The Blindness of Religious People

[Mariahxxx]

So co-owner is different than chef salary. and Chicago is a good market for chefs. But again, the average executive chef in the US makes 75k a year. If you don't believe me, then read what Zagat has to say about it http://www.zagat.com/buzz/who-makes-what-a-look-at-restaurant-salaries

And what do you think I would do call there and harass the guy? I was simply trying to validate your claim. there are only 19 restaurants in Chicago with Michelin star ratings and I KNOW yours isn't one of them.

http://chicago.eater.com/archives/2012/11/13/2013-michelin-guide-chicago-star-ratings-unleashed.php

so why you paying him double the going rate as executive chef?

 

[Jack Davenport]

So co-owner is different than chef salary. and Chicago is a good market for chefs. But again, the average executive chef in the US makes 75k a year. If you don't believe me, then read what Zagat has to say about it http://www.zagat.com/buzz/who-makes-what-a-look-at-restaurant-salaries

And what do you think I would do call there and harass the guy? I was simply trying to validate your claim. there are only 19 restaurants in Chicago with Michelin star ratings and I KNOW yours isn't one of them.

http://chicago.eater.com/archives/2012/11/13/2013-michelin-guide-chicago-star-ratings-unleashed.php

so why you paying him double the going rate as executive chef?

I don't pay him. I invested in him and his venture. And he is paying me back. He draws a salary commensurate with the amount of business that the restaurant produces.

 

[Mariahxxx]

so your original comment was bullshit. you talked shit and threw your nephew at me as some sort of insult about his knowledge and his success. however, you forgot to mention he's a restaurant owner not just a chef so that salary comment is void. and 90% of all restaurants fail and are considered to be one of the worst investments anyone can make. but hey, you're the genius and I'm just the idiot. good luck with it though. the world needs great places to experience new and interesting foods.

 

[Jack Davenport]

so your original comment was bullshit. you talked shit and threw your nephew at me as some sort of insult about his knowledge and his success. however, you forgot to mention he's a restaurant owner not just a chef so that salary comment is void. and 90% of all restaurants fail and are considered to be one of the worst investments anyone can make. but hey, you're the genius and I'm just the idiot. good luck with it though. the world needs great places to experience new and interesting foods.

I only said that he was a chef and how much he made. I never said he made that amount solely as a chef. The restaurant has been in business for over 10 years and he had an opportunity to become a partner. I am well aware of the failure rate of restaurants and businesses in general within the first 2 years.

None of my comments were bullshit. But then it's not unlike you to jump to conclusions now is it?

 

[Mariahxxx]

ok. Well if I'm wrong then I'm sorry. It sure seemed like a zing at me with the comment.

I'm off to buy a new dive regulator and some stuff for my trip to the Exumas next week.

I know you think I'm an ass and an idiot and all that but I'm actually not. I just enjoy heated debate and people drive me crazy.

I honestly hope you have a nice day.

 

[Jack Davenport]

And what do you think I would do call there and harass the guy?

Going by what I know about you and your track record of making threats here I absolutely do not trust you and wouldn't put much of anything past you.

You are capable of just about anything.

 

[Mariahxxx]

Wow ok then lol

 

[Sam Fisher]

Wow ok then lol

 

[bobjustbob]

So you're okay with this minuscule waste. It's shit that no one consumes or even cares about. Opera and classical dance? 4 French horns on the "Four French Horn's" tour? Dimes turn into dollars. Anyone in business knows this. And you are in business so you do know this. CPB isn't the only cash cow for the arts. Let's look at the National Endowment for the Arts:

Opera. Number of Grants: 38 Total Amount: $1,249,500.

Visual Arts. Number of Grants: 51 Total Amount: $1,466,000

Theater. Number of Grants: 105 Total Amount: $2,870,500

Musical Theater. Number of Grants: 24 Total Amount: $685,000

Music. Number of Grants: 143 Total Amount: $4,257,000

Presentations. Number of Grants: 54 Total Amount: $1,310,000

Museums. Number of Grants: 75 Total Amount: $2,610,000

Media. Number of Grants: 49 Total Amount: $1,490,000

Local arts and agencies. Number of Grants: 22 Total Amount: $632,000

Literature. Number of Grants: 49 Total Amount: $1,185,000

Folk and traditional arts. Number of Grants: 50 Total Amount: $1,290,000

Design. Number of Grants: 22 Total Amount: $555,000

Dance. Number of Grants: 130 Total Amount: $3,405,000

Art education. Number of Grants: 229 Total Amount: $7,385,000


Without using the calculator it's clear to see that the glut of this is going to the display and presentation of individual's works. Art shows and festivals to make a profit. Why should I pay for part of your ticket to see Pavarotti and you don't pay part of mine to see The Stones? Or the local garage band playing at a bar? Reading who gets these grants I can damned well say that all of the educational stuff is worth it and the rest is all bull shit. All of it. Sell wine and tee shirts at your fucking gatherings to pay for it. Oh wait, they already do. But this is just minuscule money being pissed away.

 

[Mariahxxx]

I agree with most of that, but also to me it's well worth it for less than .000007 % of the budget if a few bullshit things slip through. think of all the absolute government waste that helps no one, enriches no ones life and ends up in the pockets of some scumbag.

 

[Mariahxxx]

Quite frankly you're an idiot. You have spent the past few hours researching your response and thinking you're loaded for bear when you didn't have a response within minutes. This isn't the first time that you become befuddled only to try and find the answer you are looking for on one of your favorite liberal sites.

Let me explain this to you and I will try and go slow so you can comprehend.

The ruling means that the federal government will give equal protection under the law in states that recognize same sex marriage.

If a gay couple marries in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and one passes away then the surviving "spouse" will be able to collect survivor benefits.

But if they reside in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriage and were not previously married in a state that did, no protection or benefits.

This was not a ruling on the constitutionality of same sex marriages pure and simple. Will this open the door for other challenges? Perhaps but that was coming anyway.

The best thing you can do is for all of you that support same sex marriage is to settle on the states that are best suited to your perversion and create several little Gaysylvanias and can live in peace , Vaseline and Barbara Streisand records happily ever after.

I find it somewhat amazing that you, an attorney, can downplay the significance of this ruling. This puts a lot of power behind the movement and now when someone demands their rights in ANY state, they will sue for it and win based on these rulings. As you just saw in the Prop 8 decision in California. Even though the people of the state voted it down, the decision was overturned by the supreme court. So when the hicks in the bible belt get their panties in a bunch and vote against it, it will no longer matter because of the precedent.

But hey, you live in denial in so many areas of your life, what's another one added to the list right?

 

[Jack Davenport]

I find it somewhat amazing that you, an attorney, can downplay the significance of this ruling. This puts a lot of power behind the movement and now when someone demands their rights in ANY state, they will sue for it and win based on these rulings. As you just saw in the Prop 8 decision in California. Even though the people of the state voted it down, the decision was overturned by the supreme court. So when the hicks in the bible belt get their panties in a bunch and vote against it, it will no longer matter because of the precedent.

But hey, you live in denial in so many areas of your life, what's another one added to the list right?

No they didn't overturn prop 8 lol
They REMANDED it. Do you even know what that means.. wait... obviously not or you wouldn't have said overturned.

The Supremes ruled that in states that recognize same sex marriage that the government will grant equal protection.

In states that do not, this ruling has no effect.

I find it somewhat amazing that I waste my time discussing this stuff with someone that only sees and reads into it what they want to believe.

precedent? PRECEDENT? :rofl:

Again there is not precedent set when they remand. Stop talking to your liberal idiot friends for legal interpretation.

 

[Mariahxxx]

okay you can pick at me for not knowing the legal terms for everything, but again you dismiss the importance of this.

Tough pill to swallow I would imagine? I didn't talk to anyone. I have been watching FOX NEWS which as we all know is hardly liberal.

 

[Mariahxxx]

first of all those states that don't recognize it are now very vulnerable to being sued for their laws which are now seen as unconstitutional. that was what Scalia was saying if DOMA is defeated.

"I find it somewhat amazing that I waste my time discussing this stuff with someone that only sees and reads into it what they want to believe." trust me dude, I feel the EXACT same way about YOU and your ilk bible thumping bigot cohorts.

 

[Jack Davenport]

okay you can pick at me for not knowing the legal terms for everything, but again you dismiss the importance of this.

Tough pill to swallow I would imagine? I didn't talk to anyone. I have been watching FOX NEWS which as we all know is hardly liberal.

I pick at you because you are simply wrong. The plaintiffs dropped their appeal concerning prop 8. The Supremes have not ruled on the constitutionality of same sex marriage. California is no different and will have no greater effect than the other 10 or so states that recognize it. The Supreme Court for the time being considers this a state's rights issue. And of course that is exactly where I like it.

 

[Jack Davenport]

first of all those states that don't recognize it are now very vulnerable to being sued for their laws which are now seen as unconstitutional. that was what Scalia was saying if DOMA is defeated.

"I find it somewhat amazing that I waste my time discussing this stuff with someone that only sees and reads into it what they want to believe." trust me dude, I feel the EXACT same way about YOU and your ilk bible thumping bigot cohorts.

LOL @ Bible thumping. I only voice my religious beliefs here when the topic arises.

I haven't been to church in at least 20 years.

Seen unconstitutional by whom? Damn girl! Of course there will be challenges by those that "feel" it is unconstitutional but this is not seen as unconstitutional or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court.


Now I have a headache. Thanks.

 

[Mariahxxx]

So I guess all of these people who are celebrating are doing so without a good reason? I just watched video of your girl Michele Bachman throwing a fit and declaring it "a sad day for Christian Americans" I wonder if she really doesn't know her husband is a homo? how could she not?

- - - Updated - - -

typical christian. religious when convenient

 

[Jack Davenport]

So I guess all of these people who are celebrating are doing so without a good reason? I just watched video of your girl Michele Bachman throwing a fit and declaring it "a sad day for Christian Americans" I wonder if she really doesn't know her husband is a homo? how could she not?

- - - Updated - - -

typical christian. religious when convenient

Yes they are celebrating because it was a victory for equal protection advocates IN STATES THAT ALLOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE. yes I am a bigot when it comes to certain things. Do you really think being called a bigot bothers me?

 

[Mariahxxx]

ruled as unconstitutional by the supreme court. Im literally repeating to you what fox news is saying. they are known for telling outright lies but usually not on the side of liberals. or maybe they are trying to whip all the conservatives into a frenzy to piss them off

 

[Mariahxxx]

clearly it doesnt. I didnt think it would. if the shoe fits kick yourself.

And as I said, Scalia said in his response 10 years ago that if this happened it would open the flood gates and make it impossible for states to defend suits to change the law due to it being recognized under Federal law.