patrick.net

Putin Fanboy says

Limit
End (3X)
Ban (3X)
Forbid
Tariff
Prohibit (3X)
Jail
Restrict
Require (3X)
Mandate
Audit

Every single law and reform ever made or that could ever be made does one of the following
1. Banning something.
2. Limiting something.
3. Auditing something.

Every good law does one of the following.
1. Banning something evil like murder.
2. Limiting something dangerous like blood alcohol levels of drivers.
3. Auditing something to prevent abuse of power and corruption through transparency and accountability like investigating a cop accused of raping a female suspect.

If you are arguing that banning, limiting, or auditing things is inherently bad and thus a red flag, then your argument is a piss poor one.

Putin Fanboy says

Does Patrick hate freedom?

No, but I think he has some slight authoritarian tendencies. That's why he doesn't get how bad Trump is.

Putin Fanboy says

What you CANNOT do is steal the Girl Scout branding and apply it to your own product.

Lol, like Girl Scouts themselves would be stealing by calling their home-baked cookies "Girl Scout Cookies"?

Dude, be serious.

Putin Fanboy says

The list of things that Patrick wants to turn over to government control is a piss poor one.

Your original post was not an attack on the particular list of things Patrick wants to solve with the government. It was an attack on passing laws that ban, limit, or audit things. That attack is weak.

If you want to attack the specific proposals then do so. Any good idea can withstand questioning and challenges. Good ideas get better and demonstrate their value the more they are challenged.

However, you should first make clear whether you are really attacking the specific proposals or attacking the general idea of using government for anything more than bare bones defense against attackers and violent members of society. If you are making a minimalist use of government argument, then Patrick's proposals are irrelevant. You should address the more general question of what are the purposes of government.

Putin Fanboy says

Require all bids on real estate to be public? What the hell business is it of his what I offer in a private transaction

You are making a presumption that Patrick is calling into question. It's like saying "Why should we take parachutes on a boat trip from NY to the Bahamas?" in response to Patrick saying "We shouldn't take a boat. We should take a plane and bring parachutes. It will be faster and cheaper getting to the Bahamas that way.".

In your case, Patrick is questioning the premise that real estate translations should be private. You may want them to be so, but can you justify it?

Putin Fanboy says

Prohibit job discrimination based on political activity outside of work? Let me translate for you: Patrick realized that he is rapidly becoming unemployable as the proprietor of racist website.

The messenger is irrelevant. Plenty of people have been fired for nothing more than exercising the freedom of speech. Patrick's proposal is justifiable because large corporations could easily control public discussion of political issues by threatening their employees, without making the threat explicit, that they will be fired or passed up for promotion if they do not publicly follow the politics in the interest of management.

This would be terrible for our republic. It would create massive corruption, fraud, and waste. Huge amounts of your taxpayer dollars would be funneled into the hands of the rich. And no public outrage over this corruption would be allowed to develop because of fear of even speaking about it.

How do you think corruption infiltrates and maintains a stronghold in an organization that starts out clean and noble? It does so by making implicit incentives to further corruption and disincentives to blowing the whistle.

Putin Fanboy says

Does Patrick hate freedom?

No.

Putin Fanboy says

Girl Scout cookies? Really?

I can only take it that your remark means you are arguing that the very name "Girl Scouts" implies that the subject is trivial and not worthy of addressing. Basing the seriousness of a case on the name of an organization involved in the case is just plain foolish.

As for the Girl Scout organizations, here are a few facts that demonstrate its significance.
1. The number of girl scouts is approximately 2.7 million .
2. The sales of Girl Scout cookies brings in revenue of about $700 million / yr. It's almost a billion dollar a year industry.
3. More than 59 million American women are alumni of the Girls Scouts. That's 37.4% of American females and about half of all American adult women.

The Girls Scouts is hardly an insignificant business or cultural influence.

I think that diabetics should mount a class action lawsuit against those smug, destructive Girl Scouts.

I can include a segment on how to turn an inexpensive Ikea cupboard and some old leather belts from Goodwill into a female subjugating plywood pillory.

Putin Fanboy says

Dan8267 says

I can only take it that your remark means you are arguing that the very name "Girl Scouts" implies that the subject is trivial and not worthy of addressing.

You are incorrect.

The point is that Patrick espouses stealing ideas, concepts, and work product of others.

If I am incorrect about what your intent is, then I have demonstrated that your post does not make the point you want to make, as my interpretation of your short sarcastic remark is the only reasonable conclusion.

Girl Scout cookies? Really?

It would be more effective to explicitly state your central point and then back it up with evidence and reasoning.

Putin Fanboy says

I'll ask you again: why don't you bake cookies and sell them WITHOUT stealing the Girl Scout branding. You can then donate all the money to the Girl Scouts or anyone else you so desire.

I'll ask you again: Why should Girl Scouts not be able to bake their own Girl Scout cookies?

What does it have to do with me?

Nothing. I don't want to bake cookies and have no interest in branding cookies as anything.

I'm just saying that Girl Scouts should have the right to bake Girl Scout cookies themselves.

Why should they not?

Please answer the question. About Girl Scouts.

Welcome back, by the way.

Putin Fanboy says

The Girl Scout Cookie branding belongs the the Girl Scouts of America, not the little girls. Like you, the little girls have done nothing in regards to cultivating and maintaining the brand.

Lol, they are the Girl Scouts of America.

But anyway, you seem to have misunderstood the proposal. I don't care what the cookies are called. I just want Girl Scouts to have the right to bake their own cookies and sell them instead of supporting a corporation.

Safe? Funny!

Personally, I'd buy/own silver bullion as an insurance policy, and invest in gold stocks/ETFs as an investment if you think it's going up.

Booger says

LOL

why not now? there are already plenty of reasons:

www.youtube.com/embed/U68tHvs95Y8

A thoughtful take on Au a couple days ago:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb17/gold-backed2-17.html

Eeesh you got some ax to grind lady.

Makes me want to go buy Trump merchandise!

I enjoy being contrary.

Trump hasn't owned that casino for years. Why would they fine the new owners? I'm smelling bullshit.

justme says

Please do tell what you know about Sally Boynton Brown.

She looks like a dude.

Can I guess?

Uh. Let me think. Possibly the Russian mafia?

Russia! Wah-wah! Triggered!

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

25th Amendment

Interesting that the corporate media and deep state seem to be pushing this sedition. Too many D&R voters seem also to support it. For most Americans, and for the republic itself, Pence would be much worse.

OK, so according to you, it's OK for Obama to not have Fox News, but it's not OK for Trump to not have the liberal media, correct?

curious2 says

Pence would be much worse

I think that many are focused on the shit sandwich on their plate, and haven't looked into the replacement much yet.

zzyzzx says

OK, so according to you, it's OK for Obama to not have Fox News, but it's not OK for Trump to not have the liberal media, correct?

Eh? Any attempt to ban a major news networks is wrong. The Obama administration was widely castigated for a far less blatant move than this, and yet the Trump supporters on here are praising the banning of multiple major news outlets like it's some kind of worthy move in a democracy. It's not.

What makes you think that Trump is bonkers?

Why does she have three names?

Quote from Sally Boinking Browns

The white man should only exist to financially support the rest of humanity until they die off. In order to further that mission, the white man must be castrated to prevent proliferation of their inferior species.

justme says

Apparently, the DNC learned nothing from the failed strategy of trying to elect Hillary Clinton at the expense of Bernie Sanders.

YUP.

Speaking of an anti-White, anti-Malestrategy:
www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/11/labor-secretary-advised-clinton-cast-sanders-candidate-whites-turn-minorities

“First, the current storyline is that she does not connect well with young voters. Given that Nevada is far more demographically representative of America, I am confident that HRC can do well with all African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans (don’t forget the sizeable [sic] population of Asian Americans in Nevada, including Filipinos.).”

Perez continued, “Emmy and the team have a good plan to attract all minority voters. When we do well there, then the narrative changes from Bernie kicks ass among young voters to Bernie does well only among young white liberals—that is a different story and a perfect lead in to South Carolina, where once again, we can work to attract young voters of color. So I think Nevada is a real opportunity, and I would strongly urge HRC to get out there within a couple days of [New Hampshire].”

Like others in Clinton’s campaign, he described Nevada as Clinton’s “firewall” and was unconcerned about how minorities would feel if they were described in such an exploitative way.

Clinton only won African Americans decisively in the Nevada caucus, according to entrance polls. But more Latinos voted for Sanders so Nevada did not make it abundantly clear that Sanders was incapable of attracting support from people of color.

Tom Perez’s Bank-Friendly Record Could Kneecap the Democratic Party
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party

Like Patrick said:
rando says

And the strategy to drive straight white men out of the Democratic party continues

You would think he would be more grateful.
This is the same media that arguably got him elected by giving him over twice as much coverage as his opponents.
A record breaking amount of coverage, for any candidate, ever, in fact.
So fucking much obsessive attention that it swept aside the other republican goof-balls and swamped the democrat's gargantuan, record-breaking dark-pool, 1.4 billion dollar, War-Chest-and-Coronation-Fund.
.

Robert Sproul says

This is the same media that arguably got him elected by giving him over twice as much coverage as his opponents.

And the media continues to obsess about Trump's personality, every day, on the front page.

Such trolling, such triggering!

I don't see any journalism at all. I see no "news" items without opinion added from either side. A major "news" outlet's idea of being balanced is adding an entertaining opinionator from the network's flip-side to the Sunday schedule. They would all fail the basic journalism courses I took in college.

I looked at CNN's web page on Friday trying to find a Political or Finance story that wasn't a negative dig on Donald Trump.

Everything else was click bait time suck stories.