|
My Imaginary GF posted:If you're looking for Latino candiates positioning themselves for 2016 potential, I'd say to look at Louis Gutierrez before Castro--he'e the La Rossa to Castro's milquetoast moderation. Rahm, no one outside of Chicago cares about Gutierrez.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I've had one say "We need a meme that tells the whole story and actually knows what it is! The Oatmeal one doesn't understand Net Neutrality!" but conspicuously not elaborate beyond that. This is actually a true statement - the Oatmeal focuses on the Comcast/Netflix despite as evidence we need net neutrality, ignoring the fact that that dispute isn't about net neutrality and wouldn't be affected by net neutrality regulation (especially given that Comcast is already under stronger obligations than would be imposed under Title II.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:The way Obama worded things he means to regulate to that level as well. Everyone assumed he wouldn't go that far, which is why the telecom companies are screaming bloody murder. No, he didn't. Sorry. All he said was that interconnect deals should be transparent. No one sane is suggesting that interconnect/peering deals should have to be offered on identical terms, and Title II doesn't actually offer the authority to require that. The telcos are pissed because they don't want to deal with Title II regulation - they don't have a problem with net neutrality because it doesn't change anything in practice, it just means they have to keep doing the same poo poo they've been doing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:I'm pretty sure the applying net neutrality rules against ISPs and the rest of the internet means that special deals like Comcast and Netflix will be regulated or at least scrutinized. It's in a section called increased transparency. Pretty sure they're talking about disclosing the scope/terms of those deals, which has been an ongoing conversation in net neutrality, not about applying net neutrality regulations. (Also, applying a full neutrality regulation of the type you seem to be asking for to interconnect might actually exceed title ii authority. Title II explicitly allows for reasonable discrimination, and asking Netflix to pay to connect in is not unreasonable discrimination.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not like there aren't plenty of people in the major parties who believe in utterly wrong and unscientific things. Believing that showing up to the Prayer Breakfast will help get you voters isn't wrong or unscientific.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'd hesitate to say a percentage of white voters Hillary can capture, more than Mitt certainly. Are you seriously suggesting that a Clinton doesn't hold severe grudges?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:It's been a long time since we've seen "Bush is a secret genius." "Good at politics" != "Genius."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That fucker just had his brother insult the Eagles and the Giants while he personally praised the Cowboys. That's poison up there. Also Christie can kiss Michigan goodbye.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Its their idea! The whole idea is a Heritage foundation Conservative Alternative to a federal healthcare system. No it loving isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Ugh double phone post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
sullat posted:I think the basically Cruz insisted that the Senate remain open an extra day so that everyone could stay and hear his musings on the latest Obamatrocity, and Reid took the opportunity to activate voting mode when all the Senators were still in town. Otherwise they would have just gone home, because the Senate has a weird schedule. Like 4 10s, except 3 4s. You know they're still working before and after the floor closes and when they're home, right? There's a lot more to the job than what you see on C-SPAN.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:This is only partially true. Senators in leadership have more extended hours. Most Senators do not work a whole lot when Congress isn't in session. Their staff, on the other hand.. Yeah, no. Worked for one, friends with staff for others, you're wrong. They work quite a bit when not in session - they aren't on the Hill but their schedules don't reduce all that much between various home office events, ongoing briefing from DC staff, and the ever present fundraising obligations. Their (DC) staff actually have a bigger difference in working time between in and out of session than the senators themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Our actual 1960 President got daily injections of an experimental drug cocktail administered by a quack they called Dr. Feelgood who later lost his license. In fairness, that was because Kennedy suffered from severe back pain and Dr Feelgood's cocktail worked for him. (Probably because it had meth and painkillers in it.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:your vote does nothing but make yourself feel better anyway i don't understand why this is so hard to understand It doesn't matter if *i* piss in the river, that's way too tiny an act to make the water unsafe to drink.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Yes. They already paid her off for not actually running by creating a Senate Leadership position. Now they need control her use of that position to push the Overton Window too far to the left for whatever they feel is their ideal framing for the 2016 campaign. ... Warren didn't want to run. They put her into leadership because they were hoping she could maybe help democrats capture some of the excitement her campaign generated by helping with strategy. Or, you know, conspiracy theories. Either way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I mean, it's not a conspiracy. Warren didn't want to run, but that doesn't mean that she didn't use party base enthusiasm for her candidacy as a bargaining chip to get a better position in the Senate. It also doesn't mean that putting her in that position didn't have any other benefit to the Dem establishment besides foreclosing a presidential bid. The Senate powers that be didn't do it to stop her from running. They were never worried she was going to, because it was never going to happen. It wasn't an ancillary benefit - it didn't even enter into the decision.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A christian perspective has no relevance to a discussion of what science says. It is definitely not true that science dictates we were created by God: science has nothing to say (either for or against) on the subject. The correct statement is that science is not incompatible with a belief in God and that we were created by God. Reread his statement. It isn't "science dictates a belief in god", it's "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God" I.e. Given science and my faith, I believe we were created by God and I see nothing in science that says otherwise. It's pretty weaselly, but it isn't "science says God exists."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:But it does say very little for his understanding or belief in science There's nothing in science that's incompatible with a theistic viewpoint. There's plenty that's incompatible with biblical literalism, but there's nothing in science that really proves or disproves theism as a general concept. And weas, you can't take out faith from his statement - it's not an either or phrasing. It's "the combination of the two."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Idran posted:The structure "both X and Y imply Z" doesn't parse as "(X and Y) implies Z". It parses as "(X implies Z) and (Y implies Z)". To get the former reading, you need something like "together, X and Y imply Z". Ignoring context, sure. But you can also phrase it as "both water and cold make ice." In context, Walker seemed to be trying to say that the combination led him to his belief, not that each did individually.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Idran posted:No, that's just incorrect. Or at least we have vastly different readings of that sentence. My automatic interpretation of that sentence is still "water makes ice and cold makes ice". So you just ignore context, got it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Idran posted:And you just ignore rules of syntax, apparently. Thinking Walker was saying "science is why I believe in God" requires him to be taking a position almost no one takes (except a few weirdos who infer gods existence from the order in nature). Thinking he was saying "taking science and my faith into account, I believe in God" is consistent with quite a few people's viewpoints. So yeah, I assume that he spoke slightly oddly, rather than that he took an extremely odd position.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Science has nothing to offer faith. Science cannot dictate a belief in god because it has nothing to say about god. Walker either has a contorted view of science (in that he thinks it can say something to prove god isn't bullshit), or he doesn't believe in science (meaning that he literally believes scripture for something like creation over evolution). You should really learn about religions that aren't literalist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:All of the Abrahamic religions were literalist. They've developed branches that have shifted to a stance that claims allegory and parable as time has gone on and our understanding of the world has increased. No, they really weren't. Literalism is a recent development.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What were all those burnt sacrifices for then? Yes, they interpreted some things literally. At least until the temple fell at which point they said "uh yeah that was just about the temple so we can ignore it now." But then again, the entire Talmudic tradition, the tradition of rabbis (and priests) as textual interpreters which is completely contrary to any idea of literalism, etc etc etc. Literalism is a modern invention.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:The Great Myth of the Liberal Mainstream Media. It's almost like they actually do believe in Republican ideals and aren't just doing it for economic reasons. Never not funny to see D&D, normally a bastion of "man is not homo economicus", assume that that's the way that rich conservatives act.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
I too think handing Republicans control of both houses and the presidency at the same time is a choice that won't lead to immediate long-lasting disaster.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:You also think net neutrality is a bad idea. No, I think title 2 is a bad idea. I think net neutrality is a great idea.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:No, the depressing part is that prank caller got charged with a crime, while Walker was re-elected. Pretty sure he didn't get charged with a crime for the call. Koch said he thought it was a crime, but so far as I'm aware Murphy was never even arrested, much less charged, for his prank call.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Someone's forgotten Vince Foster. It can only go so far, because everyone in Washington uses personal email for exactly this reason, so they only make themselves vulnerable if they push it too much. It'll get some mention in the permanent committee on BENGHAZI and then blow over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:You've never worked around executive old people. They don't work out of email. They get other people to do that for them. There's still a decent chance of a violation but it's certainly not "all but assured." Pretty much this. Politicians still operate on "my aide will print it out and hand it to me."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Del Capitan posted:If I recall properly, haven't there been a few nonscandals like this over the past couple years, where someone uses a personal email address in defiance of recordkeeping and security rules? I swear there was something about Palin doing similar, some years back. Basically everyone does this so it would be a shock if there hadn't been a scandal or two.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Whois records have nothing to do with actual physical server locations. I'm pretty sure my Whois records still point to the place I lived four or five moves ago, even though there was never a server in the same state as that address.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:If you're willing to trot out her time-in-grade as qualifications, why isn't Kerry running? He's got significantly more time in the Senate, he's got an equal amount of time as SoS. Why is he not the preferred candidate over Clinton? What about Clinton makes her stand out from the pack? She wants to and he doesn't?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:They absolutely are, just because the numbers they report are accurate for the questions they ask does not mean that they are asking questions that will get them anything but the result they are looking to broadcast which is why they have been so separated from reality in the last couple executive cycles. You're right, you aren't. Fox hasn't been particularly inaccurate, and definitely haven't been particularly skewed to republicans, they just haven't been using top tier polling firms. 538's ratings reflect this - one of their polling forms is essentially average and the other slightly below average. Neither one exhibits a strong R bias. Fox's deceptiveness comes in how they present the data, not in the data itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:So, despite the fact that their data is inaccurate and has in the past and has been presented in a way to support their preconcieved notions, both of which you acknowledge in this post, you call me out for posting that their data is not accurate and that they use it to support their pre conceived notions. The gently caress? "Fox's deceptiveness comes in how they present the data, not in the data itself." It's not that hard of a concept - lying with data doesn't require the data to be bad. Their data is not particularly inaccurate, which is backed up by 538 saying one of their firms is dead average and the other slightly below average. Once it goes into the newsroom and graphics department, it becomes lies. You really aren't very smart, a fact you have already conceded; perhaps you should embrace it and admit you were wrong originally.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Bob McDonnell is sitting in jail for two years because the money and gifts he took represented a conflict of interest. The prosecution never established any tangible benefit received. Except that one of them took gifts that violated the law and one didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It could, but keep in mind, icantfindaname asserted, "if you're hard on him you could say he was probably sort of racist." I don't see much evidence that this was true, whereas his volunteering to teach Mexican kids in segregated schools at least suggests otherwise. He also had no problem using the n-word to refer to African-Americans and once asked his chauffeur if he'd prefer to be called by his name or "boy." Upon receiving the obvious answer, he told him to get hosed - he was black so he better get used to not being called by his name. LBJ definitely exhibited racist tendencies on a regular basis. He was also genuinely devoted to reducing inequality - both racial and economic. These aren't contradictory things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah, basically this exactly Except Johnson wasn't upper class in any way shape or form for a long portion of his life. He grew up incredibly poor. Instead of all the effort to fit him into a box that is either "racist guy" or "saint", or assuming that he couldn't possibly have been helping black people for the 'right' reason if he was also saying racist things, you can acknowledge that he simultaneously believed in equality and rights for African Americans, helping poor people become not poor, and also said/did some racist poo poo at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Does the drone then proceed to reel him up and fly him to the police station? No, it's a BatDrone - it leaves him there, tied up, for the cops to collect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:bernie has one thousandth the More accurate.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 01:11
|
|