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

  2. Posted

    I saw for once in my whole life the refs call a game that wasn't blatantly slanted. Ok some hyperbole there, but it is mostly true. There always bullshit call extending drives for the pats. The 2 tripping calls in Dallas could well be a 4th loss, but alas here we are.

    We have played the top 5 defenses this year and averaged 3 TD's. The Pats arent scoring that on us or any other top 5 defense. And we will be away from Gillette so BB can't send our equipment to Sweden, or pay off Jerome Booger or Clete Blakeman. We would win handily. I hope we get the rematch.

    The chiefs though, boy that is going to be tough.

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, seanbrock said:

    It's on Bezos because literally nobody in the country benefits more off of doing business in the US than he does. His company can operate at a loss because it pays no taxes so it can destroy business all over the country. It's on people with the most money because as the old saying goes it takes money to make money. That alone gives him and others like him a massive advantage. There are people with money with just make money by investing in people with actual ideas that just lack capital. Some of those people literally just inherited a fortune. I think that's pretty whack, personally.

    As for people not doing business in poor areas because they're often violent, I mean, that's true but that's part of the reason why we have a federal government. If the federal government started converting old car plants and steel plants in places like Detroit, Chicago, LA, Philly, wherever and gave people an option to say hey, you can have this union job that you can support your family with or make next to nothing selling drugs for a gang in your neighborhood, I'm telling you right now a lot of those people are taking that job. Maybe not all of them but it's a start.

    Part of the issue with education is the enormous cost which people against free college have a great point on. They get all this federal and state money and give their buddies nice cushy administration jobs and stuff like that. I think that's relatively easy to fix though. If you get federal and state money you can only devote x amount of dollars to administration. The profits you make for athletics, x amount has to go to actual education. If not you can always be a private university and get no money. I think part of the reason why people pick the wrong fields to study in is it's such a huge decision to make when you're 18 and once you've invested a certain amount of time and money you're kind of locked in. Public schools do such a poor job of preparing you and offering guidance and information. You hardly learn anything about economics or personal finance or really much of anything for that matter in public school. You learn enough to take a standardized test to hopefully get good enough scores to compete for money. How does that make sense? We're sending kids to obedience factories, churning out drone people and medicating the fuck out of them. A lot of parents are both working 40 hours a week. It's hard to help with homework or keep your kids out of trouble when nobody is around and mom and dad are under a massive amount of stress trying to make It happen and keep everyone's head above water.

    It IS NOT the job of Jeff Bezos to make up for others shortcomings. If anything he brings more goods and services to low income neighborhoods than any other business. 

    This whole idea promulgated by the left that is others job to take care of you is frightening. 

    If you think this problem is as simple as make the rich give more than your missing the picture. The top 5 philanthropic givers in the US gave over 10 billion.  ALL THE WEALTH of the one percent in this country would barely be a drop in the bucket, so the idea this is some solution is dumb as hell. The top 10 richest Americans won't get you $700 billion. 

    I'm not sure why people think that the methodology of tax the rich until their middle class will generate enough money. It Won't.

    Here is the real fact. We give too much money to idiots. The U.S. takes in about 4 trillion a year. So when Warren says she wants to raise 2.75 trillion in 10 years, this is not some huge life changing sum. We bring that in plus 75% of that every year. The problem is we have morons and corrupt morons running the show. We don't need more taxes we need a straight house. The rich will not solve this problem.

    The funny part is Dems hat the flat tax, but it would extract more wealth and an equitable amount, but they don't want that.

    And I disagree with public schools. The richest men in the world learned plenty about it from public schools. And kids are.fucking dumb these days because we have shitty parents who aren't engaged. Which is more common 2 parents working 80 hours a week a piece or two shitty parents who raise their kids on electronics where they waste their lives? It's not schools, it's parents.

  5. Posted

    39 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    People make their own choices so at the end of the day you're not going to eliminate poverty completely but if we could at least pretend it was an issue and even attempt to do anything about it, that'd be dope. I see people talk about how much they want to see mental health addressed so they can keep their guns. Plenty of people in this country who are homeless are mentally ill. Can we talk about how 1 in 5 children lives in poverty? That's 13.3 million kids in the richest, most powerful country in the world. I bet you if Bezos put half his fortune to that cause we would be in a much better place in that regard. Spoiler alert, He's not going to, most of it is probably sitting in bank accounts.

    Do you know that gangs keep impoverished areas poor ? Do you know what one of the most important factors for businesses is when deciding where they are going to bring jobs? Crime. Why would someone open up a business in an area where profit margins are going to be a problem because of gangs? So actually eliminating gangs would help with the poverty situation.

     

    And I agree the stat about kids is sad. I love kids, one of the few groups of people I can say that about. That said, why is it on Bezos to fix it? This is something that is a common sentiment and I get it comes from a good place. However, why are we not holding the parents more accountable? Wouldn't you say they have a lot larger role in this. I think one of the bigger problems in the US is we tell people so what you want, instead of be practical and provide. Then we also allow them to blame Jeff Bezos because he isn't giving up half his fortune to pick up their slack. Everyone wants accountability, but no responsibility.

     

    Now are there working poor, of course. Are there people who have gone to college and do all the prerequisites to be successful, but because they pick social work, or teaching will NEVER be paid what they are worth? Sure. And that is the problem. I don't know how we have arbitrarily decided what is more important but if you have a sensible degree and work in that field you should not be in poverty. 

    Now all the gender studies horseshit, yeah you deserve to be poor for wasting for years on something useless. That said it is a rarity.

  6. Posted

    40 minutes ago, RazorStar said:

    If you're going to meet force with force, you may as well meet with enough force to kill your opponent. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. What's the worth of a human life anyway? 1 million isn't that much larger a number than one anyway.

    This is correct. That's why I like it. Damn it, if you're going to combat gang violence, than be in it to win it.

  7. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    1 hour ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

    If the enemy is applying the same basic rule -- doesn't that just lead to an infinite cycle of escalation and conflict?

    Not if you're better at it.

     

    What's the alternative, get killed because you would rather use non lethal force to combat lethal force? Have people die on principle...yeah fuck that. 

    What Mayor Pete is talking about is a solution for the area in which it's applied. These dumb shit gangbangers are just moronic dudes who aren't smart enough to do anything else. Using tactics that are tried and true among elite combat squads the world over might make for less bloody engagements. For the good guys anyway. 

    You have 3 real options here. 

    Leave the status quo and let the gangs do their thing, and let them keep recruiting the young people in those neighborhoods.

    Wipe them out wholesale in certain areas, and make the world better. 

    Try to compromise and have the gangs get to play the victim because we don't just let them do what they want.

    And before we get on this poverty routine . Yeah sure let's accomplish the impossible and eliminate poverty. After that gangs will go away. Or human nature takes over and hands try to get richer. 

    What's the solution here. Do nothing ? Send cops in with rubber guns? Not exactly a solution.

  8. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    Basic rule of combat meet force with force. When gangs start exploring non legal options, then yep, I'm with you. Until then, do what you gotta do.

     

    And I'm not sure how effective it would be. The reason there isn't the anticipated boom in Canada and US started that have legalized some sorts of drugs, is because there is still a massive black markets and they are cheaper 

  9. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    45 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Yeah, instead of ending the drug war and addressing poverty, Let's further militarize our police force that's blowing people away on a daily basis.

    Well I mean even if we ended the drug war, you think gangs just up and go away? Even if we legalized all drugs there would still be a black market.

     

    And if a gangbanger dies...so? 

  11. Posted

    The Democratic party is in shambles. Biden is still winning most aggregate polls, despite CLEARLY having dementia. 

    Warren sunk herself. She put herself in an impossible spot. She either backtracks on a staple of her campaign or continues to sink with an economic policy average Joe KNEW wouldn't work.

    Tulsi screwed Harris.

    I'm not sure what to make of Buttigieg. His policies on guns I can live with. His stances on religious freedoms I don't like. His stance on paths to citizenship I like. Him encouraging immigration, I don't. I don't like him allowing women in combat roles. I like his stance on marijuana. So he is a candidate I'm 50-50 on but would not be mad about.

    Democrats still don't want Bernie.

    Yang and Gabbard are in the same boat. Yang is more liberal, Gabbard is more moderate. Neither have a shot but a strong showing could be parlayed into a cabinet position.

    Clinton is killing the party but the egomaniacal cunt can't help herself 

  12. Posted

    3 hours ago, BC said:

    Since when is 2 hours or 3 hours a long trip? Especially when you pitch the tent and enjoy the starry night skies and don't drive back home right away. 

    It's not a long trip, but it's not in Seattle either. You can live other places than Seattle for cheaper, it will be cleaner, less people, better views, and closer to the outdoor recreation.

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, BC said:

    Traffic is definitely worsening.  That aspect definetely forces some creativity as far as where you end up working vs where you live, and when you choose to hit the city.  Omerta/NgataChance has always been an exceptionally picky and critical dude, but he's right those aspects aren't so great. The homelessness doesn't really affect anyone, tbh.  I don't think it's really as bad as most major cities as far as the homelessness is goes. However, I disagree that there is only the waterfront going for it. I have a LOT of fun around here between May and October, specifically in the many mountain ranges we have around here. instagram.com/benjamin_church 

    The homelessness doesn't effect anyone? Stay out of the pot shops breh.

    You have clearly never stepped in human shit in Seattle. Alaskan is a literal shitshow. Seattle is top 5 in homeless and not even top 20 in population.

    As far as the mountains, sure. But you're what 3 hours away from the south entrance to Rainier and 2 on Maple Valley highway? My Baker and the Olympics are all at least 2 hours from Seattle.

    Outside the waterfront there is Alki beach and that's it.

  15. Posted

    I'm thinking the NFC isn't the end all be all like we thought. Seattle is good but great. GB is streaky, they can look like world beaters, then they lose badly. The saints defense has been looking suspect as shit. I think the 9ers stand alone.

  16. Posted

    On 11/20/2019 at 5:53 PM, Zack_of_Steel said:

    why for?

    It has 1 thing going for it. The waterfront is nice.

    It is just awful. There are all the liberal pussies a man could ask form. Outrage culture is huge. 

    There is literal human shit on every street corner because of the homelessness crisis.

    The traffic is awful because of poor layout and city planning. For instance they just tore down the viaduct (a 4 lane road) with downtown exits all through seattle., For a tunnel that has 2 lanes and no downtown exits, that will be tolled.

    Seattle controls the whole state. They just had an initiative to cap car tags prices that were exorbitant (almost 700). It passed because people were getting screwed, but Seattle wants to Siphon billions more from transportation grants. They are the definition of liberal corruption gone away.

     

    The average home process is almost 500k, but median income is less than a 10th of that on King county creating a heavily taxes welfare state.

     

    Mind you I say this as a 1 percenter who gets blamed for the city's woes. That said, it is still a shit place to live unless your a business owner or Union member.

  20. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

    Good to hear. I do mean that. There are plenty of people I talk to who would not do the same for their kids. Hell, I know someone who got kicked out just for being gay. 

    I don't think Zim/Zer people exist in real life. If they do they are a tiny tiny minority of trans people. Hell, many of them that are online do not say they are trans at all, they are just genderfluid, which is another bucket of worms. 

    I was talking about where you claimed I said you were shitting on trans people which was well before that. I never said that. 

    Psychology is in its own class, even in your link, its not lumped with the social sciences, unless you're gonna argue engineering is as well. Psychology encompasses all fields of psychology. Psychology itself as a whole is 2/3 on what makes something a science. There's no comparison to feminism, no part of which is a science. A social science is a totally different meaning of the word.

    Psychology is a social science though. Just do a simple Google search and it becomes clear. Psychology Is the study of behaviors attributed to the mind and how that plays into societal constructs. Pretty much everywhere says it is fringes science not on the same stringent level as the other 2.

  21. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    11 hours ago, Thanatos said:

    I mean, they are social sciences, if that's what you're going for, but that's a completely different usage of the word science. I know, I know, you hate things that aren't black and white, sorry. 

    I may be getting you and Bware mixed up, but if a trans person asked you to call them she/her when they appear to be otherwise, would you?

    Still never saw you point out where I claimed you made such a statement. You have a very nice habit of claiming I do things, and then when provided evidence I do not, ignoring following up on it. Wonder why that is.

    That's what I am saying. You can call psychology a science, but it isn't unless it is crossed with an actual science. Psychology by itself is no more a science than feminism.

    I also did that because you said when you say psychology it encompasses all sciences under it, thus a science. If we apply that logic to the word science we have to put feminism on the same plane as say molecular biology. When talking about something this broad you don't get to be lazy with your words, and claim things are all encompassing or you end up saying, well gender studies is a science according to stem, which it isn't.

    I have already said this. I will call them the he/she of their choosing. Where I draw the line is the Zim/Zir nonsense. You just made that shit up so how do you know you identify with whatever a Zir is? You were born a woman but want to be called him, no problem, I gotcha pal. You want me to call you Zim, nah dude. Get your ass on down the road. You don't feel like a him or her (nonsense, but whatever) I'll call you by your name.

    Dude are you serious? Like 3 posts ago you said I am going out of my way not to be a decent human being. Now you wonder why I claim you said that. You have a very nice habit of insulting me and when you get called on it, play the victim like I'm the one making shit up. 

    Then you say stupid shit like I would not love my kids or put them first if they were trans. Dude, shut the fuck up. My kids are going to be my everything along with my wife no matter what. Macy wanting to be a guy would not take away all the gallons of imaginary Mio, I have drank with my head in her doll house. All the hours camping and laughing with my son mean the same if he wants to be a woman.  As long as they're not the entitled, pretentious, shitbag trans people we read about, I'm good with it. We won't be doing that hormone shit either until their brain is completely developed, because my wife and I aren't shit parents. 

    • Upvote 1

  22. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    Feminism is now a science, gender studies is a science, Folklore is a science, lawyers and judges are scientists, Translators are scientists, Librarians are scientists, News anchors, reporters, and journalists are scientists, got it. Check....not diluting at all lol. The fuck outta here with that shit.

  24. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

    ....

    I DID say psychology wasn't as empirical as biology. I specifically spelled that out in the same post, the very first sentence in my reply to you.

    Yes, when I say Psychology, I am referring to Psychology as a whole. Ngata, you're just being nonsensical here. By your logic if I say Math proves the quadratic equation, I am in fact wrong, because it is a subset of math- Algebra- that actually proves it. Do you understand how eminently confusing your way of claiming things would be? If the field of Psychology does not include all the sub-fields, you know, the ones that make up the field... then what in the fuck DOES it include?

    I don't believe in god, but just saying "god" as a higher purpose doesn't really tell me what you mean by that, so I can't agree/disagree as of yet.

     

    1 minute ago, Thanatos said:

    Just not, apparently, the ones who came up with STEM.

    ...MASSIVE difference, not exactly an apples to apples comparison. the same processes are used in algebra as trig. 

    Neuro science is not the same or the same principles as other "sub branches" of psychology. 

    And apparently you didnt read the original congressional document where they separate the other 2 types of science. I am not doing anymore research for you. 

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf

    straight from the original, congressional research on this. 

  25. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    3 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

    Sure, the official list of science, tech, engineering, and math majors doesn't actually mean that. Instead, we just take Ngata's word for it. 

    No...you take other scientists words for it lol.

    "This term is typically used when addressing education policy and curriculum choices in schools to improve competitiveness in science and technology development. It has implications for workforce development, national security concerns and immigration policy.[2] The science in STEM typically refers to two out of the three major branches of science: natural sciences, including biology, physics, and chemistry, and formal sciences, of which mathematics is an example, along with logic and statistics;

    the third major branch of science, social sciences, including psychology, sociology, and political science, are categorized separately from the other two branches of science, and are instead grouped together with humanities and arts to form another counterpart acronym named HASS - Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences."

    Where you at now smart ass ?

  • Chatbox

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

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