Chef Jim
-
Posts
53,297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chef Jim
-
-
7 minutes ago, BillStime said:
You make the trade that’s on the table and bring an American home
No you don’t. You negotiate an equitable swap or walk away from the negotiations.Just now, BillStime said:And who was POTUS in 2018?
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🙄 -
6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Oh, it was stupid. Not as stupid as stealing top secret documents from the WH, but stupid still
Also not as stupid as bringing up Trump and the classified documents into this discussion. -
20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Hey! I actually find it very relaxing to watch. Zero commercials during the entire game.
Relaxing? It’s been on the gym every day. One of the most frustrating sport to watch.
-
8 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Why do you hate yourself so much?
Do you agree this was an equitable exchange?
I thought you hated guns.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Have you ever been there? If you’re happy with the same thing as everyone else no matter how hard you work and talented you are then you are happy and most likely not one of the hard working talented ones. therefore everyone is average ie mediocrity. If that suits you you should move there. If you aren’t that well traveled or willing to move there, go live in an ikea for a week. It the high end low end and middle of the road example of Nordic life.
My wife and her family lived in Norway for a few years. I just asked her why they are so happy. She says that’s not really the case. She said they are very quiet and actually dour. She said some of it has to with their socialist government. Almost to the point of “you will be happy!!” She also agreed with the homogeneous nature of their society. And back to socialism. I would assume it’s easy happy when you don’t have the pressure to be successful. It’s a huge pressure pot here and why so many snap. But the pressure has created the most successful and innovative people and companies the world has ever seen and I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.-
2
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
Oh no! Aggressive questions! 😱I guess I’m not alone in these horrible undertakings.
-
2 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Mediocrity? Generally they have the happiest people ( according to polls i assume are somewhat accurate) and are nearly all at the top education wise. I wouldn't characterize that as mediocre.
Would you characterize them as completely different from the United States? -
47 minutes ago, BillStime said:
He had the same meltdown trying to rewrite history over this, too.
Right DR?
Awesome. So you’re back to accusing everyone of being DR. 😂 -
7 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Jim - that sounds fantastic but that’s not Texas. Texas has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation… where it’s pretty much: everyone gets a gun.I thought no guns was fantastic to you.
I have a great idea! Don't move to Texas. Your problem solved!
And it's everyone gets a gun who wants one. Just as it should be.
-
1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:
My point was that nuking a story is worse than allowing it but not amplifying it. I made no claims about the quality of the fact checking itself as it was irrelevant to the point I was making.
You did the whole “just asking questions” cowardly BS about the vetting instead of just expressing your own position, and then pretended it was a good faith debate instead of just the childish exercise in trolling that it was.
Guess what! You're point was correct. And you know how I came to that conclusion? By asking you questions to better clarify it. You won the debate but lost in points because you resorted to and continue with name calling. Good job Gooseman. 🙄
I guess with all the idiots here slinging mud you don't recognize an adult "argument" when you see one.
-
30 minutes ago, BillStime said:
More guns, Jim - don’t tread on me with more rules and restriction - everyone gets a gunYup that's the plan. Give everyone a gun.
Well that's the plan inside your tiny mind. A critical thinking person know that plan SHOULD be this. Allow those who would like to protect themselves and their families to purchase a gun. Make them go through a stringent background check and mandatory gun safety class before the firearm is sold. Then then go through a re-registration process every couple of years. During that process they well go through another background check including any red flag warnings that may pop up including mental health issues. They will also be required to take and pass another gun safety course. But no you stick with your impossible achievement of not guns for anyone.
-
24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
There is no fool-proof form of content moderation. Every system is going to have flaws.
I said I think it’s better not to delete or block things while they are being vetted. You decided to be a troll about it. That’s not a debate, it’s just performative assholery.
See you don't understand how debate works. Let me explain.
1. You made a point
2. I challenged that point for further clarification by asking questions. Allowing you to either solidify your point or give me the opportunity to poke holes in it.
3. You clarified your point and you were right in how you clarified it. FB's process is better but not necessarily "way" better but that is semantics
4. You then began to call me a troll and an #######.
5. Good job. 🙄
-
2 minutes ago, BillStime said:
He felt empowered in one of the NRA’s favorite states where everyone gets a gun!Them the rules!
Them the rules??? WTF
Maybe you'd benefit from an home safety course. Once you've taken it you'd probably be better equipped to defend your stance. As of now you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:
Facebook has the intelligence capabilities to ‘vet’ posts in real time? How exactly? Are we’re to believe that these t-shirt wearing liberal millennials are running their own intelligence operations? And our government’s okay with that? Come on people! Has everyone lost their minds?
This Calvin and Hobbes cartoon got a flagged by FB.
-
8 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Right.What does my or more to the point his skin color have to do with it? Are you saying because I'm white I do a better job following gun protocol. I hope that's not what you're saying but it sounds like that's what you're saying.
2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:Looking at these images how in the world does anyone think that the guy’s skin color had anything to do with him being shot? Is that the lesson we’re supposed to learn? Talking about turning yourselves into knots!
I'm darker than he is.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
No, I was saying that allowing the posting of links while they are being vetted is better than completely nuking the links.
But you knew that, you’re just being a troll. That, or you can’t read.
Thanks.
And FB could end up nuking it in the end anyway correct?
One man's debate is another trolling.
-
3 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Did you see the videos?Did the cop training include time, distance, and cover?
We will see more of this in these permitless open carry states?
Yep
Did the guy deserve to get shot?
No one deserves to get shot. But he was real stupid with how he handled this situation. Would you agree with that? -
2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
Dunno I don’t work at Facebook. What are they?
No clue. So when you said it’s way better than Twitter you were speaking out your ass. Thanks.-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Glad you find something as serious as protecting your home and family funny. I hope you never have to protect your loved ones with a spatula. -
7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
According to TechDirt, Facebook’s policy when something is flagged as a potential misinfo op is to allow it to be shared but not to boost it through the algorithm until Facebook’s internal fact checkers had reviewed it.
Dance puppet dance. Who are these internal fact checkers and what is their process? And what is the process of the initial flagging of the post? -
5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
The article points out the Facebook’s policy in similar situations is to allow the posting of the link but not boost it through algorithms until it’s vetted.
That seems way better than Twitter’s nuking policy.
Who is doing FB vetting and what is their policy? -
11 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Wait - you’re the guy who got a Glock when you lived in Oakland for the same exact reason.Are you white?
My skin color has nothing to do with it. You take a course. That course tells you to stay in your home and dial 911. You explain the situation to 911. You tell them “I am armed and in my home. I am wearing_______and I am (height/weight/hair color). The police show up and you have a weapon and if they have no idea if you’re a good guy or bad guy you may very well get shot. Kind of like this dumbass did.
Yes, I got my weapon for the same exact reason but knew I had a responsibility to me, my wife, my neighbors and the police to know how to handle such situations. But you keep advocating for something you do not understand and value. And there’s that word again…..value.
-
1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:
Yes, Taibbi explicitly states that there was no evidence of government involvement.
Basically, Twitter had a really bad moderation policy (nuke suspicious info until it’s vetted) were warned about potential interference, and when they saw the laptop story, they invoked their (bad) policy.
This immediately backfired due to the Streisand Effect and was such a bad call that not only did a prominent Dem Congressman reach out to them to say blocking the story was bad, but they ended up reversing course within a day.
And what you’re saying is what’s the problem. It’s not government intervention. It’s media intervention but that intervention tends to lean one way along the political spectrum. -
Just now, Doc said:
LOL! Sure.
Even if not that's not the major issue here is it?
Lefties are mentally disturbed and must be stopped.
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
No thanks. Remember I’m the guy who considers American football boring.
It’s never too early. Can’t drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Now you know why I quit.