|
V. Illych L. posted:poe's law guys I'm seriously just stumped and sort of worried. Who the gently caress does a gimmick ban on an account from 2002?
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
I think someone's contaminated his precious bodily fluids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The atomic bomb is the only machine that ever created peace. Which Starfleet captain do you think would be most likely to support this point of view? I'm leaning towards Janeway; I think she's crazy enough to do it if it means getting her crew home. Not Picard though. He values life too much. And a TOS episode on the matter would end up being an allegory for non-proliferation, so no-go there. Sisko would probably be down to nuke some Cardies in the last couple of DS9 seasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Which Starfleet captain do you think would be most likely to support this point of view? I'm leaning towards Janeway; I think she's crazy enough to do it if it means getting her crew home. Oh yeah, definitely Janeway. Though that's really more because she suffers from "too many writers syndrome". The only thing the writers could decide on Janeway's personality were "female", "likes coffee".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm seriously just stumped and sort of worried. Who the gently caress does a gimmick ban on an account from 2002? I originally joined SA because of Next Week on Something Awful. My campaign to be Idiot King was thwarted back in the day on dubious "gimmick" grounds. Those were the old days, So it goes. At some point I realized hey I should be a goon on the forum again too, and so, 10bux more. I've only expressed my truly held convictions in here. If you disagree that's your business, but think about your self respect, there isn't really a reason to try to make it personal is there? Let's stick to discussion and debate and not get into "Lulz ur a sociopath get help hurr hurr shut up" idiocy. I do apologize for playing a part in derailing this from talk about the primaries, and won't anymore. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I originally joined SA because of Next Week on Something Awful. Well, god help us. This should be fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I originally joined SA because of Next Week on Something Awful. I'm not trying to make it personal. I'm commenting on the fact that only a sociopath or other serious mentally disturbed person would call for the brutal murder of millions of people while pretending it was the morally right thing to do. You are a sociopath, you are someone who lacks basic human empathy and morality. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:We could have exterminated them forever when we had the only nuclear arms. No we couldn't have done that, we had less than 250, comparatively low yield, nuclear weapons before the Soviets tested their first working one in 1949. And since we didn't have ICBMs, all would have had to be delivered by subsonic bombers, which would suffer quite heavy losses en route to major Soviet cities. The US didn't have working ICBMs until 1959, at which point the soviets had plenty of retaliatory capacity. Until then, all weapons would have to have been delivered by subsonic bombers that could be relatively easily shot down, as submarine launched missiles didn't exist until 1960, and supersonic nuclear bomb capable planes weren't available in the US til 1964
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
If there was a national poll today asking "Should we have nuked the Soviet Union before they had the chance to develop nuclear bombs?" I honestly believe that at least 20% of Americans would say yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Oh my god no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:If there was a national poll today asking "Should we have nuked the Soviet Union before they had the chance to develop nuclear bombs?" I honestly believe that at least 20% of Americans would say yes. So 27%?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Back on Topic: Does this Giuliani thing actually have serious legs of being relevant to the primaries? Like I don't think any of the 37 GOP debates are gonna feature the question "Do you think Obama loves America?" (as great as that would be) but is there any chance of this still being A Thing a few months from now when all the people we know are going to run actually file with the FEC and officially declare their candidacy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Oh my god no. Oh calm the gently caress down. People should be aware that just because we had a couple bombs lying around then doesn't mean we could have really used them in a war. Attempting to nuke the Soviets in 1949 to "kill em all" as he so quaintly put it would have just driven the Soviets to conquer the rest of Europe conventionally after a few bombs managed to hit. It'd be an idiotic move that also wouldn't get him the millions of Soviet dead he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Back on Topic: Does this Giuliani thing actually have serious legs of being relevant to the primaries? Like I don't think any of the 37 GOP debates are gonna feature the question "Do you think Obama loves America?" (as great as that would be) but is there any chance of this still being A Thing a few months from now when all the people we know are going to run actually file with the FEC and officially declare their candidacy? Rudy Giuliani couldn't stay relevant when he was actually running, so I doubt it. Expect, at most, the usual dogwhistles during the debates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
bpower posted:So 27%?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Back on Topic: Does this Giuliani thing actually have serious legs of being relevant to the primaries? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Back on Topic: Does this Giuliani thing actually have serious legs of being relevant to the primaries? Like I don't think any of the 37 GOP debates are gonna feature the question "Do you think Obama loves America?" (as great as that would be) but is there any chance of this still being A Thing a few months from now when all the people we know are going to run actually file with the FEC and officially declare their candidacy? It's been A Thing for the last eight years. I don't see any reason for it to stop now. It's not going to have any effect at all at this point. Dog whistles will never go out of style for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Is that a reference to a specific figure? Crazification Factor: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.dk/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Is that a reference to a specific figure? This was coined after Obama's election as senator in 2004.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Oh calm the gently caress down. People should be aware that just because we had a couple bombs lying around then doesn't mean we could have really used them in a war. Attempting to nuke the Soviets in 1949 to "kill em all" as he so quaintly put it would have just driven the Soviets to conquer the rest of Europe conventionally after a few bombs managed to hit. I wasn't arguing your point, I was just lamenting the fact that you were interacting with him. I don't know if the forums could handle the insanity level. Pohl fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm seriously just stumped and sort of worried. Who the gently caress does a gimmick ban on an account from 2002? Someone who guessed a password?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:With regards to Walker, I just don't see how someone can run a presidential campaign when their home state has done so absolutely horrible economically under his leadership that they're considering missing a debt payment. Even if I was a Republican that liked all the other horrible things he's done, I can't see how someone could look at him and say, "yeah, I want that for the rest of the country." Plus the whole no-degree thing - how is this guy in any sense a viable candidate? Either one of those should make you a joke candidate. Deteriorata posted:He did the Right Thing by conservative ideology. It doesn't matter that he trashed his state. Ideological purity matters more than results. Deteriorata's explanation of Walker's popularity is totally correct and is why Walker got the biggest applause at CPAC last year and at Steve King's Iowa Freedomfest (or whatever it was called) earlier this year. Still, Walker is going to have to come up with a better explanation for Wisconsin's woes than the hand waving that he's been doing so far. A number of his opponents, Rick Perry in particular, have better economic records they can point to as a contrast to Walker's stewardship, which they'll use to draw a contrast if Walker ends up leading the pack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Walker tripping over his dick. I do appreciate the attempt to argue that it's a dumb question, but that only works if you sneer dismissively as you answer it, not if you get cute about how you haven't talked to the President personally so you can't confirm his faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
toxx yourself for romney
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Walker tripping over his dick. I do appreciate the attempt to argue that it's a dumb question, but that only works if you sneer dismissively as you answer it, not if you get cute about how you haven't talked to the President personally so you can't confirm his faith. Do you believe that Obama is a Christian? I kinda don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Sisko would probably be down to nuke some Cardies in the last couple of DS9 seasons. What do you mean "probably"? Sisko used bioweapons on human civilians just to get even with some rear end in a top hat on a personal vendetta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qdAoqe5JyE
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
The progressive challenge to Hillary needs to quickly coalesce around a single, credible candidate if there's any hope of even changing the tone of the campaign, pushing her away from her "centrist" (read: right-wing) instincts. Right now there's Sanders, Webb, and O'Malley. If all three run, Hillary can coast to the nomination, positioning herself as the responsible choice compared to the ragtag nutjobs on the party's fringe. Here's how I view the head-to-head possibilities. As a cookie-cutter social democrat, I love Bernie. But ultimately I think he would be self-defeating with respect to his own ideals (and mine, incidentally). He would only accomplish a general association of what should be mainstream Democratic views with "socialism," which, whatever Jacobin might claim, is still a filthy word to well over half of the electorate. He should stay in Vermont. Webb would be a really interesting choice. Bob Moser has a big piece in the National Journal on the looming Webb candidacy playing on familiar themes - i.e., Webb as mercurial figure - he could inspire poor voters with his anti-Wall Street rhetoric and anti-inequality message, could potentially overcome his old Op-Eds against affirmative action with his powerful advocacy of sentencing reform, and might draw economic populists put off by "identity politics" back into the Democratic fold. It completely ignores the fact that Webb's anti-immigrant history mean that he will never be capable of rallying a Latino vote large and devoted enough to carry a Democratic campaign to victory in a general election, and that basic fact will be presaged with a thumping in the primaries. That leaves O'Malley. He's made three major critiques of the Obama Administration. Most recently, he opposed the AUMF. He penned an NYT op-ed against the Administration's clearance of some offshore drilling along on the eastern seaboard. Thirdly, during the "border crisis," he called for the Central American refugee children to be granted immediate entry rather than deported. That gives him some progressive credentials in key anti-war, environmentalist, and Latino constituencies. Unfortunately, he's so calm as to be boring, he has no foreign policy credentials, he has never held a Federal position - and it's hard to run as a Washington outsider when you were governor of a state housing around half of DC's commuter population. Obviously, Brown's loss could hurt, and he will be pilloried as a free-spending East Coast liberal. Plus his whole family is involved in Maryland politics, so it's hard to focus on the anti-nepotism aspect of a Hillary challenge (in a way that, for instance, Jim Webb could). Not to mention he's kind of a dork - playing in a Celtic rock band, riding horses dressed as a War of 1812 general...he's like a sitcom dad constantly setting up eye rolls from a teenage daughter. All that said, I think O'Malley offers the best chance at building a liberal / progressive coalition capable of capturing enough primaries to force Hillary to take notice, and the people wasting time and resources on the Draft Warren nonsense should hurry up and back someone who has actually expressed interest in running.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Someone who guessed a password? I was ok with your answer until I realized that we all had to update our passwords a few years ago. I have no loving idea what my password is anymore because it is a mile long string of letters and numbers. So nope, nobody hacked his account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Webb might potentially be a good candidate for the Dems but he has been so low profile since the end of his Senate career that he might wind up some kind of Pawlenty-esque nonentity in the race. Looks good on paper, but no mojo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I was ok with your answer until I realized that we all had to update our passwords a few years ago. I have no loving idea what my password is anymore because it is a mile long string of letters and numbers. So nope, nobody hacked his account. You've been able to change back to short dumb passwords for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Webb's plan is/was to run to the right of Hillary and appeal to "Reagan Democrats" i.e. white dudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Webb's plan is/was to run to the right of Hillary and appeal to "Reagan Democrats" i.e. white dudes. How does that make any sense, and how are these people being paid to be so drat wrong? Just what in the hell are they smoking?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:08
|
|
Joementum posted:the right of Hillary This is just being a non-crazy Republican.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:This is just being a non-crazy Republican. Whatever gets 50.1%. Webb isn't going to get any traction this cycle, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Pohl posted:How does that make any sense, and how are these people being paid to be so drat wrong? There's a sizable portion of the party that still believes it's 1992. Joe Biden wanted the 2012 campaign to disavow Sandra Fluke and buy more door hangers, for instance. Lots of candidates test the waters in the invisible primary by putting their names out there and gauging the reaction from donors and party leaders. Webb is/was testing the waters to see if running on a strong-Defense / moderately economic populist platform would work. The reaction from the party seems to have been lukewarm at best and I would be surprised if he's on the ballot in Iowa. Maybe he will stick around for that. We had Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson make it that far in 2008, though Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, Tom Daschle, and Russ Feingold didn't. The point being, lots of people are going to try and anyone with traditional qualifications and whose politics align with the party shouldn't be counted out. Though Hillary's still going to beat any of them who try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Webb's plan is/was to run to the right of Hillary and appeal to "Reagan Democrats" i.e. white dudes. I'm not sure that's entirely fair or accurate. He'll run to Hillary's left on economic issues and foreign policy - she has never really backed down from her idiotic hawkishness w.r.t the Middle East, and Webb can point to decades of opposition to increased US involvement in regional conflicts there. The 2006 run was a pure anti-Bush, anti-Iraq campaign. He's running to her right only in the sense that he probably won't mention gay people or latino people. He's very vocal about the need to reduce incarceration though, and he is not shy about describing that as a predominately black issue. He voted for Obamacare. He is pro-choice. I've already said I think he's hopeless due to unacceptable views on immigration, but other than that, I don't see how he's running a rightwing campaign. I would say the only thing resembling it in recent memory is the 2008 John Edwards run before the mistress / child stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
New web video from Jeb reminds us that, hey, Iraq is kind of a mess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uB7KpGIYN8 This message was inevitable from Jeb. There's just no way that the people backing him weren't going to force him to take on the issue. But I don't think he's anywhere close to a good enough politician to make it work. Sure, the tactic is supposed to be that you attack your biggest weakness, but oof is Iraq ever a big weakness for him. It'll be very interesting to watch him thread that needle. Also his PAC logo makes me laugh even more when it's animated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
He's really going with an open-palm arm-extending-up-and-out logo? Haha, okay. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
There should be a thread documenting all the idiotic PACs with their logos and slogans. "O'Say Can You See," for O'Malley, is pretty cringe-worthy. "Rand PAC" has the running-for-class-president slogan "Stand with Rand."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:"Rand PAC" has the running-for-class-president slogan "Stand with Rand." To be somewhat fair to them, that's from the hashtag that developed during his "filibuster" where he talked about the danger of the federal government using drones to spy on your mailbox. My favorite so far is Millennials for Jeb, whose shop features a "Jeb the Thinker" t-shirt and a Jeb flask.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:19
|
|