|
SoapyTarantula posted:Sanders won the Kansas primary today. Holy poo poo, my lovely state didn't pick Trump. Uh, they didn't pick Trump because they picked Ted Cruz, dude
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Feinne posted:I'm not saying we should carpet bomb everything between philly and pittsburgh but maybe it should be on the table? You wouldn't really be able to tell a difference after the bombing happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I understand not wanting a drive through in a nice neighborhood. Cars are the bane of urban planning and strip malls follow in their wake, like the sea of mud churned up by a plague of cows falling from the sky. But that place ain't a nice "neighborhood". Here's a google street view so you can look around there: https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...6301606!6m1!1e1 It's a complex of strip malls, gas stations, and small ugly office and bank buildings. And surrounding it all is bland suburbia that you would only consider "nice" if you just moved here from war torn Syria or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I'm willing to just squint and see the silver lining of Midwesterners actually favoring a walkable community. The walkable community of a giant parking lot and strip mall complex that you have to drive to because there are barely even sidewalks connecting it to anything else. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:I seem to remember being told at one point when I lived in Missouri that Kansas City used to be a pretty major transit hub back when most of the shipping was being done by train, so that might have something to do with it. Most really long distance stuff is still done by rail, usually with trucks moving it on either end. But the big reason Kansas City was important for that is that it was a point where a lot of different rail companies had a terminus, and there was plenty to be done in transferring between them. These days, most of those have merged into other companies, and there's simply a whole lot less that needs to be transferred around in KC. St Louis was similarly an important transfer point int he past that got more or less obsoleted. Both those cities now mostly see stuff just passing through.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Yeah I heard that too. Lincoln as well. Silicon Prairie is what they're calling it. No idea if true or not. Places that actually have a major startup environment besides the normal level you'd expect to see with any largish population center and a big university, they don't feel the need to call themselves the "silicon whatever". They earn their own name or don't even need one - New York City and the surrounding area is full of startups, tech and otherwise, but you don't see it getting a special name. Really, given how the cities mentioned tend to be major regional centers for other industry and education, as far as that goes, it 'd be more surprising if they didn't have a bunch of startups around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Never heard of Silicon Alley? Which one are you talking about? I've heard that name used for Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Gounads posted:I imagine it's better for the U.S. to lose jobs to automation here at home than jobs overseas to cheap labor? For the capital owners yes, but for the average person it makes absolutely no difference.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Gould got an unnecessarily harsh reputation from the fact that he frequently outwitted other massively wealthy men, which offended them. So they tended to try to have him painted as the most evil to make themselves look good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wichita already has the worst public transportation system (and by extension lowest ridership rates) of any top 50 metro area That's probably because Wichita is the #85 metro area in the country, nearly 500,000 people behind #50 (Buffalo, NY) anonumos posted:Well clearly the private sector will step in and provide profitable transportation to replace the buses and trains that the local government had been wasting money on. Right? Right? Last time there were trains for public transit in Wichita was like 1945. fishmech fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I don't think that a basic income is the ideal solution. If you give money to people that need it, the money can then be claimed by debt collectors, stolen by criminals, or squandered on poor decisions (drugs, gambling, beanie babies, whatever). This leaves people without the necessities that the money was intended for. If some people are going to be insistent on squandering their money, we should just let it happen. A direct cash situation costs the least to administer, and thus means you can give the most benefit for the amount of funds put in. Emergency supplies can be set up to get people who insist on loving up to not immediately die, without the massive wasteful costs of things like delivering all food/clothing to the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I was picturing something more like public cafeterias. I'd rather not have to monitor everyone to see who needs emergency supplies, and I don't want anyone to starve as a result of being a dumbass. So do you really not get that your scenario is extremely unlikely, while building and staffing public cafeterias would be even more expensive than delivering food to everyone (on top of the fact that you'd need to be able to get to the cafeterias int he first place)? Like for real, people buy food when they get hungry. And you can live like a week or two with very little food, if you screwed up and used all your minimum income on buying a gold plated hat or whatever. It's the kind of mistake people aren't going to repeatedly make unless they're mentally impaired enough that they shouldn't live alone in the first place. Also no "monitoring" is needed, the person could call up or otherwise contact the appropriate authorities.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I never said that I thought that the plan that I described was going to happen. Honestly, I doubt that it'll ever happen in any society with a population bigger than a few hundred. Your solution doesn't actually lead to fewer people going hungry than just plain minimum income, and it requires a whole bunch of extra costs for little purpose. The same sort of person you're thinking of who consistently blows all their money on gold plated top hats instead of food every month or week or whatever the administrative period is? They're going to trade delivered food for gold plated top hats, or have some weird reason to reject it. So those, frankly crazy people, are going to go hungry anyway and are best served by being under some sort of guardianship because they can't live independently. Most people who might initially blow all their money from the payment the first time it happens are going to learn quickly that they need to buy food next time, and set aside money for that. PT6A posted:
The thing is government provided apartments make way more sense. They can be directly planned for with the public transit system, and they'd be unlikely to be too concentrated in any one space. And the only reason getting to their kid's school would be a problem is if the kid's in a private school, and surely someone with the money to pay for that wouldn't need a government apartment in the first place. Replace that with the government buying up vacant homes in outlying areas or building new ones, in circumstances where there just isn't enough people for apartments to make sense or whatever. Most big cities have housing shortages right now and require new build anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The current section eight voucher program works pretty much ideally *when it is funded appropriately*. The problem is Republicans always make drastic cuts to it so there get to be huge waiting lists. No, food stamps are a terrible program. The various exclusions on foods are utterly unnecessary and needlessly punitive to recipients. They only exist because removing them would get conservatives to go after the program faster. Things like the restrictions on "hot food" in most jurisdictions are very much just spite, especially against people who don't have full kitchens at home, or sometimes any kitchen at all in particularly bad housing situations. It should absolutely be switched to all-cash of at least the same amount of money as soon as possible. That's how food assistance programs get administered in most other countries, and it just works better. Canadians do it that way, for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That's part of the joke. During the 19th century, lobster was considered prison food because, well, sea roach. Only in places where it's cheap, which is mostly like Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts (and to a lesser extent down the rest of the east coast to like Virginia). At the same time that lobster was given to prisoners by the ton because it was so cheap in Maine, lobster was an expensive delicacy out in like Chicago or Denver. And that was all down to the fact that it was a real pain to transport lobsters and lobstermeat without it going bad. Even today, lobster is still a ton cheaper around here than in the landlocked states.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:IIRC from a previous poster some time ago, the lobster thing was honest-to-god terrible. This wasn't some nice prime stuff fresh from the sea, but rather crushed up shell bits that had been at room temperature for a week. They would do that from time to time, but most of the time it would be as good lobster as any other lobster is when you don't cook it up real nice. And served sometimes for multiple meals of the day every day of the week. Even if you really like lobster it gets to be a bit much when you're eating it that often.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:We also don't have industries to support going tax free. Texas can do it because they have the oil industry, Florida can do it because they have tourism. Kansas doesn't have any of that ON TOP of what you are saying about the bulk of the population living within an hour of the border. Buddy, Texas and Florida can't actually support being income tax free either, and their population suffers because of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:Would Brownback have been facing a term limit in the next election? If so, then this means that the Republicans get the name-recognition of an incumbent the next go around where they were going to have to run a new face before. Sneaky. Current Kansas law is the the governor may only have 2 terms of four years each, so yeah he couldn't run again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey Neolib, the polls have him within a percentage point. Look I know you'd like to never ever have to hear from flyover gomers again> But guess what? plenty of them want something beyond getting raped by the GOP. Now I know that also means they want less gun control and more workers protections which you cannot stand. But then the party doesn't need you. What the gently caress are you trying to say, crazy conservative dude?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:To be fair, you really do have to be a loving retard to want to vote for Estes after Brownback and the Republicans have ran this state into the ground. In seriousness, remember, all of those Estes votes just got done voting for Mike Pompeo in November, despite living through years of Brownback and all the rest of the idiots. He won 60.7% to 29.6%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Typo posted:so basically we went from R+30 in Nov to R+6 today, granted though the imcumbent is gone but this is still blood red country Not sure what polling you're talking about, unless it was campaign internals from the Democrat side? No outside groups bothered to poll it because they assumes it'd be a Republican blowout.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Uh yeah he earns every penny he makes let's not be that sports-hating dude who thinks athletics overpays it's a stupid and losing argument. Big college coaches are absolutely overpaid. They're frequently the single highest paid public officeholder in the entire state. There's no way some coach is really worth $5 million a year to a university that refuses to pay a livable wage for a huge chunk of the people teaching classes and doing research.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thanks to crazy bidding on tv rights power 5 conference teams bring in an enormous amount of cash. You don't need to pay the coach $5 million to get that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Congrats on something that doesn't show any proof he deserves $5 million a year? Having coaches for university systems be paid multiple millions a year is loving dumb and defending it is even dumber. Even like $1.5 million a year would be fairly stretching the limit of acceptable considering what everyone else who works for the university gets paid for doing the actual job of a drat university.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Sigh. I'm not going to derail this thread any further, sports are a huge loving money-generating machine that millions of people enjoy and identify with but in a dream world spending that kind of money on research would better humanity but you aren't changing the culture and this isn't worth an argument. Millions of dollars that are then immediately blown on paying giant salaries to coaches and pointless renovations to the sports facilities while the athletes actually doing the work of being a good team get no money or a tiny stipend. Once again: that coach does not deserve $5 million a year. Especially in a state that's literally killing all its social services.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Hahaha this thread man. Yeah college basketball is slave labor for the enjoyment of meatheads and generates zero positives but exploits the poor. These poor kids destroy their bodies for the sake of my immersion because they are tricked into playing a sport for my blood lust and when they end up millionaires there will be nobody to blame but college fans. If you want to argue athletes should be paid that's worth it but spare me this think of the children horseshit. There's no defense of sports shut it down. Sorry you're so mad that you apparently don't have a real professional sports team nearby to root for?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Okay so the real problem is how the NCAA is set up then that's something I can agree with but acting like college fans and college sports departments are a bunch of meatheads who desire to destroy the bodies of inner city kids for their own amusement and spit them out without a degree or ability to use the sport as a career is a narrow and dumb take that attacks fandom as the problem. No, college fans are mostly suckers living in places without real professional sports teams to root for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Well OK that's just simply not true I live in Los Angeles people are obsessed with college sports here. Most college sports fans don't live in LA my dude. They live in places starved of good professional teams, or sometimes any professional teams in several major sports at all, like Kansas for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Maybe if you keep saying it it will be true but maybe if you assume Kansas fans have nothing to root for but the Jayhawks you can wish away the fact that the Royals and the Chiefs are huge there. The $5 million a year coach does basketball. Kansas ain't got a pro basketball team and neither does KC Missouri or any other city in Missouri. Sorry you're too ignorant to know this I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
kiimo posted:OK I guess I'm ignorant now despite growing up rooting for the Kansas City Kings before moving to Sacramento. I guess I'm ignorant of the state that I was born and grew up in and ignorant of sports because college fans are doomed to only root for college teams and pro fans never root for college teams in some kind of twisted narrow dimension. You win I'm going to stop the derailing the thread while driving. Yea you are massively ignorant, as evidenced by all your posting in favor of hosed up salaries and a generally hosed up college sports environment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Keep moving the goalposts fishmech. Texas is full of idiots? I don't see how that's relevant to your repeated defense of outrageous coach salaries and the college sports scam in general. There are much more than 80,000 people attending college sports in all the trash states, and they're a much more relevant part of the local population m
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Wuet88 posted:The NFL lets its players kill themselves without even acknowledging a problem. I think people can like something but also want it to change. College sports is also letting people kill themselves only they don't even get paid. He also sees no issue with the ludicrous levels of coach compensation and spending on everything but the athletes. He does not think those things need to change.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Dude I didn't even get into defending that opinion but nobody wants to read it in this thread. Judging from your rap sheet you are terrible at this anyway and also have little knowledge of the subject matter you just want to make a fiscal statement. Just let it die. You repeatedly posted things like "but the team is worth so much" to defend it. You got really into defending it. Also Kansas' entire loving problem is people making the wrong fiscal statements which is why the state is loving collapsing under Brownback.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
kiimo posted:Without getting into sports specific topics are you somehow under the impression that Self is paid with university or tax dollars? Because he is paid with private donor dollars. Donors who want a successful program. Or are you pissed he's taking advantage of legal tax breaks? He is paid with university dollars if he's being paid from "private donors". His salary is drawn from university accounts. I'm really baffled how you don't understand this. Once again his salary is indefensible and the money should mostly be spent on the actual job of the university. And if donors really did stop spending as much money on the sports program because the man only gets $1 million a year, why the gently caress should anyone care? fishmech fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 09:11
|
|