TrickstaPriest

Yeah.  And judging by young men's opinions, they are beginning to successfully brainwash the next generations.

It was always about power 😕

I'm not sure the math works out -that- well... but I wouldn't mind a breakdown.

What I can say that, if you start giving people raises that triple their salary all the way down, that 15% of the cost isn't likely to be more than ~25-30%?  So tripling that salary chunk cost would be an extra +50% (the +200% of 25%).

I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to pay an extra +50% for all my services for triple my salary...

4 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Oh lordy, the irony!  We don't need to mention Newsom per se...it's SAN FRANISCO!!!  One of the hubs of gay culture in the country.  World Population Review (and some others) rank it as the #1 most liberal city in the country.

 

THAT is what they choose to root for???

 

The mind...boggles................

Pure reactionary politics

Hm.  Does that mean Fox will continue doing exactly the same thing as it's been doing, though?  I'm not sure how much the settlement amount would keep them from just... continuing on.  But we'll have to see...

Yeah, that's... what I was concerned about, more or less.  When I heard he had brought all that material to his home and had been going through the documents, it pretty much screamed to me that he was searching for intel he could use.  Not from an altruistic interest in the occupation.

Never had a drill.  Late age millennial - though all my schooling was Canadian

Hm.  In general, billions more dollars have been sunk into overall marketing strategies since the 80s and 90s... relatively speaking, a lot of money even if old values were caught up to new ones.  So I don't discount the value in that, either...

From my perspective, the real argument suggested here is that the weapon ban is hard to enforce - ie trying to determine restriction by the features of the gun is problematic.  Not that the idea of restrictions are unsound, just not by these methods

This isn't necessarily about Big Pharma.  The person in question is being denied insurance coverage without adhering to a strict set of conditions that they either had 'close enough' or 'was not reasonable' to perform.  In one requirement they literally need to have uninsured exploratory surgery to confirm a condition that can only be confirmed via exploratory surgery.  It's a costly catch22.  This is a condition that's in 1/10 women, so believe me if they wanted to make exceptions to monetize it they could try to.

Sometimes they make the wall to get the treatment is too high to begin with, and they don't care that they don't treat the women that can't afford the cost of a 20k surgery or a 1k a week medicine.

8 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

I'm terrified of this being exported to Ohio.  I take various meds with hormones to treat chronic adult acne.  And I've already raged about how I can't find a doctor who'll tie my tubes or grant me a hysterectomy because eventhough I'm 48, I'm still "too young!"  And I'm cis/straight-passing and married to a guy.  Imagine how harder it'll be for others...

A friend in AZ can't get the treatments they need for chronic pain because insurance won't cover it.  These aren't trans meds, just things for their long and painful medical history that doctors refused to analyze and insurance refuses even now to cover.  because that requires analysis using expensive methods not covered by insurance.

The system already mistreats women by refusing coverage for all sorts of conditions and just expects them to suffer.

4 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Because typically it's written to absolutely prevent the target, and secondary consequences are irrelevant.  Let's also note that these are the same people who refuse to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, and are challenging even the life/health of the mother.

and going after abortion pill access across the US.

This is going to have knock on consequences probably worse than the alcohol ban 😕

Depends on the state 😕 my state might consider it differently

42 minutes ago, Old Man said:

So say we all.  On the other hand, we only got Al Capone on tax evasion, but we got him.

Al Capone didn't have millions of people willing to do whatever they can for him... 😕  I'm hoping Trump doesn't, either.

I'd rather see something about the Georgia calls, or something with more relevancy.  This is just martyr-making 😕  We'll see though.

(Yeah, I've had some really bleak conversations in AZ in the past few years 😕 the 'both sides' of my friends and fellow have very, very, very stark sides for the most part... but it's "we're afraid" versus "you know what we need?  A purge (of these useless people)".)

I mean... when the laundry list of bills I see every week aren't targeting you or anyone you know, it's probably easy to feel 'dubious about everyone'. 😕  The level of dubiousness here is much higher when the stakes are 'abortion is murder' and 'trans and gay people are an abomination' versus 'we are scared of guns'

But I don't want to pile on, either.  I have nothing to say on this particular issue right now.

6 hours ago, Tom said:

More to the point, I work at a shooting range.  I routinely see parents introducing their kids to firearms or out for a fun time together.

I didn't hear about the employment change.  Congrats I hope?

Yeah, I'm familiar.  I think this campaign could cause harm to lots of people for decades, however, if not even longer.  It really depends on how far and how long their politicians (and major supporters) are willing to go. 😕

14 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

You can't withdraw from ALL of them...and many states that aren't passing legislation like this, may have other serious issues, like cost of living.  (I'm thinking particularly NY and Cali.)

Yeah, exactly why this concerted effort is concerning.  It's basically waging legalized abuse on a class of people, and there's going to be a tipping point where businesses will essentially be forced to 'accept' it... because ditching/harming a percentage of their existing employees is easier than being forced out of all of these states (which is exactly what we are starting to see (edit:) with medical insurance, for example)

The primary incentive for politicians is to get votes by reputation-building (and reputation-destroying) for the next election.  Reality or long-term benefits need not apply. 😕

I mean, there's also the question of what the point of such a ban would actually serve.

...Does not teaching people that gays exist actually provide a benefit to kids?

...Only if you consider it to be harmful.

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

Hey, you scared folks with different faiths might get married? Does seeing someone of another ethnic group with someone of YOUR Ethnic group make you feel insecure ? Are you pissed off at the nerve of some people when you peek in someone's window and see two guys kissing in the privacy of their own home?  Come to Tennessee, where we're trying to take things back to the 1950s, and not the cool Happy Days version either!

Yeah.  Allowing government employees to refuse to solemnize a marriage is kind of... but I heard about this a couple days ago IIRC.  The whole situation is pretty disgusting, and it's going to impact everyone who does business (edit) has employees in those states.

3 hours ago, BarretWallace said:

Although my Hero gaming is not what it once was, posts like this are a large part of why I still lurk and occasionally post on these forums.  Disputes happen even in this community, but by and large they stay civil and mutually respectful.  Posters also tend to show far more effort and articulate thinking than the average comment section on FB or a typical online news article.  While there are many well-written posts, for me, this one is a recent stand-out.  Thank you for putting in the time and effort it took to write it!

Yes.  I appreciate both Pattern Ghost and Tom talking and sharing more on subjects I don't know about, and having the patience to do so.

Yeh.  That kind of money actually insulates yourself from the issues living in a lot of these states... it's the poor that tends to suffer, whether it's Cali or Texas.  So the question isn't really a fair or well-phrased one.

I wouldn't live in those states for a variety of reasons, but sometimes things change.  In your own locale or others.

1 minute ago, unclevlad said:

Another angle to this is the Carlson portrayal of Jan. 6th that came out, what, last week.  Even now, it's doubling down yet again on the storyline...even when all these points about their real opinions are.  Even numerous Senate Republicans lashed out on them, but Fox ran with them anyway.

Yeah, which is setting the ground for... more attempts.  And whether it's attempts of trying to undermine an entire election with minimal evidence or effort or attempts to seize Capitol Hill, again, to intimidate Congress into making him/someone President through a public show of force... both of those legitimize the MTG call for either a national divorce... or worse.

Given I actually spent a few minutes to learn about the first civil war... and Mussolini's march...  Which was a nonviolent transference of power through intimidation via a public show of force

https://www.britannica.com/event/March-on-Rome

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but I won't claim to be a historical expert.  Just that explicit bloodshed is often not necessary to seize control of a country.

You can tell it's been a few stressful years for some of us...

I mean, I eye him warily on specifics, but I do think _disclosure_ is one of the most important moments for people to actually get information about political bodies like this.  Same with the court process.

So it really, really frustrates me when people talk about stolen elections but actually did zero review of the court proceedings.  There's no excuse to failing to look at public sources when and where they exist.