|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:I thought William Weld was actually a pretty decent Governor of Massachusetts, at the time. Does that count? Given that his opponent was a socially far-right theocratic "Democrat" I'd say he was definitely the right choice.
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:How'd that guy win the Democratic primary? It looks like a case where he was relatively unknown and had an unpopular opponent, plus a bit of luck. During the general people realized what an rear end in a top hat he was and there was a lot of crossover voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_gubernatorial_election,_1990
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Hispanic men CAN BE AND ARE WHITE Wouldn't that be Zimmerman's decision though? It still wouldn't be appropriate to immediately label him as white without any input.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I'm asking this out of legitimate curiosity, what policies exactly do the pro-gun control people here want to enact to prevent shootings like this? I've seen many people claim that mental health legislation is just a Republican diversionary tactic. I support universal background checks but that's not relevant for this particular shooting. California already has the "assault weapons" ban and magazine size limits that are supposedly so incredibly important. What do you want? Do you want to ban private gun ownership altogether? If so why are people so incredibly hesitant to admit this outright? If not what policy proscriptions exactly do you support?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why would you do this. Isn't there a gun thread to tread over the actual arguments that come around and burn this and other threads to the ground every few months? I'm not trying to derail, I'm not here to argue with anyone. I just want answers to my questions, I won't reply to anyone who provides them.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Is it that inconceivable that I want to hear the argument of people that disagree with me? I understand that a gun control argument would derail this thread. That's why I simply want people to tell me their reasoning while I sit here and listen. I want to understand your position without ruining the thread by starting a gun control argument. I do not feel some obligation to defend my side of the argument, I just want clarity on what exactly you are supporting and what policies you want enacted.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
I agree that college should be about exposing you to diverse viewpoints including unpopular ones and ones with which you disagree but the commencement speech seems to be literally the worst possible venue for doing that. You're all done with school, you're going out into the real world and they're giving you advise. Shouldn't they choose someone the students would actually like instead of forcing them to listen to some rear end in a top hat that they hate for half an hour?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The idea that LGBT Americans are well off DINKs is popular but not really true. Exactly, virtually everything that is commonly believed about LGBT demography is false. The belief is that they're all rich, white men when in reality if you had to make a ridiculous generalization like that they're really all poor, black women. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
"70% of blacks voted for prop 8!" has been repeated a zillion times by both people like Dan Savage along with the anti-gay folks but it's probably not accurate. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Black-support-for-Prop-8-called-exaggeration-3177138.php quote:Exit polls found that 70 percent of black voters backed Prop. 8 on Nov. 4, even as they overwhelmingly supported Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who opposed the same-sex marriage ban. Voting a few percentage points higher than whites on prop 8 hardly justifies blaming blacks for prop 8 (it was also statistically shown that no matter how they voted it would have passed) nor does it even justify saying that blacks are particularly more homophobic than whites. It's also worth noting that in terms of public opinion on gay rights 2008 is basically ancient history now, if they did a re-vote of prop 8 based on those numbers it's pretty likely that blacks as a group would vote it down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
You think that's bad? Here's some vintage pre-2012 era Texas GOP platform for nostalgia's sake. "Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such. Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Is sodomy defined in Texas as "pee-pee anywhere 'xcept hoo-haw" like it is in SC (or GA, can't remember)? Sodomy laws in the US originally covered only anal sex and then were later expanded to cover oral sex in the late 19th/early 20th century once judges started becoming aware of the horrors of blowjobs. Texas and a few other states updated their sodomy statutes in the 70s to apply to gays only, so in this particular case it only applied to gays. In practice the sodomy laws were never, ever enforced against consenting heterosexuals in any state, unless of course they were dirty race-mixers. Good Citizen posted:I think being able to force minors into gay aversion therapy and specifically the camps dedicated to that purpose is worse, but I guess that's a matter of personal opinion. Those camps are unquestionably a form of psychological and in some cases physical torture and the first hand accounts from participants are chilling. Well that depends, the police harassment of gays that the sodomy laws enabled could in many cases permanently ruin lives or even result in people being killed. It was highly dependent on where you lived though as to your likelihood of being subjected to such harassment. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. quote:Contrary to what supporters claim, increasing the minimum wage does not create jobs and stimulate the economy. The higher wages are not free money. The increased cost must either be absorbed by the employer, which is impossible for many who already operate on shoe-string profit margins, or it must be passed on to workers, in the form of reduced hours and benefits, and consumers, in the form of higher prices. Either way, someone pays. What sort of wizardry do they perform at Costco that somehow allows them to pay their employees a living wage despite the "shoe-string profit margin" from their low prices? How about Punch Pizza whose CEO decided to up their wages on a whim after states started pushing for increasing the minimum wage? How could he make such an economically disastrous decision without months of careful planning and coming up with devious alternative ways to gently caress over the workers? It's almost as if this talking point is complete and utter bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 03:45
|
|
