I'm family legacy though, could probably waltz right into the virginal blood oath ceremony

I need to know a little bit about the Freemasons before I join, what do they actually do? I've read about them, everything from a dangerous cult plotting to take over the world to wannabe frat boys that have secret meetings about nothing.

pacino wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:No, you don't get it. All you do is post self-righteous #$!&@ about how obvious your opinion is the correct one. And you get your opinion validated by like liberals such as mozart,monkeyboy, doll is mine.

Maybe step out into the world and talk to conservatives who aren't knuckle draggers once in a while.

Maybe you should step out of your bubble. You seem to be looking in a mirror whenever you try to tell someone they don't hear enough opinions from a diverse group of people. I don't really need to validate myself or my opinion to you sincertain you're not the arbiter of Goddman anything.

First he tells me to get a real job, then he makes it sound like I'm a bad person for taking a good job. Then he makes fun of me for teaching rich kids, then he tells me I don't have access to the upper class and I need to get out of my bubble. Dude can't even keep his insults straight.

jeff2sf wrote:Maybe step out into the world and talk to conservatives who aren't knuckle draggers once in a while.

Most of my family are conservatives. Many of my friends from college are. In particular, they are of the fiscal conservative, socially liberal, non-"knuckle draggers" to which I believe you are referring. I understand that there are fiscal realities, that for example many cities have been stuck with social services systems that were designed for much larger populations than they currently serve. I know that you can't be an ideologue when the realities of arithmetic are before you.

Nevertheless, you can still design and maintain labor structures that tend to promote wage growth, increase (to a reasonable limit) and preserve leisure time, provide adequate health care coverage while folks are working (although admittedly I would like to see this particular burden shifted to a combination of the government and private insurers, mirroring the school system), and offer solid retirement benefits that one can count on WITHOUT breaking the bank or providing "golden parachutes." Everybody recoils a bit when they hear about the state trooper who retired after 20 years on a $175,000/year pension or whatever. But these are the exceptions, not the rules, and just because the pension system or public sector unionization have been occasionally abused does not mean they should be abolished, anymore than we should have gone to a centrally-planned economy because oil, coal, railroad, and steel tycoons gamed the system to gild their positions of privilege and advantage a century or more ago.

The only reason that Republican strategists (and, to a lesser degree, rank-and-file Republicans) want the atotal abolition of public sector unions and the sever curbing of the rights of private sector ones is because unions are effective organizers, and as long as Republicans hold those opinions, those same organizers will organize folks to vote against them.

As a final note, you know it is possible to be a Republican and union-friendly. I vote Specter because of his pro-labor positions (I know I just REALLY made jersey's day with that one), and then there's this:



If Republicans would lay off the social issues and take a more reasonable position on labor, there would begin to be a reason for me to consider voting for one once in awhile. Like how I voted for Specter.

jeff2sf wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Jeff, please don't vote for Romney.

Well since you asked nicely...

I'm not voting for Romney. There's 0 chance of it. But it's like come on already.

In all seriousness, I can't speak for anyone else but I'm just having fun.

The reality is Mitt Romney has made it too easy for those of us who don't support him to bash him. He's an awful candidate. He's also coming across as someone who's arrogant, uncompassionate, and overall quite unlikable.

Eddie Jordan wrote:I need to know a little bit about the Freemasons before I join, what do they actually do? I've read about them, everything from a dangerous cult plotting to take over the world to wannabe frat boys that have secret meetings about nothing.

The latter is closest to the truth. But I've already said too much. The Great Architect is watching

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:And again, I agree with you on 80% of the positions for christ's sake. So if you're pissing me off with your self-righteous blather, there's a good chance you're alienating a group of people who aren't as committed to your way of thinking.

It's the internet. We're talking politics on a sports message board. There are around 12 regular posters and possibly as many as 25 more who pop in frequently in these politics threads.

Who in the fuck is he going to alienate?

Jeff alienated me a long time ago. I don't like anyone who thinks like him, so he's making it impossible for me to ever see his view.

See, doesn't it sound stupid?

Are the freemasons gay friendly?

jeff2sf wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Jeff, please don't vote for Romney.

Well since you asked nicely...

I'm not voting for Romney. There's 0 chance of it. But it's like come on already.

Republicans that watch Fox News are worse. They're just as self righteous while being wrong. I like the dajafi, grotewold hell even PIP style of liberalism. But the pacino/monkeyboy style is just excruciating.

Monkeyboy wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:And again, I agree with you on 80% of the positions for christ's sake. So if you're pissing me off with your self-righteous blather, there's a good chance you're alienating a group of people who aren't as committed to your way of thinking.

It's the internet. We're talking politics on a sports message board. There are around 12 regular posters and possibly as many as 25 more who pop in frequently in these politics threads.

Who in the fuck is he going to alienate?

Jeff alienated me a long time ago. I don't like anyone who thinks like him, so he's making it impossible for me to ever see his view.

See, doesn't it sound stupid?

You know for all the shit you give Romney about having not had to work hard, at least he didn't drop out of his ivy grad school like someone I know.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Taxpayers take on the financial burden of management/shareholders in negotiations with public sector unions without having a seat at the table.

Does it bother you at all that this is completely false? If you are talking about truly "public" institutions (not public/private partnerships), pretty much every public sector union negotiates with representatives of management that are either elected, or ultimately responsible to folks who are elected. A school board is elected, and either appoints a negotiator from among its members or hires one; or a fat governor continues the state government of a local distrcit, then appoints a new superintendant, who designates her negotiators; etc. Taxpayers have someone representing them. Perhaps you refer to something like Rutgers University, which admittedly has a school president who, through human resources, hires a negotiating team; but that school president of course serves at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees, most of whom are appointments by fat governors.

One way or another, there is an effective management group that negotiates with public sector unions, and that is ultimately responsible to elected officials, who are in turn responsible to - you guessed it - the taxpayer.

It's not completely false. Elected officials (or their appointed negotiator) are not exclusively (or often even primarily) representatives of taxpayer interests during negotiations with public sector unions. Unlike the management/labor dynamic in the private sector, the labor side in the public sector plays an active role in picking management through campaigning/endorsing/fundraising for politicians. Elected officials have to factor in whether they're willing to face the wrath of public sector unions during campaign season if they take a stand in favor of taxpayer interests.

Concentrated benefits vs. diffuse costs means like anything else in gov't - farm subsidies, free trade - it's usually easier to the side with louder bunch even if it's not good policy.

Public union employees are vastly outnumbered by regular old taxpayers in most places where public unions exist. To elect any politician who is willing to make sure a certain level of wage and benefit are paid, many more people than just union voters must vote for that politician. And though public unions tend to be well-organized, they have vicious, vindictive, voracious opponents who are equally well-organized, and got, for just one example, a person like Scott Walker elected.

So, an election is a perfectly fine way to settle questions of this sort.

jamiethekiller wrote:i yelled at Adi for beating the redundant drum on friday night.

ur mom

Where do I fall into this. Id like to be labeled as well.

Trent Steele wrote:I think this thread is fun. And by fun I mean the worst thread on the board. Vox was right.

I try my best to bring the standards expected of BSG to the thread...

jeff2sf wrote:Of course you'd think it wasn't unreadable until someone challenges you. You're a terribly immature person who's not used to being exposed to those who disagree with you or your methods. Well boo hoo.

So how many personal attacks is jeff allowed?

I called him an ass or something once and got a PM about it. This adds nothing and does the exact opposite of what he says he wants, which tells me he doesn't really want what he says he wants.

Jeff, if you are having a bad day, go home and punch your pillow or go for a run or something. You're acting like an insane person.

Also, I don't believe for one second you are voting for Obama. Your a republican troll that comes here and asks democrats to be reasonable when you know your guy is on the ropes. "Hey guys, I'm voting for Obama, but everything I say will sound otherwise. Just ignore that fact and know that you pointing out Mitt's obvious glaring flaws only makes it more likely that I'll vote for him." Give me a break.

CFP wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:I'm not complaining for someone else, I'm complaining for myself. It's brutal to read this thread right now. It almost makes me want to vote for Romney and I'm sure I don't want to vote for Romney.

Wait, someone's ramblings on a baseball message board's political thread make you want to vote for someone you didn't plan on voting for? Am I reading this right?

yeh, it's completely unbelievable.

Doll Is Mine wrote:Are the freemasons gay friendly?

neither

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:As a related aside, do you guys think JH believed the Soviets when they said the wall was to keep people out? All signs point to yes.

Why?

you seemed to think the Chinese official was telling the truth when he said the fence around the factory was to keep people out.

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:As a related aside, do you guys think JH believed the Soviets when they said the wall was to keep people out? All signs point to yes.

Why?

you seemed to think the Chinese official was telling the truth when he said the fence around the factory was to keep people out.

I said I thought it was to keep people in and keep people out. Do you disagree?

I think Penn Gillette coined a phrase that sums up my ideology pretty well. Something along the lines of "If you want to find utopia, take a sharp right on money and a sharp left on sex."