Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Is it really healthy to walk barefoot outside?||
|Kim Dotcom single-handedly stopped the PSN and Xbox Live outages caused by Lizard Squad||
|Which game to choose?||
|What good things did you get for Xmas ?||
|How to pronounce ""Israel"?||
Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:54
Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:51
Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:53
Lunacy to vote against it because you think it is a waste of time. The vote is going to happen, voting against it didn't change the outcome.
There is always going to be more important things to do.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:58
The point wasn't the vote against it. The point was that by voting against it he was making a statement that they need to spend more time focusing on the issues that are about to cause a serious meltdown and put aside the issues like the wording of a document that does not affect it's efficacy.
This is wasting time when right now they need to focus all of their attention on coming up with ideas that will actually work for getting the economy back on its feet.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:02
As I said, there is always going to be other things that are more important. His standing against it acheived nothing.
I doubt voting on this impacted their ability to deal with the economy. Arguing otherwise seems childish.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:11
Wait a minute. Why am I even arguing with you...you're not even in the US so this doesn't affect you at all...
Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:14
How dare I have an opinion on something going on somewhere else in the world. Sorry for being a nosey foreigner.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:20
It's not about that at all. I'm just trying to figure out why I'm arguing when it's not as important to someone in another part of the world that won't be affected by the lack of focus in our government.
It would be akin to me trying to argue with you that something isn't important in Oz when it's something that affects the populace a great deal. It wouldn't make a lot of sense.
I have no issues with you posting as regards the topic at all. I just don't see why you think they shouldn't be putting 100% of their focus on an impending financial matter, that will affect everyone here, that has a deadline coming up in about 3 weeks...
Posted 07 December 2012 - 15:38
Posted 07 December 2012 - 15:59
I'm with you Shane on this one. I think it's a f*cking joke that Congress is wasting their time voting on something so trivial at a time like this. I would expect this type of behavior from Obama. Congress needs a wake up call. Unfortunately that will not happen.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 17:29
Why, it probably got brought to someone's attention by an intern, they realized it was a good idea, voted, done. This refers to older legislation where people with mental illnesses were referred to by a host of offensive names (lunatic, idiot, moron were all considered 'diagnoses' at one point in time). It would be like revising a piece of legislation that referred to women with schizophrenia as witches.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 17:59
Just a note. You're assuming that the diagnoses were based on derogatory words, rather than the derogatory words being derived from the diagnoses.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 18:02
I should have said, "now offensive" names. Also, those words have always been derogatory, it's just a matter of how acceptable their use was. Moron was a "scientific" term, but it was basically just a different way of saying dullard, a much older word.