3,386 Forum Posts by "BrianEtrius"
Also: A thought that occurred to me while flying back:
If there's no smoking on a plane, why are there ash trays in the restrooms?
Makes no sense.
At 8/13/09 09:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: A few things to consider before condemning the BART union:
Exactly.
Have wages/salaries kept up with long-term inflation?
Has the nature of the work recently changed to the extent that the work is more demanding of time, effort, or skill?
By the looks of it, no to both questions. But, as quoted to the article,
"The union had rejected a contract proposal earlier this week that would have frozen salaries and capped health benefits."
WHAT
I can certainly see why they wanted to strike.
You're right, this probably isn't the best time for a strike, but that doesn't mean the strikers have no justifications at all. If any of the demands are reasonable but the timing or method makes them unacceptable, then at the very least they can be implemented in the future, after the current strikers are terminated.
Exactly. Also, let me simplify the statement and ask the OP this: Does the enviornmental problems really makes this strike THAT bad?
I don't think so.
At 8/16/09 06:05 AM, fli wrote: I would love to visit NY just for the theater scene...
Speaking of which, I did see Jersey Boys.
It was very good, great music, odd sense of humor thrown in for good measure, and excellent acting.
With a trip to NYC, I brought back presents!!!!!!!!
Sadly, only for me.
Picked me up a copy of Road to Perdition.
Now to rent the movie....
At 8/16/09 02:19 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: Fox should make a series out of this. Lord knows it'll be better than their ability journalize.
A Wrestling-based one, no less.
Fucking Steve Austin.
Back from NYC.
Now I know why I prefer SF to it.
And I'm sick of old artifacts in glass cases. If I see another one I think I'll....
FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>.>
Going to be in NYC for a week or two.
Being the Madison Avenue Man.
Pics will be soon when I come back.
Level 18.
Sweetness.
I've gotten the Keanu Reeves and the Matt Damon.
Talk about opposites.
Poorly MS-Paint
Hey, back from the dead for a bit, but then going into nothing again.
Just checking in.
Fli, it's weird seeing you without hair.
At 7/30/09 01:52 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: It probably isn't all that coincidental... a leader being elected to a second four-year term is itself likely a strong motivation for that leader's opponents to try to derail the agenda at hand by bringing to attention every shortcoming, failure, or questionable dealing possible.
On the other hand, maybe winning a second term just makes the leader lax and arrogant with their sense of security, essentially setting up a situation in which they derail themselves.
Possibly.
Perhaps this is also evidence for rearranging the political system. Maybe we shouldn't have a max on 2 4 year terms, maybe we should only have 1 6 year term.
At 7/30/09 01:29 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: I think one part of it is that we're quicker to recognize a leader's failures than their accomplishments, and the other part is that the longer a person remains a leader, they more time there is for others to scrutinize their actions.
I'm not saying we should condemn it, but from the current trend in the second term something controversial comes along and wrecks the rest of the 2nd term. It's just a very odd coincidence.
At 7/30/09 01:18 AM, hansari wrote: What did he do that was so scandalous in his second term?
Where do you want to start?
CIA leak: 2005
Guantanamo: 2006 (first known to public)
Wire Tapping
Failure to help New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina
etc.
etc.
Not to mention our favorite shoe throwing incident.
Two term presidents in the past 40 odd years have not done well in their second term and usually have some sort of controversy. It's an interesting trend.
Nixon (1969-1974): had Watergate in 1972.
Reagan: (1981-1989) : Iran-Contra affair in 1986.
Clinton: (1993-2001) : Lewinsky scandal in 1998.
Bush Jr. (2001-2009) : Where to begin?
Anyways, interesting trend. Do you think it could possibly continue with any future presidents?
At 7/29/09 11:36 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Obama is a scum bag.
You have to notice, though, it was Obama who came out and suggested they have a beer, not his press secretary.
At 7/29/09 08:50 PM, fli wrote: Oakenfold is good (most of the time), but I can't stand Tiesto... all that Trance crap is just plain annoying.
surely I'm going to offend someone here who likes Trance.
NAN DESU KA?
NAN DESU KAAAAAAAAAAA?
WHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTT?
Come on, you don't like trance?
I had higher hopes for you too fli.
There's a difference between freedom of speech and censorship. We're lucky we have freedom of speech. Downside? No one has to listen it. Not really a problem that government has. If speech was worth listening to in public eyes you'd have support. Most people really don't care. They have bigger issues on their plate.
See also: Right to protest
The point of having a democracy is we elect people who share the same beliefs as we the voters do. If you don't like it, vote for someone else. Pretty simple.
At 7/28/09 08:52 PM, Proteas wrote: Only if Fli has a starring role in it. I want to see him wig out all of the sudden and start singing "Tea for Two" like on the first episode of South Park.
No... still to obvious, we wouldn't be able to tell a difference between the mind control and him just being wacky.
He's not that wacky....at least when we met up.
I probably got in more wackier lines then him.
At 7/28/09 08:41 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Just that one particular dream. I'm not sure if we could air ALL of them....before 10:00 pm at least....
Oh no. We could, be just do it a la Paul Greengrass style, basically shoot with a handheld cam and make the entire audience sick.
Or we could do it Michael Bay style: EXPLOSIONS.
Picked up the first book of Lone Wolf and Cub.
It's long, historical, and epic.
27 more volumes to go............
At 7/28/09 01:43 AM, fli wrote: Watching Apocalypse Now Redux for the millionth time...
Mostly because I got tired watching Do the Right Thing for the two millionth time...
It's okay, we all have our guilty pleasures...
Mine currently is the Bourne series....
Matt Damon is buff and HAWT, because he's like natural buff.
At 7/27/09 04:28 PM, Masterzakk wrote: The government I am talking about is forcing you to pay for programs that I don't give a damn for (school, health care, poor people). I am not talking about ethics my friend as I do not seek total anarchy rather than for a more "extreme" form of capitalism. I thought I was being very clear here.
Yes it is about ethics because the thing government and religion have most in common is ethics. So if you want to make that analogy, this conversation is also about ethics.
I am not the only one too realize what I am talking about. That is rather idiotic in itself. If people want to form states and pay for protection from various entities fine but I would rather fend for myself as you are the only one whom can help your self. Nobody will EVER going to help you without some form of payment.
Okay, let's take away your food, your water, your gas, your house, your job, your car, your roads, your shoes, and everything else you own or use. Now you get to start over from scratch! LOT'S OF FUN.
Why? Because now you're fending for yourself. Now you're living independantly!
I want electricity, water, and various things we enjoy to be free from government monopoly so I don't have to live in a hermit lifestyle. This isn't very hard to understand where I'm coming from here right?
Wait, a second, a minute a go you said you wanted to fend for yourself. Now you want to use public resources? Very hypocritical.
And speaking on electricity, water as government monopolies, if that were true, why does PG&E exist on the West Coast? They're an independent company, aren't they?
At 7/27/09 04:17 PM, KidneyThief wrote: I don't think he is pushing for anarchy here, but I'm not really sure what it is he is pushing for because he won't elaborate. Regardless anarchy is just an extreme that will ultimately fail because it will defeat itself. People will always aim for structure, not everyone is a loner.
No, he is pushing for anarchy because he's arguing against government and he said so. The problem is he can't defend it and thus has to use a bunch of words to make himself smart. In the process he looks like an idiot.
At 7/27/09 03:31 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: But, anarchy always isn't that simple. Without government there should be no law, correct? But, you still have your code of ethics. That could be your law. Therefore, you are your own government thus this is a government thus anarchy can't possibly exist.
At 7/27/09 03:32 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Also anarchy is a lack of government, why not just let people do what they want without limitations. If their acts are truelly stupid then they would vanish from it.
I just used your definition of anarchy too. Haha.
And I used it before you posted! You know what you're problem is? You think you're the first one to recognize this. You think you know everything. You think you're the best. Well guess what? People like you come and go. All they do is shout, and then fall. They always say the same thing. That's how I know what you're going to say next.
You really are a case, you know that?
See, your analogy doesn't work, because anarchy doesn't work.
Let's assume for a second that government is religion. Well, what do both give you? They're both guilders; they help you live your life. They give you a set of ethics/laws to live by. So if you don't believe in government, you are an anarchist. And with no government, there is no law. In theory.
But, anarchy always isn't that simple. Without government there should be no law, correct? But, you still have your code of ethics. That could be your law. Therefore, you are your own government thus this is a government thus anarchy can't possibly exist.
So, what you're saying is you don't want to follow government yet you want to follow your own government....yeah, that's hypocritical.
At 7/25/09 06:13 PM, stafffighter wrote: 1. Why does it not lend itself to amatuer production?
2. Why do you already know this?
See, this is where the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy kicks in.
At 7/25/09 04:12 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Too lazy eh? The sheep will never learn.
On the other hand, the so called "revolutionaries" don't learn either.
You're just as bad as everyone else.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
At 7/25/09 02:43 PM, dySWN wrote: Of course, these definitions don't cover all the variations that can occur, but that would honestly take more time to eneumerate than I have in a day.
Yep. Probably the most major one to cover is Joe Lieberman, because he's the most well known moderate/independent.
While on some social issues like Gay Rights, Gun control, etc. he votes Democrat, he has a very conservative stance on Iraq and foreign policy.
At 7/25/09 05:21 AM, newnerdproductionsTM wrote: We need a government. Sure, there is always corruption, but the small amount of bad that causes greatly outweighs the bad of anarchy. Plus, even in anarchy, a leader will rise, starting feudalism again.
Proving a point: If we were to follow his lead, the country would first collapse, then rebuild.
