Jump to content

Omerta

TGP Prime+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,506

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Posts posted by Omerta

  1. Posted

    7 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    It's function is to make certain people's votes count more than others so if that's your bag, then yeah I suppose. 

    I mean that's one take for sure, but the other take is that you prevent politicians from serving Regional interests of Big state's such as New York, California, Texas, and a few others. It was designed so that you could not win an election off of four states, or the most populous states in the future. Which I think is a good idea.

    • Upvote 3

  3. Posted

    So after about 30 percent of the season dude's I am willing to part with. 

     Scam Newton

    Shady McCoy

    Crabtree

    Buck Allen

    Allen Robinson

    Marshawn Lynch

    The Red Rifle

    Cooper Kupp

    Kenny Golladay

    Trey Burton

     

    Some of those you would pay a premium for, others I am content with backups lol.

     

  4. Posted

    2 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    He didn't really say that though

     

    I thought the GPS tracking and stop and frisk case (Askew). Again, the guy has a well documented history of supporting a police state. JD already posted about how he's connected with the Bush's. How about you tell me how I'm wrong? What's his record? Weren't you just arguing that all politicians were pieces of shit like 5 posts ago?

    He has a documented history of supporting Constitutional textualism and executive power.

     

    He is not a politician, he is a judge.

    I'm not the one making a claim he will kill the bill of Rights, that is you. I never really put a claim it there like that, thus I have to prove nothing. That is you, at least in the sense of making a factual statement. Face it dude, you used hyperbole and got called, and then tried to deflect twice. First with, " I read a blog" which isn't proof. Then with deflection making me prove or disprove a claim YOU made.

  5. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    3 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Listening to Rachel Maddow? You think I listen to Rachel Maddow? Oh boy, I read about his record on the DC circuit Court on scotus blog actually, bud. And he lied about his involvement and some of the documents he saw in regards to the Patriot Act. I don't have to give you a bibliography, homes

    If you want to be taken serious you do. You are the one making a claim he is harmful to civil rights, the country as a whole, and that his voting record is harmful. You read about his record but dont offer proofs or specifics of your claim, you just say,"I read a blog". That is proof of nothing other than you read a blog. You say you dont have to prove it, but I am not the one making a claim that he is terrible/great, you are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

    If you can't or won't that is fine, just dont claim them as facts.

  6. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    9 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    I don't care what he would be saying about a democratic nomination. What he's saying about this particular topic I agree with him or at least what he said about Kavanaugh being the exact kind of Tyranny you should be raising up arms against. I think we do know how he will rule. He has a clear history of his record as a judge and what he has written and said. He also now clearly has it out for Democrats. 

    What specifically. What decisions what rulings, what oral arguments. It is easy to say you know the facts, but listening to Rachel Maddow isnt that. So what specifically against his record is there ?

    And Tyrrany? How so specifically, you are kind of prone to hyperbole yourself, so again how is this tyranny specifically?

    And why should he not have it out for them, they had it out for them. And dont act like others are impartial or we would not be talking about the balance of power shifting, because that implies we know all the judges there are biased.

     

  7. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    13 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    I mean... Kavanaugh was heavily involved in creating the Patriot Act. His views on the justice system are unconstitutional and authoritarian. Isn't that the definition of Tyranny? What's wrong with what, blots is saying? Maybe he was being somewhat hyperbolic with his first statement but he's not wrong? If you want to keep your guns to protect your rights, you should start organizing your militias to march on Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court building.

     

    So Kavanaugh has not been assigned to the bench yet how the fuck do we even know what he is going to do. He has already said he is ok with keeping Roe V Wade around, and we are condemning him for doing what literally every politician in the country has done. The patriot act passed by a huge margin when it was introduced then Democrats hated it. Then Obama came in and expanded it, and the Democrats say," Well, I have nothing to hide" lol. Fucking please, this happens by every administration by both parties. Should we have killed all of them? There would be nobody left lol. Now I am not going to say I would cry if it happened but with Blots whining about Republicans is asinine. You dont want this to happen, run someone better then Clinton so we dont end up with Donald fucking trumps you bunch of pussy-ass" Im with her" cunts. This is literally everyone's fault so instead of shooting one group why not shoot both. Oh thats right, in true blots fashion, dont get your hands dirty, have someone else do the killing, but only when you ok it lol.

    Dont encourage this dumbass whiny shit. he and his party lost, period. If the shoe was on the other foot he would not be crying foull and throwing his little tantrums. As fun as they are, I might add.

  10. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    23 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    I mean, I just came up with the broad strokes of an idea. There are semantic issues but there are always semantic issues in the private sector as well as the state. I think that colleges would be forced to compete with the government as far as providing opportunity and training which would work in people's benefit. This wouldn't be something anyone would be forced to do and if nobody wanted to live and work in Tacoma maybe you make so they want to, know what I mean? You're shooting holes in this as if the problems you mentioned just are unsolvable. If the private sector can handle this, then why hasn't it?  

    To do what you're proposing you would have to get rid of portability language in contracts. You literally cannot do that without tearing unions apart. If you took away portability then you would be displacing people from their homes by creating wastelands for work, at least as far as unions are concerned. You would probably end up with more non-union contractors than you would Union.

     

    I'm not shooting holes in this, just to do it. But you literally cannot do what you're proposing with the current Union laws, and if you were to dismantle the portability rules, then you would tear the union apart. Or, you would at least tear apart the weaker Unions.

    As to why the private sector hasn't fixed it, it's very simple. The government absolutely refuses to do its job. This goes for every president since the 1960s, they absolutely refuse to do their job. The idea that the government can come in and fix their mistakes, and improve on them is something they haven't proved the ability to do in the last half-century, I don't think involving them more is going to help. If they want to help start doing the job that they're paid to do, and enforcing the law already on the books. If they do that and things don't correct themselves, then okay, let's are talking about different issues. Until they do that though there's no point in discussing anything else, at least as far as the private sector being able to fix itself.

  11. Posted

    for the people who don't feel like reading that wall of text, the general summation is that we don't need the government to interfere anymore than they already are. What we need them to do is the job that they're paid to do, nothing more nothing less.

  12. Posted

    27 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Good point. I see where you're coming from lol.

    You negging son of a bitch lol. Kidding. This was more of a reminder to me, I was busy at the office, but I wanted a reminder for when I took lunch or break to come back to this and revisit it.

     

    So as to the explanation, I don't see a good way of implementing what you're saying. There are multiple scenarios in play here, and I don't feel like any of them are good. The biggest problem I have with any of it, is when you said government placing people. What does that mean? I don't like the idea of government being able to place anybody in a profession, no matter how good they may be at it. now those aren't the three scenarios, that was just a big problem I had with the statement in general. However for the next three scenarios I will operate under the assumption that you meant the government will give you the option to choose.

    The first, and consequently the largest problem I see with this is that you would take huge metropolises, and make them even bigger. Now there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself if that's where people feel they belong. So I'm not sure how familiar you are with the way the union works, but there is a wage scale that is completely dependent upon where you live, and you're negotiating power. For example and local 46 and Seattle a journeyman makes about $50 an hour, travel 25 miles south to local 76 jurisdiction, and a journeyman makes about $35 an hour. Now the living expenses aren't that much different, it is almost as expensive to live in Tacoma as it is to live in the west side of Seattle. So let's say you go to the Tacoma high school and tell all these kids that hey once you're done will place you an apprenticeship program, or a trade school to teach you an apprenticeship, or a trade school and then graduate you to an apprenticeship, any of the combination is fine. The problem is why would a kid at Tacoma High School want to take that option, if he knows 15 miles up the road he could be making $15 an hour more, and a pension that isn't bankrupt. He probably wouldn't, then you would have to tell that person that they have to stay within the Tacoma jurisdiction or there wouldn't be any Wireman in Tacoma.

    Now, when you think about how the union works there something called portability. So what that is, is it only allows you to have a certain amount of people work in a different jurisdiction, and for local 46 I believe that number is 4. So is a contractor, I can only send four of my guys to do work in Tacoma, after that I have to hire Tacoma hands. Now there's nothing wrong with that either, except for that the guys working right next to them doing the same work, but have their money sent to a pension that's fully funded and quite healthy, well they would receive local 76 pay which is much lower, and the pension is bankrupt. So basically they're doing the same work, and they're getting paid less to do it.

     

    Now let's say, that you told these people they could go anywhere they wanted to go. Do you really think they would choose to stay in Tacoma? So you would have a complete absence of Union Wireman and Tacoma, but the need for electrician still needs to be filled, so then what? With the rules of portability, all those Wireman who live in Tacoma, are working in Seattle but you can only send four back to service the needs of a large city. So basically, the electrical needs of Tacoma would go unmet, unless you allowed non-union labor.

    So now you're saying let's get rid of the portability Rule, and that's all well and good. However, that comes with its own set of challenges. So if you take portability out of the Union contracts, the next thing people are going to do is try to establish new markets and conglomerate operations. So you have for five huge contractors in Seattle that handle all the 40-story work. all the other small contractors usually stick to 20 floors or below, or doing tenent improvements on different buildings. So what would happen is either the large Union contractors would Branch out to as far as they could get let's say on Western Washington on the other side of the Cascades, and they would put smaller Union shops out of business. or let's say that they didn't want to do that just wanted to focus on that work. Then you would have the smaller shop seeing opportunities to be able to expand their operation to become the next big outfit. So you would have immediately a problem because the pension in Seattle is very good, is as the pay, so the local in Spokane can't compete with that, so all of the people in Spokane are going to sign up with 46 to get the pension in the money as they should. The problem with that is is now all of the sudden you have the entire state of Washington governed over by one local headquartered in Seattle. That is going to create a huge Metropolis of people, and it's going to make locals the next conglomerates.

     

    That is only one of the issues, there's at least a few more, but they deal more on the contractor side with the logistics, what parts cost wear, putting local Parts houses out of business because it's cheaper to get it from the bigger Parts houses in Seattle, so you would lose those jobs in those small towns that people rely on for a living. Then you would an Essence kill the town, or large chunk of its Workforce and make them migrate to a larger area.

     

    then there's the problem of certain local specializing in things, and Seattle there's a large chunk of our local that doesn't Marine electrical, now that's not necessarily needed in the midwest, what's needed in the midwest is motor controls for irrigation Motors and electric pumps. So why would a guy and the Midwest settle for $22 an hour for a journeyman benefit package, when he could go up to one of the large conglomerates, and all he would have to learn as a few motor controls in a marine environment. Now all of the sudden we're starting to lose parts of the trade, or expertise in those trades because the service is needed in the midwest, or not the service is needed in the ones that pay well.

     

    I am all for unionizing the workforce, but I think the way the union does its thing right now is the ideal way to do it. The problem is we have a large influx of undocumented immigrant labor that we need to have a path to citizenship so we can legitimize that Workforce, and stop allowing people to pay them one V what they would pay anybody else. We need to take all the huge corporations like Amazon, Walmart, Google, Kmart, and all of these places and smash them into a million pieces so that way when companies not so big that they can have their own electrical force, their own Plumbing Force, basically an entire self-sufficient organization on to themselves, we need to stop paying all these legislators to get the right to work states going. we need to stop telling kids that college is the only way you're going to be successful in life, to get that six figure salary, or even strike it rich. There's a lot of electrical contractors that are multi-millionaires by the time they're 35, because the workforce is hurting so bad that anybody that can do a halfway decent job can run a shop. We need to start getting all these endowments two colleges comment all these tax breaks, and start giving them back to the trades. If you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics construction is one of the markets it's far outpacing the people we have, and that trend is only going to continue as we grow as a nation. We need to start going to high school trying to recruit there, we need to take some of those military budget that were using to fight other people's words for money, but that budget into recruiting in promoting local unions, we need to get city city council some local Meijer out of the pockets of these large non-union contractors, there's so many things we can do that does not necessarily involves government help that we can do to promote Union and get people on track with decent paying jobs. The fact is that all these corporations and Technology, biopharmaceuticals, Supply Chain management, Logistics, don't want people to stop going to college because they want to recruit the best young talent, and they do that with the promise of great paying jobs will they don't tell you is only a few will get that, you will end up and a cubicle somewhere working a dead-end job where you're going to top out at $80,000 a year maximum.

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, seanbrock said:

    What about a program kind of like the military that was funded by the government to place people into training for infrastructure jobs that were also state funded to rebuild and modernize our country? Anyone can sign up. You get aptitude tests and you get some choices on what you want to do. You get right into a union when you complete your training. Or you can go to college still if you want. Why do companies pay for people to get educated? This is a worth while investment that would pay for itself tenfold and make this just much better place to live. Socialism sucks doh.

    Hard pass.

    • Downvote 1

  14. Posted

    33 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/money/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/index.html

    Couple weeks old, I know but I'm just going to leave this here. What a fucking traitor and a liar Barack Obama is.

     

    I am not saying he is the greatest, but he is certainly better than any of the options we've had in the last 20 years. I would definitely take him over Trump or Hillary, I would take him over Bernie, Bush, Kerry, McCain, and anybody who had a realistic shot of winning in the last 20 years.

    I think you did an overwhelmingly amount of things that are neutral, that didn't move need a one way or the other. And I would say he accomplished about as many great things as he did Terrible Things. I don't know if I would go so far as to call him a traitor, that would imply that he was an ally of the middle class from the get-go. I think this stems from what we were saying earlier none of these politicians are really great people. That being said, I would take Obama before I took a lot of them. Recently changed my tone on Elizabeth Warren, I still think she would be one of the better options, if I can't have them alley or gabbard then really I'm having to pick somebody who I would think it's the least evil, and she would be in the conversation. There might be two good options, possibly three, but I mean realistically when you compare him to his contemporaries he wasn't that bad of a choice.

  15. Posted

    2 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    No, what I'm saying is that there are more people like Gabbard in the Democratic party, who are genuine and looking to do more than just line their pockets. They don't have any power really though because the DNC has said in open court that they don't believe in democracy. (Paraphrasing lol)

    There may be a few, very few, I just believe the overwhelming majority of the halls of Congress and the White House are filled with terrible people.

  16. Posted

    35 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Doesn't it seem like there are more people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Democratic party that actually give a fuck? Idk I follow them more obviously but I think it's clear that politicians like that as much as you disagree with them on some things, are genuine. Just in fairness to Than and blots.

    I wasn't addressing anything they said in particular. I am not even sure what the last two pages are about honestly. 

     

    To answer your question though, no. I don't think there are more gabbards than not. I think most are shit people.

  17. Posted

    13 hours ago, BJORN said:

    Every politician is a fraud

    And it's sad. Not about Booker or any one person in particular. I think pretty close to 100% of them are shit people who don't really give a damn about any of us. There is some wiggle room I'm sure but a minute percent.

    • Upvote 2

  20. Posted

    I see you trying to deny Joe week after week, HE WILL NOT BE DENIED. Put some respeck on his name. 

     

    On a serious question do you count drops against the QB ? Crabtree had 3 hit him in the hands and John brown dropped 2, and Boyle had 1 I believe. 

     

    Not dissing your rankings at all. If Crabtree had hands Joe's completion percentage would be outstanding.

  23. Posted

    I think the saddest part is that everyone here looks bad. There are no winners here, just who lost more and I dont know who that is yet, and I dont think we are going to know that until after November. I think this thing looks made up and Kavanaugh looks evil, and I think the dems look like whiny bitches, while the republicans looked like they would back literally anyone who had money to throw them. It is just all terrible.

    • Upvote 2

  25. Posted

     

    3 minutes ago, RazorStar said:

    Nothing conclusive (and in a case like this you won't ever find something conclusive) but typically when you can't keep a story straight it means that there is something to hide.

    I agree he is a bad guy but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone, at least not enough to say something definitively. 

     

    I also disagree with the always lying to hide something related to what your accused of. I think a lot of people truly lie out of spite as odd as that is.

     

    I don't believe anyone in this whole thing, and he should not be a justice for sure. I just don't think he raped anyone either.

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×