Eleven
-
Posts
43,230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Eleven
-
-
1 minute ago, 5th line wingnutt said:
And when will you step away from banning people from the political club?
I will never accept people who post unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, if that is what you are referring to. Not welcome. Whether it's the Moon landing, the 2020 election, COVID, the Templars, or the Jews or the whatever, I'm not having it there. Ya dig?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Did you complain about the post (which preceded the one you complained about) decrying capitalism? Did that one get moved? Was there any sinister moderator behavior underlying the failure to move that one?
We know your biases, bud. It's way, WAAAYYY too late to try to conceal them through very transparent questions like this.
Ah-gain, as for years, I ask you to step away.
-
@inkman tomorrow: "People who stand in a restaurant doorway for ten minutes to say goodbye instead of saying goodbye at the table."
Sunday? "People who go to the spot at the bar where there's already a drink because someone's in a bathroom, rather than the four spots next to it which are empty."
Frankly, the second category are probably the children of the first, from what I've seen.
Monday, I think he's gonna blow up a fast-food restaurant.
-
1
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
What if their snack is calves?
We did.
I and my family saw one around dusk on a hot summer night in 1980. We lived below a cemetery. I spotted a triangle of lights and heard a low humming sound about 200 yards up the hill. We went into the backyard, and to my mom's frantic protestation, my World War II combat scout father walked up the road alone to find out for sure. He didn't come back for a good while, and it was almost dark. We were scared. Were the lights moving now? Was the sound more high pitched? My dad emerged from the darkness and flatly announced, "It's a dump truck. They're working on the road."
Did he have an anal probe?
13 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:As for bootstrap pulling, if I don't expect people to spend $70,000 in permits and fees in order to open a lemonade stand, it's hard for me to think the issue with poor people in the west is their work ethic.
This reveals the disingenuity (if your prior manifesto didn't).
-
8 minutes ago, SwampD said:
And a thumbs up, to boot.
Gotta consider the source...
I, too, could counter it with a lot of well-researched rebuttal, I'm just not doing it.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:
I can deny that because it's factually wrong.
You do realize the poor are getting richer too, right? Not only that, they're doing it at a rate that exceeds the "rich getting richer." That's statistically undeniable. The number of people lifted out of poverty over the last 30 years is one of the greatest achievements in the entirety of the human race and the only reason it isn't celebrated is because it's an inconvenient truth (to steal the phrase). The single greatest solution to poverty is free market capitalism. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Wealth creation is not at the detriment of the human race as a whole. It's quite literally the opposite.
Yes, there is a gap between rich and poor. Yes, that gap is "widening" but that's a pretty biased use of statistics. If you have a billion dollar net worth and your net worth increases 10%, you are now worth $1.1 billion, or an increase of $100,000,000. If I am surviving off of a dollar a day and my income doubles, I am now making $365 more a year--despite a 100% increase in income. But the "wealthy" person's income increased 274,000X what the poor person's did. So, yeah, the rich guy is getting richer and the gap is widening, but the person making inroads toward the global middle class is seeing wealth increases at a faster rate.
The reality is the number of people who are seeing wealth increases from $1b to $1.1b a year is less than 274,000X the number of people globally seeing their wealth increase by a higher percentage each year as the global middle class develops. That is a true fact. So, again, the wealthy person is getting wealthier but that argument ignores the entirety of things like the middle class of China--something that only developed after China adopted capitalist reforms.
It also goes beyond just numbers. People that are "rich" are providing goods and services which improve the lives of people beyond just themselves. Now, I'm a believer that not all of it is positive, but it remains a fact. I personally think Facebook, Instagram and whatever else are woefully detrimental to society; however, more than a billion people worldwide take advantage of them for entertainment and personal enjoyment. Is that not increasing value?
And it goes beyond tech companies to things even simpler than that. People in western Africa that now can afford eyeglasses for their children when 20 years ago that was an impossibility. This allows children to attend school and see the whiteboard. Those children grow up to be more successful than their parents. Maybe they won't have to join one of the 300,000 Sierra Leoneans who still mine diamonds by hand all so some American can spend $5,000 to ask his girlfriend if she'll want to go to a courthouse with him and get a government seal of approval for their relationship.
Meanwhile in the US, we're busy debating whether we want the iPhone 14 or iPhone 14 Pro and only stopping these materialistic debates to complain about how Jeff Bezos used his own wealth to build a rocket and go into space. Wealth that he generated by providing services and goods that the overwhelming majority of us take advantage of. And we use this to complain that capitalism has failed because we read some book that we got same-day delivered from Bezos' book store. That's comical.
You are basing your critique of capitalism on a very western view and simultaneously arguing for a global authority and global cooperation.
I realize this is idealistic and you intended it as such, but I will address it anyway. Humans are not intrinsically altruistic and evolutionary theory substantiates the predilection toward accumulating ("hoarding") ever greater amounts of goods. This idealist view is fundamentally flawed. In order for this to happen, you'd need to remove tens of thousands of years of evolution.
I accept that our version of capitalism is imperfect, but it's the best system we've got. That being said, I also reject any assertion that we live in a truly capitalist society. Most of the criticisms of 'capitalism' are due to cronyism which is effectively what we, in the West, currently have. The irony is that most of these supposed criticisms of capitalism and the solutions proposed to fix them ultimately only yield more cronyism. It's a cycle that repeats over and over again. The greater the authority figure (in your class global) the greater the likelihood of exploitation and abuse. You don't think a global government wouldn't have global lobbyists?
I realize that's not what you're saying directly, but we do not have a better economic model than otherwise allowing people to trade between each other freely and exchange goods and services voluntarily. There simply isn't a better model. That is indisputable. That being said, we do not really have that economic model in practice. We have something approaching it, but we're still far from realizing it.
Capitalism is not things like excessive occupational licensing. You should not need to attend a school, pass a state license, and complete continuing education credits in order to thread someone's eyebrows. You should not need to spend upward of $70,000 in order to get the appropriate permits and business licenses for a lemonade stand in NYC. Those barriers were created to impede market entry by new forces. That is cronyism. That is what prevents people from generating wealth. It is a corruption of capitalism that we all tolerate because we're conditioned to do so.
Rather than create a global government, we would be better off limiting government to the extreme and holding corrupt politicians and the corporations that corrupt them accountable. But that will never happen so it's all a moot point.
Maybe we should all question why large corporations are the ones pushing the message that we need greater regulation and greater authoritarianism. People act like anti-capitalism is some kind of dissident world view, but it's the one most promoted on social media and given air time on mass media. We have no problem criticizing billionaires for having billions, but if you criticize a poor person for being poor, you're evil.
If you can say '<bleep> the rich, why do they have all the money?' but someone else can't say '<bleep> the poor, why don't they have any money?' without being ostracized--maybe there's a problem? We used to look up to wealth creators (Henry Ford, for example) as a society. That changed. Why?
17 minutes ago, ddaryl said:Capitialism at some point will consume itself. We can debate this but I'm not interested in doing so because I will have to retort all your views and that will just go on and on.
I stand 100% behind my thoughts... I see whats happening. The system will collapse upon itself.... eventually and probably within a few generations2 hours ago, Curt said:It’s the best economic model that humans have come up with so far.
There's so much I want to say about this but it's probably not the right place for it.
I'll just say that I think we can do better than Anglo-American style unregulated capitalism. Rhine capitalism and distributism are interesting to me.
Henry Ford knew that he needed to pay his line workers enough that they could afford a new car. I'm not so sure that's the way anymore.
Oh, and if the aliens ever find us, we're dinner.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
The above article is exactly why we can and should move on from some of the forward prospects to fix holes in the NHL roster. Trading an Östlund or a Rosen to get a legit partner for Levi is the right thing to do and should be done. KA is taking a huge and unnecessary risk for a playoff contender by relying on 3 goalies with a collective total of 100 games of NHL experience.
Another point, when you look at the Sabres prospect pool how many of these guys are you sure will play 100+ NHL games (50+ for goalies)? Right now I think Benson, Savoie, Kulich, and Levi are the only ones we can "guarantee" will reach that point. Could others? Absolutely, but it's probably only 6 or 7 more (which would still be an amazing result). Östlund and Rosen top this next tier (obviously), then Johnson, Novikov, Wahlberg, and Neuchev would top my list of most likely to have NHL careers. After this group, some guys may carve out careers, but valuing them too highly is a mistake and one we have all made. Remember the hype around Bailey(82 games) and Baptiste (47 games)? TM liked Hudson Fasching (87 games - 49 came last year) so much that he gave away McNabb and 2 2nd rd picks for him. How did that work out?
Fine but what does this have to do with governmental UFO coverups?
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, shrader said:
I went Hawerchuk/Grier/Ray
Schultz/Grier/Ray.
-
1 hour ago, Indabuff said:
What about the ones that park their carts in the middle of an aisle with no room to pass by them with your own cart? That really chaps my hide. Goddam imbeciles.
I just move their carts.
-
6 minutes ago, Kr632 said:
I'm talking for the most part about the first car in line stopping far back. But theres a decent amount of intersections in the area that have multiple sensors, one just behind the white line and another farther back that doesnt go off unless there's a couple cars or after a long wait if there's one. I used to know almost all of them, I would pull up to the light then back up to the other sensor to get the light to change. Someone sitting far back at one of these would cause a delay.
I Uber part time so I see these people multiple times a day. They definitely cause delays. I've found a lot of the people(not saying you just the people I've had experience with) that stop super early usually drive well under the speed limit and cause other issues, seems they don't trust their driving. They'll stop really hard to not get close to the car Infront of them that's still in process of slowing down and pulling up to the light and someone plows into the back of them because there's no reason for them to stop where they are the way they did. Yes the person should have paid better attention and theyre at fault but stopping very early is not something someone expects to happen when there's nothing in the road and would have been avoided if they stopped normally.
The first car has no need to do that and generally shouldn't. I am 99% certain that the City of Buffalo does not have multiple sensors. We can barely afford a single one, and that's not at most intersections.
I definitely do not drive under the speed limit. I'm a 79 on the Thruway and a 40 on a city street. I'm not proud, mind you, but I'm not slow, either.
I find that I'm more relaxed behind the wheel when I'm at a light if I give myself some distance to see the world and some room to let other drivers be idiots, though. So that's what I do.
If you drive Uber, you've probably driven me!
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Kr632 said:
Why does it take you two car lengths to maneuver? If I see someone doing that I take it as you're offering me a spot in front of you and I'll pull right in. Then stop so I can see their rear tires so I have plenty of space to move.
It actually does slow things down if the lights are on a sensor. I sat at a few lights for ridiculous amounts of time because people stopped way too early.
It's about 6-8 feet from my bumper to their bumper so I can see their rear tires. Smart cars aren't even that small for it to be two car lengths.
I really don't care if you pull in. If you're in a hurry or something or whatever, I don't know. Do what you need to do.
The sensors are at the light (where we have them, as far as I know, Buffalo does not have many, but the suburbs might), not a few cars back. If I'm in front, I pull up to the stop line.
It is about 25 feet for me to see the bottoms of the rear tires. (I note that I do keep my seat as low and as far back as I can--I'm not a tall guy, but I like my room). I just tested this because of this thread (and because what else is there to do, there is no hockey). My car is a little over 14 feet long.
-
5 hours ago, Doohickie said:
It doesn't take two car lengths to be able to pull around someone else. If you can see the bottom of their bumper you have enough room.
It's the bottom of the next car's tires you want to see, not the bottom of the bumper. That's just shy of two car lengths for me--my car is really small.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, inkman said:
Pardon my ignorance but aren’t there sensors in the road detecting if there are vehicles at that light? So in theory, if you are 3 car lengths behind the first car you could be inhibiting natural traffic flow as the light doesn’t sense your vehicle, giving priority to a lane it shouldn’t. (I’m thinking left hand turn lanes specifically)
I think they just sense the first car, at the few intersections we have with sensors? If I'm close to the front I'm usually closer to the car in front, though, anyway. In my mind's eye, when I wrote my post, I was in a longer line of cars than that.
-
9 hours ago, Kr632 said:
People have been doing this at red lights. They’ll stop 3-4 car lengths from the light at each intersection. More and more people have been doing it.
I want two car lengths between me and the person in front of me, and more if it's a truck in front of me. I want to see and I want to be able to get around them if they're an idiot. It's not like it slows anything down.
-
Sorry, man, but I got used to the personal space of six feet and I'll continue it.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Dumba will never be a Sabre. By 2024, Novikov will be beating down the doors and Samuelsson will be doing what he can do hold him off.
Hey, you're the one who asked the original question. I just answered it.
-
5 hours ago, JohnC said:
Having an excess of talent in the prospect pool is not something to worry over; not having an adequate enough pool is something to be concerned with. As others have said, most of the high-end prospects in our system are still another year or two away from being ready for the NHL. And internal competition within the system is a good thing for developing players. Also, having an abundance of prospects gives the organization more assets to trade when trying to better balance and improve the NHL roster.
Not getting it...
-
Just now, dudacek said:
Did you know he was minus player who had 14 points on a playoff team last year, has had negative possession numbers for 3 years running, and hasn’t topped 69 games played or 27 points in any of the 4 seasons before last year?
Maybe - like a lot of other teams apparently - they did their homework and said “pass”.
No--I had no way of knowing--is there a way to look that up?
OF COURSE I KNOW. No reason to be condescending.
-
8 minutes ago, Thorny said:
I’m sure they can capably fill in on at least a 20th place roster. I have no idea why we are seeking to replicate that but yes there’s a good chance a rookie can play a similar role to the one Quinn did during the course of a season during which he was rookie 2nd line winger on a 20th place team
We finished 20th place. Sorry just wanted to be sure that got in there
The 12th forward was hardly the reason why the team finished one point out of a playoff spot. I wanted to be sure I got that in there, too.
8 minutes ago, dudacek said:This is funny when it’s about a team that dressed 3 first-year forwards regularly last year, in addition to having 3 others in their top 5 in ice time who had played less than 200 NHL games to start last year.
Exactly. Quinn's replacement is already in the system.
-
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
The big name prospects aren't ready yet. The fun part is how good we are before they are.
They're either ready to fill in for a guy who was a prospect himself 12 months ago or they're bad picks, is my point...and I don't think they're bad picks.
-
I really want to know what the point is of having a million forward prospects if they're never going to play.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, dudacek said:
The Sabres have a ton of defencemen. Depth is not an issue,
I am interested in Dumba if he’s a clearly going to be our 3 or 4.
I’m not sure if he is that player any more.
He's 29 and I think the worst he's suffered is a collapsed lung and a broken rib. Heck, I've had each of those. Anyway, he's not a Sabre until 2024. So moving on...
-
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I also think that guys like Rousek and Kulich need to see they have opportunity and giving them the first shot when an opportunity arises is sound people management.
This is it...not necessarily those two players in particular, but the idea.
-
15 minutes ago, Thorny said:
I love a semantic discussion as much as anyone but truthfully his designation is besides the point obv. I think it’s probably fair to say it’s unlikely a rookie can contribute to record what Quinn likely would have.
I think you're missing the point. Quinn was, for all logical purposes, a first-year guy last year. I.e., a rookie. That does NOT make him a veteran the next year. A second-year guy (even if he played two games before his real rookie year) is not a veteran.
The idea is that there are other soon-to-be rookies, just like Quinn was last year, who can give the same production.
OT: More than Disturbing UAP testimony
in The Aud Club
Posted
It was a response to your question, so what, specifically, are you talking about? Did you post some weird conspiracy theory that got you kicked out?