JoeWeber

You missed the point which, to press the point, was that you were missing the point. Look at your response: I put "that kind of money" in quotes and you respond by putting "serious play" in quotes. Not my point. Serious play, as I posed it, was simply a way of describing a level of business where compensation becomes disconnected from an hourly rate or specific commission. There are many reasons, ranging from innocuous to nefarious, why someone might get "that kind of money" for filling a position. Obviously, if you can, you really want to get "that kind of money". The reality is that for most folks hearing a number like $50K a month means that something shifty is going on because no one is worth that much. Another reality is that the reason might be something as simple as the company executives knowing that board members making $10K per month for doing nothing are unlikely to vote them pay packages of $100,000 per month for doing nothing. Sure who you know gets you places and creates opportunities. That's just how business works. Yes, board member compensation is smarmy but in most cases it's like looking under the bed for monsters. You know it's there but when you stop being afraid and take a look there are no monsters. Some people, like Ron, will never believe there were no monsters under the bed. For sure they snuck into the closet or the basement or are on a plane to Benghazi. For them, no proof will never equal no monsters.

Edit more, write less.

For spreading the nonsense Kayleigh Goebbels was sanctioned by Twitter and the post was removed.

Maybe "that kind of money" is out of your range of understanding. Sometimes when you are in serious play a big payday is on offer. Just saying.

Yes. It's beyond stultifying that the most divisive issue of our time is also the easiest no brainer. Given the level of access to information we've all had for so long it is hard to be hopeful.

As usual Ken, your counsel is wise. It's just so damn odd to find a Brit without a sense of humor.

C'mon Turtle, you know better than that.

Absolution from jakee plus 7 bucks will get you a beer in any bar in town. Congratulations airdvr.

Well said. I remain in favor of simply defunding the courts instead of packing. No money for clerks, paper clips or summer vacations. I’d go so far as to turn the heat off. That’ll slow down things and take the fun out of being a strict textualist. That said, if they do pack it go big. Add another 10 or 20 justices just to make it insane for the right to add another 20 when they regain power.

I doubt it. Now it just flows naturally.

“We’re talking about justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the court”, Ms Barrett said in the interview. We’re talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court,” she continued. “It’s not a lateral move.” Amy Coney-Barrett on why Merrick Garlands nomination a bad idea. Please, no more pretense that she'll be fair and follow precedent. Please, no more court packing hypocrisy from the right.

Stable Genius Trump is now imploring Puerto Ricans, in Puerto Rico, to vote for him because he's like the second best President they have ever had. I wonder how long it will be before someone tells him that Puerto Ricans can not vote for him because Puerto Rico is not a state? Trumpies, you must be bursting with pride.

Come on, Libtards, so now you have a problem with folks volunteering to assist voters? It's a constitutional right kids. "An unregulated ballot box, being necessary to the pirating of a free and fair election, the right of Republicans to collect and count your ballot shall not be infringed."

So, whatever is in the Constitution is good until changed?

One starts to wonder just what insane level of credulity is possible with these people.

I imagine a dog that circles but won't lie down. And also an ex.

Is that owing to a potential conservative advantage?

Do you prefer the current EC system over a straight popular vote?

So fuck 'em. Maybe they'll enjoy it, who knows? As it is, the EC has caused the majority to suffer the will of the minority. Haven't heard Fox news decrying that as unfair.

So what? You will admit that you said it, that you are easily brainwashed, and also admit that you are one of those guys who cannot admit you were wrong or jakee will be unhappy with you.

Two reasons: One, I want the Senators. Two, I'm changing the name to Harryland.

For electoral reform, I'd eliminate the electoral college ASAP, if not sooner. In fact I'd go further, I would create a special Night Police charged with rounding up anyone whoever spoke in support of the electoral college. After their excuses were made and noted they would be dragged backwards by galloping horses to a place of disposal where kind words would be spoken. Next, to fix the insane system of two Senators per state that creates a system of unequal representation and forces thinking people to be subservient to hicks, banjo players and voodoo aficionados I would immediately grant statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico. For Judicial reform, instead of court packing, I would eliminate the office budgets for all appeals court judges and eliminate 3 of the 4 clerkships that all Supreme Court Judges enjoy forcing the asshats to do a little thinking for a change and also work through the summer like the rest of us. Lastly, by Executive Order, no more teetotalers in the Oval Office.

I'm a progressive liberal, mostly, who is definitely pro-choice. I am also pro gun ownership while at the same time being anti our badly written and falsely interpreted second amendment. I am piss tired of the narrative that all liberals are pro abortion up to and including the 4th grade. Most of us who are pro choice disagree with the idea when the fetus is viable according to medicine and science not witchcraft. Same with guns, really. I, and most liberals I know, believe owning guns should be a right up to a certain point. Basically anything useful for hunting or home defense is good. Machine guns, bump stocks and mauve pistol grips should never be allowed without serious controls. It's not one extreme or the other.

It's easy to say Brent is wrong if for no other reason than it's fun and popular. But he's not without a point to make. Yes, three of the five million acres burned in the US so far in 2020 are in California. But also, California is by far the most populous state and thus has more people moving into areas they shouldn't and, no great surprise, more gender reveal parties. While I am fully persuaded that increasing temperatures are creating more day's that are conducive to fires in California it is far from the whole problem. Studies indicate that 200 years ago roughly 8% of California's forests burned annually. That might well be the natural number and the current problem is caused more by decades of misguided forest fire suppression and increasing numbers of affected people than climate change. I'm no climate change denier but it sure seems to me that a fair bit of California's fire problem has more to do with things other than increasing levels of CO2. https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#5/38.58/-121.49 https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/03/wildfires-in-california-will-continue-to-get-worse-climate-change-experts-explore-why/?_ga=2.195053868.1829242891.1602350113-1242522506.1602350113 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7/pdf https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/12/fire-suppression-and-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-californias-megafires-experts-unpack-the-term/?_ga=2.195053868.1829242891.1602350113-1242522506.1602350113

I understood your point and agree. That doesn't mean I understand he need for the "assault type" weapons, though. To make my point I was going to point out to you that guns are just tools for a purpose and use shovels as an example. But fuck me if I didn't have 9 different shovels when I checked so that didn't work. No matter, I still don't see the need.