Dr Winston O'Boogie

Latest Activity

On Apr 17, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Uranium One / Clinton Foundation / obama DoJ corruption" at 09:41 pm
  • posted by gut

    Are you saying you believe an investigation into the foundations and merits of this spying operation is unnecessary?  You're 100% convinced that this was all above board?

    Investigate all you want. That’s fine. I’m saying that framing it as an attempted coup by “deep state” forces (whatever those are) is melodramatic nonsense. 

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Uranium One / Clinton Foundation / obama DoJ corruption" at 09:08 am
  • posted by QuakerOats

     

     

    Looking forward to the pending investigations of those who attempted to throw the election, then attempted the coup, then tried to cover it up.  Nice to hear that Barr will be getting to the bottom of the spying, collusion, and abuse of power.

     

    “The coup”.....

     

    this is Alex Jones, batshit nuts. 

On Apr 12, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Will Trump pardon Assange?" at 01:26 pm
  • posted by QuakerOats

     

    He didn’t hack …….he published some of what was hacked.

     

    Back in the day the Wapo and Times published the Pentagon Papers …they were praised.

     

     

    Totally agree with this.  People like Assange bring a level of scrutiny to government.  Government always claims that its secrets are national secutiry.  But that is an easy cover to assume carte blanche and to abuse power.  If the US prosecutes him, we look like a crooked state that truly does have stuff to hide. - ala Soviet Russia.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 01:19 pm
  • posted by CenterBHSFan

    Not to be rude or anything, but as someone who lived in that area (SF/Marin co.) for years, this is a wildly ignorant statement to make. 

    You could make such a statement about cities like Rohnert Park, Novato or even Sausalito, but not downtown SF.

    I'm just telling you my impression having stayed there for a week.  It wasn't some sort of Eden, but I was expecting to find it much worse than it was.  I don't claim to have an expert view of SF.  It was only my impression - that's all.  I have traveled to lots of big cities and SF doesn't stand out as any bette or worse in terms of urban blight than the average place I've been.  I've seen cleaner, but I've seen worse too.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:16 am
  • posted by QuakerOats

     

     

    Well if you enjoy a 13% state income tax rate, plus high local taxes, plus regulations out the ass, plus a massive liberal administrative state in Sacramento micromanaging everything you do (especially businesses), plus extremely high costs, plus filthy drug-infested sanctuary cities and a boatload of gang bangers, then yes, I can see how some people enjoy it there.

    I don't believe the "filthy drug-infested sanctuary cities and boatload of gang bangers" is truer there than any other large city.  I'd rather walk the streets of SF at night then say the east side of Cleveland or Downtown Birmingham, AL.  

     

    As far a the taxes and regs go, I for one would not want anything to do with those.  But for the countless startup firms and large corporations that chose to headquarter there, they must see it differently.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:12 am
  • posted by like_that

     Most people are leaving (again top 3 outbound rate), because their salaries aren't worth it after taxes.  

    A lot of people are leaving.  "Most" is not correct.  There are 38 million people there.  If "most" were leaving, they would be a lot less.  

     

    There are a lot of people leaving that place, I agree.  But there are millions who chose to stay.  For them, the reasons for staying outweigh those for going.  The original point here was someone asked "why would anyone live there?".   A lot of people  have a lot of reasons for doing so.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:05 am
  • posted by O-Trap

    Were you downtown or in the surrounding areas?  The surrounding areas are quite nice, don't smell, and are actually charming.

    I was expecting that this last time I went, as it didn't occur to me that I'd never been downtown.  When I did arrive there this last time, it was pretty gross.

    I was downtown.  I stayed right next to Union Square.  On a day off, I walked from there to the Presidio.  That route crosses a wide range of neighborhoods.  Some were nice some were not.  But it really didn't seem to be any different than most any other big city.  I saw homeless people, but they didn't seem any more prevalent than Chicago or NYC or Atlanta or plenty of other cities.  I thought things looked pretty nice.  

On Apr 11, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:38 pm
  • posted by O-Trap

    I'm assuming you mean the surrounding area.  The city itself smells like it rains piss.

     

    I spent a week in SF last month.  I hadn't been there in a long time and I expected it to be really bad.  However I did not notice anymore homeless people than I do when traveling to any other big city.  I actually thought the place looked pretty clean.  The only smell I detected was the ocean air.  I came away thinking that SF is still the same beautiful city I remembered.

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:36 pm
  • posted by QuakerOats

    It was once a great state, but over the last 40 years has gone to hell, with the acceleration of that trend occurring in the last 10. 

     

    To you and others it has.  But to many people it has not.  It's a matter of perspective.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:20 pm
  • posted by like_that

    I wonder how long they have been holding this info. 

    posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

    Well, they're there because there are a lot of high paying jobs, they like the weather, they like all of the nature/beauty, the like to do outdoor stuff (mountains, ocean), they like the international vibe of some of the big cities (LA and SF), they want to take advantage of top notch public schools, etc.  It's not for everyone obviously, but there is a reason that almost 15% of the US population lives there.  


    California could be a great state, but the first  bolded part is not why most people are there.  High salary, but they are being pummeled in the ass by taxes.  Bryce Harper turned down SF, because of the taxes.  In SF if your family brings in $117K, you can qualify for low income status.  Also, to the second bolded part, this might be true now, but California also has the highest outbound rate of any state in the country.  I believe they are #2 or #3.  People are getting out, because the policies there are making it unaffordable. California could easily be the best state in this country, but unfortunately the lawmakers there are driving people out. 

     

    I don't see it that way.  If people wanted to buy a bigger house, they'd leave - and many have as you say.  But the people that are there and aren't leaving are satisfied with jobs,.pay, weather, scenery, whatever the case.  The question was why would anyone live there, and I think these are the answers.  I wouldn't live there.  Maybe you wouldn't either.  But the people there chose to be there and they elect the politicians that put he laws in  place that affect taxes.  Speaking with their pocketbooks, these people approve of the way the place is governed.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:39 pm
  • posted by Spock

    Why would anyone live there?

    Well, they're there because there are a lot of high paying jobs, they like the weather, they like all of the nature/beauty, the like to do outdoor stuff (mountains, ocean), they like the international vibe of some of the big cities (LA and SF), they want to take advantage of top notch public schools, etc.  It's not for everyone obviously, but there is a reason that almost 15% of the US population lives there.  

On Apr 9, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 03:11 pm
  • posted by CenterBHSFan

    Not going to post the pic, but Gillette has a new ad out, literally pushing for "fat acceptance". For those who have already seen the ad, you already know and won't click. For those who haven't seen it - the pic displays a morbidly obese woman on a beach. You've been warned.

    https://twitter.com/GilletteVenus/status/1113565570354409473

    Now, I know that there are some cases out there where being overweight is beyond the control of normal means (diet, exercise, surgery, etc.). But propagating this as breaking the rules of society isn't exactly being honest. It goes against the guidelines of good health proven by medicine/science. 

    This is coming in an age where people are protesting against fitness models being displayed on buses lol!
      

    I think this type of ad is horrible.  It's not necessary to "shame" fat people - whatever that means.  At the same time, this obese person is extremely unhealthy.  In order to get that big, you would probably have to have the equivilent of an addiction to junk food.  So to me, it's not really any different than Budweiser featuring late-stage alcoholics in their ads and celebrating them for their "lifestyle choice".  

On Apr 2, 2019:

On Apr 1, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:43 pm
  • posted by QuakerOats

     

    AOC makes Sarah Palin look like Margaret Thatcher.

    No way.  AOC is awful, I'll agree.  But Sarah Palin was horribly clueless and belongs in the same category.  The fact that she could have been a heartbeat away from the big chair is terrifying.  

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:42 pm
  • posted by jmog

    Sadly, I am beginning to believe Sarah Palin was/is smarter than AOC. That's hard to believe.

    Good comparison.  They both seem to have a similar grasp on the complex issues affecting our world.  Maybe Tina Fey can play AOC as well as Palin.  

On Mar 22, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:35 am

  • Reperations is a pandora's box.  Every group has been wronged at some point in history.  The degree of wrong may be different, but what is the minimum threshold deserving of reperations then?  I'm an Irishman born in America because my ancestors were forced to flee Ireland due to famine.  There could be an argument made that had the English not taken control of Ireland thus not greatly contributed to conditions that caused famine, I would not have had to live in the US - I would have been born in Ireland.  So am I owed some sort of reperation from the UK?  Do the Mongols owe reperations for Ghengis Kahn?  If the US government owes reperations to slave decendents, why too don't the government's of the UK, France, Spain and Portugal - along with all of the African countries whose territories were complicit?

     

    The point is you can chase this forever if you want and never arrive at a reasonable solution.  People who live in the US today have great opportunity - more than most anywhere else in the world.  It doesn't matter what race or creed.  Instead of forever living in the past, let's live in today where no one was enslaved by anyone else, where no one alive was a slave owner, etc.

On Mar 7, 2019:

  • Dr Winston O'Boogie replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 05:45 pm
  • posted by gut

    Well, there's a hierarchy of identity politics on the Left....and Jewish is below Muslim.

    Antisemitism is very common among adherents to the Religion of Peace.  I'm surprised she let this slip out and I would guess it is only a tiny tip of her true thoughts on Jews.  In many countries where the Religion of Peace is mandatory or predominant, Jew hatred is a subject taught in primary school. 

     

    A very beautiful faith.