seeker

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    6,087
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    154

seeker last won the day on January 5

seeker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,043 Excellent

2 Followers

About seeker

  • Rank
    This Guy says:

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere; (only the shadow knows)

Recent Profile Visitors

5,497 profile views
  1. Informed public? Good one, you're a funny guy!
  2. Really? That's your response? You can "guarantee" that communism will never happen. Wow, I'm so reassured now. Furthermore, how about actually reading my post? I didn't say Antifa was solely about Communism but that it was about tearing down/stopping/slowing/disrupting the structure of our society and government. Antifa is Communist and/or Socialist and/or Anarchist and/or anti-capitalist. You want to take "Communist" out of the definition. Well, ok then, let's do that. Are you suggesting that we can now happily support a group that is Socialist, Anarchist, anti-capitalist and uses violence and destruction in the pursuit of it's goals? BTW, I don't like the KKK or skinheads either.
  3. An article posted on Slate hardly constitutes "fact". A left-leaning website that makes the claim that the far-right is worse than Islamic terrorists - big surprise. If I had the time and energy, which I don't, I could probably scour the internet and find a right-leaning source claiming the left is worse. Couple of quick points, before I get on with my day; The Slate article includes a graph which lists many murders/death attributed to far-right. A lot of those (that I looked at) are a single person being killed during a robbery or some other illegal activity where the person who committed the murder was a skinhead or something. This doesn't meet the definition of terrorism. I think if you culled those the numbers would show that Islamic terrorists are worse than the far-right. In any case, the article you posted is off the mark from my point. I said Antifa is more dangerous than the far-right. Now, how do you define "dangerous"? It's really an argument we can't have unless we could come to an agreement on the definition, which is likely impossible. Is the definition of "danger" to mean solely "risk of death" or should it include "loss of freedoms, way-of-life, high standard of living, opportunity for our children"? Antifa - by design - is a destructive force. They believe that the structure of western society and capitalism is oppressive and should be torn down/stopped/slowed/disrupted. The far-right wants to maintain the status-quo and uses violence toward their goal. This is not an endorsement of the far-right but let's look at the end-game for each side if they were to achieve their goals; if some far-right anti-immigration group was to achieve their goal and stop all immigration there would clearly be a significant loss/impact for those who want to emigrate and possibly some negative societal outcomes. If Antifa was to achieve their goal we would see our present system of government replaced with Communism or Socialism. Which is more destructive (dangerous)? Of course you could make the claim that Anita doesn't really want to "replace" democracy with Communism but rather wants to simply move the needle a little toward the left and have a more caring and equitable society and someone could make the claim that the far-right doesn't really want to end all immigration but rather just wants some limits or constraints. With that we're off in the weeds trying to define the terms again; what activity falls under the Antifa umbrella and what gets considered as far-right and how do you actually assess their goals - by the loud, aggressive person at the extreme end of the spectrum or by the general attitude of the people who identify with the group or by the casual, part-timers who go to a protest once or twice a year? I think it's clear that both left and right extremism and violence is to be abhorred and rejected. That being said I would feel that the stated goals of both sides lead me to believe that the desire to tear down our current system and replace it with Communism is the more dangerous - both bad, but one slightly more bad.
  4. Really? More dangerous than Anifa? While I agree that the rhetoric is similar how many "far right" protests have there been in relation to the far left? More importantly, how many have been violent and destructive?
  5. Kip, I know exactly how you feel and share all of thoughts on the lack of courtesy shown by the masses. My pet peeve is people who carry on long conversations, with their seatmate or on the phone, on an aircraft (or bus). I feel like saying; "you're not at home on your couch so shut it!" Nobody should be subjected to the constant chatter from some yapping idiot who's sitting 2 feet away from you in a public space. Anyway, while I understand, and secretly applaud, what you did I think most people would feel that grabbing someone's device and turning it off is a step too far.
  6. Not sure if that story is completely true and correct or if it has been embellished for humourous effect....grabbing someone's iPad, closing their call, admonishing them and grilling them on emergency equipment is over the line for acceptable behaviour. Fatherly approach or not, good intention or not, you're lucky you didn't get blowback. I certainly agree with a good dose of passive-aggressive scowling and head-shaking being directed at rude or oblivious passengers and have told people directly when their actions are problematic but grabbing their stuff or physically intervening is too much in any case other than an aggressive assault in progress. Of course maybe I'm misunderstanding your post and you posted what you wanted to do rather than what you did do.
  7. Well done - always a good day when I get to read a post from Wolfhunter!
  8. I absolutely love the fact that RG said these things, which are perfectly obvious to most people, but rarely verbalized. Very, very few people could get away with delivering that monologue - apparently Gervais is a bulletproof superhero.
  9. A more interesting question is; what does her mother do that she can apparently afford this? At one point the girl says that her mother is buying a Bentley and asks, "why shouldn't she have a G-Wagon?" Why indeed.
  10. Doesn't matter is the seat is the same or worse - whatever your motivation for wanting to change, it's an opportunity to get a few bucks.
  11. He just watches the aircraft fly over and counts the wheels. You know, from there at the Wendy's on Airport Road.
  12. From the same place they got the axial!
  13. Hah! Happens all the time - only difference is that on most airplanes you can't see it because it's under the wing. I know a guy in Toronto who has a side business picking all the wheels that bounce to a stop on Airport Road and returning them to the proper airline.
  14. On a flight of 14 hours I would think any arrival within an hour of the sked time is good enough. That's just my opinion and I realize that airlines are routinely capable of better performance but, for me personally, +/- 1 hour and I'd be happy.
  15. I would expect a careful statistical analysis of all the airlines in the sample would reveal that being "on-time" is more a function of the airports served than the airline itself.