Home
Anyone who thinks corporate America does things better and more honestly and efficiently than the government just isn't paying attention. Nice to see that the Equifax execs did the important thing when they found out that basically the entire adult population's SS info was hacked...they dumped their stock. Why so many people are dead set on these crooks being in charge of their healthcare is beyond me.
4 posters
Corporate Crooks
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
Just paid $50 for your hacked SSN and bought myself a vaca home in your name. I hope that's ok.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:Just paid $50 for your hacked SSN and bought myself a vaca home in your name. I hope that's ok.
You're nicer than I am. I just bought it and subscribed to horse porn.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:Just paid $50 for your hacked SSN and bought myself a vaca home in your name. I hope that's ok.
You're nicer than I am. I just bought it and subscribed to horse porn.
Ugh. Stay far away from that horsey stuff. Not worth it.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:Just paid $50 for your hacked SSN and bought myself a vaca home in your name. I hope that's ok.
You're nicer than I am. I just bought it and subscribed to horse porn.
Ugh. Stay far away from that horsey stuff. Not worth it.
And once again, this begs the question...."where the hell is the Seka's Bedroom board???"
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
Bill Maher's New Rules was so spot on...about businesses having a business model based on screwing people over rather than just having a good product. Late fees, roaming fees, maintenance fees, bag fees. Basically bullshit fees often based on the hope that people won't read the fine print. And speaking of the fine print, I see that Equifax is now getting blasted for the fine print for people who sign up for their credit monitoring...that you agree not to sue them.
cream919- Fanboy Apprentice
- Posts : 527
Join date : 2017-05-05
Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
"where the hell is the Seka's Bedroom board???"
**************************************************************************************
Maybe our Administrator has turned celibate?
**************************************************************************************
Maybe our Administrator has turned celibate?
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
I usually find S.E. Cupp to be a bonehead, but she was making a hell of a lot more sense during their climate change discussion than either Maher or the other guy. It's rare that I think she's making the best arguments.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:I usually find S.E. Cupp to be a bonehead, but she was making a hell of a lot more sense during their climate change discussion than either Maher or the other guy. It's rare that I think she's making the best arguments.
I didn't think her arguments were that great as much as I think Bill and that other guy weren't doing a great job in their rebuttals. That "we SHOULD be asking questions" position, IMO, is total bullshit in that in most cases, the deniers are asking the questions to be dismissive, not because they want to educate themselves or to be inquisitive. I mean, we know smoking causes cancer, but there are still many questions about that. Why do some people who chain smoke not get cancer? But in spite of the fact that there are questions that surround the scientifically established fact that smoking causes cancer, you don't hear people respond to the statement "smoking causes cancer" with a bevy of questions. Why? Because they accept the premise itself. The questions are being asked as a means to deny. When it comes from the politicians and pundits, it's a dog whistle. It that allows them to not have to say something totally stupid but still maintain the loyal votes of the low information deniers.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
Sounded to me like she was in no way a climate change denier. She made it clear many times that she believe in climate change and is certain we are affecting it, but only noted that doesn't know the extent to which we're affecting it. Her point was that she's not sure if we're causing hurricanes to be worse, or if our affect on hurricane strengths is negligible. I agree 100% with her points in that realm. I haven't any doubt we're all contributing to climate change, but it's hard to really assert how much of a difference we're having on hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc. Maybe it's a ton, and she left that door open. Never once denied that as a possibility, only noting that it's up in the air as to the extent of the effect we're having.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:Sounded to me like she was in no way a climate change denier. She made it clear many times that she believe in climate change and is certain we are affecting it, but only noted that doesn't know the extent to which we're affecting it. Her point was that she's not sure if we're causing hurricanes to be worse, or if our affect on hurricane strengths is negligible. I agree 100% with her points in that realm. I haven't any doubt we're all contributing to climate change, but it's hard to really assert how much of a difference we're having on hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc. Maybe it's a ton, and she left that door open. Never once denied that as a possibility, only noting that it's up in the air as to the extent of the effect we're having.
She's not a denier. But that doesn't mean she doesn't blow the dog whistle. Her approach to the topic is the dog whistle approach. It was her questions that led the conversation to the "to what extent" angle. Trump has made it clear many times that he's not a racist...and all he did was mention that the KKK at least got a permit in Charlottesville.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:Sounded to me like she was in no way a climate change denier. She made it clear many times that she believe in climate change and is certain we are affecting it, but only noted that doesn't know the extent to which we're affecting it. Her point was that she's not sure if we're causing hurricanes to be worse, or if our affect on hurricane strengths is negligible. I agree 100% with her points in that realm. I haven't any doubt we're all contributing to climate change, but it's hard to really assert how much of a difference we're having on hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc. Maybe it's a ton, and she left that door open. Never once denied that as a possibility, only noting that it's up in the air as to the extent of the effect we're having.
She's not a denier. But that doesn't mean she doesn't blow the dog whistle. Her approach to the topic is the dog whistle approach. It was her questions that led the conversation to the "to what extent" angle. Trump has made it clear many times that he's not a racist...and all he did was mention that the KKK at least got a permit in Charlottesville.
Yeah, um, I ain't seeing the parallel. Her position was completely reasonable. My position is hers exactly, and I'm sure as hell not dog whistling anything. Basically, I assert climate change is AT LEAST partially man made, if not completely man made. But we don't have proof exactly HOW man made it is, nor do we have proof as to exactly how much we're affecting hurricanes and droughts. Maybe it's a lot. Maybe a little. I doubt it's none. This is not an outrageous or strange position to take on this matter, whether or not the person having that position is a liberal, a conservative, or some kind of libertarian.
I consider Cupp to be pretty much a dipshit, but nowhere near the kind of dipshit she was two or three years ago on Maher's show.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:Sounded to me like she was in no way a climate change denier. She made it clear many times that she believe in climate change and is certain we are affecting it, but only noted that doesn't know the extent to which we're affecting it. Her point was that she's not sure if we're causing hurricanes to be worse, or if our affect on hurricane strengths is negligible. I agree 100% with her points in that realm. I haven't any doubt we're all contributing to climate change, but it's hard to really assert how much of a difference we're having on hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc. Maybe it's a ton, and she left that door open. Never once denied that as a possibility, only noting that it's up in the air as to the extent of the effect we're having.
She's not a denier. But that doesn't mean she doesn't blow the dog whistle. Her approach to the topic is the dog whistle approach. It was her questions that led the conversation to the "to what extent" angle. Trump has made it clear many times that he's not a racist...and all he did was mention that the KKK at least got a permit in Charlottesville.
Yeah, um, I ain't seeing the parallel. Her position was completely reasonable. My position is hers exactly, and I'm sure as hell not dog whistling anything. Basically, I assert climate change is AT LEAST partially man made, if not completely man made. But we don't have proof exactly HOW man made it is, nor do we have proof as to exactly how much we're affecting hurricanes and droughts. Maybe it's a lot. Maybe a little. I doubt it's none. This is not an outrageous or strange position to take on this matter, whether or not the person having that position is a liberal, a conservative, or some kind of libertarian.
I consider Cupp to be pretty much a dipshit, but nowhere near the kind of dipshit she was two or three years ago on Maher's show.
Aw geez. So you're saying that if two people say the same thing, neither of them can be dog whistling? Perhaps you don't understand the concept of the dog whistle? You HAVE heard people say "well, I don't think XYZ is a racist himself, but he's certainly doing what he can to capitalize on them." And you do understand intent? That is, two people can do the same thing or say the same thing but with different intents?
I agree with your last sentence, incidentally. Ever since Cupp had that MSNBC show she's been far easier to take.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
I wasn't aware of her ever having a show on MSNBC.
I'm well aware of what a dog whistle is and how they're used, but Cupp went out of her way to immediately acknowledge 1. Climate change is real, and 2. Climate is being altered by man's activities. Period. As far as I'm concerned, once a person makes those two points, I'm done trying to read into his/her words and nitpick them for dog whistles.
Out of one side of Maher's mouth, he bitches about how liberals nitpick the shit out of everyone's words, and I agree with him on this. Progressives truly are overly bothered as a collective whole about some of the most ridiculous and meticulous shit. But then out of the other side of his mouth, he basically wants Cupp to just flat out say "this hurricane is huge and deadly because of man made reasons", and when she fights making that claim, he gets all pissy, basically becoming a perfect example of the liberal nitpicking thing about which he was just complaining.
I find Bill to be one of the most astute observers of American culture and politics in this entire country. Certainly in the top five in terms of his skills and relevance. But this aspect of him just bugs me. If someone won't fully buy into his particular claims and definitions, he too quickly dismisses them as nuts, rather than just listening to them a little more closely. Cupp is a goofball, but she's a reasonable goofball and seems to at least be intellectually curious. It's clear she's a reader and not just a robotic conservative mouthpiece.
I'm well aware of what a dog whistle is and how they're used, but Cupp went out of her way to immediately acknowledge 1. Climate change is real, and 2. Climate is being altered by man's activities. Period. As far as I'm concerned, once a person makes those two points, I'm done trying to read into his/her words and nitpick them for dog whistles.
Out of one side of Maher's mouth, he bitches about how liberals nitpick the shit out of everyone's words, and I agree with him on this. Progressives truly are overly bothered as a collective whole about some of the most ridiculous and meticulous shit. But then out of the other side of his mouth, he basically wants Cupp to just flat out say "this hurricane is huge and deadly because of man made reasons", and when she fights making that claim, he gets all pissy, basically becoming a perfect example of the liberal nitpicking thing about which he was just complaining.
I find Bill to be one of the most astute observers of American culture and politics in this entire country. Certainly in the top five in terms of his skills and relevance. But this aspect of him just bugs me. If someone won't fully buy into his particular claims and definitions, he too quickly dismisses them as nuts, rather than just listening to them a little more closely. Cupp is a goofball, but she's a reasonable goofball and seems to at least be intellectually curious. It's clear she's a reader and not just a robotic conservative mouthpiece.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:I wasn't aware of her ever having a show on MSNBC.
I'm well aware of what a dog whistle is and how they're used, but Cupp went out of her way to immediately acknowledge 1. Climate change is real, and 2. Climate is being altered by man's activities. Period. As far as I'm concerned, once a person makes those two points, I'm done trying to read into his/her words and nitpick them for dog whistles.
Out of one side of Maher's mouth, he bitches about how liberals nitpick the shit out of everyone's words, and I agree with him on this. Progressives truly are overly bothered as a collective whole about some of the most ridiculous and meticulous shit. But then out of the other side of his mouth, he basically wants Cupp to just flat out say "this hurricane is huge and deadly because of man made reasons", and when she fights making that claim, he gets all pissy, basically becoming a perfect example of the liberal nitpicking thing about which he was just complaining.
I find Bill to be one of the most astute observers of American culture and politics in this entire country. Certainly in the top five in terms of his skills and relevance. But this aspect of him just bugs me. If someone won't fully buy into his particular claims and definitions, he too quickly dismisses them as nuts, rather than just listening to them a little more closely. Cupp is a goofball, but she's a reasonable goofball and seems to at least be intellectually curious. It's clear she's a reader and not just a robotic conservative mouthpiece.
Two guys are eating dinner. One is a scientist who is trying to find effective treatments/cures for cancer. The other is a three-pack-a-day smoker who drives a semi and who lives with his 92-year-old mom, who has smoked since she was 14. The two men start the conversation by saying "we don't know of any single thing that contributes to getting cancer more than smoking". Both men say this EMPHATICALLY...could not agree more! Scenario one is that the scientist says "There are a lot of questions, like, for instance, why do some smokers get cancer while others, like your mother, live very long lives and never get cancer". Scenario two is that the the truck driver says "Sure, we know that smoking causes cancer, but not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Look at my mama!" Two guys. Both EMPHATICALLY and unequivocally, without even the slightest hesitation, agree that smoking causes cancer. They both ponder the question "why do some people who smoke get cancer while others don't"? Scientist guy is asking because he wants to help unlock the mystery of this phenomenon so that he could help people. Truck driver guy asks the question to justify why he has no intention of quitting smoking.
Fine...you saw S.E. as just engaging in a meaningful dialogue "what? I'm just asking questions. Isn't that what science is?" No ulterior motive or dog whistle. I heard something else.
S.E. Cupp was on a panel show called The Cycle. Apparently she was only on for one year (assuming Wikipedia is correct). Krystal Ball was the only one who was on the show from beginning to end (2012-15).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cycle_(TV_program)
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
blondy28 wrote:
Two guys are eating dinner. One is a scientist who is trying to find effective treatments/cures for cancer. The other is a three-pack-a-day smoker who drives a semi and who lives with his 92-year-old mom, who has smoked since she was 14. The two men start the conversation by saying "we don't know of any single thing that contributes to getting cancer more than smoking". Both men say this EMPHATICALLY...could not agree more! Scenario one is that the scientist says "There are a lot of questions, like, for instance, why do some smokers get cancer while others, like your mother, live very long lives and never get cancer". Scenario two is that the the truck driver says "Sure, we know that smoking causes cancer, but not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Look at my mama!" Two guys. Both EMPHATICALLY and unequivocally, without even the slightest hesitation, agree that smoking causes cancer. They both ponder the question "why do some people who smoke get cancer while others don't"? Scientist guy is asking because he wants to help unlock the mystery of this phenomenon so that he could help people. Truck driver guy asks the question to justify why he has no intention of quitting smoking.
Except that I don't see Cupp as the smoker with no intention of quitting. I think she's open to the possibility that climate change is massive, and that if the evidence were there to show that humans are dramatically altering hurricanes, she'd not have concern about stating that. I guess i don't see her as quite the GOP ideologist that you do. Seems more like a centrist that leans right on a few things to me. Maybe I'm reading her incorrectly.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:blondy28 wrote:
Two guys are eating dinner. One is a scientist who is trying to find effective treatments/cures for cancer. The other is a three-pack-a-day smoker who drives a semi and who lives with his 92-year-old mom, who has smoked since she was 14. The two men start the conversation by saying "we don't know of any single thing that contributes to getting cancer more than smoking". Both men say this EMPHATICALLY...could not agree more! Scenario one is that the scientist says "There are a lot of questions, like, for instance, why do some smokers get cancer while others, like your mother, live very long lives and never get cancer". Scenario two is that the the truck driver says "Sure, we know that smoking causes cancer, but not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Look at my mama!" Two guys. Both EMPHATICALLY and unequivocally, without even the slightest hesitation, agree that smoking causes cancer. They both ponder the question "why do some people who smoke get cancer while others don't"? Scientist guy is asking because he wants to help unlock the mystery of this phenomenon so that he could help people. Truck driver guy asks the question to justify why he has no intention of quitting smoking.
Except that I don't see Cupp as the smoker with no intention of quitting. I think she's open to the possibility that climate change is massive, and that if the evidence were there to show that humans are dramatically altering hurricanes, she'd not have concern about stating that. I guess i don't see her as quite the GOP ideologist that you do. Seems more like a centrist that leans right on a few things to me. Maybe I'm reading her incorrectly.
Perhaps she's not the smoker with no intention of quitting, but I did get the impression that her bar on what would be bad enough to require aggressive action is far higher than perhaps yours or mine, and it seemed like that might be how her "smoker with no intention of quitting" presented itself...and that's why she asked the question. And I think it's important to say that I think her response was said in defense of Rush Limbaugh saying that hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy, which is also why I kinda got the impression that she was "just asking questions" as a cover than to have an intelligent dialogue.
I don't see her as an extreme ideologue. As I said, it seems like since she was on MSNBC, she has presented her thoughts in a more reasonable manner. She was never quite Ann Coulter, but she used to be much more of a water carrier than she is now. It seems like most of the Republican pundits who work at/appear as a regular guest on MSNBC are pretty reasonable. I like Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace a lot. David Frum as well.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
I remember when Wallace and Frum were pretty stern conservatives. Not as much the case with Schmidt. Charlie Sykes is another guy whereby it baffles me to hear he has a conservative radio show. I think these folks are so disgusted by the idiot in the White House that they've thrown in the towel on the GOP for the time being until they believe their party returns to sanity. It's funny to consider that Malcom Nance was a conservative before all of this.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
blondy28 wrote:Bill Maher's New Rules was so spot on...about businesses having a business model based on screwing people over rather than just having a good product. Late fees, roaming fees, maintenance fees, bag fees. Basically bullshit fees often based on the hope that people won't read the fine print. And speaking of the fine print, I see that Equifax is now getting blasted for the fine print for people who sign up for their credit monitoring...that you agree not to sue them.
I read that it would never hold up in court, and that it isn't true that if you sign up for their credit monitoring you are agreeing not to sue. Internet rumors.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
cream919 wrote:"where the hell is the Seka's Bedroom board???"
**************************************************************************************
Maybe our Administrator has turned celibate?
I've been busy helping Jen Carfagno with the hurricanes.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
alohafri wrote:blondy28 wrote:Bill Maher's New Rules was so spot on...about businesses having a business model based on screwing people over rather than just having a good product. Late fees, roaming fees, maintenance fees, bag fees. Basically bullshit fees often based on the hope that people won't read the fine print. And speaking of the fine print, I see that Equifax is now getting blasted for the fine print for people who sign up for their credit monitoring...that you agree not to sue them.
I read that it would never hold up in court, and that it isn't true that if you sign up for their credit monitoring you are agreeing not to sue. Internet rumors.
I didn't hear about it on the internet. I heard about it on the radio, I think....but couldn't tell you what show. It pains me to say this, since I used to make fun of my parents growing up for listening to WGN Radio, but that's pretty much what I listen to all day. I **think** I heard it on Roe Conn. I do flip occasionally to The Score, but now that it's football season and they're talking more football, I listen to sports radio far less often.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:I remember when Wallace and Frum were pretty stern conservatives. Not as much the case with Schmidt. Charlie Sykes is another guy whereby it baffles me to hear he has a conservative radio show. I think these folks are so disgusted by the idiot in the White House that they've thrown in the towel on the GOP for the time being until they believe their party returns to sanity. It's funny to consider that Malcom Nance was a conservative before all of this.
I don't know who Charlie Sykes is. Wallace and Schmidt, I think, changed a lot from working on the McCain campaign because of the whole Palin thing. Much like how the right threw Megyn Kelly under the bus after she confronted Trump, they have done much the same with many conservatives. Malcom Nance is a black conservative, so that doesn't really count as a "true" conservative, ya know.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
Google Charlie Sykes. You'll recognize him. Anytime I ever turn on MSNBC, he's on there as a panelist.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:Google Charlie Sykes. You'll recognize him. Anytime I ever turn on MSNBC, he's on there as a panelist.
For a second, I thought you were talking about this guy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Spikes
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:Google Charlie Sykes. You'll recognize him. Anytime I ever turn on MSNBC, he's on there as a panelist.
I know who he is, but honestly, I've never seen him on MSNBC...I've seen him on Bill Maher.
|
|
|