Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

You're making the point that seat belt laws aren't necessary.  ...

How in the hell did you get to that nonsense from what I wrote?

[Alan Klein]

How in the hell did you get to that nonsense from what I wrote?

You posited that people like you and me are smart enough to know it's safer to wear seat belts.  So you don't need laws.  We get it. I agree.  Regulations aren't required for us.  Those that don't wear seat belts are ignoring the law in any case.  So what good is the regulation? This constraint need for the government to know what's best for all of us is insulting.  Unless the regulation protects others from the other person's stupidity, like speeding or drunk driving, we don't need the government to be our nanny.  I think I make reasonable decisions about caring for myself.  Not perfect, but who is?  You sound like a guy who handles himself well as well.  Having bureaucrats chattering in our ears all the time telling us what's good for us is nonsense.  We're not children.

[Robert Roaldi]

You posited that people like you and me are smart enough to know it's safer to wear seat belts.  So you don't need laws.  We get it. I agree.  Regulations aren't required for us.  Those that don't wear seat belts are ignoring the law in any case.  So what good is the regulation? This constraint need for the government to know what's best for all of us is insulting.  Unless the regulation protects others from the other person's stupidity, like speeding or drunk driving, we don't need the government to be our nanny.  I think I make reasonable decisions about caring for myself.  Not perfect, but who is?  You sound like a guy who handles himself well as well.  Having bureaucrats chattering in our ears all the time telling us what's good for us is nonsense.  We're not children.

I have no idea what you're on about.

[Alan Klein]

I have no idea what you're on about.

That's OK.  Others get it.

[faberryman]

That's OK.  Others get it.

Houston. We have a problem. Over.

This is Houston. Say again, please.

Houston, one of our crew members is complaining his nanny won't let him have dogshit in his donuts.

This is Houston. Roger that. Our instruments show that ejection seat one-Charlie is available and primed to go.

Houston, initiating countdown now.

This is Houston. Abort immediately. Repeat, abort immediately.

Houston, Abort successful.

This is Houston. Inform crew member not to worry. Dogshit in donut prohibition is in the building code.

[Alan Klein]

Houston. We have a problem. Over.

This is Houston. Say again, please.

Houston, one of our crew members is complaining his nanny won't let him have dogshit in his donuts.

This is Houston. Roger that. Our instruments show that ejection seat one-Charlie is available and primed to go.

Houston, initiating countdown now.

This is Houston. Abort immediately. Repeat, abort immediately.

Houston, Abort successful.

This is Houston. Inform crew member not to worry. Dogshit in donut prohibition is in the building code.

Doesn't work, Frank.  You could have done better than that. 

[Alan Klein]

I know Biden had to make his bones at the beginning of his term.  That's a good sign. But, if he expects to make a deal with Iran over nukes, missiles, and having them back off their plans for Persian hegemony in the ME, he's kidding himself.  I just hope he doesn't trade away tariffs until we can get an inspection plan that covers everything in Iran including their military bases.  Otherwise, no deal.  Our European "allies" will just give away the farm in order to get Iranian business deals.

With Strikes in Syria, Biden Confronts Iran’s Militant Network
Using a carefully calibrated approach, the president hopes to restrain Iran’s regional militia allies without undercutting efforts to reach a new nuclear deal.
[/i]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/world/middleeast/biden-syria-iran.html

[jeremyrh]

You posited that people like you and me are smart enough to know it's safer to wear seat belts.  So you don't need laws.  We get it. I agree.  Regulations aren't required for us.  Those that don't wear seat belts are ignoring the law in any case.  So what good is the regulation? This constraint need for the government to know what's best for all of us is insulting.  Unless the regulation protects others from the other person's stupidity, like speeding or drunk driving, we don't need the government to be our nanny.  I think I make reasonable decisions about caring for myself.  Not perfect, but who is?  You sound like a guy who handles himself well as well.  Having bureaucrats chattering in our ears all the time telling us what's good for us is nonsense.  We're not children.

Did that really make sense in yor head when you wrote it? Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects the people you drive into when you've lost contol of your car, the emergecy services who pull your bloody corpse out of the wreck, your wife and kids who have to live with what happened, and the list goes on.

[digitaldog]

Did that really make sense in yor head when you wrote it?

Excellent question, but I believe many here know the answer based on many pages of posting history.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects the people you drive into when you've lost contol of your car, the emergecy services who pull your bloody corpse out of the wreck, your wife and kids who have to live with what happened, and the list goes on.

The list includes those here on and off his 'ignore list', certainly those of us who believe in hearing other's out, but wish their email in box from one fellow was less full. 

[Alan Klein]

Did that really make sense in yor head when you wrote it? Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects the people you drive into when you've lost contol of your car, the emergecy services who pull your bloody corpse out of the wreck, your wife and kids who have to live with what happened, and the list goes on.

Seltbelts affect you like climbing mountains. Driving drunk affects the other guy so regulation saves other people.  If you're stupid enough to hurt your own family by falling off a cliff while shooting pictures, it's no business of the government.  Maybe the government should license you.  You seem pretty dangerous with a camera.

[TechTalk]

That's OK.  Others get it.

Others get it. You, however, do not.

You have been developing a bad habit of taking other's posts and reframing them as the opposite of what they have written. Saying "your point is..." and then posting the opposite of the point another has made doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it by making you appear to be unwilling or unable to understand the context or the point in what others write.

You take that further with statements Like "you posited..." showing that you clearly have drawn conclusions that bear little to no resemblance to the basis of the argument to which you refer. You seem to think that others aren't able to express their thoughts clearly and need you to interpret their points, arguments, and their basis for what they have written into something quite different from what was intended. Well, I know that i for one do not; and I doubt that others writing here welcome your twisted interpretations of their writings. I personally don't see any benefit to your arguments or to the furthering of an engaging discussion by doing so.

These actions only serve as a diversion and time wasting exercise for others to explain to you what they have written and the basis for it as you pretend that what they have written and its foundation means something else entirely. If you are not pretending and actually don't understand what they have written or the context, the polite and more effective thing to do would be to inquire rather than assume and assert.

[faberryman]

Frank.  You could have done better than that.

I take solace in the way my private message board lit up.

[digitaldog]

Others get it. You, however, do not.

He doesn't. And the more those outside his ignore list egg him on, the more nonsense he will post here. I have to wonder if this is due to a lack of attention as a child, expressed perfectly here:
IsThisAlansMalfunction
No matter who posts and how often, Alan will simply continue.
A small/Klein global Ignore list might be the nuclear option for sanity.

[digitaldog]

US Intel report finds Saudi crown prince responsible for approving KHASHOGGI operation.
Now that Jared Kushner is no longer in the White House, it seems the US intelligence agency has no problem publishing it’s findings.

[Robert Roaldi]

US Intel report finds Saudi crown prince responsible for approving KHASHOGGI operation.
Now that Jared Kushner is no longer in the White House, it seems the US intelligence agency has no problem publishing it’s findings.

Trumpistan's disdain of journalism is well known and they probably didn't have a problem with the Khashoggi operation. Put another way, I'm sure the Saudi prince anticipated no pushback from the Trump administration about it.

The appreciation of the First Amendment is selective, isn't it.

[faberryman]

Someone brought a gold statue of Trump to CPAC, where Trump is scheduled to make his first appearance since getting tossed out on his ass.

"The statue appears to depict Trump wearing flip-flops and star-spangled boxer shorts and wielding a fairy godmother’s magic wand."

Sounds about right.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/golden-statue-of-donald-trump-unveiled-at-hellish-looking-cpac-meeting

[Robert Roaldi]

A band welcomes Ted's return, https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/02/23/ted-cruz-came-home-mexico-surprise-mariachi-band-tiktoks/4544808001/.

Pretty funny, I thought.

[faberryman]

This is interesting. Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, was quizzing Rachel Levine, Biden's pick for assistant secretary at HHS, about childrens' genitalia at her confirmation hearing. He has three sons, so his questions probably focused on female childrens' genitalia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rachel-levine-assistant-health-secretary-biden/2021/02/26/26370822-7791-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html

[LesPalenik]

Trumpistan's disdain of journalism is well known and they probably didn't have a problem with the Khashoggi operation. Put another way, I'm sure the Saudi prince anticipated no pushback from the Trump administration about it.

Especially because Khashoggi was working for Washington Post.

[Alan Klein]

Others get it. You, however, do not.

You have been developing a bad habit of taking other's posts and reframing them as the opposite of what they have written. Saying "your point is..." and then posting the opposite of the point another has made doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it by making you appear to be unwilling or unable to understand the context or the point in what others write.

You take that further with statements Like "you posited..." showing that you clearly have drawn conclusions that bear little to no resemblance to the basis of the argument to which you refer. You seem to think that others aren't able to express their thoughts clearly and need you to interpret their points, arguments, and their basis for what they have written into something quite different from what was intended. Well, I know that i for one do not; and I doubt that others writing here welcome your twisted interpretations of their writings. I personally don't see any benefit to your arguments or to the furthering of an engaging discussion by doing so.

These actions only serve as a diversion and time wasting exercise for others to explain to you what they have written and the basis for it as you pretend that what they have written and its foundation means something else entirely. If you are not pretending and actually don't understand what they have written or the context, the polite and more effective thing to do would be to inquire rather than assume and assert.

Don't tell me my posts are wrong.  They're right.  If you disagree with my points, tell me how they are wrong.  Your general statement means nothing. Debate my points.