
It’s inherent within the spectator to analyze and criticize. Could the spectator do better, does he really want to be the participant? I’m sure that at times, and to some extent, he thinks he can and he does.
Are you saying "yeah, well, do you think you could do better?" Whether I (or you or the rest of us on the forum) could do better is irrelevant. However, there are lots of people who I do think could do better. Many of them are in Trump's own party.
19 hours ago, Cum Laude said:Trump is now The Participant in Pandemonium, and we, Spectators in and of the Swamp.
Trump, like you and me, is a spectator who looked at the job and declared "I could do way better!" And unlike you and me lacked the sense to know that it's not as easy as it looks. Now a couple of months into the job he's declaring "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated!" ...actually, everybody knew that, except for him apparently.
19 hours ago, Cum Laude said:Who knows what this flawed man foreshadows. Remember, the rich became richer under Obama also. But did he promote our sense of nation and make it safe? The answer is an obvious no.
The rich and the banks and the largest corporations all did extremely well under Obama, and I think it's Obama's greatest failing that the rest of America didn't do nearly as well.
I strongly expect that situation will get worse, not better under the Trump administration.
19 hours ago, Cum Laude said:Health care itself is both an intellectual and emotional issue. How do we, the public, fit in? We have become victims instead of participants, also spectators watching ever increasing costs far out in the bleachers. Sure, the free market and profit are the roads to better health care. For the rich, yes. The bullshit coming out of Ryan’s mouth is near intolerable.
Well, agreed on the Paul Ryan part, at least. His failed healthcare bill was little more than a big tax-cut for rich-people. But if that's how you feel, why are you such an avid Trump supporter? Trump's whole agenda is devoted to generating more corporate profits and lower taxes for the wealthy. Despite a lot of lip-service about helping the "little guy", there's nothing actually there.
-k
-
On 3/24/2017 at 4:55 AM, Topaz said:
Roger Stone says has documents to prove everything he knows and he can prove he has had nothing to do with Russia except talking to that contract u mentioned.
Which is A PRETTY BIG DEAL. It's a definitive link between the Trump campaign and the hacks on the DNC.
I assume Stone didn't know that his contact "Guccifer 2.0" was actually a group of Russian government hackers. If he did know, then it's even worse. If Stone did know that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian operation, I doubt Stone would have been bragging about his contacts. I expect Stone just thought Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian hacker, as Guccifer 2.0 had claimed to be.
And that's the one saving grace for Stone in all of this. If he didn't know, he got played like a sucker. If he did know, he conspired with a foreign government to influence the election. Personally, I think he is a sucker who got played.
And for the people in the Trump campaign, they can only hope that Stone doesn't connect anybody else with the WikiLeaks/Guccifer stuff. "We had no idea what Stone was doing. We weren't involved in any of that. That was Stone, and only Stone."
I still can't figure out why you think the Democrats are scared of anything Stone might say. They're the ones hoping he incriminates other members of the Trump campaign. People in the Trump campaign are the ones worried about what he might say.
On 3/24/2017 at 4:55 AM, Topaz said:Roger Stone says has documents to prove everything he knows and he can prove he has had nothing to do with Russia except talking to that contract u mentioned. I don't think he would come out and say he wants to testify to clear himself if he didn't have evidence to do so. Now he will do that because he has been called to testify but if the Dems change direction of the next week, they may not let him do it.
The Republicans are the ones who want this thing kept quiet. The (Republican) chairman of the hearings, Devin Nunes, has already decided that next weeks hearings will be closed-door.
On 3/24/2017 at 4:55 AM, Topaz said:BTW, did u know the NSA employee who leaked the truth about Clinton and the Bernie election where Bernie supporters who voted for Bernie , computers ended up giving it to Clinton. The leaker was found dead, shot in the head, and no money or personal items taken. Wikileaks and You Tube has this exposed.
What in the blazes are you even talking about??
-k
-
These ads aired yesterday in a number of cities, celebrating the passage of the healthcare bill that didn't actually pass. The ads were bought before the bill got killed, so it's an understandable mistake, but the content of the ad is equally funny, as the dead bill actually did very little of what the ad claimed it would. It's like they took the parts of Obamacare that people actually like, and told them that they're in the new bill, even though they aren't, so that people wouldn't get mad at them.
Reminder: these guys have been saying for 8 years that they've got a better plan than Obamacare. ...and they still can't figure out what that plan actually is.
-k
-
On 3/17/2017 at 6:18 PM, OftenWrong said:
It's a fair question. I will try to provide the answer for you-
In 2012, Flynn got the biggest promotion available to a military intelligence guy: director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon’s in-house intelligence agency. President Obama personally appointed Flynn to the job, and tasked him with reforming the agency.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12129202/michael-flynn-vice-president-donald-trump
Seems this Flynn guy has been advising presidents for a while.
Flynn may have been viewed as hot stuff in 2012, but in 2014 he got booted from the job because he just wasn't very good at it.
Since then, he's a paid lobbyist and "consultant" for foreign governments, and a regular guest of the Russian propaganda organ "Russia Today".
Leaving aside Flynn, what about other Russian-connected individuals Trump brought into his circle? Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Rick Gates? All just coincidence?
-k
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Well, we already knew that Obama spied/wiretapped Chancellor Merkel and other foreign leaders, so it is not surprising.
Former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden already explained how U.S, citizens are routinely caught in intelligence intercepts.
The practical and political problem is that Donald Trump, now the sitting president, has the resources and access to blow the lid off of the entire game.
The lid has been blown off all of that for quite some time. As I recall, most conservatives were calling for the guy who did so to face charges of treason at the time. And that was for exposing warrantless surveillance of Americans. Why would anyone assume that surveillance of people like Manafort, Flynn, Carter Page, or Rick Gates would be done without warrant?
-k
-
1
-
1
-
-
I keep asking, why is anybody surprised that Trump would appear in surveillance when he brought all these Russian-connected operatives into his inner circle?
-k
"No kids allowed!" -- Children in Restaurants
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
Driving, obviously. And the check-out line, as Ash mentioned. Counting out exact change, or going over their receipt item-by-item with the cashier because they're convinced that the total is too high, that sort of thing.
But for me the annoyance of listening to groups of old-people sitting around a table sharing their dumb-ass ideas on what's wrong with the world, or how to fix everything, and so on, is worse than toddlers. Toddlers are just loud and exuberant. Old-people are loud and ignorant. Most of them are hearing-impaired, so of course they talk loudly enough that everybody in the restaurant gets to listen to them. And listening to a bunch of statements that start with "Kids these days..." or "THOSE people..." or "The damned foreigners..." and so on.
Maybe things are different where you live, but I live in a city with a large retiree population, and figuring out how to avoid these people is a real consideration. #1 on my list: you can't go to the grocery store on the first Tuesday of the month. Can not go. Avoid at all costs. That's Seniors Day. #2 is stay well clear of every Crown Victoria you see on the road. It's either an unmarked police cruiser or it's a senior. Either way, give it lots of space. #3 is avoid the restaurants where old-people like to have their coffee-and-gripe sessions. Denny's, IHOP, and Tim Horton's are three that I no longer go to at all.
-k