Small businesses
- Thread starter paindonthurt
- Start date
Not if the force will walk out in response.
There's just no acceptance from the rank and file that they need to reform. Which is why the "few bad apples" line is such bullcrap.
Too much for you to follow I guess. Maybe if I call the vets the "deep state" of the police force?For 17s sake
I don't have a beef with them, they're just no longer a reliable advocate for free expression. Like almost every institution, they are being infected by young woke people that are changing the values of the organization. The ACLU didn't consider the harmful impacts of defending the free speech rights of white supremacists (and real white supremacists; not by the left's current definition that occasionally includes black people, hispanics, and asians). They just took the position that once free speech rights are in any way contingent upon the content of the message or the moral fitness of the Speaker, you don't have free speech anymore. I think that position is correct as a matter of logic and strategy and it's genuinely bad for society that the ACLU is backing down from it in anyway. That said, they are not just a free speech organization and it is possible (or hell, likely), that witih so much of hte left viewing "cancellation" as a preferred strategy, that they can't take an absolutist position on speech without hurting their efforts elsewhere. And that's not unique to the free speech issue. Lots of civil liberty wins in court have been for pretty objectively bad people. That's why I think single issue organizations may be the only ones that can be effective going forward.
If extremely blue cities in pretty blue states keep ending up with what you call "conservative policy", maybe that's not the best descriptor of it? And I really don't think you can call problems caused by public sector unions "conservative".
He's a respected scholar and respected criminologist. Have you even read a book on crime in America or can name a criminologist?. You're ignorant about a number of issues you express opinions on with absolute certainty, but you don't seem realize that. That's why it's a bit challenging responding to you. I'm expecting a level of understanding and knowledge on these issues, but you seem to have never gotten past simplistic stereotypes and shallow opinions. You also seem to think you're asking me serious questions that I should address because they'll lead to some contradiction I've posted or help me understand some issue in a new way. They're pretty silly, but you think they're thoughtful and incisive.
Last edited:
Evidence doesn't matter. Data doesn't matter. I'm fully expecting Boom Boom to start telling us that the earth really is flat and that the moon is made of cheese. That post is coming.
So with all these well reasoned and articulate points being made from opposing viewpoints in this thread, I have 2 questions:
1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?
2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?
1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?
2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?
Then......they should be easy to respond to. Maybe I am the one that will learn something from your response, have you considered that? Yet you type post after post and refuse to answer. This is all a pretty obvious deflection attempt. It's what cons do to maintain their faulty beliefs. Carry on, con.
2nd take: if he's such a respected authority on the matter....then finally provide something from him that's worthy of respect and thought? Come on, surely you can see how facile that tweet was. Own up to it dude! All you're doing is whining.
And pro tip: the right wing is full of grifters that exist to play the role of "expert" but really just pump out the garbage they know there's a market for. Maybe this guy is one of them, maybe not. That one tweet you've shared says the former. If he's not, provide something from him that shows it! It's not up to me to do your work for you, slacker.
Podgy is pretty reasonable in my opinion and I'm pretty sure he's left of center....
@Boom Boom......that should be a clue to you. You are doing an even worse impression of mstateglfr. Might just bow out of this one and stick to the economy. I enjoy your takes about that.
Now....go ahead and get your " BuT iTs GoAtZ !! 111" take in. But you really should take my advice.
I've learned a good deal from these exchanges over the years. Knowledgeable opinion require honing to stay sharp. True, you have to suffer fools that will make an argument that one appointment from one mayor negates decades of history, training, set ways, etc. And you also have to suffer those that know that, but won't chime in because "their side". But if you dig, you can learn.
Otherwise, we just retreat to our echo chambers, right?
Ok, I'm checking the guy out. Seems pretty questionable at first glance, but it will take a while to work through his blog.
I certainly would have checked him out much sooner had Podgy acknowledged my point. Rather than digging in and resorting to personal attacks.
Not this thread or necessarily threads on this board, but I have had my position move over the years on drug legalization, Pigouvian taxes, prostitution legalization, immigration, whether we'd better off with Medicaid for all. I guess the flipside is that I've read a lot and most of it is not reasoned argument at all. There's no telling how many people I've read opine on minimum wage and I think exactly one person has made an argument that is logically sound in favor of a minimum wage, and basically nobody uses it, even though it's the best argument, because apparently it's not emotionally persuasive to people as arguments that just ignore economics and pretend nothing will be changed by minimum wage except workers below that will make more money.
Not so much now, but over time came to realize that people were less ignorant of "collateral damage" from their preferred policy and much more willing to accept unjust results for some individuals if they think there is a collective gain.
1. Not from these threads but given my experiences as a person who was undiagnosed Aspergers for years and getting lots of crap from people on this board as well as in real life when I mention my Aspergers diagnosis, I’ve become amazingly tolerant towards folks I’ve disagreed with in the past.
And that’s saying something since I can be pretty blunt when arguing. Philosophically, I’m fairly conservative which isn’t all that unusual for folks on the spectrum because we tend not to like change.
One big problem though is that many people who identify as conservative are also monolithic and don’t accept different ways of thinking.
2. Nincompoops are everywhere along the political spectrum.
Sympathy has nothing to do with it for me.
And I’m simply stating that small business owners and any other owners for that matter typically pay what is fair considering their ROI, risk, pay back, profit margin.
You don’t stay in business for long amounts of time by screwing over your employees.
you are ignoring the 2nd part. By their standards, if not defending the case would lead to speech being "contingent upon the content", then they WILL take the case, no matter how much they may disagree with the content.
So you agree with them.....but you're going to castigated them anyway because agenda. Noted.
