RSS

The Big Red Machine takes on Macy’s… well, sorta.

20 Sep

After their clusterfuck gig as bouncers at Altamont, one might be given to wonder what the Hell’s Angels motorcycle club’s next attempt at a legitimate business enterprise might be. Well, wonder no more. It’s retail merchandising in Toronto. WalMart watch out! Seriously dudes, watch out.

Advertisements
 
4 Comments

Posted by on September 20, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

4 responses to “The Big Red Machine takes on Macy’s… well, sorta.

  1. Jake Goldblum

    October 4, 2013 at 7:38 am

    really annoying the conversation over there. They are claiming ACA is not constitutional. Does anyone read any article saying it is not constitutional? i agree it is a tax but that is what makes it constitutional. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did the same thing in my mind and many other supreme court rulings.

     
    • Cluster

      October 4, 2013 at 7:56 am

      Jake,

      The SC did not rule on the constitutionality of the entire bill, just that of the “fine”, as advertised and sold by Obama and the Democrats. And fortunately for Obama, the SC, specifically Roberts, redefined the “fine”, to be that of a “tax”, and ruled it to be acceptable. The question is, had Obama and the Democrats advertised and sold the fine as a tax, would it have passed?

       
    • mitchethekid

      October 4, 2013 at 9:53 am

      Citizens United was one of the worst decisions the SC ever made. As a result, it lent some credence to Romney’s absurd claim that “corporations are people”. The tax on the ACA applies only if one doesn’t have health insurance. And although I don’t understand the reasoning behind it, an argument can be made that those who choose not to have insurance become more a burden on society. i.e. clogged emergency rooms.
      On the other subject you mentioned let me give you some insight into the woman to whom you refer. In her mind, she is more of an expert on the Constitution than those who wrote it. There is no doubt that she has a bright mind and has superior vocabulary skills, but because she is hyper-sensitive to criticism; and haughty as well, she uses these skills to excoriate those who either challenge her or make counter-arguments. And I don’t know if you have noticed, but she uses terms that describe animal behavior and applies them to people as a pejorative. I find it ironic that someone with her verbal skills knows nothing about the nature of language. Allow me to explain.
      All words are metaphors including conjunctions. This is a universal truth no matter if one speaks English or Chinese. Language is intrinsically involved in human evolution. There are many reasons why, but the most obvious is that because of language; at first spoken and then written (an entire other subject) experiencecould be passed along from one generation to the next. With that said, as all words a metaphors, there is a certain amount of subjectivity, ambiguity and nuance involved as well. Not to mention that the written word cannot express voice inflection, tone or body language. To be simplistic about it, this is why attourneys interpret contracts and SC justice’s try to divine the intent and meaning of those whom wrote the Constitution. But sadly, this not so nice woman demands absolute, irrefutable, immutable clarity as to the meaning of words, never recognizing that like all things, language evolves. And at times it can be very confusing as to what conceptually is being communicated. Here is an example.
      Imagine you are sitting at a desk, taking a test. On the desk there is an instruction booklet and 3 objects. A circle, a square and a circle with a square afixed to it. (One object with 2 pieces). You open the instruction booklet and it says “move the circle with the square”. What do you do?
      A few yrs back there was a book written entitled “Eats Shoots and Leaves. But it was more about how commas (again a written metaphor for a pause in vocalized speech patterns) change the intent and meaning of sentences.

       
  2. Jake Goldblum

    October 4, 2013 at 8:13 am

    find an article that states it is not constitutional? You cannot- the answer is irrelevant because it is already constitutional and they did what it took to get it passed. Whether you like it or not the law is the law. you can try to change the law but you do not have enough votes right now. So republicans would rather the American government default on it’s loans and destroy America than settle on a law which the supreme court already ruled on

     
 
%d bloggers like this: