So it's come to this?

[Douchepool]

I gotta say, Bean...you've become a farce to read as of late. I'd even go as far as to say you're trolling. Whatever good points you have are being ignored in favor of the skirted non-answers and ad hominems you insist on responding with. Just another reminder that conservatives are just as loony as liberals. I mean hey, I agree with next to nothing offered by sweetdudejim and Bubbly Waves and Rocky Raccoon and such...and yet they can offer some kind of discussion as opposed to meandering dribble.

Food for thought, perhaps?

[the captain]

Yep. As a wise man--ok, a man--recently said of the character posting:

I keep waiting for you to break character and admit you've just been doing a bit.

[Bean Bag]

What's really the farce though?  Me or politics?  And don't give me an ego.

Political banter between two poles is the ultimate "food fight" after a certain point.  Consider it "sped up" considerably.

[Jim V.]

So, are we to believe you need it bad? 

Yes. Very badly. Guess I'm not gonna get it though, which likely just means you can't find a way to spin the 2000 Supreme Court decision into something patriotic, non-political and not activist while talking sh*t about the "five (sometimes six) total loser lawyers in robes engaging in 'judicial activism' and ruling by fiat."

What's really the farce though?  Me or politics? 

It's you, Bags. You're the farce.

Whereas people like Jason (The Real Beach Boy) and others are able to actually engage in discussion and call people out on sometimes troubled logic, you just decide to plug your ears and yell "la-la-la-la BENGHAZI la-la-la-la."

[Bean Bag]

Well, fine.  Actually, no -- not fine -- I disagree.  I'm not the farce.  Let's put it to the board.

Who's got more substance -- Bean Bag or SweetdudeJim?  I'm votin' for yours truly.

[alf wiedersehen]

let's hug it out, guys

[Bean Bag]

   It's all good... it's come to this.

That's the thread title -- "So it's come to this..." So we're on topic.  A woman goes to jail, for stubbornly defending the State Constitution, the wishes of the People and the Legislative Process of her state -- and the oath of her religion.  And she goes to jail.  Yeah... America, it's come to this.

And here... Sweetdudejim challenges me to put my money where my mouth is -- and what, predict the election?  Sounds like it's come to this.  He asks me Obama's religion.  Oh yeah, we're there.  He asks me about 15 year old SCoTUS rulings that have nothing to do with what we're talking about... well, we have arrived.  So it's time to wrap all this up and give him his answer.

Jason and The Captain voted.  I voted.  He hasn't.  2-1, he's in the lead.  But I think he's getting nervous...  

[the captain]

I didn't vote for anything. I said you seem like you're doing an act, like a caricature. But I'm not putting anyone against anyone, picking people over others, or any of that nonsense. I'd just like to see some honest, respectful, informed discussion instead of petty attacks, cable news talking points, and silly pictures.

[Bean Bag]

I gotta say, Bean...you've become a farce to read as of late. I'd even go as far as to say you're trolling. Whatever good points you have are being ignored in favor of the skirted non-answers and ad hominems you insist on responding with. Just another reminder that conservatives are just as loony as liberals. I mean hey, I agree with next to nothing offered by sweetdudejim and Bubbly Waves and Rocky Raccoon and such...and yet they can offer some kind of discussion as opposed to meandering dribble.

Food for thought, perhaps?

Thanks for the advice, really.  I appreciate it.  I don't want to get too far off topic, but since you brought me up, I'll reluctantly respond.  First, the world of politics seldom has more meat in its debates than what you've been getting here.  By that I mean, you should be able to extropolate these exchanges out to the larger whole.

Second, the trolling thing.  I never understand why I get that occasionally, but that's fine.  Just understand that in politics, it's seldom a discussion, and there are different methods, and people have different needs.  Some folks like a debate and can engage, but most -- and I do mean most -- just have opinions.  And that's 100% perfectly fine.  Preferable actually.  Let's hear 'em.  God Almighty, let's hear those opinions!  

Between you and me -- people have been silent for far too long.  Everybody has an opinion on these issues, I know they do, but they're silenced by bullies.

So... a political thread, 99% of the time (up slightly from a regular thread), appears to erode.  Bullies don't want other opinions heard OR people have the strangest expectations about a political exchange.  Right or wrong, usually never comes up.  The debates that carry (drag) on -- seemingly on substance -- actually become a fool's battle of who's got the most fact (or fiction) -- not who's right or wrong.  Or they devolve into who's gonna buckle, stumble or just get "over it" and walk away.

I honestly don't know what these televised "Presidential Debates" are, by the way.  Yelling from 100 feet away?  Drive-by exchanges at 50 mph?  The format better change before someone gets good at it.

Anyway... it's best to accept and manage these strange, but real "realities" and bring as many along as you can.  For me, it's key to remain civil and passionate -- even if those objectives appear to be at odds.  They say respect has to be earned, correct?  Everyone has an opinion -- but no one has to respect the actual opinion.  And if we're dishing out opinions, it should be spicy.

Let's close with an example.  Loaf and I had a healthy exchange on abortion.  Passion, opinions and emotion were exchanged.  He acted like he had respect for me from the outset.  But if respect has to be earned, it's likely he was only being courteous.  And it was therefore, likely a tactic, method or practice.  A respectable one and he did a good job with it -- that is, he didn't "break character."  At least not in that exchange.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I gotta say, Bean...you've become a farce to read as of late. I'd even go as far as to say you're trolling. Whatever good points you have are being ignored in favor of the skirted non-answers and ad hominems you insist on responding with. Just another reminder that conservatives are just as loony as liberals. I mean hey, I agree with next to nothing offered by sweetdudejim and Bubbly Waves and Rocky Raccoon and such...and yet they can offer some kind of discussion as opposed to meandering dribble.

Food for thought, perhaps?

Thanks for the advice, really.  I appreciate it.  I don't want to get too far off topic, but since you brought me up, I'll reluctantly respond.  First, the world of politics seldom has more meat in its debates than what you've been getting here.  By that I mean, you should be able to extropolate these exchanges out to the larger whole.

Second, the trolling thing.  I never understand why I get that occasionally, but that's fine.  Just understand that in politics, it's seldom a discussion, and there are different methods, and people have different needs.  Some folks like a debate and can engage, but most -- and I do mean most -- just have opinions.  And that's 100% perfectly fine.  Preferable actually.  Let's hear 'em.  God Almighty, let's hear those opinions!   

Between you and me -- people have been silent for far too long.  Everybody has an opinion on these issues, I know they do, but they're silenced by bullies.

So... a political thread, 99% of the time (up slightly from a regular thread), appears to erode.  Bullies don't want other opinions heard OR people have the strangest expectations about a political exchange.  Right or wrong, usually never comes up.  The debates that carry (drag) on -- seemingly on substance -- actually become a fool's battle of who's got the most fact (or fiction) -- not who's right or wrong.  Or they devolve into who's gonna buckle, stumble or just get "over it" and walk away.

I honestly don't know what these televised "Presidential Debates" are, by the way.  Yelling from 100 feet away?  Drive-by exchanges at 50 mph?  The format better change before someone gets good at it.

Anyway... it's best to accept and manage these strange, but real "realities" and bring as many along as you can.  For me, it's key to remain civil and passionate -- even if those objectives appear to be at odds.  They say respect has to be earned, correct?  Everyone has an opinion -- but no one has to respect the actual opinion.  And if we're dishing out opinions, it should be spicy.

Let's close with an example.  Loaf and I had a healthy exchange on abortion.  Passion, opinions and emotion were exchanged.  He acted like he had respect for me from the outset.  But if respect has to be earned, it's likely he was only being courteous.  And it was therefore, likely a tactic, method or practice.  A respectable one and he did a good job with it -- that is, he didn't "break character."  At least not in that exchange.

“A man ... thinks that by mouthing hard words, he proves that he understands hard things." - H. Melville

[Bean Bag]

Did I use hard words? 

I take it that's a vote for the other candidate...

[Bean Bag]

Where's Sweetdeude?  You know, they say a non-vote is a vote for the winner.     Which in this case is still him, not me... but you get my point.

[Mike's Beard]

Compare the story in this link and the OP I started.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/geller-muslim-stewardess-refuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/

[Bean Bag]

Compare the story in this link and the OP I started.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/geller-muslim-stewardess-refuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/

If it were 1930 and the woman (who refused to serve alcohol in the article, based on a religious thing) became a flight attendant, where refusing to serve alcohol wouldn't have been an issue, since it was illegal in 1930 -- only to have a radical, mentally-challenged Supreme Court grant itself the authority to wield a magic wand and legislate from the bench (oh be nice!) then the woman should be granted some sympathy, right?  In my scenario, the poor woman would have had her job redefined by a bunch loons, prancing around in robes, thinking themselves magical wizards from a far away land.

But, in this case, the ding-dong took the job knowing what the job was -- a flying bartender.  So she's a nut.  And in a sane society this nut should be laughed at.  But these days... who knows.  The inmates run the asylum.  And if her case were to ever get to the "geniuses" at SCOTUS -- anything can happen.  They may even make her Speaker Of The House.   

[filledeplage]

Compare the story in this link and the OP I started.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/geller-muslim-stewardess-refuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/

If it were 1930 and the woman (who refused to serve alcohol in the article, based on a religious thing) became a flight attendant, where refusing to serve alcohol wouldn't have been an issue, since it was illegal in 1930 -- only to have a radical, mentally-challenged Supreme Court grant itself the authority to wield a magic wand and legislate from the bench (oh be nice!) then the woman should be granted some sympathy, right?  In my scenario, the poor woman would have had her job redefined by a bunch loons, prancing around in robes, thinking themselves magical wizards from a far away land.

But, in this case, the ding-dong took the job knowing what the job was -- a flying bartender.  So she's a nut.  And in a sane society this nut should be laughed at.  But these days... who knows.  The inmates run the asylum.  And if her case were to ever get to the "geniuses" at SCOTUS -- anything can happen.  They may even make her Speaker Of The House.   

This issue defied logic for me.  Serving alcohol seems to be an "essential function" of the job.  And the woman was looking for a "reasonable accommodation" from this. 

Most airlines don't even serve food any longer, so "beverage service" and safety, seem to be the essential functions. 

[rogerlancelot]

A psychedelic video for a piece of mine called "So It's Come To This" from last year, best with headphones:

https://youtu.be/HItDv7OHL6o

[SMiLE Brian]

So it's come to that!!!

[Bean Bag]

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

vote=Bean Bag

[Fire Wind]

Apparently, she was working for the airline before she converted to Islam (two years ago), at which time she came to an agreement with the airline about the alcohol thing, an agreement that seems to be undone since another attendant complained.

[filledeplage]

Apparently, she was working for the airline before she converted to Islam (two years ago), at which time she came to an agreement with the airline about the alcohol thing, an agreement that seems to be undone since another attendant complained.

Interesting.  That dispute might have arisen if there was a collective bargaining agreement, and representing a "change in working conditions" that had not been negotiated.  Someone in the industry might know better. Often a worker can make a side deal with a boss, that is satisfactory to both of "those parties" but which undermines the rights of the group involved as a whole. 

The flip side is that management might encourage this because it "sticks it to the union" because it is acting "outside of the negotiated" contract.  A better way might be to involve the union with the management, then everyone is on the same page.