|
Post by daywork on Mar 6, 2018 20:35:52 GMT -5
LOL I don't have that couch anymore. My wife hated it, then her little dog started to piss on it. So I got rid of it. If I spent $8k on a couch and my wife’s dog started pissing on it, I would be divorced and arrested for animal cruelty.... you are a better man than me. Out of curiosity, what would a nice 3/2 house in a good neighborhood rent for where you are at? A 3/2 aprox 1800 sqft in a good school area. You can get $1700 - $1900 per month. Oh the couch wasn't that comfortable. The down was to hard. But I wouldn't let my wife know that until after we got rid of it. We ended up getting a very nice Italian leather (imported) couch. Its soooo much more comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 6, 2018 20:47:59 GMT -5
If I spent $8k on a couch and my wife’s dog started pissing on it, I would be divorced and arrested for animal cruelty.... you are a better man than me. Out of curiosity, what would a nice 3/2 house in a good neighborhood rent for where you are at? A 3/2 aprox 1800 sqft in a good school area. You can get $1700 - $1900 per month. Oh the couch wasn't that comfortable. The down was to hard. But I wouldn't let my wife know that until after we got rid of it. We ended up getting a very nice Italian leather (imported) couch. Its soooo much more comfortable. Jesus that's cheap, I thought you were in an expensive area. Renting here you looking at about 1.25-1.5/sqft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 21:20:13 GMT -5
I just lost a house because of someone like you. I was trying to buy a house for my in-laws (I would rent it to them). The seller wanted to close by the end of this month. At the last second someone offered cash (easy and fast closing). They took that over my higher offer. Must be nice to have cash like that Must be nice to have that couch I understand the appeal of all cash offers, but when you can take the first offer at +$25k and have 2 back up offers above where you want to be, I felt like the owners were mislead by their agent. That's another 5k+ for the agent though...at least with the commission's in my area it is.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Mar 14, 2018 9:15:31 GMT -5
Russian defector dies in London. GB blames Kremlin. Russia hints about not playing stupid games against a nuclear power. London replies by deporting 23 Russian diplomats. World Cup looms and Russia is the host country. Dis gon' b gud.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 14, 2018 23:24:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Mar 15, 2018 5:33:12 GMT -5
"Tonight, how one astronaut planned.....the perfect murder"
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 27, 2018 17:08:45 GMT -5
In response to the bill that puts civil and criminal liabilities on online hosts for their third-party content, Microsoft on May 1st is going to start shutting down Microsoft Office, X-Box, and Skype accounts of anyone who uses offensive language, shares anything involving nudity, criminal acts, or graphic violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 19:14:34 GMT -5
So the fags who send dick pics are gonna lose their Xbox?
More tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 27, 2018 19:21:22 GMT -5
So the fags who send dick pics are gonna lose their Xbox? More tragedy. And people who share pictures of their grow operations (like you), and people who swear, and soldiers or people who skype with their significant others back home in sexy ways. People who talk about firearms in certain ways, people who share certain newsstories.... do you not realize that insane nature of this?
|
|
|
Post by johncfc on Mar 27, 2018 21:31:20 GMT -5
In response to the bill that puts civil and criminal liabilities on online hosts for their third-party content, Microsoft on May 1st is going to start shutting down Microsoft Office, X-Box, and Skype accounts of anyone who uses offensive language, shares anything involving nudity, criminal acts, or graphic violence. I know nothing about this bill. Absolutely nothing. But I do know that whatever you are suggesting or predicting has zero chance of happening. How do I know this? You're retarded and get nothing right.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 27, 2018 21:46:30 GMT -5
In response to the bill that puts civil and criminal liabilities on online hosts for their third-party content, Microsoft on May 1st is going to start shutting down Microsoft Office, X-Box, and Skype accounts of anyone who uses offensive language, shares anything involving nudity, criminal acts, or graphic violence. I know nothing about this bill. Absolutely nothing. But I do know that whatever you are suggesting or predicting has zero chance of happening. How do I know this? You're retarded and get nothing right. Well multiple news sources including Microsoft personally reporting this. I'll grab the first one from google for you... dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/03/27/microsoft-ban-offensive-language-xbox-skype-office-account/quick excerpt
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Mar 28, 2018 4:21:58 GMT -5
So what you're getting at is that the endgame for OD Refugees is a gofundme page to get CnS out of jail for starting this board?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 9:31:35 GMT -5
So the fags who send dick pics are gonna lose their Xbox? More tragedy. And people who share pictures of their grow operations (like you), and people who swear, and soldiers or people who skype with their significant others back home in sexy ways. People who talk about firearms in certain ways, people who share certain newsstories.... do you not realize that insane nature of this? See no insanity as it all relates to publicly visible stuff. Also, I have a PS4. So...dngaf.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 11:10:16 GMT -5
You do understand that it is restricting freedom though, right? What I mean by that is today we are protected by the 1st Amendment to send dick pics but because of a new law, we can no longer send dick pics. Do you see how the protections are shrinking? I know you don't care but you probably should since the umbrella that covers our freedoms is getting smaller.
Just like when one could protest more freely but Bush implemented greater restrictions on free speech zones that limited the peoples right to protest. So yeah, you have free speech but only in the small little area. The freedom we once had is being chipped away little by little and it isn't a slippery slope argument when we can point to a specific example of how when I went to bed yesterday I could send dick pics to a slut bag on Craigslist but wake up today and no longer have that ability because of a law. It doesn't completely destroy my 1st amendment right but it does chip away at the protections I once had.
Even though it doesn't affect me directly, at all. I still don't like to see it happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 11:23:40 GMT -5
You do understand that it is restricting freedom though, right? What I mean by that is today we are protected by the 1st Amendment to send dick pics but because of a new law, we can no longer send dick pics. Do you see how the protections are shrinking? I know you don't care but you probably should since the umbrella that covers our freedoms is getting smaller. Just like when one could protest more freely but Bush implemented greater restrictions on free speech zones that limited the peoples right to protest. So yeah, you have free speech but only in the small little area. The freedom we once had is being chipped away little by little and it isn't a slippery slope argument when we can point to a specific example of how when I went to bed yesterday I could send dick pics to a slut bag on Craigslist but wake up today and no longer have that ability because of a law. It doesn't completely destroy my 1st amendment right but it does chip away at the protections I once had. Even though it doesn't affect me directly, at all. I still don't like to see it happening. No. I understand it as a company, which provides services, dictating how those services are to be used. The 1st does not give you "the right" to send dick pics. In fact, send it to the wrong person, and you could face criminal charges. Place dick pics in publicly accessible spots, and you could face consequences like: Your Xbox account is suspended. Your ability to keep your Xbox account doesn't have fuck all to do with the 1st. It is a private agreement that you enter into with Microsoft. If you don't like the terms, get a PS4. You can still send dick pics. Just that Microsoft and Craigslist aren't going to make it as simple as snapping a photo and firing it off. Pretty sure you can text it without worrying about carrier shutting off your phone. And if Microsoft decides that you using their system to send dick pics is something they have a problem with- your 1st amendment rights are not being violated if they shut your account down because Microsoft is Microsoft, Microsoft is not The Government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 12:19:46 GMT -5
Yes, we all know the 1st protects us from the government. Yes, we all know a business can dictate terms but when they are forced to change their code of conduct or how the provide a service because of said law, it chips away at their freedom as well. I'm not talking about just the consumer, that was an example. The courts have ruled companies "are people too" so their rights are being limited with this law. Microsoft may want to allow you to send dick pics but now they can't because of the liability that comes along with it. Same with Craigslist. They may want you to be able to send dick pics to a slut but now they can't because someone may break the law with that service.
Back to your car point you made earlier. Yes, your insurance will be footing the bill if your buddy wrecks it but you won't be responsible if your buddy is drinking and driving. He is liable for the criminal activity, not you. I don't think it is a great example anyway because you can vet who drives your car, it is nearly impossible to vet everyone that may use your website for nefarious purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Tapout on Mar 28, 2018 12:57:36 GMT -5
Yes, we all know the 1st protects us from the government. Yes, we all know a business can dictate terms but when they are forced to change their code of conduct or how the provide a service because of said law, it chips away at their freedom as well. I'm not talking about just the consumer, that was an example. The courts have ruled companies "are people too" so their rights are being limited with this law. Microsoft may want to allow you to send dick pics but now they can't because of the liability that comes along with it. Same with Craigslist. They may want you to be able to send dick pics to a slut but now they can't because someone may break the law with that service. Back to your car point you made earlier. Yes, your insurance will be footing the bill if your buddy wrecks it but you won't be responsible if your buddy is drinking and driving. He is liable for the criminal activity, not you. I don't think it is a great example anyway because you can vet who drives your car, it is nearly impossible to vet everyone that may use your website for nefarious purposes. 99% of the time, an insurance company will still cover this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 13:00:14 GMT -5
Yes, we all know the 1st protects us from the government. Yes, we all know a business can dictate terms but when they are forced to change their code of conduct or how the provide a service because of said law, it chips away at their freedom as well. I'm not talking about just the consumer, that was an example. The courts have ruled companies "are people too" so their rights are being limited with this law. Microsoft may want to allow you to send dick pics but now they can't because of the liability that comes along with it. Same with Craigslist. They may want you to be able to send dick pics to a slut but now they can't because someone may break the law with that service. Back to your car point you made earlier. Yes, your insurance will be footing the bill if your buddy wrecks it but you won't be responsible if your buddy is drinking and driving. He is liable for the criminal activity, not you. I don't think it is a great example anyway because you can vet who drives your car, it is nearly impossible to vet everyone that may use your website for nefarious purposes. 99% of the time, an insurance company will still cover this. We are talking about being liable for a crime. Not if insurance will cover anything or not.
|
|
|
Post by Tapout on Mar 28, 2018 13:01:56 GMT -5
Sorry I read that wrong. Thought you were saying if your buddy gets drunk, and runs a red light killing three people in your car, the insurance would deny coverage. They wouldn't. They would still pay out of the liability coverage.
Ill shut up now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 13:11:34 GMT -5
Yes, we all know the 1st protects us from the government. Yes, we all know a business can dictate terms but when they are forced to change their code of conduct or how the provide a service because of said law, it chips away at their freedom as well. I'm not talking about just the consumer, that was an example. The courts have ruled companies "are people too" so their rights are being limited with this law. Microsoft may want to allow you to send dick pics but now they can't because of the liability that comes along with it. Same with Craigslist. They may want you to be able to send dick pics to a slut but now they can't because someone may break the law with that service. Back to your car point you made earlier. Yes, your insurance will be footing the bill if your buddy wrecks it but you won't be responsible if your buddy is drinking and driving. He is liable for the criminal activity, not you. I don't think it is a great example anyway because you can vet who drives your car, it is nearly impossible to vet everyone that may use your website for nefarious purposes. It was an analogy, and the analogy is sound. All it involves is ownership of a tool that is used to break the law. My insurance covers it if he crashes my car because I own the car. My insurance would also cover any damages that he incurred while driving my car. Same goes for guns. And now websites. I guess poor Microsoft is going to have to be a little bit more careful about how their services are used. And if you can actually show me anyone whose life was drastically improved by their ability to send dick pics then, you're showing me a fucking loser in the first place so I don't really give a shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 14:30:17 GMT -5
Yes, we all know the 1st protects us from the government. Yes, we all know a business can dictate terms but when they are forced to change their code of conduct or how the provide a service because of said law, it chips away at their freedom as well. I'm not talking about just the consumer, that was an example. The courts have ruled companies "are people too" so their rights are being limited with this law. Microsoft may want to allow you to send dick pics but now they can't because of the liability that comes along with it. Same with Craigslist. They may want you to be able to send dick pics to a slut but now they can't because someone may break the law with that service. Back to your car point you made earlier. Yes, your insurance will be footing the bill if your buddy wrecks it but you won't be responsible if your buddy is drinking and driving. He is liable for the criminal activity, not you. I don't think it is a great example anyway because you can vet who drives your car, it is nearly impossible to vet everyone that may use your website for nefarious purposes. It was an analogy, and the analogy is sound. All it involves is ownership of a tool that is used to break the law. My insurance covers it if he crashes my car because I own the car. My insurance would also cover any damages that he incurred while driving my car. Same goes for guns. And now websites. I guess poor Microsoft is going to have to be a little bit more careful about how their services are used. And if you can actually show me anyone whose life was drastically improved by their ability to send dick pics then, you're showing me a fucking loser in the first place so I don't really give a shit. This is a subjective measure and shouldn't be a criteria to base a decision on. I get it, you don't care. Doesn't mean it isn't starting to limit our protections. That's fine, I just completely disagree. I don't use my personal moral barometer to tell people how to behave if the needle moves to the red so I see people who are affected and say, that's not cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 16:47:09 GMT -5
Limit our protections? Are you kidding me dude? You do realize that the majority of the time, said dick pics were unsolicited in the first place? The Internet has long been considered a wild west type of place. You know what happened to the wild west, right? It got tamed by civilization.
The simple fact of the matter is that this is not nearly the Constitutional issue you're trying to turn it into. If anything, it is forcing companies to be more proactive in making sure their software/service/product is not being used to cause harm. Got no problem with Microsoft complying with the idea that they should be protecting their users and themselves. And I don't give a shit about how YOU make your decisions about this stuff or your moral compass or whatever. Nice virtue signaling on your part, you magnanimous paragon of chaste behavior.
I look at how shit impacts me directly. My ability to speak is not being infringed on, at all. My ability to live the life I want to live: also not infringed on. Call me when I should start actually giving a shit, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 18:11:36 GMT -5
Limit our protections? Are you kidding me dude? You do realize that the majority of the time, said dick pics were unsolicited in the first place? The Internet has long been considered a wild west type of place. You know what happened to the wild west, right? It got tamed by civilization. The simple fact of the matter is that this is not nearly the Constitutional issue you're trying to turn it into. If anything, it is forcing companies to be more proactive in making sure their software/service/product is not being used to cause harm. Got no problem with Microsoft complying with the idea that they should be protecting their users and themselves. And I don't give a shit about how YOU make your decisions about this stuff or your moral compass or whatever. Nice virtue signaling on your part, you magnanimous paragon of chaste behavior. I look at how shit impacts me directly. My ability to speak is not being infringed on, at all. My ability to live the life I want to live: also not infringed on. Call me when I should start actually giving a shit, I guess. I'm not going to call you when you should care because you admitted you could give two shits unless it impacts you which is a shitty way to view life. Call me a virtue signaling douche for all I care. Im not the one saying fuck everybody else, as long as it isn't me. I say leave people alone and you say no, people that participate in these acts are morally depraved so fuck em.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 28, 2018 18:16:58 GMT -5
Limit our protections? Are you kidding me dude? You do realize that the majority of the time, said dick pics were unsolicited in the first place? The Internet has long been considered a wild west type of place. You know what happened to the wild west, right? It got tamed by civilization. The simple fact of the matter is that this is not nearly the Constitutional issue you're trying to turn it into. If anything, it is forcing companies to be more proactive in making sure their software/service/product is not being used to cause harm. Got no problem with Microsoft complying with the idea that they should be protecting their users and themselves. And I don't give a shit about how YOU make your decisions about this stuff or your moral compass or whatever. Nice virtue signaling on your part, you magnanimous paragon of chaste behavior. I look at how shit impacts me directly. My ability to speak is not being infringed on, at all. My ability to live the life I want to live: also not infringed on. Call me when I should start actually giving a shit, I guess. I'm not going to call you when you should care because you admitted you could give two shits unless it impacts you which is a shitty way to view life. Call me a virtue signaling douche for all I care. Im not the one saying fuck everybody else, as long as it isn't me. What shocks me is his complete indifference to the slippery slope of it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 1:36:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Mar 29, 2018 5:12:52 GMT -5
China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman is Lu Kang.
Can he still pull of the horizontal flying pike position rapid kicks move? He's gotta be 50's by now.
(pulling an 'i' out of his first name ain't fooling me)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 8:10:34 GMT -5
I just don't see how your ability to send dick pics somehow suddenly limits your freedom. You do realize that dick pics are most likely offencive to the people receiving them? So you're pissed that people don't have the ability to irritate other folks with their phallus quite as easily as they did last month?
So far this is the only Freedom that you have mentioned being taken away.
You guys kind of sound like petulant children who are upset that they are not allowed to continue to get away with something that they should never have been getting away with in the first place.
I don't see a slippery slope here at all either. Because the issue you guys are talking about is such a big deal that if it was as bad as you are trying to make it sound, there would be a lot more uproar about it.
But, pretty much the only place I see people still complaining about this shit, is here.
Still have no problem holding companies accountable for how Services they provide are used.
If someone's life revolved around sending dick pics to people who didn't want to get them, do I really care if they've been affected by this?
No I don't.
It would be nice if I could open up my son's profile on the PS4 to have access to the PlayStation Network as well as the internet. But the biggest reason I never did that was because there was no way for me to stop people from contacting and possibly sending dick pics.
I guess because I'm on the PlayStation Network I'll still have to worry about that, but it would be nice if I didn't have to and people could stop being fuck tards who are obsessed with trying to get laid. Don't get me wrong, I really like getting laid too. I did last night and again this morning.
Maybe this will force some folks to get a fucking life? Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 29, 2018 11:08:13 GMT -5
I just don't see how your ability to send dick pics somehow suddenly limits your freedom. You do realize that dick pics are most likely offencive to the people receiving them? So you're pissed that people don't have the ability to irritate other folks with their phallus quite as easily as they did last month? So far this is the only Freedom that you have mentioned being taken away. You guys kind of sound like petulant children who are upset that they are not allowed to continue to get away with something that they should never have been getting away with in the first place. I don't see a slippery slope here at all either. Because the issue you guys are talking about is such a big deal that if it was as bad as you are trying to make it sound, there would be a lot more uproar about it. That isn't the only one though. Various beer and firearm trading/selling sites have been shut down, next month people are set to lose their accounts for violent pictures and offensive language, etc... The liability should rest only with the offender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 12:10:20 GMT -5
I just don't see how your ability to send dick pics somehow suddenly limits your freedom. You do realize that dick pics are most likely offencive to the people receiving them? So you're pissed that people don't have the ability to irritate other folks with their phallus quite as easily as they did last month? So far this is the only Freedom that you have mentioned being taken away. You guys kind of sound like petulant children who are upset that they are not allowed to continue to get away with something that they should never have been getting away with in the first place. I don't see a slippery slope here at all either. Because the issue you guys are talking about is such a big deal that if it was as bad as you are trying to make it sound, there would be a lot more uproar about it. That isn't the only one though. Various beer and firearm trading/selling sites have been shut down, next month people are set to lose their accounts for violent pictures and offensive language, etc... The liability should rest only with the offender.Beer is illegal to sell across state lines, and so are firearms....so....again.... Liability should rest with the offender huh? So when the FCC fines a network for inappropriate content, who pays that fine? The network or the writer of the content? (Answer: The Network) The reason the network is on the hook and not the writer is because the network is the one providing the platform for that content to be disseminated. Looks like the same rules shall be imposed on internet companies. And I still don't care!
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Apr 4, 2018 15:52:39 GMT -5
File under, not at all shocking, other than the fact they got caught. dailyreporter.com/2018/04/03/indictment-milwaukees-sonag-bilked-200m-from-federal-contracts/We had some of these accounts into our office for bonds. This sort of DBE scam is very common and there is typically zero incentive for the government entities to actually stop it. In all honesty, most of the people I've worked with in a government capacity (except the engineers) have no actual construction experience and have no idea what is actually happening on construction projects. The engineers know the construction side and have little or no interest in the expansive "Civil Rights" entanglements that command huge resources in most governmental entities. I could go on.
|
|