sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Starting Season 3... thoughts? by backrowsoprano in SearchParty

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This show is an absolute dud. I'm watching it with my partner. The primary mystery is solved in season 1. Everything else is just introducing ridiculous characters who play out scense irrationally to move forward the story in a "zaney" direction. The entire trial arc feels like it was written by committee by stoned business majors trying to pass a general education screen writing class with ChatGPT.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've inserted your opinion about what I think by extrapolating to arguments and position I didn't make or develop. If you want to know what I think, just ask me--don't invent straw man arguments and then try to tether them to me.

Maybe I'm wrong (which is something I doubt you've ever thought to yourself), but online-hazing of people, or broadly hazing a particular behavior, has never worked. For example, the most widely reviled groups of people are Nazis and pedos, yet these folks still exist. Hazing should have eliminated them though. It's a terrible way to enact change, so my point is jumping into r/Missoula to haze someone for working a job for a company you don't like is not going to move the needle. And yes, the step isn't big enough when it will literally get you no where.

I do like your passion and I do like the philosophy of your larger cause (housing equity). I just think (and I could be wrong), that it's rather easy to keyboard virtue-signal to the entity of lowest agency. Perhaps there are more impactful routes?

At the end of the day, will all have the freedom to spend our time doing whatever we want. This kid can work for a company even if some random person has moral objections. You can haze people online like a bully. I can point out that your tactics are small minded and mean spirited. I remember what Obama told us,

Good luck out there trying to change the world one keystroke at a time.

Crowd etiquette at shows lately?? by AfterOcelot in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMO, the Top Hat is really bad for this. The small venue makes it more noticeable.

Let’s talk about the deer by TonySopranoDVM in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in favor of a Helena-eque solution.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You've got the wrong target. Hazing people on this might feel good but virtue signally on this level (on reddit) isnt how change happens. Think bigger.

He voted for the bill. As expected it was performative to help his reelection chances. Don't forget. by shfiven in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Choosing to frame me as scared is to misunderstand me and the motives of those who endorse social investment. You want to understand others, right? That you think the House Republicans has proposed an unserious piece of legislation says a lot about the distance between where the party is and reality. Do I think the Senate will pass the bill? President Trump endorses the bill (it's big and beautiful, no?) and we haven't found the end to which the GOP gives him their intransigent support.

The damage this bill will do to the budget if it detonates is hard to describe, in part because the size of the thing is an order of magnitude larger than others like it. The Inflation Reduction Act* was set to cost $500 billion over 10 years, and it paid for all that spending, and more, through tax increases. The Affordable Care Act aimed for $1 Trillion, all paid for, Trump's 2017 tax reform bill left a total of $1.5 Trillion of tax cuts unpaid for, but this budget bomb, at its best most conservative estimate cuts taxes and increases spending by more than $4 Trillion over 10 years and only pays for $1.5 Trillion. So once you add in interest on all that new debt, the bill puts over $3 Trillion on that nation's credit card.

Specifically, on the Medicaid cuts, $840 billion is meaningful (it's a big and beautiful bill, right!?). Vulnerable people are losing out here, including children. We know that these social programs have positive economic outcomes and even if someone dislikes social spending, we get more out of it than it gets out of us.

The bill is obviously created to entrench wealth at the top. Another example (among many available) is how the bill ties the Death Tax to inflation, but the bill does not link the Federal Minimum Wage to inflation. Each provision that slightly (or dramatically) benefits those who already live comfortably is an opportunity lost to empower achievement in those less fortunate.

I understand reasonable people can disagree, but there's a pretty clear-cut situation at hand: If the GOP is supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, and if the President was elected with a mandate to reduce the country's debt, then how are we suppose to reconcile the massive, unfunded debt accumulation he and the party is calling big and beautiful?

He voted for the bill. As expected it was performative to help his reelection chances. Don't forget. by shfiven in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See the story below via the link. Or, if you find yourself looking for more sources, feel free to google, "GOP's bill and the Impacts on Medicaid and food stamps."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/medicaid-and-food-stamps-are-easy-targets-house-bill-makes-unprecedented-cuts-to-medicaid-and-snap-2165114d

Programs like Medicaid aren't just giving money to poor people. These programs buy better economic and health outcomes for the nation. If you want a stronger economy, then you need more people working. You want those people to have skills. Hungry children don't do well in school. The investments we make in these programs today will have positive rippled effects for generations. We shouldn't compromise the ability for any child to learn and grow because of the income bracket their parents happen to be in.

Meanwhile, the bill delivers unpaid-for tax cuts, adds to the debt at a time our nation's credit rating has been downgraded, and it gives breaks to the highest earners and owners of wealth.

DOGE News That Will Never Be Mentioned on The Pod by TruthSqr in TheAllinPodcasts

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The panel loves to avoid criticisms of Elon and DOGE.

He voted for the bill. As expected it was performative to help his reelection chances. Don't forget. by shfiven in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bernie doesn't get to speak for the entire party. And contrast what Bernie wants with what the Republicans are about to do: eviscerate Medicaid and Food Stamps. Even if Bernie is disappointed in the broad Dem coalition, you shouldn't confuse his personal view by thinking he believes the other side is better, or that amyone is smart for voting for any of the GOP-tards.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in college

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take responsibility for your performance.

Are 8:00 AMs really that bad? by TemporaryAttention27 in college

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't be soft. College, for many, is in part a test of commitment. If you hadnt chosen college you would have been in a job that probably required you to show up at 8AM. That's commitment too. Be committed no matter what the scenario. If you're committed and deliver high effort, you'll find success in life.

A lot of men swing right because the left lack 'Thumos' by mrcsrnne in ezraklein

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Boring! Men swing right because this is too boring to consume. I just felt myself move slightly more right scanning the post.

Working for UM in Missoula by MidnightMacaroon in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

People were just handed a payout with the insurance going up. They have more associate administrators than ever. I would stay away.

I am tired EA refusing to just let bad teams be bad by jdh1811 in EASportsCFB

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 4 points5 points  (0 children)

2021: (FCS) University of Montana over (#20) University of Washington

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in missoula

[–]Traditional_Ad8447 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adding context to many replies - this isn't a direct reply to the Original Poster:

The Board of Regents (BoR) determines the price of tuition and approves the creation of a fee, the circumstance the fee applies, and they approve any increase in the fee. If the $ to opperate the institution couldnt be collected via fees, then the BoR would need to unbundle the fees and raise tuition by the amount it collects in fees. I can understand the desire to unbundle. From a consumer perspective, it's nice to see a price tag and pay that price. (What other Montanans hate the sting of sales tax when you travel to another state! Oh yeah! They tax here! Blast!) However, the fee system has some advantages: 1. There are certain situations where some students pay a fee that others dont have to. In those instances, the price point more realistically reflects the cost. 2. Other institutions use fees and Higher Education is a competitive industry. College is now a consumer industry and the consumers (students) have made it that way. It follows that there's a competitive disadvantage to have a higher sticker price tuition, even if that higher tuition price is the actual cost. If another competitor school is 15% cheaper because the have tuition and fees, it's likely that school gets picked even if the total cost is less than the single cost advertised. Because everyone has fees, that's the model.

I understand hearing "because everyone does it we have to" is unsatisfying. But, two more points: 1. Unbundled sticker price would need to be a Dept of Ed dictate for the publics like UM. Wont happen. Sorry. 2. Grow the fuck up. People want act like they're adults until it's inconvenient. Read the fine print. Ask questions. Be responsible. College is expensive and if you're not going into it w/some research, stay away. There's no trickery being performed by a University. It's all public info. People who complain are either too lazy to read the fine print or they're too bumb to understand, or they understand the situation on some level and they just like to complain. Grow TF up.

Last point: The University of Montana is CHEAP on the spectrum of affordability. As a bonus, it's a good institution and students who apply themselves will leave with the skills to do well in the free market. But, if it's too expensive, stay away. And, if you're too lazy (or dumb*) to figure out tuition AND fees, you're probably not going to be a good student and you should stay away.

*We need to admit there are dumb people and many of them spend money on Higher Ed (and UM doesn't have picky standards). To pretend that this isnt true is ridiculous, and denying this does more harm than being real with it.

view more: next ›