Posts by SWtarget

    Thank you twat.. I am glad to be mediocre in your book. It makes debate with you easier.. I worked for the city for a long time.. I loved being mediocre.. the only one in the room with no real degree.. the only one not wearing a suit.


    You have no idea how fun that was for me.... and god help me.............how amusing.


    lazs

    Somewhat similar story - several years ago, two of my brothers came with me to attend a paintball outing arranged by my then boss. He was/is a VP of Sales and most of the people who he invites are similar white collar types. We went to a nearby bar to "debrief" after pelting each other all morning, and after a couple rounds one of the guys says something to the effect that we have all been talking but he doesn't really know anyone, so he wanted to go around the table and introduce who we were and what we did and how we all knew my boss. He was an executive of some kind . . . my boss was a VP . . . next was a sales guy covering umpteen states . . . marketing executive . . . customer service manager . . . 3-4 others. Got to my younger brother, and he says his name and then "I'm a janitor." The looks of the half drunk faces around the table was priceless as you could see them all trying to process 1) was he telling the truth or trolling and 2) if true, how this guy ended up with the likes of them and 3) also if true, how he said it and was sitting there so unembarrassed about his "lowly" profession. Then only to make their reactions even more uncomfortable, the guy that started it all says "so what kind of janitorial company do you run?" My brother says, "I run a broom, sir" and gives him this big, cheese-eating grin.


    The thing is, if I ever had a problem I needed advice about, I would without a doubt ask my brother the Janitor what he thought before anyone else at that table. Not just because he's my brother. Because he has no airs about him. He's humble. If he doesn't know, he won't try to make something up to make himself look smart. And he would care about the outcome of his advice. And if it was a not-so-good outcome, he would own up to the bad advice (and probably call himself a "dumbass" as he often does). Too often I see people who have convinced themselves the degree they have or the position their family connections provided for them makes them superior.


    Funny to me is that for most of them, their "politics" would line up. My brother has very definite opinions, and will politely explain them to anyone who wants to listen. But the "superior" ones would in no way be able to explain why. It just is because they say so. And if you didn't understand, it must be over your head and your are dismissed.


    Not sure why I'm on my soapbox tonight. Sorry for the wall of text.

    Yeah, this pretty well reminds me why I've been gone for so long. Not much in the way of discussion. Any attempt to understand why someone is so firmly entrenched in any given idea leads to nothing but name calling. Give someone an opportunity to mount a logical defense and you only get more rabid foaming at the mouth. Pick a side and defend it to the death without allowing any room for contrary opinion.


    2 Tim 3:1-5 "But know this, that in the last days, critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these, turn away."


    You see all these traits every day in these times. I underlined the one that seems most appropriate to what I see here, but it is certainly only one of many that apply. I know no one asked me for my opinion, but I gave it anyway. :)

    Tariffs are a failure for the American people. The exception being before 1913 when tariffs were vital income for government operation, before income taxes. Tariffs cost more US jobs scattered throughout the economy than the number of targeted jobs they subsidize through taking the American people. Eliminating tariffs would be a dramatic boom for the economy, as it would immediately free up a shit ton of disposable income and attract a lot of foreign investment.

    What about instead of eliminating tariffs, we instead eliminated the income tax? Wouldn't that Free up much more disposable income and encourage a more diverse domestic economy? Sure, prices go up, but without income taxes, so does the individual's purchasing power.


    Prices are going to begin increasing anyway. Labor market is getting tight, and local wages are starting to go up quite a bit (and without anyone raising the minimum wage). As cost of labor increases, businesses are going to have to start passing it along at some point.

    Not just that but the yellow nose. Luft did not start that yellow nose paint until few months after Dunkirk.

    Saw this in WW2 magazine a while back and found the interview online. Nolan talks about that very point:


    http://www.historynet.com/nolan-dunkirk.htm


    "We did have to change some details. We used a Spanish HA-1112 Buchón to represent the Messerschmitt Bf 109E. It has a yellow nose—even though the Germans did not paint the noses yellow until a couple of months later. But we needed to give the audience a better chance of visually understanding the difference between the 109 and the Spitfire in quick shots and in distance shots. So we were forced to make creative decisions like that, and we didn’t take any of them lightly. I very strongly felt that the sense of reality of filming a real plane piloted by a real pilot in a real dogfight would be a lot more exciting than an animated representation of an accurate-looking plane."


    Not everyone in the world is an ex-AH fighter junkie, so the paint was a deliberate decision to make it easier for the wider audience.


    Or, someone pointed it out to him during post-production and he got his story straight before giving any interviews.

    I guess I'm dumb. I thought we already had "sub-supreme courts" with presidential-appointed judges reviewing all the cases that may or may not be appealed beyond their ruling. I believe they are called circuit courts of appeal. And you get there after a ruling by a sub-sub-supreme court called a district court.


    I may agree that the courts are too powerful, but they are that way because politicians in both parties over a couple centuries have allowed them to get that way. Since those politicians are supposedly representatives of the people who elected them, then by extension the courts have been allowed to get too powerful because the electorate has tolerated it if not willfully allowed it.


    And since you would get four different answers if you put any four members of the electorate in a room and ask them to define what is constitutional, then any so-called "solution" that depends on an "objective definition" is doomed to failure. There is no "objective definition" of anything that you are going to get everyone to agree on. Ergo, you will have one subset defining what is "objective," and will have to enforce that view with the tyrannical powers of government.


    Which looks a lot like the original problem.


    My $0.02