|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 10, 2015 14:37:28 GMT
or deducted the cost of having an armed guard for those areas from their license fee... If the intent was to retain the cabbies, I'd think you'd want the opposite: the city reimburses any privates security costs that the cabbie (or cab company) incurs in lieu of the city providing proper policing and patrolling. that's the same thing I said but phrased a bit less confrontationally. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Apr 10, 2015 14:52:26 GMT
Maybe the cheapest and simplest solution would have been for the police and cabbies to randomly switch vehicles in those areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Apr 10, 2015 14:55:24 GMT
If the intent was to retain the cabbies, I'd think you'd want the opposite: the city reimburses any privates security costs that the cabbie (or cab company) incurs in lieu of the city providing proper policing and patrolling. If the city can't afford normal levels of peace officers in those areas, they definitely couldn't afford private security. Could just put more donut shops in the offending areas.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Apr 10, 2015 14:56:34 GMT
If the intent was to retain the cabbies, I'd think you'd want the opposite: the city reimburses any privates security costs that the cabbie (or cab company) incurs in lieu of the city providing proper policing and patrolling. that's the same thing I said but phrased a bit less confrontationally. I misread the comment the first time. For some reason, I took it as costing the cabbie more. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 10, 2015 15:29:46 GMT
that's the same thing I said but phrased a bit less confrontationally. I misread the comment the first time. For some reason, I took it as costing the cabbie more. My mistake. it would - so the cabbie deducts it from what he pays for his licensing. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 10, 2015 15:30:50 GMT
If the city can't afford normal levels of peace officers in those areas, they definitely couldn't afford private security. Could just put more donut shops in the offending areas. I think we have a winner. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 11, 2015 23:18:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 11, 2015 23:39:37 GMT
proper emoticons are minion yellow. so yeah, as my wife would say, "Can we say 'dumba**' here?" (correct inflection is asking if we are allowed to use the word since inflection doesn't carry well over the internet) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 12, 2015 8:29:29 GMT
proper emoticons are minion yellow. so yeah, as my wife would say, "Can we say 'dumba**' here?" (correct inflection is asking if we are allowed to use the word since inflection doesn't carry well over the internet) Make all emoji's one bloody colour, except the red "rage" and the green "Sick", and sod the rest of them. Sod as in bury them under a piece of turf to never be used to make anything out of. And yes, there should be a bleach emoji, for the times when some goit makes a "needs a clean" stupid.  Question, what dies this mean?... anyone?.. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 12, 2015 14:18:15 GMT
proper emoticons are minion yellow. so yeah, as my wife would say, "Can we say 'dumba**' here?" (correct inflection is asking if we are allowed to use the word since inflection doesn't carry well over the internet) Make all emoji's one bloody colour, except the red "rage" and the green "Sick", and sod the rest of them. Sod as in bury them under a piece of turf to never be used to make anything out of. And yes, there should be a bleach emoji, for the times when some goit makes a "needs a clean" stupid. Question, what dies this mean?... anyone?.. same thing as a watch on a baptist preacher's wrist means: nothing that makes a difference to us. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 29, 2015 15:41:54 GMT
This is a continuation of my comments on the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage from the World News thread.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" A comical statement on the front of a T shirt. Comical that is, until you read the back of the shirt. "And you will also reject your reality and replace it with mine."
What is this Reality that needs to be replaced? It's the Reality that most of us live in. It's a sexual Reality. In this Reality, there are two sexes. Male and Female. Some call these opposite sexes, but I prefer the term complementary sexes. This Reality was made that way by the Creator, if you believe in God, or by nature, if you don't. Either way, that's the Reality most of us live in.
Now we have a new alternate Reality that a few insist we substitute for our own. In their Reality, there is no sexuality. You are not born a male or a female. You are what you believe you are. You may have been born with all the physical characteristics of a male, but if you don't want to accept that, then you can be female just because you say so. And your sexuality can even change from day to day, or even moment to moment, based on your thoughts. Everyone else living in that Reality must also accept your sexuality based on what you say you are at this instant in time and not what you were a few seconds ago. That's their Reality. It's all about ME and has nothing to do with you. Just accept what I say and all will be fine.
Most of us do not accept their Reality. So they have a plan to FORCE us to replace our Reality with theirs. First, they must convince society to totally reject any idea of sexuality because sexuality does not exist in their Reality. If you even mention that a person is of the complimentary sex, you are a sexist. One of those nasty "ist" words that will get you outcast from society. If you point out that there really are physical differences between males and females, even if you view those differences as "positives", you are a woman-hater or man-hater. A HATER! Another label to get you banned. If you don't believe in their concept that your sexual orientation can change from moment to moment based on your own feelings, you must be a bigot or a homophobe. How dare you even THINK that! Obviously, there is something seriously wrong with YOU.
And finally, one of the ways to force us to reject our own Reality is to change the definition of the very words we use to describe our Reality. One of those words is "marriage." In our Reality, marriage was defined as the bonding of one man and one woman in a legally recognized contract. Since the very mention of sexuality is condemned in their alternate Reality, that definition of marriage must be changed. And that's what the Supreme Court has just done.
As far as I'm concerned, they can label me as a "phobe", or an "ist" or even a bigot. The can legally change the very definition of the words I use, but I will still reject their faulty alternate Reality and keep the one I have.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2015 4:19:06 GMT
This is a continuation of my comments on the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage from the World News thread. "I reject your reality and substitute my own" A comical statement on the front of a T shirt. Comical that is, until you read the back of the shirt. "And you will also reject your reality and replace it with mine." What is this Reality that needs to be replaced? It's the Reality that most of us live in. It's a sexual Reality. In this Reality, there are two sexes. Male and Female. Some call these opposite sexes, but I prefer the term complementary sexes. This Reality was made that way by the Creator, if you believe in God, or by nature, if you don't. Either way, that's the Reality most of us live in. Now we have a new alternate Reality that a few insist we substitute for our own. In their Reality, there is no sexuality. You are not born a male or a female. You are what you believe you are. You may have been born with all the physical characteristics of a male, but if you don't want to accept that, then you can be female just because you say so. And your sexuality can even change from day to day, or even moment to moment, based on your thoughts. Everyone else living in that Reality must also accept your sexuality based on what you say you are at this instant in time and not what you were a few seconds ago. That's their Reality. It's all about ME and has nothing to do with you. Just accept what I say and all will be fine. Most of us do not accept their Reality. So they have a plan to FORCE us to replace our Reality with theirs. First, they must convince society to totally reject any idea of sexuality because sexuality does not exist in their Reality. If you even mention that a person is of the complimentary sex, you are a sexist. One of those nasty "ist" words that will get you outcast from society. If you point out that there really are physical differences between males and females, even if you view those differences as "positives", you are a woman-hater or man-hater. A HATER! Another label to get you banned. If you don't believe in their concept that your sexual orientation can change from moment to moment based on your own feelings, you must be a bigot or a homophobe. How dare you even THINK that! Obviously, there is something seriously wrong with YOU. And finally, one of the ways to force us to reject our own Reality is to change the definition of the very words we use to describe our Reality. One of those words is "marriage." In our Reality, marriage was defined as the bonding of one man and one woman in a legally recognized contract. Since the very mention of sexuality is condemned in their alternate Reality, that definition of marriage must be changed. And that's what the Supreme Court has just done. As far as I'm concerned, they can label me as a "phobe", or an "ist" or even a bigot. The can legally change the very definition of the words I use, but I will still reject their faulty alternate Reality and keep the one I have. there is a term: "Cisgender" they use it as a pejorative to refer to people who are so perverted that they go through life with the same equipment their mother gave them. I agree with you about them redefining words. you've probably seen me make the comment that by 2050 every word in the english language will mean homosexual. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jun 30, 2015 5:39:30 GMT
I read two different articles that I found interesting. I don't necessarily agree with either.
One suggested that the reason we suddenly have so many new genders is that being "cisgendered" is denigrated by most educational institutions. Traditional male behavior is all part of the patriarchy/rape culture, while traditional female behavior is denigrated as willing slavery, oppression, and self-lobotomization.
Seriously, when did anyone hear approval of a man and woman marrying and raising a family, being faithful to each other until they die, and never cheating/divorcing/etc., outside of a church? It's a source of ridicule for the woman especially--"just a housewife" is an insult to many.
Thus, if you spend all your time telling kids that the average sexual bonding is actually a horrible imposition on all, of course they're going to invent alternatives, especially when it's met with approval from the elite.
The other article I read suggested that there is no such thing as a homosexual.
Instead, the author said there are just persons who like certain sexual acts. Under this definition, the author said there is also no such thing as a heterosexual. It's just a matter of personal preference. The author also suggested that to base your identity on which sex act you like is absurd--you are so much more than your sexuality, and to focus such effort on a simple physical preference is wrongheaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2015 14:11:53 GMT
I read two different articles that I found interesting. I don't necessarily agree with either. One suggested that the reason we suddenly have so many new genders is that being "cisgendered" is denigrated by most educational institutions. Traditional male behavior is all part of the patriarchy/rape culture, while traditional female behavior is denigrated as willing slavery, oppression, and self-lobotomization. Seriously, when did anyone hear approval of a man and woman marrying and raising a family, being faithful to each other until they die, and never cheating/divorcing/etc., outside of a church? It's a source of ridicule for the woman especially--"just a housewife" is an insult to many. Thus, if you spend all your time telling kids that the average sexual bonding is actually a horrible imposition on all, of course they're going to invent alternatives, especially when it's met with approval from the elite. The other article I read suggested that there is no such thing as a homosexual. Instead, the author said there are just persons who like certain sexual acts. Under this definition, the author said there is also no such thing as a heterosexual. It's just a matter of personal preference. The author also suggested that to base your identity on which sex act you like is absurd--you are so much more than your sexuality, and to focus such effort on a simple physical preference is wrongheaded. as I said more than a few times after going to Los Angeles: Open minded people are some of the most closed minded people I have ever met. I would suppose the same could be said of the new tolerance - they are some of the most hateful intolerant people you will ever meet. as for the homosexuality issue, if you think christians trying to "cure" a homosexual is absurd, wait until you see homosexuals trying to "cure" a heterosexual. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2015 14:38:22 GMT
as for the homosexuality issue, if you think christians trying to "cure" a homosexual is absurd, wait until you see homosexuals trying to "cure" a heterosexual. Is that not what we are now already seeing? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2015 14:54:43 GMT
as for the homosexuality issue, if you think christians trying to "cure" a homosexual is absurd, wait until you see homosexuals trying to "cure" a heterosexual. Is that not what we are now already seeing? I was referring to actually witnessing the attempted cure. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 1, 2015 6:37:37 GMT
Its my family tradition...
And also the Wife's family.
We kind of hitch-up for life around these ideals.
My Mum and Dad were life-long partners since their late teens, until my Dad dies at 65 from Cancer.
His Mum and Dad spent over 70 yrs together, same up three or four generations that we know of, "Until death do we part" is taken kind of seriously?...
OK< so not ALL brothers and Sisters in the family tree have had that luck.
But I was 30 ≈ when I found my current wife, and it looks like we are in this long term.
I had a few relationships that turned out bad, but, it isnt easy, is it?...
This isnt a religion thing, its just we are bloody serious in my family about finding "The right one", even the one family member who has had three divorces (Because of poor choices of idiots as other half) has now been married for 30 yrs and that looks like a long term choice now....
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 1, 2015 6:53:31 GMT
as for the homosexuality issue, if you think christians trying to "cure" a homosexual is absurd, wait until you see homosexuals trying to "cure" a heterosexual. Is that not what we are now already seeing? That is the main topic of discussion here, as we all remember instances of that in our lives. I have lived and worked with no actual problems with other peoples private life. In fact, one of my first encounters with a Gay person was more of a worry to him than me, he finally picked up courage to tell me, and was rather shocked by my response, ... "I know, it doesnt affect me in any way, your a good friend, I hope that continues better now you have told me that". He was absurdly worried I would turn my back on him?... Silly sod. I liked him as a work mate, I would willingly spend time with him as a friend, hos personal life was his personal life, we both had partners, just his was another man, and mine was a woman.... So what?. After that, I have adopted the zero reaction to news that a friend may be gay. Is it supposed to change the way we view them?... I dont know, it has never been of any concern to me. Unless, as we have already pointed out, its a predatory agenda seeking change the world type... And there are a few of them on Duke street Manchester. I have worked there, as bar and cellar staff, it can be fun, but the ones that get all agenda seeking, that attracts a lot of disapproval by the genuine Gay community. AS a whole, now they have somewhere they can go, they dont want to endanger that. In that community, I am (Was?) seen as Me. Thats not Gay, thats not Straight, thats just "I am Bwian", someone who is just who I am. So in saying all that, the point I am making, extremes are not wanted. The extreme homophobic is not welcome, but the extreme straight-o-phobe, the one who is determined to turn all straight people gay, they are equally unwelcome.... So what is this emergence of the ones who WILL demonstrate?.. Who are they and where did they come from?. How come the usual base of gentle gay community who just wanted their own space have been turned into a predatory source to alter the whole world?... The Manchester Gay Pride festival that happens every year is JUST a carnival. Its not political in any way... Or rather, it hasnt been..... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2015 14:19:08 GMT
as I commented before - my hometown used to have the "redhead roundup" (in english that would be the "ginger grouping" or some such)
it was deemed to be in poor taste, because it included a beauty competition between guys and girls in swimsuits.
now we have the "Iris festival" which is a gay pride event, and it is okay,, because it has guys and girls wearing each other's swimsuits.
the mayor who started it said a gay pride event is a good event, because gay people have more money than straight people.
my dad commented that if she really wanted to attract people with money she would host the Republican National Committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2015 14:29:30 GMT
my dad commented that if she really wanted to attract people with money she would host the Republican National Committee. At least they wouldn't show up in cross-dressing swimsuits. |
|
