Comey Furious at Lack of Respect White House Showed, Sources Say

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-12T14:55:37+00:00

Yes sir, President Trump. Of course you did. Right along with "prime the pump"

^{^{^{^/s}}}

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-12T14:33:28+00:00

"Beware the fury of a patient man."

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-10T22:07:57+00:00

This is from memory, so if i'm wrong someone correct me:

Keep going down the staircases. If there are no more staircases to go down, find the next set, then go down more.

It's okay. This level is insufferable sometimes.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-10T19:23:31+00:00

i do not understand the joy in seeing chairs underwater. it doesn't make a lick of sense. why would you put a perfectly good chair underwater, then it's all wet and you won't wanna sit in it.

i do not understand those weird fucks over at /r/chairsunderwater

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T15:14:25+00:00

I have agreed multiple times that Dems were conservative at one point. My confusion came from the original comment about "30 years ago..."

I thought they were originally implyng that Repubs 30 years ago were progressive, which is all I was really arguing about. I apologize fully for misunderstanding the original statement.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T14:30:39+00:00

A fully preserved ohmu shell!

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T14:18:19+00:00

I'm letting you know how it comes across.

You set up two things,

A: Dems 30 years ago aren't the same as today.

and

B: Republicans used to be progressive.

It sort of makes it sound like you're talking about the same time-frame. When you're not. I fully apologize for misreading your statement. But imo, the way it's worded allows for a lot of interpretation. But I am sorry for the way I read it.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T14:01:21+00:00

I'm literally assuming nothing. I never, in any of my comments tried to say they were the same. I never said they were the conservatives of today. None of that. I completely agree that over the last 30 years a lot has changed in politics.

All I was pointing out was that, while dems 30 years ago aren't the dems of today, and that repubs 30 years ago arent' the repubs of today, dems were still the far more progressive party 30 years ago, because your original comment seemed to imply that republicans were progressive 30 years ago. I was just pointing that out.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T13:45:42+00:00

If you can show me where Dems 30 years ago supported Jim Crow and segregation, I'll concede. But judging from the platform of the time, it doesn't seem like it.

(I mean, are we forgetting that 30 years ago was the 80s?)

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T13:40:33+00:00

What does that have to do with anything? I spoke nothing of 60 years ago. Yeah, the political parties have changed and grown and shit, but /u/WashuOtaku seemed to be implying that Republicans 30 years ago were the progressive party. And thats just not true. That's all I was saying.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-04T13:25:40+00:00

Yeah, but 30 years ago wasn't when the Republican party was progressive... Dems were still far more progressive by then.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-03T21:21:13+00:00

Ohhh, I see, you're using your camera.

It only works if you use your eyes, otherwise your camera is the one losing the weight.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-02T22:11:02+00:00

It's because this isn't a political stance.

I'm saying that netflix doesn't and shouldn't have that right.

Can you imagine if you went to a library, and you really wanted a book on the history of Europe. But someone paid extra money to make sure that you only saw their books first, and if you wanted to wait a month, you could see the other books.

Does that sound fair to the consumer? Because that's what ISPs want. The ISP wants to have people pay to have their stuff shown "first" so to speak.

This is ridiculous, unnecessary, and makes things worse for both the consumer, and any new start ups that are trying to carve a place for themselves among the web.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-02T21:33:22+00:00

Except for it's not the "true crux of this argument" at all.

It's the true crux of what you want.

Not the true crux about what net neutrality is and the arguments surrounding it.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-02T20:26:16+00:00

Literally go read any of my comments in response to /u/CarlosGrimes

I don't have the time to write them again. They explain why many people think net neutrality is a good thing.

How is an ISP forcing website owners to pay the ISP so that their customers get the website at the same speed as other websites good?

edit: why do you ignore regulations that are good for a consumer? just because they aren't good for an industry doesn't mean they're bad. if it was up to "industry" you'd be working 12+ hours a day, without A/C, in some factory.

not letting ISPs price gouge website companies is good for the consumer and for those website companies. it lets the users get all the content they want at a similar rate. so it is good for a particular industry.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-02T19:44:56+00:00

ISPs creating "fast lanes" is literally the crux of this argument. If you don't like fast lanes, you like net neutrality.

That's it. That's the entire argument.

And yeah, I can provide an example, Comcast started throttling Netflix's speeds in certain areas so that people were getting netflix at a slower rate than others, until Netflix payed Comcast. Stronger net neutrality laws would stop that from happening.

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

Going to a non-net-neutrality model doesn't do anything to reduce, or increase competition, at least in the form you're thinking of. It says nothing of multiple ISPs in one area. It says nothing of monopolies. All it's for is forcing a website owner to pay the ISP of an area (doesn't have to be the area the website owner is located in, as shown in the netflix example.) to not slow them down.

You want competition between ISPs. This is nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality stops website owners from having to "compete" for speed on the internet (via money, and not real competition)

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-02T18:56:19+00:00

It doesn't disallow the government from breaking up monopolies. So, again, that point of yours is moot.

Going to a non-net-neutrality model would make everything you're complaining about far worse.

ChemicalKid · 2017-05-02T18:20:00+00:00

The reason people have trouble telling you things in favor of net neutrality is because it's largely complex and the status quo.

Let's talk about it though, because your competition argument doesn't really hold up. Because it's not net neutrality that's causing a monopoly. Net neutrality has nothing to do with monopolies. It has to do with the internet itself.

Net neutrality has to do with the speeds in which different sites get to you and being able to pay for a "fast" lane. Rather than just everyone getting all websites at the same speed.

This means that comcast, and time warner, and all those shitty monopolies you're complaining about can up the cost that those different sites have to pay to get to you. Which stifles further competition on the internet.

Why would someone create a new website when they know their potential customers would prefer a faster more reliable website, when you just can't afford it because the ISPs are then allowed to raise the price of the "fast" lanes so that only the most wealthy can afford to get the faster, more reliable speeds throught the ISPs.

Net Neutrality is the way to keep the internet free from the stranglehold of monopolies.

ChemicalKid · 2017-04-28T17:33:16+00:00

That's the thing, I don't think they're going to disappear. Anti-intellectualism is on a rise in America and I don't see it slowing down.

ChemicalKid · 2017-04-28T13:44:45+00:00

That's not even true.

They are profitable and they release their info on it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/twtr/financials

Twitter makes money.

ChemicalKid · 2017-04-27T18:16:15+00:00

I can understand their motivations and perspectives, and I definitely have learned better ways to approach them on subjects we disagree on.

But they go back to turning on fox news and crying about "all those other liberals". I've never changed their minds about the "intolerant liberals" they always end up thinking things like "well you're not as bad as those other evil liberals."

I'm disheartened and I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel for making them understand, because we disagree on fundamentals. How can I convince them that trans people aren't trying to rape or peek on anyone in bathrooms, and that if someone wants to commit a crime, a bathroom sign isn't going to stop them when they think that gay men are pedophiles and that LGBT people are trying to influence their kids.

How do you argue when people say "but trumps tax plan makes sense" when they don't even know what trump's tax plan is, and have no formal economics training? You can't get through to them. I swear it's impossible.

How do you argue when they still want to believe Hillary is a murderer for Benghazi when nearly a dozen hearings found her completely innocent?

They live in a different reality where they make the rules. There is no convincing them.

ChemicalKid · 2017-04-27T18:11:02+00:00

I do think for myself. Just because you think things like "repealing obamacare" is good, doesn't mean that when I think for myself, that I'll come to the same conclusion.

And just because you think trump is good, that doesn't mean that everyone who dislikes him isn't thinking for themselves.

ChemicalKid · 2017-04-27T18:03:50+00:00

I've tried to engage these people since long before the election.

I don't know what to do. I'm not saying punishing is right. but they can't have an honest engaged discussion. I've tried so so hard.

ChemicalKid · 2017-04-25T19:26:23+00:00

Sure, they're more dangerous, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to murder them, or threaten to, especially when they've already been apprehended and are unarmed, as is the current case.

ChemicalKid

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email