You haven’t watched very much Fox News if you think there’s no bickering.

Bingo. It’s what the people want, apparently.

Yeah, I can’t stand that kind of “debate.” It makes me cringe, but so does most reality TV and those shows make money like mad.

Welp, CNN is now Fox News. CNN was never my favorite outlet, but they at least seemed to have it together. They must have seen Fox News’ ratings and gone “Hm. Let’s get some of that. More bickering! Talk over each other! Hang yourself up on minutiae! Ignore the host!”

Why are these two sentences right next to each other?

A) I don’t understand the “sigh.” B) Same answer? I don’t think you’re reading my question because I phrased it very carefully the second time. “Would choose” vs “should choose.” C) I don’t think government should clamp down in response to profits. I think if there’s a public good that isn’t filled by the private…

No, legally they aren’t guilty of that. Morally yes, in my opinion they’re guilty as sin of spawning and attracting the type of sub-human dreck that would hop behind the wheel of a car and plow into innocent people, but you can’t hold people legally responsible for the acts of others unless they were knowing…

Because EDGY.

SO close to a grown-up response.

If that works that is wonderful. That wouldn’t work for my kids or my wife, though. The kids at their age would choose bed, then wallow and cry until we fed them/took care of them/gave them something to calm them down. My wife would inevitably be the one to break down (her tender heart is a big reason why I love her)…

Does that make you feel better? Or does that make them feel worse?

It’s widely known that intercourse is messy. What was her plan for afterwards? Just walk around dripping until the seat of an Uber is ruined?

Basically, don’t appeal to authority. This is the weakest argument, which is why “I read it on Snopes” falls apart so easily. My wife is a nurse and she comes home with all sorts of crap other nurses and doctors have said at work. Even within their field, experts have blind spots.

My rule is that if anyone in that room can skip the meeting and get the notes, don’t invite that person. ONLY meet with people from whom you need input. A meeting is the least efficient way to disseminate information. If that’s all you’re doing, email it. If you need feedback from people, only invite those people.

If you’re holding a meeting that people can afford to be that disengaged from mentally, that meeting shouldn’t exist.

I’m going to disagree with you. Not with the bulk of what you said, because I agree and think it’s all factually-based, but with the priorities behind it as you describe in your first sentence:

This comment would have been GOLD in the 1910's.

Let’s look at the flip-side. If there were protections placed by the government, they would necessarily have to include the right to free speech, no? Wouldn’t that mean these mold-dicks would be able to continue their employment?

Good. Actions have consequences. I’ll fully support the right to express a different opinion, an unpopular opinion, even a WRONG opinion, but when that opinion has been overthrown by war it’s time for there to be consequences. No, the government shouldn’t shut them down for their words and beliefs, but their employers…

Sorry, I phrased my questions poorly. I meant to ask “Which do you think a drug company President or Chairman of the Board would choose?”