comments by curious2

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Wed, 29 Jun 2016, 6:44pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 1

simchaland says

rpanic01... To overcome "gay fatigue" you could go to a spa and spend an hour or two in a sensory deprivation tank...

I was going to suggest amyl nitrites.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Tue, 28 Jun 2016, 10:22am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 2

Rew says

about to be

Simplest solution is to find two wall studs and drive a screw into each, then use a line to secure the furniture. You can use steel wire if you're fancy, or even fishing line can work, depending on how much lateral force you are expecting. If you're child-proofing, use a really strong material. If you're earthquake-proofing, the lateral forces are ironically less than climbing kids can exert, so you have more flexibility. You should definitely secure anything really tall somehow though, if you live in an earthquake zone.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Mon, 27 Jun 2016, 2:55pm PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 3

At least back then Congress hadn't yet arrogated to itself the power to require that everyone must buy whatever the lobbyists were selling, as part of a "shared responsibility" to submit to whatever their corporate sponsors wanted.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Mon, 27 Jun 2016, 2:39pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 4

OP headline does not follow from facts. Democrats at the state level are investigating whether certain companies illegally defrauded investors and customers, and the platform committee proposes the DoJ should also investigate. At least according to the article, they have not proposed changing the definition of fraud, which has always been a crime. There have always been many examples where speech can amount to a crime, including fraud and robbery. If you want to claim that "free speech" should prevail over criminal law, then you would legalize almost every fraud and most robberies ("money or your life" are only words, after all).

Don't waste your time on oxymoronic "movement conservative" sites designed to mislead you. If you can't find at least one flaw with each major party, and at least one good thing about each, then you're lost in partisanship. Words and intent have always been elements of many crimes, including fraud. Nobody can seriously contend that intentionally using words to defraud someone is protected as "free speech", or that prohibiting intentional fraud is a "thought crime." I have seen people try to argue that, but falling for it requires a binary mentality where anything that involves thought must be a "thought cirme" and everything that involves speech must be a "speech crime." To anyone else, everywhere and at all times, it's an absurd position.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Mon, 27 Jun 2016, 1:26am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 5

Ceffer says

lobbying and advertising

The cycle of money continues to grow. Politicians award grants to "non-profit" entities to "educate" people to vote for the politicians who approved the grants. Since Citizens United, some of these "non-profits" don't even bother registering as charities anymore, because they don't want the financial disclosure and auditing risks that go with registering as a charity. The homeless industrial complex, and the closely related medical industrial complex and prison industrial complex, continue to reel in ever more money. Like the "war on drugs," it's a huge success financially, even as it continues to fail in all of its purported goals. SF's official annual budget for homeless is around $40,000 per hobo, but total spending is probably more than double that. At some point, you have to realize, it's a success by other terms, achieving its real goals.

P N Dr Lo R says

spawned all of this

Whatever may have spawned it, 90% of the current problem results from the lobbying and advertising by the revenue recipients. Decades ago, if police saw a drunk person passed out on the sidewalk, they could put him in the back of a car and take him to the drunk tank, which was a cell with a sink and a toilet and a bed. It worked well enough most of the time, and cost almost nothing. Now, public policy has "improved" tremendously. If a drunk passes out on the sidewalk, he might conceivably have a head injury, so the police have to call for medical. That results in sending both a regular ambulance and an SFFD ambulance, in case either gets delayed en route. Whichever ambulance arrives first gets the prize: a trip to a hospital emergency department, where the real billing can commence. Hospitals injure 20% of patients, including nosocomial infections, so the drunk might end up with MRSA in addition to a C-T scan with the radiation of around 200 X-rays. Each X-ray increases the risk of cancer, so it's an investment in future patients. It's all done in the name of compassion, of course, but it's just another way Americans spend more than anywhere else in the world to die sooner than people in dozens of other countries. Passed out drunk is not usually a fatal condition, unless you get stabbed by a vagrant who happens to be a violent felon (as too many are), but MRSA and cancer kill. Considering the revenue involved, SF has welcomed as many vagrants as possible: other cities put their vagrants on buses to SF, including violent felons and the dangerously deranged. SF pretends to be "shocked" and asks for additional money to pay the resulting costs, but nobody is shocked and the city continues to be overrun by often dangerously deranged and violent vagrants. They call it "liberal," but I don't see anything "liberal" about Feather Lynn getting kicked and beaten to death by a vagrant who had come to the neighborhood for a "free" church breakfast that ended up costing the life of someone who lived in the neighborhood. It's regressive identitarian liberalism: enriching the prescribers and the medical industrial complex, while endangering the ordinary people who happen to live in the area.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 10:00pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 6

FDR was president from 1933 to 1945. America's debt/GDP ratio increased more than 5x during that period. Maybe there's something magical in your mind about ""almost" triple", like three being maybe a lucky number or something, but otherwise I don't see how you can have missed all four of those errors.

Also, the debt/GDP ratio has never returned to the "baseline" levels from before 1933.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 9:48pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 7

jazz music says

First to have increased the national debt faster than growth of national income.

First to "almost": triple the national debt.

First to increase the national debt faster than growth of GDP.

First to double the deficit.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 8:18pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 8

thunderlips11 says


Not exactly. The first part would require amending the Constitution, and the second part would be both over- and under-inclusive. Banning MENA would ban some people who are genuinely trying to escape from Islamic persecution rather than expanding it, e.g. Christians, Jews, and atheists at risk of getting killed by Muslims. Also, Pakistan and Afghanistan are in Asia, not MENA.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 7:57pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 9

Thanks mell, and I'm sorry that initially I thought your earlier comment had been posted by Blurtman. I've updated my comments accordingly.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 7:41pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 10

mell says

I'm too lazy to read through their site

Their site is not worth reading. Blurtman had inadvertently posted a misleading OP, but has now updated :)

mell says

where do they claim an attack is necessary?

I excerpted above, but they use words deceptively to switch attack vs defend. They claim spuriously that others "attack," e.g. that miscegenation and same-sex couples getting married are somehow an "attack" against white Christians. In response, they claim America must segregate along racial and religious lines, which would require forcibly relocating anyone who doesn't agree to move to the designated area. Next, they claim white "Christians" must teach children to "defend" against the other colors and beliefs. In reality, imposing segregation and stopping inter-racial or same-sex couples from getting married would require TWP to attack other people, but TWP casts it in the language of "defend", as Muslims "defend" Islam by killing cartoonists.

mell says

your current homeland

It's my homeland too, and I'm not leaving. If they want their own pseudo-"Christian" theocracy, for "whites only," they can go somewhere else. They might like Saudi Arabia, if they can get rid of the natives.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 7:29pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 11

Blurtman says


would NEVER support TWP.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sun, 26 Jun 2016, 7:10pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 12

Yay - OP updated :) The TWP combines translated Nazi rhetoric and standard KKK fare. Basically, they are the Fortwhine/Forthood party.

"defending faith, family, and folk"

"Our traditions are the armour that covers that framework and protects our families and therefore, our race."

"regional ethnic or racial separatism [instead of] a melting pot which leads to the disappeance of ethnicities, cultures or races through miscegenation"

"Priests and pastors, not activist judges and federal politicians, will be empowered to define and defend the institution of marriage."

"American popular culture offers examples of perverse behaviour that mean to destroy European-American families, leaving us unable to secure our own future as a race. There are those that use cultural Marxism and multiculturalism to attack our culture.
European-Americans['] children should be protect their race."

You can see the dynamic and how it can fool stupid people. 1) claim "your families are being attacked", then 2) assert a "defense" that is actually an attack on other people who never did you any harm. It's like the Muslims saying they have to "defend" Islam by killing cartoonists and other blasphemers. The Nazis and KKK have used exactly the same rhetoric, to lethal effect.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 7:13pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 13

Ceffer says

hyper credibility

Omar was a tall bodybuilder in his 20s, and would definitely get noticed. His behavior seems also to have been particularly memorable, e.g. pulling a knife after hearing a religious joke. Even carrying a knife would cause consternation, and pulling one would be practically unforgettable. The witnesses who saw that never went near him again.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 7:06pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 14

HEY YOU says

If I get the flu again....

That's bad, but Typhoid Marcus/"humanity" claims to have you beat: refusing to get vaccinated even when H1N1 was killing schoolchildren, whom (s)he claims to teach. If you feel upset that you caught flu from someone, imagine how parents would feel if their child died after catching H1N1 from an anti-vaxx teacher. Typhoid Marcus/"humanity" has become so addicted to feeling omnipotent and invulnerable, making up whatever religious beliefs seem pleasing as (s)he goes along, that mere evidence and reason have no chance of preventing tragedy.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 6:15pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 15

Ceffer says

proximity of a traumatic event.

Particularly one where they themselves could have been killed except for pure luck. The 29yo Navy veteran turned over his phone and passwords to FBI. That doesn't seem like somebody "not credible, or confused...." Other witnesses reported multiple conversations, including Omar complaining about the religiosity of his father and pulling a knife after hearing a joke about religion. Maybe Omar used two different phones to shield his life of sin from the eyes of his wife and child, and deleted his accounts; some dating apps and sites are designed specifically to minimize data permanence so they can be deleted leaving as little trace as possible. If he had a separate phone for that purpose, then maybe he used that and a VPN or Tor to communicate secretly with ISIL/Daesh; he could pay cash for prepaid cellular data or use free WiFi anywhere that has it.

Ceffer says

An effort at deflection for some strategy surrounding the event and it's ongoing investigation.

That's a good point, though often they don't even comment on ongoing investigations. Something seems to have caused them to comment this time. Maintaining the mantra that "this has nothing to do with Islam" requires minimizing evidence that this has everything to do with Islam. Even during the attack, he told police and news media that he was doing this for the Islamic State. He blamed America's ongoing wars in his country (Afghanistan and/or Islamic State), but he didn't mention Donald Trump or Islamophobia. He didn't say he was doing this for personal revenge against anyone with HIV, nor to malign Puerto Ricans, nor Latinos. He had his opportunity to say whatever he wanted, his dying declaration, knowing that millions of people would read it, and he chose to say that he did it for the Islamic State, which would have done the same thing if that club had been in Iraq or Syria or Libya. Instead of acknowledging what he said and the obvious connection between what he did and whom he said he did it for, we are told that the tragedy was our fault for allowing him to buy guns.

In fact, when the FBI released (under pressure) the transcript of the 911 recording, they deleted all reference to the Islamic State, until (under pressure) they agreed reluctantly to release the whole transcript. That took enormous pressure including media reporting witnesses who had heard the recording and said it included the Islamic State, so the FBI wasn't fooling anyone. Now, FBI takes possession of the phones and comments they contain no evidence and the witnesses are either "not credible, or confused." Clearly, the FBI is going far out of its way to minimize any connection to Islam, even deleting references to Islamic State from the initial transcript.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 5:52pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 16

Ceffer says

what is the context of the FBI staging a cover up?

Well, as I think through two possible theories of what happened, I see two different consequences for the FBI.

1) Shooter did this because he was a closet case following the Islamic family plan, went from zero to hero on June 12, all his prayers answered and he becomes the pride of his family. FBI should have seen that coming especially after he completed his hajj trip. FBI looks bad, Islam looks bad, politicians who say they "respect" Islam might look bad.

2) Shooter did this because he's a random nut and nobody can predict when a person might go ballistic. That would rationalize gun control and continuous mass surveillance: blame the means, not the motive, and certainly not the FBI. Pay no attention to the witnesses who say they saw him at the club more than a dozen times, the people who knew him years ago, the comments of his own mother and ex-wife, the intra-family quitclaim deed, the life insurance, nothing to see here, move along.

The second theory has political advantages, despite seeming less likely. In a large, heirarchical organization, supporting the cover story that will please the bosses can have career advantages compared to the evidenced-based explanation. It comes down to the difference between facts and truth: the facts are what they are, but the truth is what you believe it to be, and great can be the rewards of being able to "believe" what is in your own self-interest.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 4:27pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 17

What do people think of this?

"FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.
Several Pulse regulars have come forward in the days since the shooting, claiming to have seen Mateen at the club or to have been contacted by him on the gay dating apps Grindr, Jack’d and Adam4Adam.

On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.

But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation.
So far, they have found no photographs, no text messages, no smartphone apps, no gay pornography and no cell-tower location data to suggest that Mateen — who was twice married to women and had a young son — conducted a secret gay life, the officials said.

The FBI is continuing to explore Mateen’s past, but investigators now believe the men who made the claims are not credible, or confused Mateen with someone else.

The FBI has not said whether it has uncovered any evidence that Mateen visited the Pulse nightclub prior to the shooting.
It is possible that Mateen might have had communications on cellphones or other electronic equipment that have not been recovered by investigators in the wake of the shooting.
Kevin West, 29, a Navy veteran and Pulse regular, said Mateen messaged him on Jack’d and also said he recognized him entering the club on the night of the shooting. After the attack, West turned his phone and app passwords over to police and FBI investigators.
Cord Cedeno, 23, another Pulse regular, insisted he saw Mateen at Pulse months before the shooting and messaged with him on Grindr for a short time, but eventually blocked him because he would only send photos and say “Hi.” Cedeno said he has no reason to doubt accounts from other Pulse regulars who have said they had seen Mateen visit the club in the past.

“The FBI obviously is trying to cover up their information,” he said of gay men who reported being contacted by Mateen. “I can go take a lie detector test. I know for a fact Omar messaged me.”

Cedeno said he did not contact police to tell them about his contact with Mateen, because some of his friends who did had their phones taken and were told not to talk to reporters. He said he doesn’t trust the FBI to investigate Mateen, given they questioned him in 2013 and again in 2014, placed him on a terrorist watch list but then removed him from the list."

I suppose the online communications might have been faked by someone else using a stolen photo, as landtof does, and in person sightings might be difficult to prove, but it's hard to imagine all those witnesses going back years made up stories like these. The club had probably video surveillance records, though I don't know how far back those would go.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 1:15pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 18

FortWayne says

It's on internet so it must be true?

They cite their sources, as I do. If you don't like one, you can find more:

CNN, June 20, 2016:

"The support for tougher gun laws rose to 55% in the newest poll -- the highest number since just one month after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, in January 2013.

But support for specific gun control measures was very strong, with 92% saying they wanted expanded background checks, 87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems and 85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns. Among Republicans, that number is even higher -- 90% say they favor preventing people on the terror watch list or "no fly" list from buying a gun. That number is at 85% for Democrats.

CBS reported similar numbers, and posted their full survey on Scribd.

Frankly, Fortwhine/Forthood, your obvious record of mental health problems make your ownership of guns a risk to yourself and your family. Your bitter depression over following Catholic dogma as your priests taught it to you back in the "good" old days suggests you might go full Catholic on the altar of a church like the Katholic Kloset Kase at Notre Dame de Paris, or take your whole family with you, as too many have done.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 11:31am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 19

YesYNot says

invasive tests that are not proven to improve outcomes.

A friend calls it "investing in future patients." Irradiate people now, including full body C-T scans with no benefits, and profit both now and later (when people get cancer from the "free" radiation). Predictably, Obamneycare has induced a surge in revenue-driven "free" radiation, "preventative" in the sense that it "preventates" longevity. The incentives are all one way: more. Irradiate healthy patients and get paid now, then get paid again when they get cancer. Also, it traps dependent constituencies: even if you didn't need medical attention at the time of the test, you will definitely need it if the cancer develops, and American prices are too high for most people to afford without insurance, so the constiuency is trapped in supporting the insurance.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Sat, 25 Jun 2016, 11:02am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 20

Ironman says

The majority

of all Americans support stricter gun control laws, including banning semi-automatic assault rifles and clips >10 rounds, and more than 80% support #NoFlyNoBuy. Do you have any survey data to show whether different subsets of Americans have significantly different opinions on this issue? As a gun owner, are you a hypocrite, or are you calling all Americans hypocrites?

FortWayne says

It doesn't matter what feeling they get when they see something.

Speaking for yourself, of course. You've done your religious duty rather than following your feelings, and obviously you expect everyone else to do the same, even if they're not Catholic. It could be worse though: at least you're not Muslim, so you haven't followed the Forthood example.

BTW, Fortwhine's Muslim counterpart in Fort Hood shot 45 people on an Army base in broad daylight using a pistol. So, the presence of other people with guns neither deterred him nor stopped him, at least until it was too late for those who died, and their professional training did not overcome the element of surprise. There have been other Islamic fragging incidents within the American military, and many more fatalities where American "advisors" have tried to train "moderate" Muslims in "liberated" Muslim countries.

The root of the problem is the same either way: the religious get that omnipotent ego extension growing, and count themselves and their dogma superior to all laws and evidence. The branches diverge though, with Islam being much worse than the others.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   source code  

#housing   #investing   #politics   #economics   #humor  
please recommend to your friends