|
quote:“Nature takes its vengeance on subsequent children,” Marshall said in 2010. “It’s a special punishment, Christians would suggest.” Christians, well known for their bloodthirst and demands of vengeance. edit: if a man strikes you on the cheek, smile and force him to father a special-needs child
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
I think we just need two words for Christians. Not "xxx Christian" and "yyy Christian", but two completely different words.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I think we just need two words for Christians. Not "xxx Christian" and "yyy Christian", but two completely different words. I find that if I use 'fundies', nobody mistakes who I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
isildur posted:I find that if I use 'fundies', nobody mistakes who I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:More horror. Yeah, okay, I guess LF talk wasn't that bad after all. Goddamn
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I think we just need two words for Christians. Not "xxx Christian" and "yyy Christian", but two completely different words. I generally differentiate between the two by noticing which people are Christians and which people openly, primarily identify as "a Christian".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Some nerds did a study about what actually drives public policy. Spoilers: it's rich dudesLARRY BARTELS posted:Everyone thinks they know that money is important in American politics. But how important? The Supreme Court’s Gilded Age reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC has inspired a flurry of commentary regarding the potential corrosive influence of campaign contributions; but that commentary largely ignores the broader question of how economic power shapes American politics and policy. For decades, most political scientists have sidestepped that question, because it has not seemed amenable to rigorous (meaning quantitative) scientific investigation. Qualitative studies of the political role of economic elites have mostly been relegated to the margins of the field. But now, political scientists are belatedly turning more systematic attention to the political impact of wealth, and their findings should reshape how we think about American democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I hope they follow it up by arresting the bastard next time he's around town. Nah, just hold off until after November. Choose your battles and all that, a big confrontation probably would have served to energize right wing voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:For being a poo poo posting castoff taken over by semi ironic Maoist third worldists there was a lot if quality educational posting in LF. There were threads covering water shortages and how policy influenced it, the under reported 2008 famine in SEA, modern farming and next generation farming techniques and how they intersected with existing interests and policy, and the "most evil company" thread was incredibly eye opening. The Marxist readings of movies was some of the smartest, funniest poo poo I had seen in a long time. It was like finding the onion in the mid-90s. The worst part of how they killed LF was their deleting all the gold mined threads. Please tell me they exist somewhere as an archive?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Lost For Words posted:Some nerds did a study about what actually drives public policy. Spoilers: it's rich dudes Hahah I love the bit about the political scientists JUST NOW looking into the effects of money in politics. That doesn't at all seem like an incredibly pertinent and important piece of the puzzle that should be a constant source of investigation. No sir. Still at least there finally is some research being done which verifies everyone's worst fears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's what did it for me. Watching the ultra-rich beg for billions in bailouts, pay themselves huge bonuses for tanking the economy, then turn around and excoriate those who lost their jobs and homes, calling them moochers without any irony finally made me question my Objectivist beliefs about who the makers and the takers really are. And all the while nobody did anything but cry a little when the rich did this, ensuring it'll happen again. Joementum posted:The Feds are rather obviously just waiting for the Ron Paul / Alex Jones / Joe Walsh crowd to vacate and they'll continue to prosecute the rancher. It's good that they seem to have learned from the 90s that forcing a show of authority isn't always the best solution to these issues. I don't know where you get this optimism from. The feds just saying to hell with it and going home instead of arresting the guy or seizing his poo poo like they should seems entirely plausible. Hopefully they're just waiting for things to die down and plan to grab his rear end off the street in a few days, in between the guy's likely appearances on Fox News as the Patriot Defying Obama's America or something. That inflated swimming pool, holy gently caress on a stick. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
What was the deal with the rancher thing? I somehow missed it. A guy was illegally raising cattle on federal land and a bunch of militia people tried to start their own Waco?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Hahah I love the bit about the political scientists JUST NOW looking into the effects of money in politics. That doesn't at all seem like an incredibly pertinent and important piece of the puzzle that should be a constant source of investigation. No sir. Still at least there finally is some research being done which verifies everyone's worst fears. Maybe they didn't do it because people would make fun of them for stating the obvious. Like you just did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if that rancher got the MOVE treatment. The most concrete thing I can think of is "Rand Paul's mailing list would get a fundraising email."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:What was the deal with the rancher thing? I somehow missed it. A guy was illegally raising cattle on federal land and a bunch of militia people tried to start their own Waco? More or less. The guy claims he has a right to the land because his family settled it before the BLM existed. The government started seizing his cattle and then a whole bunch of heavily armed right-wingers showed up to protest, so they backed down rather than risk things getting out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I don't think you 'get' LF. I think a non-FYAD LF would be great for the mid-term elections and literally drum up business for the site.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Look, lowtax is a job creator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Hahah I love the bit about the political scientists JUST NOW looking into the effects of money in politics. That doesn't at all seem like an incredibly pertinent and important piece of the puzzle that should be a constant source of investigation. No sir. Still at least there finally is some research being done which verifies everyone's worst fears. Accretionist posted:I think a non-FYAD LF would be great for the mid-term elections and literally drum up business for the site. While that would be great to read, it would be like finding a unicorn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
GetWellGamers posted:Yeah, along with an alt-history about a cameraman and his wife who escape getting force-aborted and Howard Dean suicide bombing temple square in Utah while screaming and Ron Paul's cadillac and gold plated revolver. I can't remember the name, or if it even had one, but it was insane and glorious and one of the best pieces of humorous fiction I've ever read. And this last time we had Romney Death Rally. We are the gift that keeps giving
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
quote:“Nature takes its vengeance on subsequent children,” Marshall said in 2010. “It’s a special punishment, Christians would suggest.” Oh, would Christians suggest that? Ezekiel 18:20 posted:The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. I'd really love to tell this guy to gently caress right off in person. Accretionist posted:I think a non-FYAD LF would be great for the mid-term elections and literally drum up business for the site. I disagree, really. The FYAD ruleset (if you will) is what made LF, because a lot of really funny posts were things that old-GBS rules would have disallowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Maybe they didn't do it because people would make fun of them for stating the obvious. Like you just did. Its not obvious to most people and Im mocking them for taking an eternity to get to it. The actual research is fascinating if a bit depressing. Plus one would hope that research doesn't get pursued or not based on the whims of imbeciles like myself. Here's the money shot on that article quote:Gilens and Page analyze 1,779 policy outcomes over a period of more than 20 years. They conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/ Relentlessboredomm fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Its not obvious to most people and Im mocking them for taking an eternity to get to it. There was literally no time they could have produced it and not have it "take an eternity to get to it".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There was literally no time they could have produced it and not have it "take an eternity to get to it". I know being pedantic is a good time and all but to circle back to the point I personally find it quite striking and a bit puzzling that the field of political science has seemingly very little research done on money in politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:I know being pedantic is a good time and all but to circle back to the point I personally find it quite striking and a bit puzzling that the field of political science has seemingly very little research done on money in politics. Because it's common sense. It also doesn't hurt that the distribution of wealth makes it so you don't need anything more than "having a large amount of money makes you influential".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because it's common sense. Its still worth it to lay out that the 0-60 percentile have just-about zero impact on legislative decisions vs. leaving it an unknown to be exaggerated later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Its still worth it to lay out that the 0-60 percentile have just-about zero impact on legislative decisions vs. leaving it an unknown to be exaggerated later. The wealth distribution of the US makes that a given.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Has anyone read Picketty's new book Capital in the Twenty-First Century yet? What I'm hearing's good enough I might put it on the top of my pile.BUSH 2112 posted:I disagree, really. The FYAD ruleset (if you will) is what made LF, because a lot of really funny posts were things that old-GBS rules would have disallowed. Maybe not the best descriptor. I associate the joke posts, empty quoting and 'polysci with swears' dynamic and so on with giving hardcore polysci nerds lax standards and a dedicated haunt. I associate the quadruple triple meta irony, mod-stalking and goatseing with 'no no guys, it's an FYAD lite'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Goatse is good and if you think otherwise, well, you're no friend of mine
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The wealth distribution of the US makes that a given. You believe that it is apparent based on the surface reading of the political system that a regular citizen in america should have zero legislative impact on decisions , and not only that but that said regular citizen knows this as common knowledge?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You believe that it is apparent based on the surface reading of the political system that a regular citizen in america should have zero legislative impact on decisions , and not only that but that said regular citizen knows this as common knowledge? Yes, at least if we define regular citizen as "someone that will read this report".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, at least if we define regular citizen as "someone that will read this report". As there is a 'share this on Facebook' and 'email this to a friend' buttons on the website that has been cited, I think you're seeding false assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Gerund posted:As there is a 'share this on Facebook' and 'email this to a friend' buttons on the website that has been cited, I think you're seeding false assumptions. And similar buttons exist for already existing statistics on wealth distribution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And similar buttons exist for already existing statistics on wealth distribution. The original post: Relentlessboredomm posted:Hahah I love the bit about the political scientists JUST NOW looking into the effects of money in politics. That doesn't at all seem like an incredibly pertinent and important piece of the puzzle that should be a constant source of investigation. No sir. Still at least there finally is some research being done which verifies everyone's worst fears. This is what was established to say that the study was worthy rather than blasé. A wealth distribution survey is not a political systems analysis. It is entirely valid cognitively to believe that the political system is not affected- or as affected- by wealth distribution as it is stated in the study.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Gerund posted:
Again though, it doesn't matter past a certain point. It's already common knowledge that wealthy people control society (hence "Job creators" determining the fate of the economy, etc). Just because we now know that it's codified in a certain percentage isn't really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Also, while they said they studied the last 20 years, it could have been the last 4000 years and they would have reached the same conclusion. I mean, if money and power didn't enable you to just make everything go your way, why would people want it so much? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
It is good that a study exists to explicitly codify the idea that the poor and working classes have a near-zero impact on the ways that laws are written and enforced. Because of this, it challenges at the root a belief structure that the 'little guy' does have an impact on policy and legislative decisions. And once armed with that, the civic conversation has a chance to move forward on solutions to create a more representative system. I realize that 'raising awareness' is a favorite punching-bag against milquetoast progressive causes, but there does need to be well-written, strongly-founded challenges to the body of thought that entrusts an aristocracy with the noble obligation to lead the people. Without such you're going to be wading into deep water sounding like a college freshman raging against the wealthy 'because they're unfair'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
So, I made a reference to Congress in another forum here, and it just dawned on me... Why doesn't the GOP split up Texas? It seems like you could split Texas up into a number of states, at least three if you turned Houston and Dallas into new capitals. Creating new GOP-controlled states out of one big GOP-controlled state would give you more GOP Senators, which would make it further difficult for Democrats to have any control in Congress. There's not exactly any real equal for the Democrats, as California's liberals are all centralized in two regions and I'm not sure New York is that much better. I'm probably an idiot. I don't know much about the state economically , and I suppose it's very likely that the state's great expanses of nothing survive off the money made at the ports on the coast. The other issue is that such a proposal can be easily countered by a marketing campaign invoking the popular phrase, "Dont Mess With Texas", which is sort of a sure hit with low information voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:So, I made a reference to Congress in another forum here, and it just dawned on me... Why doesn't the GOP split up Texas?  e: comedy answer, this would constitute "messing"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
It takes a huge amount of rural area to gerrymander out the Democratic votes in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas is trending that way too. Carving up the state into smaller states controlled by those major cities is just going to give you one or two small-population Republican states (like Lubbockland), and several battleground states (Dallasland, Houstonland) or outright Democrat bastions (San AntAustinland, El Pasoland)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
The same idea comes up perennially within Washington state, commonly involving dividing the state between the bread-basket east of the cascade range (Yakima, Spokane) and the more industrially developed western side. It tends to die a death every time as soon as people question such bald-faced political arbitrage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:08
|
|