|
PhazonLink posted:Reminder Shapiro almost got killed by a woman when he insulted her and called her the t-word. He then tried to sue and then dropped the suit like the little POS he is. Man, when I read this I tried googling for "ben shapiro attempted murder" but it was just someone's threat to beat him up on television. I thought there was an actual attempt on his life or something.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Cyberventurer posted:Man, when I read this I tried googling for "ben shapiro attempted murder" but it was just someone's threat to beat him up on television. I thought there was an actual attempt on his life or something. A Transgender Ex-Navy Seal threatened him. And I wanted to see it happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
But nothing changes in the whale. Jonah is still just as much of an rear end in a top hat after he gets spat up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Cyberventurer posted:Man, when I read this I tried googling for "ben shapiro attempted murder" but it was just someone's threat to beat him up on television. I thought there was an actual attempt on his life or something. Yeah that summary made me think "wait why is shapiro the villain here, that's kind of an insane overreaction and he shouldnt be coerced into dropping the case" the additional detail of "she threatened to beat him up on TV" is a pretty crucial one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Significantly fewer deaths is a better outcome than significantly more deaths. I'm absolutely 100% on board with the hypothetical proposition "there are gun control measures that have an unacceptable cost benefit ratio despite saving nonzero lives". But then, I HAVE been an economist for around a decade.  Even did some safety cost benefit work! Number of lives saved per dollar, looking for innovations to recommend and ranking stuff.For those playing along at home, I don't recall any states offhand willing to spend more than twelve million bucks per life saved, and the standard is usually more like six million or less? Relatedly this is why Trump's dumb budget plan to cut the Chemical Safety Board makes me mad, because if they save, like, one life a decade and have no other benefit whatsoever, they're a pretty good deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:But nothing changes in the whale. Jonah is still just as much of an rear end in a top hat after he gets spat up. Think we'll learn gently caress all if we make it through this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm absolutely 100% on board with the hypothetical proposition "there are gun control measures that have an unacceptable cost benefit ratio despite saving nonzero lives". But then, I HAVE been an economist for around a decade. Being the CSB has got to be depressing. Their job is to make obvious recommendations to companies that are just waiting for their US facilities to explode so they can collect the insurance and move to China.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Being the CSB has got to be depressing. Their job is to make obvious recommendations to companies that are just waiting for their US facilities to explode so they can collect the insurance and move to China. That's why they spend their time making amazing youtube videos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Being the CSB has got to be depressing. Their job is to make obvious recommendations to companies that are just waiting for their US facilities to explode so they can collect the insurance and move to China. I bet it feels alright to finally being a voice that's not politically motivated. Even more important than when CSB shits on a crappy company is when they poo poo on crappy regulators and standards organizations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A Transgender Ex-Navy Seal threatened him. And I wanted to see it happen. THAT's Ben Shapiro? LOL
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Reminder Shapiro almost got killed by a woman when he insulted her and called her the t-word. He then tried to sue and then dropped the suit like the little POS he is. also he's 5'4"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:That's why they spend their time making amazing youtube videos. The latest is their best work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfUrC2u_Nsc What reason was given for why the CSB never got regulatory powers? Private companies are better are self-regulating?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/spookperson/sta...r%3D1136%23pti1
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:The latest is their best work. It's meant to improve company cooperation with the CSB, right now their involvement is mostly non adversarial (use of their findings in civil suits and suchlike notwithstanding) so CSB inspectors are relatively unlikely to be frozen out of an accident investigation. This theoretically improves their ability to get the facts and make good safety recommendations, at the cost of taking some of the government's better safety experts and rendering them mostly unusable in enforcement. Edit: just watched the video.  I love these guys.
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
They just tried this last year, it was called the pied piper strategy. It basically amounts to playing chicken with politics, not exactly the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It's meant to improve company cooperation with the CSB, right now their involvement is mostly non adversarial (use of their findings in civil suits and suchlike notwithstanding) so CSB inspectors are relatively unlikely to be frozen out of an accident investigation. This theoretically improves their ability to get the facts and make good safety recommendations, at the cost of taking some of the government's better safety experts and rendering them mostly unusable in enforcement. Yeah they're modeled after NTSB, which also doesn't have regulatory power (other than in reporting and investigations) but instead is supposed to influence regulators and industry alike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:They just tried this last year, it was called the pied piper strategy. It basically amounts to playing chicken with politics, not exactly the best idea. Yeah, I generally try to vote for sane candidates in Texas primaries. I even helped organize a bit to try and save David Dewhurst's god-ordained Senate seat from Cruz the Ooze. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It's meant to improve company cooperation with the CSB, right now their involvement is mostly non adversarial (use of their findings in civil suits and suchlike notwithstanding) so CSB inspectors are relatively unlikely to be frozen out of an accident investigation. This theoretically improves their ability to get the facts and make good safety recommendations, at the cost of taking some of the government's better safety experts and rendering them mostly unusable in enforcement. Makes sense. Why are the Republicans so gungho to get rid of it then? Just normal anti-government sentiment or has CSB investigations resulted in a lot of civil lawsuits against the industry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Makes sense. Why are the Republicans so gungho to get rid of it then? Just normal anti-government sentiment or has CSB investigations resulted in a lot of civil lawsuits against the industry? Not Republicans, just Mick Mulvaney, Trump's monstrous budget dude. It's a government agency, therefore he wants to defund it. As a bonus, it's one nobody much knew much about before the budget, so he figured it was a good place to save ten million dollars a year. (Turns out I misremembered their budget by a factor of ten but I maintain they're a goddamn amazing bargain)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Not Republicans, just Mick Mulvaney, Trump's monstrous budget dude. Just as I posted that I found their video that was made in response to Mulvaney's budget. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiAunuURH-M CSB is now my favorite government agency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Just as I posted that I found their video that was made in response to Mulvaney's budget. If their video / web media people aren't getting paid almost as much as their chemical engineers it's a goddamn crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Just as I posted that I found their video that was made in response to Mulvaney's budget. That is a fantastic presentation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:They just tried this last year, it was called the pied piper strategy. It basically amounts to playing chicken with politics, not exactly the best idea. It's basically gambling on people liking the status quo instead of Literally Anything Else. Which uhhhh is usually a pretty bad idea. Especially when Status Quo is technically your opponent. Of the two races I've seen accusations of opposing parties supporting fringe candidates to weaken their GE presence; Corbyn and Trump. In both cases the alleged sabotage has backfired quite severely. The only explanation I can think of for this beyond "they have no idea what they're doing" (which is pretty feasible admittedly) is that they're willing to dumpsterfire every possible race until they get a new Macron-esque Neutral Party victory to swoon over (since everyone hates Macron now). Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JackSmithIV/status/917549341589626880 America.txt Falstaff posted:They just tried this last year, it was called the pied piper strategy. It basically amounts to playing chicken with politics, not exactly the best idea. Death really is too good for these pricks. ded redd fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The only explanation I can think of for this beyond "they have no idea what they're doing" (which is pretty feasible admittedly) is that they're willing to dumpsterfire every possible race until they get a new Macron-esque Neutral Party victory to swoon over (since everyone hates Macron now). They're raising the stakes because they hope putting a bunch of monsters on the Republican ticket will give them a better chance to win, and if the gamble goes against them and they lose anyway it's only the poor and minorities who will suffer not them
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's basically gambling on people liking the status quo instead of Literally Anything Else. Which uhhhh is usually a pretty bad idea. Especially when Status Quo is technically your opponent. They just haven't learned a drat thing. They're still hiring the same consultants who follow the same playbook. They still think that a centrist has a better chance than a more extreme candidate, and just as they're applying that to their own races, they're also applying that to their opponents' races with the idea that the wacky extremist will necessarily be less electable than the mealy-mouthed generic establishment centrist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They just haven't learned a drat thing. They're still hiring the same consultants who follow the same playbook. They still think that a centrist has a better chance than a more extreme candidate, and just as they're applying that to their own races, they're also applying that to their opponents' races with the idea that the wacky extremist will necessarily be less electable than the mealy-mouthed generic establishment centrist. Politico has a particularly execrable piece that underlines this point: quote:In 1968, as in 2016, Democrats narrowly lost the White House after nominating a relatively moderate, establishment candidate instead of a more liberal alternative who had inspired a raging enthusiasm among younger voters. Democrats spent much of the next four years arguing about what direction the party should take. White working-class voters—traditionally a Democratic bloc—were sluicing away, and progressives, convinced the party needed to change both its policy direction and its coalition of supporters, demanded a new approach: a “loose peace coalition” of minorities, young voters and educated white Democrats, as strategist Fred Dutton wrote in his 1971 book, Changing Sources of Power. One year later, the party’s presidential nominee, the ultra-liberal Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, went on to lose 49 states in one of the most lopsided victories in American history. There is so little understanding among Democrats of what actually happened in 1972, and it's poisoned their political logic ever since. "McGovern lost? It must have been because he was too left-wing! Welp, we'd better not tack to the left again!  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am exactly the sort of leftist Spencer wants to flip there. #nerdsex
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
From the IRC crowd: https://twitter.com/Dont__BeStupid/status/916131099939655680
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Politico has a particularly execrable piece that underlines this point: McGovern lost because of the DNC sabotaging his campaign at every turn because of his opposition to Vietnam (they though that he was undermining LBJ's legacy by being anti-war), and also, you know, literal Watergate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:From the IRC crowd: That's loving absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:McGovern lost because of the DNC sabotaging his campaign at every turn because of his opposition to Vietnam (they though that he was undermining LBJ's legacy by being anti-war), and also, you know, literal Watergate. McGovern was a weak nominee. The democrats would have won that year if Teddy Kennedy hadn't been such a train wreck personally. Actually a lot of recent history might be a lot better if that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:From the IRC crowd: This country is a farce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:McGovern lost because of the DNC sabotaging his campaign at every turn because of his opposition to Vietnam (they though that he was undermining LBJ's legacy by being anti-war), and also, you know, literal Watergate. Well, but also because he followed the very playbook lauded by that article, ie: Fred Dutton's. Dropping labor from the Democratic coalition was such an unbelievably dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:From the IRC crowd: lmao I wonder what drugs this guy was on
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:From the IRC crowd: Beyond the racial implications, just physically/mentally how does this happen?  is the answer "PCP is a hell of a drug?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Being white is the greatest drug on Earth!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:McGovern was a weak nominee. The democrats would have won that year if Teddy Kennedy hadn't been such a train wreck personally. Actually a lot of recent history might be a lot better if that. Uh, no? Leaving McGovern aside, Nixon went into 72 at pretty much the best position a president could ask for, and he was one of the most skilled campaigners of his time. Beating Nixon in 72 would have required some stars aligning or the White House Plumbers getting caught red-handed at Watergate with signed orders from Nixon in their pockets or something, and not just the Dems scrounging up a stronger candidate. The right-wing Dems stabbing McGovern in the back certainly didn't help, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Beyond the racial implications, just physically/mentally how does this happen? Most likely yeah, you can make a bunch of jokes about the comparative reaction but there's no way that dude wasn't high as a kite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Beyond the racial implications, just physically/mentally how does this happen? he's rich and white. entitlement is the drug you're looking for, i'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 18:11
|
|