|
Yeah I mean when an op-ed begins with "my first foray into politics was proudly choosing Nixon and I'm not going to mention any regret for that" the rest can probably be ignored.
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
This is going to be an amazing primary season.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Yeah no poo poo. My IR classes were pretty much +90% liberals. What kind of idiot teabagger gets a PhD in IR anyway? Where the gently caress do they think they'll be working?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 20:41
|
|
Who teaches the class? MacArthur? Kissinger?
|
hobbesmaster posted:At some think tank making more money than the rest of the class. Everyone says this but that's bullshit. CATO and the like aren't just money factories where Teabaggers party and live it up like some nerdy Studio 54. Those places don't hire en masse so I'm thinking Panera Bread is a safer prediction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
berzerker posted:Boy you guys are all WAY off, I'm about to lay down some Sojourner Truth on your collective behinds This is seriously amazing. Thanks for sharing this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Even if the guy is a horrible murderer it's a lovely thing to cut off the murder's wife's health insurance in the final weeks of her pregnancy. Yes it is, though it's important to be mindful of what would have happened had the killer been a regular civilian. You think that person's employer would care in the least about a wife in that case? People shouldn't get special treatment because their family members happen to be police.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Only 11% of working Americans are unionized.Popular Thug Drink posted:If there was a personal relationship there, I don't see why not. My job broke rules for me when my wife was pregnant Again, you're lucky to have this but the vast majority of Americans don't have this sort of fall back.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
I think the burden of proof is on those who argue that this particular woman should be given a benefit that very few other working Americans would get just for being laid off in a normal fashion, much less because their spouse was arrested and charged with murder. I mean if your argument is "everyone should have insurance all the time no matter what!" that's fine, but that's not a real-world argument. I definitely feel personally for the woman and don't want to see her lose her insurance (as stated, her and the child are completely innocent in this) but it's not a "crab bucket" thought process to question this. It's an obvious double standard and it's unjust.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
The statement read that they are actually waiting to fire him until after the baby is born. That isn't "due process" as much as "we're going to give this family a consideration that no other profession would get when caught on tape committing murder".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:And? We should give everyone the benefit of the doubt, not punish the wife of a murderer because we don't like police. Yes we should[give everyone the benefit of the doubt]. We should also have universal health care. We aren't going to get there by only granting special privileges to those in positions of power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:We're not going to get there by demanding a consistent level of poor healthcare across the board, either. I'd argue this is actually a better approach than allowing lovely treatment for everyone except the socially advantaged.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Hey cool more strawmen!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:This all got started with a strawman attack on me because I dared repeat what was happening at a press conference and didn't go apeshit in the properly approve way, so feel free to kiss my rear end when it comes to complaining about it now. Ah, the "someone did it first so I can do it now" response. How very adult of you. I'm just glad that cops out there know that if they happen to gun down a person in broad daylight with absolutely no cause, then tamper with evidence to frame the corpse for assault, and it happens to miraculously get caught on video and released to the public, the police department will still grant you the benefits you aren't legally entitled to because no man left behind or thin blue line or some poo poo. This will undoubtedly convince other cops they should probably gun down innocent people less often.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
You say "punish", I say "withhold un-entitled privileges". This isn't about making someone suffer, it's about equal application of standards.paranoid randroid posted:Would you say we need some kind of reform for these benefits the police believe they are entitled to? I'm not saying it's wrong to extend the benefit in a vacuum. I'm just highlighting the fact that the actual murder victim, if his situation were identical and he worked at Home Depot, would have his family told to quietly go gently caress themselves. The person in a position of power (in this case the policeman) is having his existing power entrenched even further by being granted privileges that even his victim will almost surely not receive. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
The juvenile strawmen hurt the conversation, just FYI.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:The mother would have health insurance through Medicaid if she were dropped from her husband's health plan, so it's a non-issue regardless. Right. It's not like the mother immediately becomes a hobo selling her body. She'd still receive care every other person can get. But that's somehow a lack of empathy or something, I don't know. Karnegal posted:This has no real impact on how other police will react in these situations. That will be determined by how the officer is sentenced. I doubt there are any police officers who are so overtly racist that they would murder a black man in cold blood knowing that they will get life in prison, but the only thing holding them back is their wife's loss of medical insurance. Sure, it's not the only or even a significant issue. But you can't honestly argue that continued support/benefits for the officer have no effect on the public perception of this whole incident. E: Would those supporting the extension of coverage also be ok with college tuition for the kid paid for by the state? Why is the extension of insurance a sufficient gesture? Surely this family will have future needs with the father in prison. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
I like how an actual discussion over a political topic conducted by posters who genuinely disagree in good faith is considered to be some insane derail. Sure it's a small point to debate in the grand scheme of things but it touches on a very important topic in our fully emerging police state. Now let's get back to posting gifs, sorry guys!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
I disagree. You won't find many points of contention about the case on this forum, since such incontrovertible evidence of guilt has been made public. How far the killer's state-sponsored benefits should extend, now that's a much more interesting political/ethical quandary (without the legions of strawmen anyway).
Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:If the murder victim worked for the sanitation department and had a pregnant wife, would you object to the department keeping him on the books until she had the child so that she didnt lose the insurance she had at the time? Yes, if it meant purposefully not granting that same benefit to other people in the same municipal government who might have died or lost their jobs. Again, it's not the extension I object to, its the privilege granted to the officer that others would not receive. Families of cops don't deserve special treatment because of their profession. I'd also like someone to answer this question: if the police department sets up a college fund for the kid and funnels public money into it, would objecting to that be "punishing" the wife? If so, why is an extension of healthcare benefits ok but not the college fund? What about a special pension for the wife if the officer goes to jail? How about extending the healthcare coverage until he's 1? Or 10? Where does "empathy" end and undeserved privilege begin? (I realize this is a hypothetical) Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sure this woman would be thrown into an alleyway to give birth without her exact current insurance plan. Also why do you want to punish this woman by not giving her child college tuition? Put your cophateboner away, Jesus!
Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
You guys really do think the mother will be forced to give birth in the back of a garbage truck if the police department followed standard procedure, don't you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:This argument sounds completely batshit; is it worth going back all those pages to figure out how it started? I'll sum up. Some posters think that extending the accused killer's insurance coverage to cover the wife while she's pregnant is a nice thought but it's also highly indicative of a huge double standard that underscores the privilege that police, even those obviously guilty of murder, enjoy. Other posters acknowledge this double standard but think the extension is a moral good therefore the exception is warranted. It's actually a pretty interesting discussion with a lot of ethical ambiguity in my opinion, but hey, we wouldn't want to disrupt the circle jerk now would we? Hey Rand Paul is really stupid and his hair is also stupid. Am I right guys?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The difference is that everything you're listing is something being gifted, while what the issue was about is extending what she already has, is immediately in need of, and had been expecting to be able to use. If the police department upgraded her healthcare plan after her husband's arrest, this would be a very different discusssion. What about continuing the cop's pay while he (hopefully) serves life in prison? Also extending the health insurance out a year or hell, 26 years until the kid is an adult, would also meet your definition of "extending what she already has". Would you be ok with taxpayers footing those bills? Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:No one is going to agree with that except the racist nutbags that think the cop is totally innocent. Why not? It's the same rationale that grants the changing of the rules to grant an extension of the healthcare until the child is born. "extending what she already has" is a direct quote. Someone with more empathy than you (my empathy is over 9000!!!!) could easily tell you how much of an rear end in a top hat you are for not wanting to help this poor woman. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Gee why is the right running circles around the left in the healthcare debate? *argues vehemently that the pregnant wife of a criminal should be immediately stripped of all benefits because it would be fair* Yeah if we just keep entrenching the existing power structure while wishing upon a star that the underclass will get some trickle-down justice, Democrats will sweep the polls!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
EDIT - redacted, I think the conversation has gone on long enough. Hopefully both sides see the other's point and can disagree respectfully.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:The indieGoGo for the murderer cop was taken down. Man I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that PR planning session.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Poe's Law is hitting me like a shovel to the face right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
Holy poo poo I thought that was Lenin. Dead ringer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
"Emory political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster have a new paper, not yet available online, exploring the nature of the new polarization. The paper is filled with interesting findings, but the major one is an attempt to resolve a paradox. Measured by self-identification, partisanship is actually declining — growing numbers of Americans describe themselves as “independent” rather than loyal to one of the parties. But measured by actual voting behavior, the opposite is happening: Straight ticket voting continues to grow." This isn't a paradox. More Republicans are rightfully ashamed of their Party's association with bigotry, anti-intellectualism, and overt obstructionism so they tell everyone they are "Independent". Self-identified Independent voters always break conservative come election day.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:it does, but its still racist regardless of the date. You said the word "lately" and you're using poo poo like Dan Rather quotes. Try harder is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:uhh ohh, we have a grammar Nazi in here, just like a lib when they are cornered by facts..lol Yes, equating a Dan Rather quote from 5 years ago to systemic denial of minority voting rights cornered me and I responded by flailing around and resorting to quoting you. You are single handedly bringing reason to these forums and we are so lucky to have you here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
McAlister posted:
She voted to go to war in Iraq. She has no credibility because of this one fact alone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
How nice of her to come to the correct conclusion after the chain of events leading to a million deaths had been set into irreversible motion. Clinton '16: I can come around against genocide eventually
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Ah, the "Bush told me too so I did it" defense. Credible as always. I mean it's not like Senators have access to intelligence reports or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
If Lincoln Chafee was cognizant enough to question the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked or that Iraq had an active WMD program, then Clinton has absolutely no excuse. There are some really rose-tinted glasses in this forum concerning Clinton and the Iraq vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Within her actual cohort of Democratic Senators she was in the majority: 29 of 50 voted for it. 29 out of 50 - wow talk about an overwhelming consensus. I also like the notion that because X number of Clinton's colleagues may have wanted something, she is totally excused from any responsibility for voting with them even though said vote caused a million loving deaths. What in the actual poo poo is going on in this thread?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:Man you are going to be really mad on Jan 21 2017. I've totally made peace with Hillary as POTUS. Barring something huge, it's going to happen. That doesn't mean the idiots in this thread defending her Iraq vote aren't
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why don't you feel the same way about the AMF for the GWOT? A few voted against it, correctly articulating that a blank check would get us into a never ending war (which it has). It has certainly led to many many deaths. Because the AUMF is merely a flawed legal declaration that is arguably necessary in certain circumstances and has been used to do some good in the world along with the bad. Also the AUMF wasn't predicated on complete horseshit that even a middle schooler could puzzle out. Comparing the AUMF to regime change in Iraq is something I'd expect on Reddit, not here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Boon posted:You're the worst kind of politically active individual. The purity test type. Yeah "not voting for genocide": the ultimate purity test.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:26
|
|