|
Shbobdb posted:
See if you can follow me on this one genius. Considering poor minorities "cockfighting mudpeople" is extraordinarily racist. Some people in this thread want cockfighting banned, because they don't like having animals kill each other for sport. You stated: Shbobdb posted:If we're going to continue disparaging the gambling habits of the poor, minorities and (especially) poor minorities, we should really have a separate thread so we can really feel morally superior to those cockfighting mudpeople. Are you saying you didn't mean to characterize opponents to cockfighting has having the view of poor minorities as "cockfighting mudpeople"? Because if you didn't then I have no idea what you were trying to convey here. If you did mean to characterize them that way, then how is that different than calling people who want cockfighting banned racists? You, at best, phrased a concern that opposition to cockfighting is being used as another way to target minority and immigrant communities extremely poorly.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Tinted Windows, You didn't say racist but you implied it. What you actually said was classist and you're an idiot for saying that. People being poor and using animal cruelty as a gambling mechanism to make money doesn't excuse the fact that it's still animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is bad. Stop splitting hairs over it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
I live in Massachusetts, and I'd rather Republicans not take the Senate. Is there anything I can do? Are there nearby races that are close?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I live in Massachusetts, and I'd rather Republicans not take the Senate. Is there anything I can do? Are there nearby races that are close? If you feel like taking a trip to New Hampshire I know of a truck you could steal that would cripple one republican's campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Oh yeah, that reminds me. I spotted my first truck crazily adorned with campaign material of the year. It begins. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Is Scott Brown actually going to be competitive for the New Hampshire Senate this year? I've never thought so little of NH before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
NH republicans are caught between their hatred of Massachusetts residents and their hatred of Obama.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Who wants to read about 19th century presidents drinking poo poo? There's no reinforcement of parental nagging there. Wear a coat saves lives, don't drink poo poo is just common sense in this day and age. Great example on why this country needs the EPA. There's a lot of work that goes into making it so you don't drink poo poo water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Can we maybe get a cockfighting and food torture thread instead of filling this thread with it? I say we start a unified cock thread where we can debate all these cock derails, including both cock fighting and circumcision. Which is worse? Eating factory farmed chicken or getting your child circumcised? What if you have your gamecock circumcise the child with its spurs? We can learn about sensitivity as we discuss whether mud people have ugly cheese-dicks too! Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Don't we have a moral obligation to provide large quantities of tofu and seitan to bear populations so they can get their daily protein intake without having to slaughter helpless herbivores? We have the capability to hold the bears to a higher standard than they hold themselves! Aren't we killing their prey ourselves, through inaction?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:49
|
|
because I realize this is a really dumb argument for me to use and I don't really mean it earnestly)
)
|
Forgall posted:Yes? If we ever reach level of development where we can take care of all people, next logical step would be to undo suffering present in nature. So we're going to stop the wide scale plant genocide now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I say we start a unified cock thread where we can debate all these cock derails, including both cock fighting and circumcision. Which is worse? Eating factory farmed chicken or getting your child circumcised? What if you have your gamecock circumcise the child with its spurs? Could USC's mascow Sir Big Spur make an appearance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin as painted by "43". If you look into his eyes, you can see his soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Vladimir Putin as painted by "43". I see 43 attended the Cecilia Giménez School of Visual Arts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Great example on why this country needs the EPA. There's a lot of work that goes into making it so you don't drink poo poo water. Nixon created the EPA right? Or was Big John Gil Biggs lying to us? edit: Alpha House isn't coming back is it? 
Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Nixon created the EPA right? Or was Big John Gil Biggs lying to us? v Thanks for the correction, that makes a lot of sense. Urdnot Fire fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Urdnot Fire posted:Nixon signed the EPA into law, it was Democratic senator Henry M. Jackson who proposed it. Actually, Nixon did propose the EPA, but a big part of the motivation was to consolidate many different agencies and offices, some of which reported to Congress, under one sub-cabinet official who would report to the executive. There were no net new positions or funding created for the Agency at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Actually, Nixon did propose the EPA, but a big part of the motivation was to consolidate many different agencies and offices, some of which reported to Congress, under one sub-cabinet official who would report to the executive. There were no net new positions or funding created for the Agency at the time. So smart move? I'm all for efficiency when it makes sense but sometimes it does more harm than good, especially in government where we need a lot of checks/balances and red tape to make sure no one agency is too powerful. Although, if it gave environmentalists more power in government then that was probably a good thing. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:So smart move? I'm all for efficiency when it makes sense but sometimes it does more harm than good, especially in government where we need a lot of checks/balances and red tape to make sure no one agency is too powerful. Although, if it gave environmentalists more power in government then that was probably a good thing. Yeah, I'd say the creation of the EPA was a positive for the environmental movement. I'm just pointing out that Nixon's motivation for doing it was, well, Nixonian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Nixon created the EPA right? Or was Big John Gil Biggs lying to us? It is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:His speech was also, reportedly, really lovely. Urgh... just the first two paragraphs make me want to drink poo poo filled-water and die. quote:CALLED from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Thank God. That was some of the funniest poo poo I've watched in awhile (I binged on it over my X-Mas vacation last year) so I was so disappointed that it ended that suddenly. Maybe they can find a way to work Bill Murray a bit more into the next season-- the dude is comedy gold and seems all about doing offbeat stuff now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Who wants to read about 19th century presidents drinking poo poo? There's no reinforcement of parental nagging there. Wear a coat saves lives, don't drink poo poo is just common sense in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yeah, I'd say the creation of the EPA was a positive for the environmental movement. I'm just pointing out that Nixon's motivation for doing it was, well, Nixonian. I really need to read about his presidency. Based on what little I know I've always considered him to be a great president, despite being a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
http://www.deepsouthprogressive.com/2014/04/phil-bryant-signs-sb-2681.html Welp, MS just passed this and the governor signed it. Countdown to businesses using it to say they don't have to serve blacks in 3 2 1...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Prosopagnosiac posted:http://www.deepsouthprogressive.com/2014/04/phil-bryant-signs-sb-2681.html Mississippi bringin' the pain lately
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Prosopagnosiac posted:http://www.deepsouthprogressive.com/2014/04/phil-bryant-signs-sb-2681.html edit: The "restoration" part makes me think that especially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/us/politics/george-bush-portrait-exhibition-opens-in-dallas.htmlquote:Tony Blair stares ahead, sober and resolute. Hamid Karzai, in traditional green cap and cape, glances off to the side, almost as if checking over his shoulder for the Taliban — or perhaps for the United States. The Dalai Lama looks serene, Stephen Harper jovial, Jiang Zemin grim. I dunno if I'd describe Stephen Harper's smirk as anything but smug and poo poo-eating, but hey at least Dubya managed to capture that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Bush is really good for starting just two years ago. Another world leader who should have just been a painter  The Sarkozy portrait is especially good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
I am firmly in the "Harrison died because he was cursed by Tecumseh and so did all the other presidents who have died in office" camp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
I've been thinking about the possible consequences of this year's elections, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a net good in the long run for the GOP to take the senate in 2014 by a slim margin. If the Dems manage to narrowly hold their majority, the next two years will basically go the same as the last two, with both parties falling in public opinion. Worst of all, as the party not in power, Republicans can continue to criticize without having to actually govern or vote on workable solutions. On the other hand, a GOP house and senate would be an even bigger shitshow, with the possibility of more shutdowns, debt ceiling fights, maybe an impeachment hearing, perhaps an extremely visible supreme court nomination fight. The focus for 2016 would shift from the stalemated "do-nothing congress" to how terribly the Republicans have overreached with their thin majority, and how incapable they are of actually governing and working with the president. And in 2016 the Dems will almost certainly take back the senate. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:I've been thinking about the possible consequences of this year's elections, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a net good in the long run for the GOP to take the senate in 2014 by a slim margin. If the Dems manage to narrowly hold their majority, the next two years will basically go the same as the last two, with both parties falling in public opinion. Worst of all, as the party not in power, Republicans can continue to criticize without having to actually govern or vote on workable solutions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
That sounds like textbook accelerationism. Which, while perfectly understandable, isn't exactly the ideal solution. Too much suffering would result from that for it to be a desirable solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
^^^^^ It's a sort of short-term accelerationism I guess, but with the backstop that we still have a Democratic president, so no significant laws are being passed either way.Nessus posted:In a purely tactical manner you may have a point, but keep in mind that, first, the economy could poo poo itself for some arbitrary reason (student loans, war in Ukraine, China explodes, mass dogecoin adoption) and gently caress up everything's trajectory, and second, there are a whole lot of people actually out there hurting. Our bridges will keep rotting in either case but it seems like foolishness to EMBRACE that; two years is a long time. Sure people are actually hurting, but no significant fixes will happen in the next few years no matter what. In the one case you have the senate proposing decent legislation that gets blocked in the house. In the other case you have awful legislation that gets passed in the house and then either filibustered by senate Dems or vetoed by Obama. The only real difference I can see is that in one case it's more obvious the Republicans are the ones to blame. The economy blowing up again would be awful, especially since nobody will have any political will to do anything about it. Not sure how the 2014 elections will change that though. Corrupt Politician fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
If you had a fully Republican congress and Obama was forced to veto all their terrible ideas, they would just write narrative that dissolving the EPA and the Department of Education would have saved America, if only that terrible false president didn't veto it. They would absolutely drive it as 'Here we are, the elected representatives trying to govern, and Obama vetoes everything like the tyrant usurper he is!' The actual worse option is that Obama opts to be the great negotiator and starts signing terrible legislation, allowing them to pass their agenda and then pin any obvious failures on him anyway. The idea only really works if republicans win a majority, but enough of those people are complete fringe nutjobs that won't even cooperate with their own party. Then you would have them unable to get anything out of the congress they supposedly control, while Obama sits there with a pen saying 'Come on guys, why can't you do what you were elected to do?' I think that was a big portion of what made the debt fight blowback badly on them; not that it was just a terrible idea, but that it was obvious there wasn't even a clear strategy or goal in the party itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Bush is really good for starting just two years ago. Another world leader who should have just been a painter Seriously, his stuff looks at least as good as some court artist work:  I'll always have a soft spot for the Blago trial though. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Republicans controlling the Senate and House won't change the narrative, which is the issue here. Any awful legislation they want to pass will get tacked with important legislation (Bills to feed dogs will require you drown kittens, etc) and if Obama vetoes it then it's not their fault for governing improperly, it's obviously Obamas. Just because people will suffer won't suddenly make them aware of who is really making them suffer. This is also why I hate accelerationism, it gives in to the idea that people must suffer first to improve things when all evidence, and especially from a progressive viewpoint, suggests that human suffering only makes things worse as people begin to focus on surviving versus prospering. It almost feels like the garbage the rightwing puts out about how poor people are lazy, unmotivated, and the only way to change them is to threaten starvation and sickness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Republicans controlling the Senate and House won't change the narrative, which is the issue here. Any awful legislation they want to pass will get tacked with important legislation (Bills to feed dogs will require you drown kittens, etc) and if Obama vetoes it then it's not their fault for governing improperly, it's obviously Obamas. Just because people will suffer won't suddenly make them aware of who is really making them suffer. It *is* pretty much a different side of the same coin, now that you bring it up in that context. Accelerationism is just suggesting that people must suffer further and that will at some magical break-point force them to seek change. It's a different way of rationalizing the same nasty bullshit republican legislators are doing to people now with all their regressive bullshit; making being poor bad enough is seen as a motivator in the accelerationist view, just as it is in the right-wing view ultimately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah I gotta say the French Revolution and the Chinese revolution in the 40s sure worked out well for all the poor and working-class people and ultimately made everything better for them. Oh wait...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Anyone who thinks accelerationism is a good idea should keep an eye on North Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:04
|
|
