SoCal Deek

Oh come on. So if she mentioned fried chicken…you’d be okay with that? You 100% absolutely know you wouldn’t be.

Because I don’t agree with your opinion on many things. I see. You don’t disagree with people?

Likewise…old friend

So it sounds like you’re saying we don’t need all of these new words and letters (LGBTQ…) to distinguish between people. Everyone is just a person….right?

Have a nice day.

Okie Dokie…thanks for sharing your thoughts this morning. Keep up the Trump hate and name calling. It’s where you live.

You and I agree here. We’re coming at it from a different line of attack. Let’s use the VHS vs Beta analogy. The market won out there, as it should here. Like you, I’m not convinced this push for renewables is sustainable….and I 100% know that government is the wrong entity to decide for us. (My house has been solar powered for fifteen years. It works really well in Southern California.)

Thanks for the discussion. It’s really appreciated. I try to be an outside the box thinker. I cannot stand hyphenated America. And I hate the fact that we have very uncreative people steering our discourse in the media, advocacy groups, and government so instead of looking for compromise they look for ways to actually enhance the conflict. I feel the same way about abortion and have said so many times on here. We simply have to look for ways to get along lest we end up in an existential divide.

Do you believe everyone had a radio or a television when they were first invented? How about an automobile? These advances/changes take time. The problem is that our government has placed an artificial timetable on this latest shift and as presently structured, government is not good at doing anything quickly.

And then…give it another ten years after that! 😉

Kind of makes you wonder how much these folks are over charging for insurance services if they feel they can blow peoples premiums on Stadium naming rights.

Or we could just let the once free market take care of it, as it always does, and get government the heck out of the way!

I’ve gone over it already, a few times, but you don’t want to hear it. You just want to circle back to your need for in your face conflict. I didn’t say it diminishes traditional marriage. I said that was the partial intent of those advocating for gay marriage. Once again, for the kids in the back, the purpose of language is to clarify communication. Using the same word to describe many different things does the exact opposite. A German Shepherd and a cocker spaniel are both dogs but we use different words to describe them. It simply helps society communicate more clearly. It doesn’t make either one less of a dog!

Are we done with Biden’s “small incursion” yet? It’s really hard to tell after five months.

Again I say…oh brother. And yes if you use imprecise distinctions in the definition of words it waters down anything you’re trying to describe. That’s true for every type of word you use and has nothing to do with your bigotry nonsense. And I still have no idea why this would be in any way offensive to gay men. I’m pretty sure they already know that they’re gay!! But we all know the real agenda is just what you stated…to minimize the significance of traditional marriage.

Maybe…. But the stock price will be priced to accurately to reflect the market value. If a super rich guy offers you one billion dollars for your one million dollar house and then decides not to buy it, doesn’t it’s value revert to whatever the next guy is willing to pay you for it? (I realize I’m over simplifying things.)

Was it Is there another buyer? How is anyone damaged here?

Close….but this is not about morals or ethics. This is about a methodical movement to fundamentally transform America. Never forget that.

Oh brother…that definition existed before we had gay marriage. It’s like when a new species is discovered…. they create a new word. Biologists don’t keep calling everything a dog.

If you say it three times a day, it must be true. Not!

Why? Because, there actually isn’t a word for two men joining in such a union. Or two women for that matter. The sole purpose of language is to help people communicate MORE specifically, not LESS specifically. That basic rule applies to every field of study and expertise. Why not this one too? It solves much of the current discourse and hurts absolutely nobody.

I like to think that we should vote FOR somebody and not simply AGAINST somebody….which is exactly how we got ourselves into the current mess.

Because language is supposed be more, not less, descriptive. When you ask your significant other what’s for dinner….do you say, meat? I’m guessing not. We use language to better define our world…not make everything equal. No malice intended here at all, just some creative thinking.

The key to our legal system is NOT that people testify “under oath”. The key is the right to cross examination and a proper defense. Done!

I sit back and laugh at all of this. In what way was Twitter damaged? Was it actually on the market? Do they have to have another open house? Do they need to clean up the toilets and put the dirty dishes away? I assume they have some legal costs here for the negotiations etc but what beyond that is the company owed?