The World According to Nick - Comments

Comment by Nick on "Steve Jobs - The Man, The Myth, The Legend"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:35:48 GMT

The dollar amount may have been relatively small... but as you say, the Office commitment had value in and of itself that helped keep Apple afloat in many ways. But what I found to be most interesting was the way that Bill Gates himself was on that big screen, looking down on Steve Jobs as Jobs gave great praise to Microsoft and its products while the crowd jeered. Back in the days when it really was viewed as a Microsoft vs. Apple war... it was a surreal moment if nothing else. And when we look back on it now, it seems even stranger.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by scott on "Steve Jobs - The Man, The Myth, The Legend"

suppressed@unknown.org (scott) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:31:30 GMT

Steve had a gift for recognizing what was broken in our technological lives and then fixing it. Like the MP3 player. LIke the mobile phone. Hell, like the personal computer itself. I think you overstate the whole Microsoft investment thing. Even back at that low point, $150 million was merely a gesture; it wasn't "ownership" in any meaningful sense. It was too low a dollar amount, and it was non-voting stock anyhow. Far more important was the agreement to continue selling Office to Mac users.

Posted by: scott

Comment by Nick on "Cyclists are Banned from Mayfair"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:04:01 GMT

I think you don't understand what being a Libertarian means. You will notice that I never asked anyone to pass a law, or have any government intervention. I merely advertised to people what Mayfair's policy seemed to be. As it turns out, there may in fact be a anti-cycling vigilante at work at Mayfair, not an actual security guard. The point being, I used my free speech rights to let people know that I thought Mayfair had a stupid policy, and that they should act according to that policy. If Mayfair wanted to continue, and risk potential business, then that's their call which they are free to make. But that doesn't preclude me in any way from simply pointing it out. Just because I complain about something, doesn't mean I insist on government intervention. That's how Republicans and Democrats work. If they think its a bad idea, they pass a law. If I think its a bad idea, I stop shopping there and tell my friends.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by Interesting on "Cyclists are Banned from Mayfair"

suppressed@unknown.org (Interesting) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:56:48 GMT

So a libertarian is upset that a private enterprise is protecting their property/investment within their rights as property owners?

Posted by: Interesting

Comment by Stephen Smith on "Cyclists are Banned from Mayfair"

suppressed@unknown.org (Stephen Smith) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:08:41 GMT

Mr. Schweitzer, Please feel free to change your headline at your earliest convenience, as cyclists are NOT banned from Mayfair. Mayfair does not have any sedan, we have Ford Escape security vehicles patroling our property, and I have spoken with every officer working on that shift and cannot find anyone who had any contact with your group on that day at that time. We even reviewed our camera footage and couldn't identify your group on that day, at that time...so I am confused with whom you had contact with that morning. Feel free to contact me at the office if you'd like to discuss further. But rest assured, cyclists are welcome provided they use the facility and obey the traffic signs for everyone's safety. Happy riding Tosa Spokesmen. Stephen Smith Senior General Manager

Posted by: Stephen Smith

Comment by Coop on "Cyclists are Banned from Mayfair"

suppressed@unknown.org (Coop) — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:48:26 GMT

Have you called the mall to tell them about this? More than likely they contract out their security (but don't quote me on that), and even if he does work for them directly, you may have simply been dealing with an overzealous security guard who was compensating for the fact that he's not a real cop. Mind you, I'm not defending Mayfair Mall; living in Franklin, I rarely have reason (or desire) to go there (I'm far more likely to go to Southridge), and I do agree with you that whoever this guard works for, he was out of line. You were posing no threat and have been doing this for years, so the problem was most likely with the security guard.

Posted by: Coop

Comment by John Foust on "We Do Run Our Criminal Justice System Like We Run Our Elections"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Foust) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:56:55 GMT

I think your first mistake was expecting to find rational discussion at BadgerBlogger. I'm tempted to say "you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy," but who knows, maybe there's some other schoolyard conservative blog out there I haven't seen.

Posted by: John Foust

Comment by kdw on "Nick and Allison Got Hitched"

suppressed@unknown.org (kdw) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:54:33 GMT

Hey Nick! Congrats!

Posted by: kdw

Comment by David Casper on "Nick and Allison Got Hitched"

suppressed@unknown.org (David Casper) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:52:52 GMT

Congratulations to both of you!

Posted by: David Casper

Comment by elliot on "Nick and Allison Got Hitched"

suppressed@unknown.org (elliot) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:39:51 GMT

Congrats!

Posted by: elliot

Comment by Ruth on "Should We Care About Weiner's Wiener?"

suppressed@unknown.org (Ruth) — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:48:31 GMT

Why all the fuss over Anthony Wieners photos? Cricky people, he sent them to people if they had a problem let them deal with it. Bet they sent themselves also. More than have of Washington is doing something illegal, whether sexual, or other wise. If the voters dont like it, vote them out. Other than that he shouldnt quit based on just as guilty men saying resign...they havent been caught yet!

Posted by: Ruth

Comment by John Foust on "Looking For Something to Do on a Lazy Sunday?"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Foust) — Sat, 21 May 2011 03:07:13 GMT

Just another trick. It's all tricks.

Posted by: John Foust

Comment by Joel on "Looking For Something to Do on a Lazy Sunday?"

suppressed@unknown.org (Joel) — Fri, 20 May 2011 20:49:14 GMT

Yeah, I feel dumb for getting DST wrong. If God doesn't set his clock forward, then his 6:00 PM is our 7:00 PM.

Posted by: Joel

Comment by Joel on "Looking For Something to Do on a Lazy Sunday?"

suppressed@unknown.org (Joel) — Fri, 20 May 2011 20:46:40 GMT

He said 6:00 PM local time. Did he mention whether God was taking daylight savings time into account? I'd just hate to expect it at 6:00 PM and then get blindsided when it really happens at 5:00 PM because God chooses not to set his clock forward an hour during the summer.

Posted by: Joel

Comment by Ben Smith on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (Ben Smith) — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 03:46:13 GMT

It is the same pot of money in the end. I think it is more to have shared financial goals. What did she need the change for? Was she short a few bucks buying her fifth pair of identical black heels in three weeks? What did you do with the new found five bucks?

Posted by: Ben Smith

Comment by John Washburn on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Washburn) — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:15:35 GMT

This will change.

Posted by: John Washburn

Comment by David Casper on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (David Casper) — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:38:27 GMT

She'll remember the fact that you came out ahead on this transaction 5, 10 years down the road.

Posted by: David Casper

Comment by elliot on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (elliot) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:50:02 GMT

You're not married, yet. If nothing changed between being married and not, there'd be no point to it. Would there? ;)

Posted by: elliot

Comment by Tom Schonech on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (Tom Schonech) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:18:47 GMT

Be Happy. After 41 years that never happend to me.

Posted by: Tom Schonech

Comment by Tal McMahon on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (Tal McMahon) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:44:09 GMT

Cash.... Whats that?

Posted by: Tal McMahon

Comment by Tom Snyder on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (Tom Snyder) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:16:29 GMT

The only surprise I ever have is opening my wallet and finding cash. It has become Marjie's ATM. If I charged her a buck and half every time she made a withdrawal, I'd be rich.

Posted by: Tom Snyder

Comment by Scott Seely on "A Question For My Married Male Readers"

suppressed@unknown.org (Scott Seely) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:09:23 GMT

My wife and I never do an even exchange. It's all the same pool of money, so it's more about "how much do I need to walk around with?" and less about even exchanges. I've been married for 16 years and with my wife for longer, so I don't really accurately remember anything different :)

Posted by: Scott Seely

Comment by Josh Schroeder on "Newt Gingrich Fears the Radical Secular Atheist Islamists"

suppressed@unknown.org (Josh Schroeder) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:37:53 GMT

Newt would probably argue, that, the United States is a "Christian" nation, in that it was founded upon biblical principles, and whatnot, but that in recent decades, we've been moving away from that founding toward a more secular-Atheist orientation on the premise that secular is more neutral, non-discriminatory, or whatever. But because the Christian worldview is still in the majority (or, at least, Christian principles are still in the forefront), the secular atheist movement is arguing chiefly against Christianity. And Newt's thesis is that the country is on a trajectory in which the Christian principles are waning and the secular atheist is waxing, but that Radical Islamists don't play by the same rules as those who advocate the Christian worldview and biblical principles in the country's founding. In other words, the Radical Islamists aren't interested in sitting down nicely to a debate in the realm of ideas and discuss the merits of Islam compared to an atheistic, secular method of governance. Newt isn't saying that the atheistic position would, down the road, embrace the Radical Islamists. He's saying that the Radical Islamists would take advantage of the conditions created by the secular atheists, against the wishes of the secular atheists.

Posted by: Josh Schroeder

Comment by Nick on "Newt Gingrich Fears the Radical Secular Atheist Islamists"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:47:49 GMT

I understand your argument Josh, but even if that were his intent, it doesn't make any sense. "Secular Atheists" (which is a little redundant) are not "anti-Christian" despite what Newt would argue. They simply want to remove religion from government in general. You can argue that they want to go further than that, and Newt certainly would... but the point is that if they do that for Christians, they certainly would do the same against Islamic Radicals. Islamic Radicalism as defined by Newt would certainly move towards an Islamic theocracy of some sort, and Secular Atheists wouldn't like that one bit. This idea that somehow progressives would feel too much multicultural guilt is a straw man that people like Newt and O'Reilly like to throw out in order to try to have their cake and eat it too. But in the final analysis, I don't think its possible to have a group fight against all religion in government and society, and then somehow embrace another group adding a different religion into society.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by Josh Schroeder on "Newt Gingrich Fears the Radical Secular Atheist Islamists"

suppressed@unknown.org (Josh Schroeder) — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:30:54 GMT

Nick, I think you're failing to distinguish between two separate ideas that Newt is discussing. Newt's thesis is probably something along these lines: if the United States becomes increasingly atheistic and secular, it will create a theological, philosophical, and ethical vacuum, which radical Islamists will then fill. In other words, 1) the decline of Christianity & rise of atheism will pave the way for 2) the Radical Islamists to take over. Secular Atheists and Radical Islamists are two separate agents, and that the former would precede the latter. And it's not that these two agents are necessarily in any way, shape, or form cooperating or collaborating with each other, either. What I've outlined here, I believe, is the plain and reasonable interpretation of Newt's comment. Now you can argue about whether he's right or not, or what the definition of "Christian nation" is, but I don't think you are accurate in saying that Newt is ginning up fear about "Radical Secular Atheist Islamists" (which, by the way, would not be anywhere near as good a comic book or cartoon series as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles).

Posted by: Josh Schroeder