Recent comments in /f/videos

rbrutonIII t1_j7nap73 wrote

This is so irritating for me. It's like people don't want to admit the world is not completely black and white and they should put some sort of effort into their opinion.

If you ask these people, do you think if someone commits a crime worthy of prison you should just throw them in prison for the rest of their life? You get a resounding "NO!". But then they go and try and hold someone else's actions over them for their entire life.

And then regardless of how you feel about the person, the opportunity to have a dinner with a president? That's an opportunity very very few people have and a source of information that cannot be replicated or compared. Even if you spend the whole dinner beating the person up for what they did, to that person I would think it would be worth it? Too many people just see a word and name and trigger out a response without any semblance of thought or rationality.

3

rbrutonIII t1_j7n9o6t wrote

Well he is a likable guy. But being a likable guy, or what I'd call affable, is mutually exclusive from any sort of criminal activity he's accused of.

And it doesn't matter if YOU like him or not. It's very evident. Look at the interactions he has with people versus the past president. He is very easy to talk to and "get along with". Part of the reason why he became president most likely.

People who can't differentiate a person's actions from their personalities are a huge problem in this world. Nice people can do bad things, and people who do bad things can be extremely nice. And in the same way, people who do bad things can also do good things. People are not entirely black and white.

6

ilikemrrogers t1_j7n8v4y wrote

You’re absolutely right. It was a Republican Congress and a Dem President.

One of my biggest (well, THE biggest) criticisms I had of Hillary during her run was that she never said, “we championed a lot of causes that ended up turning out poorly. I learned from those mistakes.” She stood by almost everything they did (and yes, they did it. She was as much the person behind the curtain as Dick Chaney was to Bush.).

My lifelong career was going to be broadcasting until that changed it all. Much of the magic left. Now, you don’t even need a studio to have a local station anymore. Put up a transmitter and a receiver, link it to an automated radio piece of software in LA, and boom. You have radio stations everywhere spouting what you want people to hear.

2

rbrutonIII t1_j7n8ss0 wrote

And you wouldn't want to ask his perspective? What he knew and didn't know? You wouldn't want to give ANY effort into understanding him and what happened, but would rather sit back and judge?

Then why the fuck should anyone try to understand or give credit to you? Attitudes and people like this are the reason we don't have intelligent discourse and any sort of common ground anymore

2

Kant-Touch-This t1_j7n81u8 wrote

Worth noting that this was a law, passed by a turbo Republican congress. Though you’re right that the WH had a significant hand in it though the Clinton/Gore aim seemed more focused on open internet. Worth checking out his signing statement. I love the bits about an “information superhighway”. I also love how oldsters who worked in that industry all insist they worked in “high technology” 😝

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-telecommunications-act-1996

1

hi9580 OP t1_j7n64lp wrote

Smoother/no shifting gears, quieter drive. Less air/water pollution in major cities, less lung issues. Less moving parts, less points of failure.

More efficient use of energy, electrical energy can be used directly instead of the chemical potential energy of fuel which needs to be transformed into heat/kinetic energy to be used. Any transformation wastes energy.

1