Jump to content

Olsonist

Members
  • Content Count

    26,326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Olsonist

  1. 1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

    13th. Ain’t that a kick in the balls. 

    Well, that’s gotta suck for Tom. But it’s important for him to know that the bitcoin he donated to her campaign wasn’t wasted. It was an investment in democracy.

    Tom probably needs some cheerful tunes right about now to help remember the good times.

     

  2. No 5,313,621 + Yes 2,562,883 = 7876504 total votes at 61% (projected)

    1,727,734 + 447,177 + 397,326 + 254,026 + 1,491,490 = 4317753 candidates

    7876504 - 4317753 = 3558751 unmarked

    Most Dems left the massive 46 candidate second page unmarked. The Democratic Party didn't run a recall candidate. The vote was effectively No vs Elder. Elder is in first position with 42% and Falcouner is at 10%.

    The CA Republican Party has become a joke.

    There's a DA recall in Sonoma that's failing, 60-40.

    ABC has called it.

    • Like 2
  3. There is no vaccine for AIDS. There is no freely available vaccine for AIDS which the lesser third of the population is refusing to take. People with AIDS aren't screaming at school board meetings to engage in activities with students in ways which will transmit AIDS. People with AIDS who refuse this vaccine which doesn't exist aren't spreading misinformation about that non-existent AIDS vaccine. Major political figures aren't spreading misinformation about AIDS and preventing prevention measures.

    • Like 4
  4. I think out of an abundance of concern that we should require with Federal mandates backed by fines and jail sentences that the unvaccinated get vaccinated. That way they're even less likely to get vaccinated and then die the heroic deaths they so want. We should also tell them that lesbians in California are considering grabbing their guns.

  5. Fe fi fo fum, hummed the dumb Mum of Chum. Where is the rum? Chum of the dumb Mum was glum. Mum, there is no rum. Yes, Chum, but maybe my bum can fetch some rum from the scum of this slum. Umm Mum, said Chum of the dumb Mum, you should not succumb to the scum of the slum for rum. In sum, there is no rum. Chum’s dumb Mum said I’m glum.

  6. 1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

    Bitch, please.

    image.png.ccadc227e20d08cced2d8745f8deed70.png

    This is Cathy Young in 2016 saying in as many words to hold your nose and vote for Shitstain.

    https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/07/electing-donald-trump-make-political-correctness-worse/

    And I'm already on record that some of this stuff is overboard, but I'm a little more fluent in it. I did have a question for you above. I'll repeat it again.

    I've said my piece, hopefully clearly. But I have a question for @Burning Man. I really like singular they (and I think singular we is stupid). That means that when I'm referring to someone and I don't know their gender and it doesn't matter, I say they. In olden times, I was taught to say he. What sez you, about writing/talking today, going forward? What would you write? Would you write he or they in a situation where you didn't know the gender? There is no right answer. I'm just curious.

  7. 4 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

    Donations 'Behested' by Newsom Exploded as His Emergency Powers Ballooned
     

    Hmm... Give a guy more influence to sell and he sells more of it. Surprising!

    Even Reason admits that most of these donations are to COVID-19 relief efforts. It's a California thing (I don't know if there is or isn't anything similar in other states) and even Faulconer did it when he was mayor of SD. Think of it as the obverse of Citizens United except that reporting is required which is the only reason you know about it. Now if you actually want to get corporate money out of politics, and you don't, then get corporate money out of politics.

  8. 33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

    There's the Nurse's "We" ... it means "you"

    Then there's the far less common Royal "We" ... which means the king (or queen), spoken by the king (or queen). And btw a constitutional monarch does not decide which they want to be. Parliament decides for them.

    I like your examples. I'd call nurse's we idiomatic but that's a guess. I wonder if there's anything similar in other languages.

    Royal we is getting closer to this preciousness, or at least as I see it. I think they take their non-binaryness a little too preciously and promote their I to a we, which is not so different from the preciousness of royal we.

    BTW, I just looked. This is a LOT more complex than I thought it was, AND the site I looked at DIDN'T even cover first person singular pronoun. However, I did learn a new word, epicene, having characteristics of both sexes or no characteristics of either sex; of indeterminate sex. Singular they is an epicene pronoun. Plural they is as well.

    I've said my piece, hopefully clearly. But I have a question for @Burning Man. I really like singular they (and I think singular we is stupid). That means that when I'm referring to someone and I don't know their gender and it doesn't matter, I say they. In olden times, I was taught to say he. What sez you, about writing/talking today, going forward? What would you write? He or they.

    • Like 1
  9. There is no primary season. That is a media fiction. For example, your boy Shitstain declared his candidacy for re-election on inauguration day 2017. He can do that again at any time. One reason not to is reporting requirements. Otherwise, your boy is already accepting donations. He needs you. Won't you help your boy help America?

    https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/membership?location=djt_sa_header

  10. 1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

    "We are coming to the meeting now"

    This person is an idiot, a precious idiot. Any normal person would say I am coming to the meeting now. I've never heard we used for first person singular and I'm decently fluent in this stuff. Still, I can imagine some super precious idiot would do this. I'd either roll my eyes or correct them depending on the situation. Hell, I might even y'all them.

    But this extreme case of stupidity has nothing to do with liberalism. There was a case of a man getting fired in Wisconsin for refusing to get fingerprinted. Wisconsin is an at-will state. Still, he sued claiming it violated his Christian religious faith and got $65,000. That had nothing to do with religion, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism or any other ism. It had to do with a court case.

    Great cases make bad law and annoying people make bad politics. If Jeff doesn't like us disgusting liberals because some idiot wants to say we, well then, that there sounds like a deeply considered opinion. I'll note with derision that that's coming from the magazine vs clip crowd.

  11. 35 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

    I know someone who insists on using plural pronouns. It is amazingly annoying. "We are coming to the meeting now" "Well YOU are coming, did you kidnap someone and stuff them in your briefcase on the way over"

    It depends on whether you like or appreciate that person. There was a teacher for one of the fam. Mx. Whatever. They were a breakthrough teacher. As far as I was concerned, they walked on water.

    Some of this is generational. Earlier generations clearly didn't get this.

    BTW, I'm a huge fan of singular they because I remember really disliking second person him (or worse, her). Maybe that's why I don't have a problem with Mx. they we. But I'm human. If someone is annoying, they're annoying and I have a short fuse for annoying.

    Anyways, Jeff has this major problem with us liberals and this apparently is it. So I can imagine Jeff meeting some ultra precious trans and then the two pair annihilating. Maybe the world would be a better place.

  12. 14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

    Yawn. Another one who doesn’t get it. 

    Jeff, I think I demonstrated some fluency in both sides of the argument about Orient vs Asia. Then you pulled a Tom and just quoted a Reason writer. Maybe if you could explain in your own words your problem with these deeply offensive speech codes, you could demonstrate what this it that I'm clearly not getting is.

    Use your words.

  13. Jeff, I don't know if you know anything about the military. Myself, I only had a hand-me-down GI Joe when I was a kid. Or maybe I stole it. Hell, I can't remember. Anyways, the Google tells me that the military is very big on the speech codes. It's almost as if they invented them. Everyone dresses alike and then you have to call them all different names. I know, weird. Call the wrong dude or dudette the wrong honorific and there's probably gonna be some paperwork. Yo, Angus will not do. You have to address her as Colonel Angus, Mam.

    So if you haven't been in the military, and I'm beginning to suspect you haven't, then like I totally get your point about speech codes and social justice warriors. For us civilians, it's really strange. And what's with the warriors thing anyway? Were they in the military?

×
×
  • Create New...