cjd5050
-
Posts
846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by cjd5050
-
-
20 hours ago, Durhamite said:
I think you're in the world of ideals and not really separating freedom of speech from reality. It's all fine and dandy if such events can occur without incident but that's not always the case. If indeed civil order isn't possible (much proven when the KKK and White Supremacy groups are center stage), Law and Order takes precedence even it means shutting it down before or during the event. This group or groups in particular infuriate a coalition of people, almost to the point that is uncontrollable by law enforcement. There are no group(s) of any other kind in American history that compare in size and legacy, so any equivalency in treatment is pure lunacy or straight ignorance. And if indeed other group or groups pose such a high threat to civil order, the same rules apply to "freedom of speech".
So when Black Lives Matter and other supporters came to Charlotte to protest and those protests turned to riots, are you suggesting that BLM should not have been allowed to protest in the first place? Because using your logic (without a political bias) it reads as if you're saying freedom of speech needs to be limited when civil order isn't possible. The same can be said for Antifa and you're free to go research the violence there. Just search Antifa + Portland.
I personally don't agree with anything the KKK, BLM, Antifa or any other extreme organization thinks but I don't want to live in a place where those that I oppose have their voice suppressed because some don't have the emotional wherewithal to disagree with their views without turning to counter violence.
I also am a full supporter to law and order and I agree that once a group moves past peaceful protest and to destructive behavior they should not only be stopped but they should be dealt with by law enforcement to the fullest extent. I think the difference is some here want to remove the freedom of speech on the grounds that it's possible or probable for destructive behavior and that's wrong for many reasons. The biggest is that once you cross that line in the sand, hypocrites or intolerant voices can suppress others under the guise of public safety. Which, unless I am wrong, is what you're suggesting.
The freedom to stand in public and express your views is not the same as the freedom to do whatever you want because you have views. So in the case of the RNC, I don't have any issue with a highly controlled free speech zone or zones. I don't have a problem with the city denying protests that would have movement and create unnecessary risk to the public at large. But this is where I stop.
-
On 8/1/2018 at 8:03 PM, elrodvt said:
I didn't respond to your prior post because it made no sense and I know you will not change.
Which is exactly how I feel about some of your comments. I didn't agree with them, didn't like them and didn't see the need to respond...so I just downvoted. We did exactly the same thing but you feel the need to complain about the very actions you take. So I pointed out your hypocrisy.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult. It's an observation. Calling someone an asshole is an insult. You asked if it was a good idea to allow the freedom of speech. I said it was because I don't want hypocrisy to rule what can and can't be said. Since your a hypocrite, I don't want someone like you having a say over what others say. Especially since you're unable to see the difference.
-
2 hours ago, kickazzz2000 said:
People like you are not interested in discussion with assholes.
Sniff. Watch out, there are some here who are really sensitive about words. I on the other hand fully support your right to your opinion.
-
1 hour ago, elrodvt said:
So you think it was a good idea to give a permit for the Charlottesville white supremacist march through town? @jtmonk has a good post above on what goes into the planning. Obviously these are hard decisions. But they are made all the time in our city via who gets permits for rally's and where. I for one would not want to watch our police force clash with white supremacists and all the people they inflamed on the nightly news. Won't be good for the city at all.
I think Freedom of Speech is a right and it's not always pretty. I also didn't suggest that any group be allowed to march through town. I absolutely don't want people like you controlling what can and can't be said as that's a very dangerous slope.
1 hour ago, elrodvt said:BTW, it's not that hard to read someones questions without downvoting the post. I didn't insult other forum members or rant using fowl language. I guess I should just count on your downvotes as a badge of honor at this point.
This again? Remember when you whined about me downvoting you without leaving a comment and I then showed you how you did the same exact thing before and continue to do? You can take my downvotes any way you like but your hypocrisy is honestly impressive. Sad but still impressive.
The insulting that goes on in this forum is widespread but the majority of it is to directed to people who are not here. I guess it's easier for cowards to fight shadows and all. Your biggest challenge is that you actually think of yourself as more righteous than you actually are and if you're uncomfortable with a direct reply to your words then I am not sure what to say.
-
On 7/30/2018 at 10:34 PM, elrodvt said:
OTH I am for letting anyone have a chance to hold a rally and speak their mind as long as it is not overtly racist or discriminatory. No klan or anti gay stuff. Tough to arbitrate as FB is finding out.
Heh. So you're for freedom of speech...that you agree with. That's not how it works. Well, that's how it worked in some places in the past but I'm not sure you understand that fully. History is our best teacher... Freedom of speech is not free from consequences but I sure as hell don't want to live in a society where a group of people armed with nothing but loud voices and powered by political correctness gets to decide what can and can't be talked about in public.
If someone wants to say racist, anti-gay remarks or anti-police remarks you want that to be on the biggest stage and under the brightest spotlight. That's how you end evil. You expose it rather than pushing it away. You confront it rather than trying to down it out. I think if white supremacists or antifa or the blue man group want to rally, let them. Don't allow them to cover their face. Put them in a dedicated area. Build a stage. Setup a spotlight and turn on the camera.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, elrodvt said:
^If your goal is to make sure no one wants to have a discussion with you mission accomplished.
People like you are not interested in discussion.
-
17 hours ago, mpretori said:
I'm waiting on a video of Hillary acting the fool like Jason. And don't slander me and put words in my mouth. The party that wanted Jason to represent them needs to step up and up their standards. Why always retract to Hillary. Who said "N##er, put camera's up peoples robes, slandered Asians, and yelled homophobic slurs all in one disgusting video? Jason Spenser under the GOP.
So we're comparing a State legislature to Clinton? Comical. Team Clinton is home to Huma and Anthony 'I want to send my d*ck picks to underage girls' Weiner and Harvey 'suck my d*ck for a part' Weinstein. That's not only the party of Clinton but her freaking inner circle. This is the same woman who let her husband ram a cigar up an intern...and stayed with him...because that's where the power was. The very same people who are getting into a lather about Trump saying 'grab her by the p*ssy' are the very same disingenuous and hypocritical slim that standby liberals who do the same or worse.
Then...oh this is the best part...then when she runs for President she runs on a 'woman's power' pitch and freaking morons (many here) buy into 'I'm with her' all of the way and look the other way at all of her transgressions. That's your party. That's your problem.
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, southslider said:
I avoid labels like Fascist. I just know being anti-immigrants is simply un-American. We are THE nation of immigrants. It is our strength. A welcoming place of opportunity for all has and shall forever be what makes our nation unique in the world.
There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. It takes 5 to 10 years to legally gain a visa to the US on average. We have people all around the globe currently in line and waiting their turn.
How is it un-American to fully support, want to expand and even streamline the process of legal immigration, while at the same time, not be in favor of illegal immigration? Why should someone from Latin America get preferential treatment than someone from Asia or Africa?
-
On 7/20/2018 at 5:03 PM, elrodvt said:
I know that's the FOX news/ Hannity line. I hope you come to realize the fringes on each side are grossly over reported right now especially by FOX. Maybe watching PBS news, BBC or some other credible & independent source would help you. Oh - I don't think you, of all people, should get all offended and call someone a jerk and make hyper aggressive posts while at the same time trying to pretend you have an open mind.
1I don't watch FOX. I don't subscribe to cable. I also don't like to be spoon fed my news by broadcasters regardless of lean. Maybe that's your cup of coffee.
You really should think of a better hand than 'what you're saying is on Fox so I can dismiss it'....but I don't expect much more from you.
-
On 7/20/2018 at 5:59 PM, kermit said:
You invoke sins of the past an awful lot. Regardless of what may or may not have happened back in the day I cannot travel back in time to change any of it.
What I can do is get pissed off and fight the fascism I see today. I am going to be an intolerant a-hole about kids in cages and the other sins of the present. If you have a problem with that then I guess I'll need to take 'people like you' off my Christmas card list.
So, in other words, you don't care about the issue as long as it's someone who agrees with you politically. You may be too arrogant to understand this but that's exactly what you're saying. It's pathetic.
-
1 hour ago, Crucial_Infra said:
Never have we seen so many cities just flat out drop out of the running for this type of an event. And the reason is that DJT is a pariah and a troublemaker and a cancer and the most divisive national politician the country has seen since George Wallace. This is not a left-right issue. Polarization will continue of course but unless the GOP goes full on Trumpism in the future, this is a one-off occurrence.
2Cities dropped out of hosting the event because they didn't want the violent protests that happen in places like Portland and Seattle but would have the risk of being 10X for the convention. What I am saying is the people who do protest are not going to go away. The polarization is here to stay because to the fringe a-holes anything to the left or right of them is wrong...even if those people are in the middle.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, kermit said:
Geee whizz, I am so sorry that I interpreted this:
to not mean: " What I am saying is the political divide exists because there are a-holes on both sides. " I just don't know what I could have been thinking.
Honestly it was this well-endowed strawman that triggered this snowflake:
Your implication that the left is out of bounds for protesting kids in cages because the government is "just enforcing immigration policies" was a bit much for me -- I am not going to be "non-agressive" in the face of fascism. But by all means, feel free to blame me for all of the current problems in the country.
4First off, many of the images that melt snowflakes like you are from 2014 when Barry was in office. Is Barry a fascist as well? I'll understand if you can't do the mental gymnastics needed to excuse the actions of the previous administration but hold the current accountable. The full picture doesn't matter to people like you. At best, you like to make the quip. At worst, you like the excuse to be an intolerant a-hole. But those are issues you need to work out.
This doesn't excuse the actions of the current administration. Rather, it just shows that people are too stupid and too focused on validating their feelings to seek the truth. It shouldn't happen. Full Stop. So while I don't think the far left is out of bounds in protesting these actions...I do take their outrage and your outrage with a grain of salt because it's manufactured, ignorant and has the depth of a puddle.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
16 minutes ago, kermit said:^ Let the record reflect that cjd blames the current political divide entirely on the left.
On another note: A massive windfall awaits the first two or three gritty entrepreneurs to open Russian restaurants in town.
1Get the hell out of here with that crap. Nowhere did I claim that but thank you for helping me prove how some people can take a rational comment or view and have the premise ignored and replied to with a curt and unproductive response. Well done guy!
What I am saying is the political divide exists because there are a-holes on both sides. Some might not be able to see this but that's usually because there are not mirrors everywhere.
There is a level of aggressiveness and a lack of civility that goes way beyond Trump. This goes both ways of course but the fact remains that our societies DNA has been changed. Civility has been under attack for years and it's completely gone now. The previous comment from @Crucial_Infra was suggesting that the only reason the hostility exists today is a response to just Trump and that when Trump is gone this hostility will go away. That's pretty naive I feel.
Hating on 'Trump' is too good of a fundraiser and too good of a rallying cry for it to go away. Whoever is put on the ticket on either side is going to face the same going forward. We just don't know the names yet but the names don't matter.
It's just too easy and commonplace to be a jerk and not bother to consider a view from someone who doesn't think exactly like you....as you have so wonderfully demonstrated.
-
5
-
1 hour ago, Crucial_Infra said:
Honestly I don't see why that would ruffle anyone's feathers. Of course Charlotte should be bidding for both conventions on the regular. This year was different for what should be obvious reasons. I support the RNC coming but I completely understand people being wary. I don't expect it to be like that in the future as it's hard to imagine either party ever having a nominee as polarizing as this one again.
I wish I could agree but, sadly, I think that the vitriol against Trump is not going to go away once Trump exits stage left. While he makes it very, very easy to hate him a lot of his policies or views are shared by many on the right.
For example, anyone that suggests the US should enforce our immigration policies, allow for legal immigration and the use of ICE to deport illegal immigrants is going to be called a racist, nazi or whatever term is being used now. Or anyone that supports police is somehow racist and a nazi for supporting terrorists.
For what you think to happen actually be possible would require all the voices on the left to be rational, sensible and non-aggressive. Since that's not a reality....the hate and vitriol that exists is here to stay I fear.
-
4
-
-
Looking at just the games tonight and Saturday, many of the sections (especially good seats along the baselines) are completely sold out. The same empty sections pictured above.
My inference is that the Knights have a problem with selling too many season tickets. I would bet that most of these seats are owned by companies or people who don't have the desire to go to every game in a minor league season. So they make an effort to give away the tickets when they can but don't really have a problem with letting them go to waste due to the low cost. The good news is this allows Charlotte to claim solid attendance. The bad news is empty seats mean empty concession stands.
What Charlotte should do is similar to what the Buffalo Sabres did in creating a season ticket holder exchange. The Sabres allow season ticket holders to return unwanted season tickets in exchange for points at the team store. They then turn around and open the premium seats for sale outside of sites like StubHub. Many buyers don't want to pay the StubHub fees and many sellers simply don't want to be bothered with a process. Making an exchange could help this.
-
2
-
-
Something to consider here. It's not crazy to think that the RNC might return to Charlotte in the next 20 years as a thank you for 2020. Especially if the city can pull the event off with class.
I know that possibility might ruffle some feathers but it's possible and good business. Charlotte should be bidding for both conventions every 4 years moving forward.
-
2 hours ago, stiluvclt said:
I am truly surprised, after all of this construction time that the CLT website has not updated their maps. C'mon man!
The guy in charge of technology doesn't have any formal technical education and his linkedin reads more like a process management person than a technologist. It shouldn't be shocking at all that CLT has a horrible website.
-
2
-
-
I think it would be pretty silly to rush the development of this hotel for a single event. Construction costs are too high right now and any revenues from the convention would surely be eaten up in 'rush' fees on the process.
That said, if I was high up at Duke I would absolutely try and push the site swap/build new tower during a rate hike under the guise of trying to get the hotel up and running for the convention. Even if I knew it was never going to happen. Once they break ground...delays can happen. After all, just look at Levine.
But that's just me.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CTiger said:
It would be interesting to see an estimate of how much parking revenue the light rail would actually eliminate. Where are the people that park in the lots at CLT actually coming from? I feel like the parking lots mostly serve people flying out of Charlotte that live further outside the city and wouldn't be served by a light rail that connects to uptown anyways. The light rail, in my opinion, would be more of an alternative for the crowd that Ubers, taxis, or has people drop them at the terminal. Or people with long layovers as an easy way to get to and from the city. But hey, that's just a hunch.
I think this is a completely reasonable conclusion and I agree with it. That said, my fear is that irrational concerns about lost revenue would be in play.
It's why I suggested some sort of transfer fee to use the 'people mover' at the airport. At worst it would offset parking revenue reduction. At best it would open another revenue source to help the airport. I know people who have a 9hr layover in Charlotte and spending an extra $1 on top of whatever the rail pass cost be would be a no-brainer for them to pass the time somewhere uptown.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, nicholas said:
I agree. I left a comment (under the optional comment box) saying the same thing. Not sure what it's worth, or if anyone will even read it, but hopefully if we make enough noise, CATS will realize how ridiculous it would be to not connect the light rail directly to the airport.
I wonder if the airport has been asking for this to not happen or not make it as easy as we would like. The CO showed that parking was the #1 funding source for CLT and is more than 27 percent of the airport’s revenue. That's a lot of money that might go away with light rail access.
I don't know if this is done in any other city but I wouldn't mind some sort of added charge for an airport transfer that could be waived for employees. I want rail but also want to keep CLT chugging along.
-
3 hours ago, kermit said:
For both proposals:
- The very long run between the last Mecklenburg stop (Sam Wilson) and Belmont suggests that Gaston plans to pay a big $$$ to get rail across the river
I am very happy on this if true.
-
3
-
2 hours ago, UPNoDa said:
One would assume with all the Millennials we have moving here that there would be no shortage of "Graphic Designers" capable of creating a decent logo....sheeesh!!
The problem is not with finding people capable of creating good work. The problem is having people in charge of the bid process who have a clue as to what they doing and are able to select the right agency.
My agency was requested to submit on a RFP for a website rebuild on a top 30 airport. The person in charge of the process was clueless and was only in their position because they understood basic web development 25 years ago and knew more than the person who hired them to be the 'webmaster'...as that person knew nothing about web development. Because of bureaucracy, this incompetent person was able to not only keep their job but increase their role simply by fumbling through regional agencies to do the work for them at with very expensive rates. After a 30-minute phone call, I determined it would be a complete waste of time to even submit and the expectations they had on the project were off base. Later found out the project took 50% longer than expected and cost twice as much as expected.
-
1 hour ago, allthingsplanes said:
In fact, the NYT numbers were updated as of August 2017. The Politico numbers were as of December 2016.
https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/north-carolina/
So actually, it looks like the response was correct and he didn't get the majority of votes in NC either. Wikipedia agrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_North_Carolina,_2016
I was simply saying that the data sources being used here in this discussion have a variance and that @Popsickle was a bit out of line complaining about looking at data when the data they sourced actually backed up the comment made by @grodney and that correct on 5 of his 6 states it appears.
To set the record straight, the FEC released the Offical General Election Results: https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf
Shows for NC:
- Clinton: 2,189,316 > 46.1%
- Trump: 2,362,631 > 49.8%
- Total: 4,741,564
This is the same data that the NYT is using. Politico and NPR are showing incorrect data. Most amusing is CNN is using the correct vote count but showing the incorrect %.
The largest takeaway is we all have too much time on our hands.
-
1
-
24 minutes ago, Popsickle said:
Since you cannot be bothered to actually look at the data.
To be fair, grodney made a claim on 6 states. 5 of the 6 were correct using 1 of the 2 sources you cited to start. The first link you sourced shows a different set of numbers and supports their claim.
So that's 6 states over 2 sources for a total of 12 data points. Of which Grodney was correct on 91% on. That's the only majority I see here. I don't think it's fair to claim they didn't bother to look at the data.
Republican National Convention in Charlotte
in Charlotte Coffee House
Posted
This word is the problem. You think it's OK to prevent speech because something might happen in the future or something happened in the past. That's not clear and present danger. That's wrong.
Not allowing people the freedom of speech to 'preclude' potential violence from happening is suppression and that is exactly what has been suggested be done in this thread. The conversation is about if suppression should happen or not. It's not about the actual suppression of speech. Mostly because 'the law' understands the law.
I can absolutely compare these hateful groups to each other. Hate is hate and violence is violence and it doesn't matter if there is 200 years of history or 2 years to me.