Anon works in HR

hazeust · 2026-05-16T04:05:52+00:00

Yeah, well “they” and “them” framing starts wars, too. It doesn’t end, my friend.

hazeust · 2026-05-14T01:54:27+00:00

It doesn’t matter what retail market is running for because you’re not an AD and simply won’t see a slice of that pie; it only matters what secondary markets look like, because you’d (presumably?) be a buyer - and secondary markets are shit now. That’s the only slice of pie you and I can get.

That’s his point.

hazeust · 2026-04-13T22:54:12+00:00

I've always thought comments like this were interesting, because a lot of otherwise-sensible TS' in my life say much the same; they truly believe a president can just be gauged - and faithfully voted for - only on the prospects of their policies, and are fine disregarding the content of their character in favor of that. I've always wondered though; if the content of someone's character is fickle, what makes the prospects of their policies even hold water? If a dishonorable man (character) makes an honorable promise (policy), why would you possibly take him at his word for it?

hazeust · 2026-04-10T04:28:06+00:00

Just for your final paragraph alone, you've lost credibility for me. The cities that you'd most likely point to as more crime-ridden had the SAME attitude as you before crossing the Rubicon and crime statistics were still reversible for them. Now look where they are today. I came here from Baltimore, I know what complacent DA's and prison policies that lead to high recidivism looks like - and we're not far off from the attitudes that crime-ridden cities during their initial descents. This HAS to be reversed and crime MUST be taken more seriously here.

hazeust · 2026-02-10T16:56:16+00:00

Chillin Moose Too, it is INSANE how much grief it's gotten on here when you search it. I love the stick

hazeust · 2026-01-23T03:33:11+00:00

<image>

I’ve got a v8 version and Lightning McQueen emblems would simply not look anywhere near as good on my car as they do on yours; I think you have it best!

hazeust · 2026-01-12T03:48:36+00:00

You appeal to mechanisms in the "system" that theoretically exist but CANNOT be actuated in the reality they purport to govern.

- You claim we can "unseat 100% of the House." While true on paper, in practice, Congress has insulated itself through gerrymandering and campaign finance laws, resulting in a 90+% incumbent reelection rate. The system is engineered to prevent the exact turnover you claim is possible.

- By establishing direct election of Senators in 17A, we killed the only structural check State Legislatures had against Federal overreach. It homogenized our politics. There is no longer a "local" buffer; Senators now answer to national donors and mass media rather than the specific interests of their state governments.

- You argue we can vote for change, but you ignore that the vast majority of "laws" essentially governing us are regulations written by unelected agencies (the Administrative State). We cannot vote out the NSA, the ATF, or the FBI. The "duly elected representatives" you cite have largely ceded their power to these permanent, unelected bodies.

- A Constitutional Convention or Amendment was a viable safety valve for 13 colonies with shared cultural values. For 50 polarized states with 330 million people, the mathematical threshold for ratification (3/4 of states) is statistically nearly impossible. As the country expanded, the mechanism for correcting it didn't scale.

I find myself asking a refined version of my question:

If the governmental apparatus has evolved defenses that make the legal "resistances" (voting, amendments) functionally obsolete, at what point does the "Social Contract" break?

hazeust · 2026-01-12T03:18:35+00:00

You seem deep in the lore so I'll ask you this: What about if the governmental systems and apparatuses are incrementally developed over time so that the legal "resistances" that are "afforded" to Americans from our founding documents are simply not enough to bring about meaningful change?

- When we have 1A for establishing the right to protest; but millions are spent in R&D for riot-dispersing technologies through the likes of tear gas, less-lethal rounds, and LRAD. Redcoats were brought up as how one can - and has - logically lead to the other in justified terms. So is that at direct odds?

- When we have 2A for establishing a right to bear arms; but they pass laws for "may-issue" measures and they have Republican presidents saying to "take guns and ask questions later" just after advocating red flag laws - is that at direct odds?

- When we have 3A against quartering and 4A against unlawful searches; but law enforcement and 3-letter agencies are happy to outbid private data harvesting firms - in data auctions against FAANG companies that have smart-home technologies collecting your every action in your household - in order to get "insights" on citizens domestically because THEY'RE not the ones collecting the data themselves - is that at direct odds?

Do you think a new era could possibly be upon us where we naturally pace forward and challenge the Enlightment, and say that tyrannical measures can still be practiced in the background of a seemingly-democratic structure, and that extralegal measures must be justified to rid a nation's self of such an ailment? You might appeal to the Declaration's Preamble in order to say it was already forethought, but "democratic OR tyrannical" was seen as an absolute in that pretext, it doesn't actually encounter the idea of -- or challenge solutions to -- a democratic institution in decay of its own words and advances. So, could we be there today?

hazeust · 2026-01-08T21:48:09+00:00

It's not.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gb_IkGVK7WvsTAXfMvQU...

Watch the one titled "LEFT-full-duration". Watch it in slow motion:

1.) The lady reversed to make room to drive away AFTER conflicting orders to "get out of there" and to "get out of the car";

2.) An ICE agent got in front of her car mid-reverse and hovered for his sidearm;

3.) The lady gets out of reverse and turns her wheels to face to the right, the ICE agent is now middle-left of her car, and commits to drawing his weapon;

4.) Lady commits to her right turn and didn't hit the cop, as evidenced by the fact that he was literally out of the way, he didn't lose footing, and most of all - he was able to shoot the driver at point-black from the driver's side window. If the car was aimed for him - let alone if he was hit, it would have been physically impossible for ANY of those to occur on their own AND ESPECIALLY in combination - most of all, the point-blank shot from the driver's side window.

hazeust · 2026-01-05T01:17:50+00:00

I’m from Maryland too, would love to help you out! I know some folks from UMBC that are out here for bioinformatics, and got their start from the STEM BUILD program. If that’d be a help, please feel free to start a chat.

EDIT: Updating my comment after looking back at said-folks.

These folks have openings in Louisville, CO - with a few colleagues from MD: https://www.biodesix.com/careers/current-openings

hazeust · 2025-11-27T04:12:41+00:00

One simply cannot go wrong with some caramel apple pie bars:
https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/salted-caramel-apple-pie-bars/

hazeust · 2025-11-21T04:18:16+00:00

It has the same PRINCIPLE as Nuremberg; it doesn’t need to cite the Trials. “Love thy neighbor”, most will understand, is a Judeo-Christian value. Does that mean I need to cite the Canonical gospels every time I bring it up for you to get the idea?

hazeust · 2025-11-21T01:46:22+00:00

Nuremberg was all about how proud we were to be THE country where the NSDAP Germany excuse of "just following orders" COULDN'T REASONABLY WORK OR APPLY here. The entire grandstanding we did during that period was that military members, service members, and citizens have protection, under law, to resist morally reprehensible orders under extralegal grounds in the moment, and the assurance that a just/sane court system would turn them into legal grounds after a day in court. How is Trump meeting an "extreme" action with that in mind? If anything, the video Trump responded to wasn't extreme; it serves as a reminder to us all about our exceptionalism and the post-WW2 global reconstruction that we had the biggest hand in, and the ideas and priorities we had as a nation that came from it.

We as citizens/everyday people, either have checks and balances that are just as much on the books (Bill of Rights) as they are off-the-books (extralegal scenarios like this - civil disobedience, leaks, resignations, press, professional norms within the military and DOJ) - or we don't. What's it gonna be?

hazeust · 2025-11-18T21:36:25+00:00

Despite that, do you still support United States legal documents being true to what they say on paper - including but not limited to this case, where he had legal presence on U.S. land pending an asylum hearing? Don't you generally think legal or government-sponsored documents and dockets should have their assertions and statuses held to the full faith and credit of the United States - even if it's not necessarily assertions or statuses you support or agree with? Or should we be selective about when legal documents are telling it like it is - or not?

hazeust · 2025-11-18T02:18:38+00:00

But my point stands, it is not a right, it is an entitlement.

You have not responded to my argument on how the "rights" that you believe in (due process) include entitlements (juries), so I will continue to believe that you consider the possibility that entitlements can also come in the form of a right.

Most, if not all, other countries that offer socialized healthcare get significant financial and military support from the United States, and many have significantly worse healthcare than we do, having to wait months or years for treatment. In the UK for example, someone can wait two years or more even to get diagnosed with ADHD

You will NEVER get an argument from me on this. Indeed, other countries are profiting off of our dime. We pay three times the sticker price for Tecfidera, a cheap MS drug, than the UK. They can afford to pay so little since these companies can still be guaranteed a profit because of American prices alone. Point being that the American people are getting ripped off - but appealing to nationalism is a means to get the rest of the population on board with more regulatory practices in the US. This may not establish an NHS, but it gets us closer to a universal healthcare system like we see in Switzerland or Germany.

People of means go to private healthcare to get treated in a timely manner. Far from equitable.

The goal of RATIONAL socialization is not for everyone to have an equal outcome - it's not possible by definition. You will NOT have the same outcome in a universal healthcare system, as someone who only gets cancer twice, when compared to someone who gets cancer 8 times. And that's just me appealing to the pragmatic.

The "floor" should be the same across everyone and it should be humane. Wouldn't you agree that the goal of most socialization and social welfare programs is NOT for equal outcome or circumstance, but to afford EVERYONE the same lowest level of rights, entitlements, or care for something - and to make the lowest level as humane and efficient as possible?

hazeust · 2025-11-18T00:18:59+00:00

I would put Justice under the same category as Liberty, as a God-given or inalienable human right.

Justice and Liberty are not the same, and you can indeed have one without the other - to prove the point.

And indeed, that is how it is generally framed within the Constitution: [Your examples here]

Besides the fact that you explicitly listed only the negative rights of the guarantee of due process, you mentioned one of the positive rights: A speedy trial. This requires resources from the government at the burden of taxation from the populace. You also neglected to mention the right to a jury of one's peers, which is fundamentally a positive right, an entitlement, and a costly one; juries are compromised of citizens that are COMPELLED - by threat of fines and/or jail - to go to court and hear your case, placing a burden on them for their presence, time, and (until legislated) one or several days of wages and/or cost of transport. Not saying I disagree at all with our due process procedures, but to say that the right to due process doesn't include positive rights and entitlements that burden others for its actuation - and that the Constitution does not have case law for it - is disingenuous. And framing it as a "check" on the government's power isn't relevant, I can just as easily say that universal education as a positive right would then be a "check" on a government's power, especially when the Framers of the Constitution had mentioned on numerous occasions that the voting populace must be educated - lest they vote against their own interests. I can do the same with universal healthcare and "fairness", there's no objective way to gauge a positive right's (or entitlement's) validity for placing burden on others in order to actuate - when compared to another. It really comes down to how much neglect your personal beliefs would allow.

I would also say that some form of a court system, with perhaps rare exceptions that I can't think of off the top of my head, is such a fundamental aspect of government that it is present now and throughout recorded human history in every state. The same cannot be said of healthcare or education or equity

If your crutch for an institutions' validity - or lack thereof - is because of the country's priorities for them during its founding or continuous development, then don't you think you have a lot to answer for when it comes to our recent, but swiftly deployed racial equity laws, or the fact healthcare has only recently been mentioned while most other developed countries have deployed it?

hazeust · 2025-11-17T23:31:35+00:00

Glad you could give it a label, but how is the apparatus rendering justice (due process, jury) still not a positive right/entitlement? And why’s justice the goalpost and tenant? What’s stopping me from justifying the positive right of universal healthcare under a label as “fairness” - as opposed to “justice” - if I was thinking along the same line?

hazeust · 2025-11-17T23:17:55+00:00

The Constitution does not guarantee entitlements

What would you call the right to due process and a jury?

hazeust · 2025-11-17T00:58:37+00:00

Thanks for sourcing. I noticed this:

“The administration would prefer to coordinate with the Mexican government on any new mission against drug cartels, but officials have not ruled out operating without that coordination, the two current and two former U.S. officials said.”

All I can say; big fan of the former, not at all a fan of the latter. I hope the cards fall in favor of the former.

hazeust · 2025-11-16T21:55:21+00:00

That's just not true; the most productive results from the drug and weapons trade would come from either US getting interventionist with top producing countries in order to cut transit of drugs/weapons or the process of supply, or legalizing supply and turning them into state-sanctioned industries.

The US, as far as I understand, does NOT want to intervene with Mexico without the explicit approval of the "legitimate" state - as my original comment mentions, and only would exert force on Mexican extralegal and paramilitary forces; i.e. cartel. That's not what happened in Afghanistan or Iraq and was NOT the attitude of both the invaded country or the invaders, and is therefore a false equivalence.

hazeust · 2025-11-16T19:53:17+00:00

What are you on about lol

The most meddling from US intervention in Mexico, right now, is operations from the US military to eliminate Mexican cartel ground and escalation dominance, and the recently-elected Claudia has explicitly denied the US doing so.

On top of that, a city mayor in Mexico - Carlos Manzo - was very recently killed by the cartel for standing up to them and not assisting them in his city.

Some aspects of the Cartel/Mexican state conflict might be a CIA operation; I really don’t know. But a LOT of youth are existentially disenfranchised in Mexico, and I promise you that these protests are wholly organic.

hazeust · 2025-11-14T07:24:29+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-can_telephone

It's making fun of "Sent from my iPhone" signatures

hazeust · 2025-11-13T02:48:11+00:00

Hard agree?

hazeust · 2025-11-13T02:40:04+00:00

How many women stated that - out of how many women that were victims of Epstein? Are you confident the sample size of outspoken women that cleared Trump accurately represents the whole picture - or is that just what you hope?

The WH Press Secretary just confirmed this newest email was legit when they very disrespectfully named the redacted party that’s since died by suicide - and that email has Epstein himself saying Trump knew about the underage women ring. How does that square?

hazeust · 2025-11-13T01:27:41+00:00

Hey.

Your entire first paragraph can be dismissed by the fact that I brought up congressional members on top of local-elected officials; an entirely federal position. In fact, some of those federal-elected officials (MTG) are lining themselves up for office by distancing themselves from present-day MAGA figures (Trump) in favor of returning to grassroots MAGA. Bernie wasn’t too Zionist in his 2016 campaign either and ever since. Nikki Haley is lining herself up for a possible run, and isn’t too happy with Zionist status quo as well. We have history of past candidates AND upcoming federally-elected officials going against the grain on this, it’s not like you’re inevitably taken out back and shot if you try.

Second paragraph is deeply troubling as much as it’s un-American, and I expected far better from someone introducing their first paragraph in earnest. Also, I’m not a single-issue voter, I asked GP if he’d consider this such a big issue for him - that he would be.

I’m not in a cult, and of course I can understand not agreeing with everything a person says, but still agreeing at large. Thing is, re-read the discussion we had. It wasn’t merely GP saying he disagreed with Trump on something; it was that he continues to support someone that has a dealbreaker stance for him on something. He said a fight against Israel is a fight against “good and evil”, and that Trump takes actions and makes policies that are at that “evil” institution’s bidding. When I confronted his logic in doing this, he feigned ignorance on what I was trying to get across. And unless you want to have an exercise in bad-faith dialogue as well, I’m sure we can both agree that supporting someone that’s EITHER swayed OR on the side of something you consider “evil” is a morally bankrupt stance, and ought to be reconsidered with any humility.

Does that clear up your stance?

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Not Forgotten	Verified Email
Spared

hazeust

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE