Soxbadger

I was 33 dating a 24 year old. It worked out. It really just depends on what type of things you have in common etc. She just barely made the /2 + 7 which I told her before we started dating.

Seems like an overpay.

Bears should try and get Patrick Peterson from the Cardinals. I think they are pretty close on cap space.

For as critical as Ive been, the Bears are doing better than I thought. 8 wins would be a big accomplishment. Trubisky needs more reps to see if he can improve his consistency.

Tank is on. How else is Parker in on defense with 24 seconds left?

Id say dont give up on it. You could probably skip right to episode 3, but the first two are laying a foundation for what is to come.

I liked the Buster. When I first started here many moons ago, I almost exclusively posted on PHT. Sometime in those last 15+ years, I moved to posting almost exclusively outside of PHT. I can really understand why the Buster may be a risk to have on a sports board, but I also think it gave this message board something different. Id crusade for the buster.

Anyone else watching "The Haunting of Hill House" on Netflix. First 1-2 episodes were a little slow, but after that it picks up fast.

If the NBA removed the max salary on a single player it would end all of this really quick.

The only thing Ill add is that if your employer offers a match program, you should try and save as much money as will be matched.

I was trying to be civil and not take the bait when you made comments about the day when you were right and I was wrong. I wanted to focus on the crux of the issue, which is whether I think the govt should regulate Facebook and Twitter. I think the main difference is you seem to think that Facebook and Twitter are aligned with Trump and the Govt. I think its the exact opposite. In August of this year, Trump called banning "very dangerous." http://fortune.com/2018/08/20/donald-trump-facebook-twitter/ That doesnt make it seem that the govt is in alignment with the actions that Facebook and Twitter just took. I could come up with a variety of reasons why Twitter and Facebook with take similar action on similar days. None of my contenders would be that they are working in alignment with the government. All of them would be based on bottom lines, answering to shareholders and board of directors. At the end of the day, I think the best way to keep govt from regulating what is okay, is to not give them the power to do it. You seem to think that if we gave the govt the power to regulate, somehow that would end in less regulation. I dont agree with that logic. Strangely you seem to have the same goal as me, less govt regulation of speech. We just have diametrically opposed ways of reaching that goal. My way is that we fight to the bitter end to never allow the govt the right to do it. Your way seems to be that we give them the right to do it, in hope that somehow it will make it better. Maybe Im misunderstanding.

I bolded the only part of your post that really matters. You want the govt to take over private companies. I personally dont think that is a good idea, I think it sets a bad precedent. Should the govt take over Fox, CBS, CNN? What about Sinclair? The people you are seeking to protect have unlimited other mediums. Twitter and Facebook are 2. Do you think that I should get to complain that Sinclair media isnt offering me a column in their newspapers? Do I get to complain Fox isnt giving me a prime time television slot to express my views? How exactly do you think this is going to end if we start to let the govt decide what is okay, what isnt okay and who can say/do what? That is the freedom of speech I am protecting. I am protecting people from the govt regulating what is okay, what isnt okay and who can say what. Youre missing the entire point of free speech when you start to suggest that somehow free speech gets better if we let the govt arbitrate what can be said. (edit) And the reason my view isnt biased is because Im treating everyone the same despite their political view. Your picking out twitter and facebook, because you dont like their California views. Surprisingly I dont see any mention of Sinclair buying up every newspaper. (Edit 2) The more I think the more I just dont see the comparison to utilities. Facebook and Twitter arent necessary by any means. They are merely a convenience.

My lens isnt biased. Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. When you use their service you agree to their terms. They are the judge, jury and executioner of their platform. The people that Facebook and Twitter have shut down, should find a new medium to express their ideas. Relying on a company to be fair is a fools errand. There is nothing that stops them from creating their own website, hosting their own platform etc. Facebook/twitter makes it easier, but they cant stop these people outside of their own platform. Your bias seeps through in your posts. Who cares if they are from California or whatever. The same rules should apply to corporations despite their locations. If anything Twitter and Facebook gave a bunch of people an outlet for a long time and didnt do the bullshit youd expect out huge companies who answer to shareholders. But everyone had to know that was coming to an end after 2016. It wont be as easy as going on Facebook or Twitter for the little guys. But when you play in someone elses sandbox, you are subject to their rules. I think its time people started to make their own sandboxes.

Nobody has a right to use facebook or twitter. Last I checked the current position is that the media is the enemy of the people. If you want to start fighting for freedom of speech and press, the place to start is attacking our current administration. It probably would do the world good to stop being so reliant on facebook, twitter, etc. Maybe this will create some incentive to create new platforms for discussion.

The point is what do you think should be done to a private entity that is enforcing its own terms of service? Im not saying I agree with Facebook, just what do you think is the answer here besides for govt intervention.

Couldnt the same be said about tv or previously radio/newspapers? Letting the govt pick and choose sides with the media is an extremely dangerous road and one Im not going to support. If facebook, twitter, over step their bounds, someone needs to come in and create a competitor. Do you really trust the govt to be fair?

The law is pretty settled on this. 1st amendment applies to govt action. Facebook, Twitter, Fox News, Breitbart etc can censor and restrict whatever they want.

Im sure Boras wont consider a deal until Machado and Harper set the market.

I actually I have been thinking about running for Alderman in my ward. And thanks for the vote of confidence! A lot of the points you make work both ways. Which is why I think there has to be some sort of divestment in power from Congress. They are no longer the adults in the room. They cant be counted on to be reasonable. America is on a bad path, and people form both parties need to start seeing that. There needs to be more accountability to the people. And yes that does mean some people who are uninformed. But right now many Americans feel that uninformed people are dictating the path of our countries future, and they are frustrated because there is basically nothing that they can do. My vote is irrelevant. The best I can do is get my opinions and perspective out there, in hopes that someone who has a vote that does matter reads it and changes their mind. That doesnt seem to be a society where I have fair representation. And that needs to change. Im even willing to give smaller states 2 out of 3 (Senate/House), but if you gave the majority the Presidency, it would really start to bring back the balance the US needs.

Do you really believe that the people in congress arent equally misinformed? Lets be realistic, if you looked at votes by education, one party would win a lot more often. Right now we have a less educated minority imposing its will on a more educated majority. How does that work for you at all?

But to be fair, the Democrats did not change the Supreme Court, which is a much more important position than regular federal judges. That was really damaging to the system and most Republicans are very happy they didnt need to compromise, and are doing everything in their power to tilt the balance to the extreme. That is why change is necessary because the legislation eroded the checks, so now they cant be trusted. Hence why people should get more of a direct say.

Which party do you think changed it to simple majority for Supreme Court?

I think the best argument is that senate/house is skewed towards people in small states having a larger voice. Therefore it would seem fair that people have equal say in one part of the govt. Or they could increase house reps so that there is equality in how many people per rep.

It still would be a Republican vote as the electoral college still exists. It merely just determines how the states pledge their electoral vote.

There are plenty of posts on this board where i advocate what the Democrats should do in order to ensure better results. Doesnt mean i also cant advocate for a better system. Thats the key, you win with the rules that are in place to make changes for the better.