TurkeyChew

It's all lottery tickets these days.

I literally was only crowdsourced because I called out Longhornfan8 for being wrong and not smart about a very specific and easily proven point, and he admitted to using his entire lunch hour down at the loading dock to literally go back as far as he could and neg me 100 times. Something which isn't allowed anymore, which is chef's kiss because people like you and Longhornfan8 being the face and the standard of this site is an insult to the community at large.

You should report her to @hayden_horn for harassment. @immamac has stated someone following you around and negging every post regardless of content is harassment which, of course, was the primary MO of a few folks.

Maybe you and I could go without libraries, sure. We are too old to make a difference. But what about the kid down the hall? Opening Green Eggs and Ham and seeing a bunch of pee pee and wee wees. It’s about keeping the sickness out of the heads of kids. Or maybe that’s you and your friends bag, joy boy.

Actually I thought Obama was a good communicator, except half the country didn’t have ears to hear. You know, because of the thing…

Maybe that’s because we’ve been electing geriatrics and a middle aged O&G man. Millennials running for President can and should be better. Heck, Mitt Romney is the gold standard in that regard.

This is yet another reason why Pete Buttiege would have been the best president. He’s a centrist do-nothing corporate Democrat placeholder like Biden, except he is an amazingly clear and concise communicator with executive presence and poise. What is the opportunity cost of wasted hours and cycles spent mopping up the mess Biden makes anytime he speaks because “what he said isn’t actually what he meant if you stick with the rambling point until the 5 minute broken sentence is finished”. Executive communication would serve the next President well just in terms of saving time and taking away ammo for the opposition. At least make it harder for them to twist your words.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pd4b059yNNo I’m a Covid survivor. I couldn’t go to the gym for two weeks!!

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/half-of-dems-believe-fines-prison-time-appropriate-for-questioning-vaccine-poll-says I'll just leave this here: WASHINGTON (TND) — A majority of Democrats support punitive and restrictive policies against the unvaccinated, according to the results of a new poll. A recent national telephone and online survey from The Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports says respondents who claimed to be Democrats supported a sort of house arrest for the unvaccinated, among other punishments and deterrents. Almost half of Democrats who voted in the poll think state and federal governments should be allowed to either fine or imprison those who publicly question COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Forty-eight percent of Democrats taking the poll were in support of the criminal punishment of vaccine critics, whether the criticism appeared on television, radio, or even on social media. Overall, only twenty-seven percent of all respondents were in support of the punishment. The poll also reportedly says it answers just how far Democrats are willing to go to punish those refusing to get the vaccine. Forty-five percent of Democrats who took the poll were in favor of the government forcing people who refuse the vaccine to live in designated facilities or locations. Twenty-nine percent of Democrats who took the poll reportedly say they would be in support of parents who are against getting vaccinated losing custody of their children. Two-thirds of Democrat respondents to the poll were in support of the government using digital devices to track the unvaccinated to ensure they socially distance and remain properly quarantined. While Democrat respondents seemed to either be split or in favor of these theoretical policies, Republican voters and others were often very much opposed to them. Seventy-eight percent of Republican respondents were against putting vaccine refusers into camps and only fourteen percent of Republican respondents favored criminal punishments for those who refuse vaccines. The split is apparent all across the poll. Respondents were reportedly split on President Joe Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for American businesses, with about forty-eight percent supporting it and forty-eight percent opposing it. The vaccine mandate was recently put to a halt by the Supreme Court, which said the Biden administration overstepped the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by seeking to impose the vaccination requirement.

1) A doctor employed by the government in a government position vs. Civilian in the free market 2) A doctor in a position of power (employer/employee power dynamic) vs. A podcaster shouting into the wind for whomever would like to listen 3) A doctor using language that may or may not be toeing the line of coercion in a place where mandates are illegal and worth an investigation vs. Nothing even remotely potentially illegal 4) Brisket once again falling in love with his own train of thought Exhibit eleventy billion in the case of "Brisket cannot be anything more than a mediocre lawyer". Okay, at best average but, really, at worst very bad.

In this scenario could the kid legally claim to be Mexican and apply for aid or take advantage of any affirmative action for hispanics? If so, a quick google search shows that if blonde hair blue eyed American wanted to be an iconoclast about the situation, you could birth tourism to the African nations of Chad or Tanzania, and claim to have an African-American child. No practical value in doing so obviously, but would be funny.

I am more or less aligned with you on this situation. I guess that disappoints you to hear? Where I have a nit is: This is opinion and provocation, which can be good of course if it inspires action or causing someone to rethink their position. I think the difference between the Rogan stuff and this case is that this guy is operating in an official government capacity, and in the framework (anti-mandates, etc.) that necessitates. Had he gone on a podcast or a radio show and told the public it's pathetic and irresponsible I think we would have a better case to defend this guy. But even as such, I tend to over-rotate and so I think this is B.S.

I would like to read the entire email he sent, but I generally agree that a doctor shouldn't be punished by the state for simply speaking out. What I would also be curious about is what the law is around coercion and what constitutes a reasonable definition of coercion. I don't think he's "threatened with prosecution" as much as being investigated to see if the line was crossed. My personal opinion is it wasn't, but by using derisive language and being in a position of power, I guess the powers that be think a line was toed? Here is the excerpt I saw that was questionable: I guess the argument is that someone who is talking like this would discriminate against or treat unequally where a mandate and coercion is illegal. Me personally I think it's being too touchy and sensitive. What are your thoughts @Captainant?

I stayed at a Renaissance Hotel last month and they provided me a box fan. You just gotta ask.

I started Broom of the System last year and couldn't get through it, either. I wonder...

mmmm, I don't agree but it's not worth arguing about. I shouldn't have used the term "liberals" because it clearly wrapped folks around the axle. I should have said "Joe Rogan triggers a certain type and personality of people who are emotional and overreact over everything these days, regardless of their past, current and future political identity." I forgot everything has to be prefaced with a Safe Harbor statement for a certain segment of people.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, believe it or not. I was trying to make a salient point and if using the right pronouns or descriptors is helpful, it's the least I can do. I'm taking Sizzle's feedback and trying to incorporate it, not trying to "cop out".

Come on, nobody reads books these days. For my part, at least, I couldn't tell you the last Man Booker finalist book or National Book Award book I've read in who knows how long and I consider myself a strong reader. From what I have seen, I think most people these days are lucky to read a best-seller from Hudson News or a business book du jour.

Budda Baker got slept.

"Liberals as defined in 2022", is that better? Or better yet, I'm an open-minded and coachable guy, which word or descriptor would you have used in the place of "liberals" as short-hand for a generalization as I was trying to define?

This game makes me mad because the Cowboys would have beat the Cardinals.

I was talking about this thread-- the 25 pages on this site whose posters can be seen on these 25 pages. Apologies if you thought I was talking about some deeply profiled persona matching going back to 15 years or whatever your point was, that was not what I was trying to say. Does that make sense?

I was mainly speaking about this website-- it's the liberals who are blowing their gaskets on the internet over this guy. As I see it, Joe Rogan isn't the problem. He's like the cartel boss-- take him away and another "Joe Rogan" will rise to the top and fill the talking-head vacuum. It's like the cartel and drug war-- the problem isn't the supply. It's that there are literally millions upon millions of folks demanding that a Joe Rogan exist and create content. As you well know, we aren't putting that genie back in the bottle or that toothpaste back in the tube-- the internet has decentralized content and information to the point that there will never be abstracted and representative public intellectuals like Buckley or anyone else again. We all have our own value champions now.

Agreed. Just goes to show anyone can make something of themselves and get rich doing what they love, despite how impossible it may be seem at the time.

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen. Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?