Fudge_Brownie

This seems like an oddly simple rebuttal given your usual. But maybe it's better to first discuss a problem statement. Do you think there is a problem? Are there a lower number of advancement opportunities? Have lower income or middle income kept pace with inflation? I'll agree that burger flipper is lowest on the totem pole, but I wonder where all these burger flippers should look to leave the job. I can think of examples, I just don't think there's enough out there to make it happen. There's a finite amount of money floating around in our economy, and businesses and their executive management are progressively accumulating a greater share. How do you scale that out better? I think people like Kevin who advocate for raising the minimum wage see it as a crude way to push people in to lower-middle paying jobs.

This is basically a demonstration in how not to debate. Kevin implies Trump is very wrong, and is frustrated with it... so you rebut it by bringing up something irrelevant? He didn't really even make his own opinion. He's citing someone else's rebuttal of Trump's points. Kevin's opinions are irrelevant in this context.

My tinfoil hat tells me some of those things are 'you need to hire my buddy's contracting company to fix it ASAP' situations. Chicken shack will be unlocked in ~10 minutes and shouldn't be archived again.

That or find someone who doesn't want a roommate but wouldn't mind having someone pay 25-50% of going rental rates to have access to the spare bedroom as needed.

Sources would make your point more substantial.

He basically said that most people get fired from their job, demotion, or note on their record etc. Security or administrative sanction is not the same thing as 'anyone [else] would have faced charges'. Comparing punishment is not apples to apples either. A guy who just takes a brief case of classified material home because he feels like it is not the same as someone who is making at least some attempt to exist within the rules. She definitely pushed the limits, and probably crossed them. But isn't that like a guy who's just growing medical weed legally, but exceeds some limitation on plant count by 3%, verses someone who just buys drugs illegally? I guess the key phrase is 'gross negligence'. I get that people might argue Hillary was grossly negligent, but can you see that there's a level of scaling?

It seems like a road bike makes sense for you, but 50-50 tires on your Klein with a smooth strip down the center and knobs on the edge would be a good all purpose bike set up.

Oh, apparently he's here just goes by a different name now Pipe down with the rhetoric, he was kidding. You keep those talking points on stand-by to copy-paste? I'm not sure it's proven to the most effective with seizures. Saying it kills cancer cells doesn't really accurately represent their current lack of value in treatment. And a lot of shit has been studied in the treatment of autism. Like vaccines. Turned out great. Pseudoscience and headline-driven medicine is bad, mmkay? For example, here's a study that concluded: "Taken together, our data show that concentrations of THC comparable with those detected in the serum of patients after THC administration accelerate proliferation of cancer cells instead of apoptosis and thereby contribute to cancer progression in patients. " Source

No one said that every other candidate was truthful. All that was said was that Trump's points are bullshit.

How is that the same at all? Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist, who proposed an idea that is arguably consistent with that view. What does that have to do with Kevin's point?

It's a lot easier to start out with a leg up, flounder a bit, but stay the course than it is to start from the bottom and move up. Try to look at a larger picture more than your individual situation. You shouldn't conclude things are good just because you're doing alright. The opposite is true too. If the economy and opportunity were endless, but someone's struggling born in to a family of useless assholes in a trailer park somewhere, they shouldn't conclude that things are bad just because they have it bad. If I said chance of rising up is important, there's some who would say that's an excuse, and just try harder. But I think some of these "just work harder" types would be saying the same thing even if the chance of success was nearly 0. Even in the worst economies, there's probably still one person who can rise. So to them, that's all it takes. Just work harder! It's a failure to acknowledge that chance of success is relevant.

Butt in? I didn't realize this was your private discussion. "I'll explain to anybody but you.". He asked a question, you refused to answer. My fixation is with the trolling. I've also said to Kevin that he needs to try a little harder instead of just parroting Gawker headlines about Bernie - So don't think you're special. You're pumping bullshit in here, and then trying to play the victim. So... let's go somewhere interesting with the discussion: Source Minimum wage was worth more between 1970 to 1980 than it is today. Yet the cost of college has quadrupled. Since you said 1984, $2918 (2015 dollars) for college in 1985 on what, $6.50/hr (2014 dollars, eyeballing chart) is far more feasible. I don't think I'd support Kevin's original point that someone could work minimum wage job AND pay for college completely but it's far more possible back then than it is now. Paying for half of it, and a loan for the other half seems possible. Car insurance? Live in the city, go to school in the city, no car. Bicycle and public transportation. $6.50/hr 40hrs, 50 wks (2 weeks unpaid vacation) call it 85% takehome after taxes*, is $920/mo. $243/mo for yearly college ($2918/12). Leaves $677 for rent, electricity, food, and clothing. *I'm unsure what typical effective tax rate is for those on minimum wage, so 15% may be wrong.

This does nothing for the conversation. It is wasted words. What's the point of this thread if you're just do the tough guy routine? Take that down to your nearest bar. Source According to that data, the cost of a public four year has quadrupled, when accounting for inflation. That's even more than I was expecting, so maybe there's other data out there that shows it isn't as steep. But the point stands. And last minimum wage charts I've seen, IIRC, through the 60's in to the 70's, minimum wage was worth more. I think by the mid 70's it was roughly the same. 2.5k a year in 2015 dollars with 2015 minumum wage seems fairly possible, but certainly not $9.5k. What the chart does not account for is I'm pretty sure the degree often gets a slightly higher paying job when compared to back then. And there is more subsidization for college today. However, that does not negate a 4x increase in costs.

This is not a meaningful post. Show some intelligence. I don't disagree with anything you said. They come with substantial strings attached. But that still isn't 'immense harm'. That's side effects.

I'm only skimming this, but I'm not seeing 'immense harm to your body when used for long term'. A lot of what they address seems to be over-prescription, abuse, and they also hit on already well known risks for those with certain conditions (e.g. pregnancy, kidney or liver failure, drug-drug interactions). I'm not trying to say that someone like your wife shouldn't consider literally everything else before this. I'm just taking issue with the claim of 'immense harm'. Especially relative to so many other medications we all take. Like Tylenol which carries substantial worst-case scenarios, but is considered relatively safe.

I voted down two of your posts a month ago (with reason), and since then, you've been going on sprees downvoting mine. A month later. And I'm the napoleanic pussy? Simple thoughts. Shallow man. So either hold a discussion, or take it to the OT thread. You've got an audience of people willing to be sold on Trump. Except Kevin, who's still wondering if Bernie will win.

Which is why I phrased things the way I did. I'm also addressing all of your 'contributions' which you say are trolling, but I think you're not actually capable of holding reasonable debate.

Is this the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" approach? Simple thoughts from a shallow man?

The problem is this 'medicinal' use in history isn't tested to the same standard as other medications on the market. They have some FDA approved drugs on the market now. But there's a lot of this herbal remedy nonsense that isn't medically useful until researched thoroughly. Maybe the chemical make-up is understood, but that doesn't mean we understand entirely how it reacts with the body, long term use consequences (especially across the variety of preparations), and most importantly what it can help. Otherwise, it borders on naturopathy pseudoscience bullshit. E.g. Take this vitamin and and some basil leaf tea to cure your flu. In mixed blessing fashion, the increasing public concern over opiate use/abuse will drive people to see it in a different light as the lesser of two evils. Kevin, what is your source for this 'immense harm to your body when used for long term', and what kind of damage? Addiction is a strong concern, and some have tylenol or ibuprofen in them which causes damage for those who consume too many. But aside from addiction, I believe opiates are considered reasonably safe when used correctly. They certainly have side effects, and any doctor worthy of their medical license should be aware of them.

Sure, in the MTB off-season while they train

That, and I think some of the idiots stay on Facebook. Which is good, but I feel like they won't have the opportunity to go 'oh hey, there's cool stuff to learn'. Tbricks has a wider spread of cars people go there for, and the backyard mechanic vibe, which syncs up with the older simpler cars. It doesn't seem like there's as many new enthusiasts ending up with an older S60 at the same rate as the S70 had.

The same FBI that has completely politicized the cellphone encryption issue? Technically, I don't think the FBI has said she did something wrong. They've felt there were grounds for an investigation, and have not released a formal decision. Personally, I don't think what she did was good from a security POV. And I'll be amazed if the final verdict is that keeping her official email content on a personal server with no government-owned copy is legal. But this whole investigation just has a vibe that they're really reaching for a smoking gun they can't find. My tinfoil hat tells me the republicans are just using tricks from the same book after the IRS targeting controversy. I think it should serve as a lessons learned moment, to better define responsibilities and restrictions. It does seem like she was really pushing the limits of what was allowed. But I don't think we should be interested in trying to persecute someone for mistakes made, especially in gray areas. If they can prove she was doing all this in order to break the law, in order to circumvent classification restrictions or withhold information then that would warrant some of the outcry.

With that 'logic', I can claim we are both the dumbest and the smartest organisms in the universe. Good luck disproving it. Now I've got to go help santa claus plan next year's delivery schedule. He's been real all along.

Did you watch the video clip he linked to? Because your response follows the formula described.

Isn't the answer that if you believe in mormonism, then they have been going to mormon afterlife all along?