|
Dead Reckoning posted:The U.S. hasn't finished the investigation yet, but ABC says an anonymous official claims there was an AC-130 in the area, firing on Taliban fighters who were engaged with U.S. Special Forces. If that's the case, immediate self-defense more or less supersedes any protection the hospital would normally receive under LOAC.  says that this will be the official conclusion reached by a relatively low-key investigation waaaay before the Benghazi one even shows signs of tiring itself out.They'll keep that one running up through the election if they can help it. Hillary will be getting sworn in on one day, coming in to testify on the next. It's really angering to know that they'll be beating the Benghazi drum long after everyone's forgotten this. Because this is a legitimate issue to take up with the military and the Executive branch (and Obama's Executive branch at that), but the Right won't go near that line of thought because it doesn't compute with their kneejerk military adulation. It was super weird to see the Right jump to defend NSA spying and paint Snowden as a Russian terrorist when the fact that it was happening under the Obama presidency could fit so many freepers' paranoid narratives to a T. Boywhiz88 posted:Yeah. Just edited my post. I love reading about how hosed ORCA was Yes, if my coursework in marine ecology and the perspectives of friends currently working in the field are to be believed, orcas are pretty hosed....
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If you're a remotely decent businessperson, why are you doing a job like that without getting paid? When the opportunity to stick up for are freedoms presents itself, you deal with those trivialities after.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, Congress deciding not to earmark funds for CDC studies on gun violence is not the same as the CDC being banned from doing those studies. On paper, you'd be absolutely correct but in terms of real-life "this is how government-funded science is done" they're essentially one and the same.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
BUBBA GAY DUDLEY posted:So World War 3 is starting and a dog will be the new Speaker of the House? There's a Raising Cane's in one of the easier parts of Boston to get to (relatively speaking). That place is from Louisiana and it's delicious and gently caress it, I get to live in the People's Republic of Massachussetts. Checkmate(?) Not that Boston doesn't have a history of intolerance, grotesque racism during the busing era, and corruption of the worst degree- including in ostensibly liberal public institutions or anything. Also, my alma mater has the best campus food in the country and one of the chefs happened to be from somewhere in the South. His fried chicken recipe is still probably the best I've had. One of the dining halls had comfort food nights and lunches every few weeks or so and it made winters so much more bearable. And that was in the Deep South of the Deep North, as they say (not really, but within close driving distance). zoux posted:They would outpoll Jeb in the state caucus.  Bunleigh posted:Hey I'm from California and I love Mexican food and Chipotle. I live in Rhode Island now and there is no good Mexican food to be had anywhere but Chipotle is still just as good so I'll take what I can get. Come to Boston/Cambridge. Anna's, Boca Grande, and Felipe's are all equally as good at their worst. ...also, Dorado in Brookline is totally worth the trip for their cemitas and Western Mexico-style tacos. Hell, even Qdoba got interesting when they decided to go all in on cheese sauces, and the one in Cambridge is on par with Chipotle quality-wise. Of course, there are also now Chipotles basically everywhere so.... Some reps offloaded a big handful of Homo estas? 'bogo free' meal coupons on my gf and I during the pride parade and we coasted on those for a few weeks.  What I'm saying is that Boston is pretty solid for Southern food if one must live in a civilized part of the country.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Need a combination of   
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Has this been posted yet? Trump: "I'm never dropping out." quote:Donald Trump has an answer for those asking when he would exit the race: Never. Also: quote:Trump also hinted on Friday that another Republican in the race is about to call it quits. The word is that Rand's been getting a lot of pressure to drop his joke of a presidential bid in order to focus on his senate campaign. But so far he's been refusing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I enjoy that the original meaning of "carrot and stick" approach was to use a stick to dangle a carrot in front of a donkey but it has morphed into beating the donkey with the stick.  Actually, "carrot and stick" means dangling the carrot in front of the donkey and hitting him with the stick.I used to think the same thing, but the idiom actually isn't supposed to illustrate a cartoon scenario involving a fishing rod. The idea is that you aggressively get somebody to do what you want by both enticing them with a reward and threatening them with retribution. Kind of like 'an offer you can't refuse.' E, fb.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Apparently one of the other guys is an alumni of the college in Oregon that got shot up. I'm beginning to think these guys are bad luck. Or something else 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sacramento, and he got into a fight at a gay club because he tried to defend a woman that was being attacked by multiple men. Wait, at a gay club? Were they mad at her?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Gun control is a feminist issue. About 1/3 of female murder victims aged 12 or older are killed by an intimate partner. We see spree shooters specifically target women, and express misogynist views and male entitlement Not only that, but initial surveys of MRA and reactionary communities on the Internet show them to be overwhelmingly made up of men who identify as anything from libertarian to strongly conservative, depending on the community. It's one of the reasons why they're so intractable on the suicide issue. You can't make the "women/girls are actually much more likely than men/boys to attempt suicide but will tend to do so by ineffective means and fail while men are more likely to successfully kill themselves by virtue of their greater access to guns" argument with somebody who thinks that guns are awesome and therefore totally unrelated to the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Blackjack2000 posted:I saw Megyn Kelly on Twitter praise Sanders; I have a feeling it's to foil Clinton. The irony is that they could feasibly commit so hard to it that they actually push the national consensus to a place where people are more ok with a self-described Democratic Socialist president than with HRC. Like, all of a sudden, the Dems can be as liberal as they want as long as Hillary isn't the one suggesting things. Just like how being Obama magically makes our current president twice as radical and left wing as any of the things that he actually does and says.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:This "Bernie's plans to give a poo poo about human beings and try to help them rather than condemn them to permanent poverty is unrealistic and stupid" business sounds a lot like the "strategic voters" that cost Canada our one and only chance to ever get a left-wing government in 2011. I lived in Maine during the debacle that resulted in Paul LePage's election and I still firmly place the blame on the 19% of voters who just had to vote for a Democrat, even though the Independent candidate with the groundswell of support (who subsequently lost the race to a Tea Party whackjob by a percentage point or two) was substantially better at articulating and promoting the same liberal talking points. Logikv9 posted:What do you think the Republicans will do if you have President Bernie Sanders? Their base holed up in safe districts will be chanting for blood, he could support the "Support the Military and Save the Fetuses" bill and he'd still get shot down. It will be Republican obstruction x100 because now instead of pretending Obama is a socialist they will have a President who actually is. Yes, but the 'safe electable candidate' here is Hillary Clinton, who the GOP have spent the last two decades demonizing as the biggest and baddest wolf of all possible Demoncrat victories. She's the closest thing the Right have to a political boogeyman outside of some three-headed Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi/Liz Warren fusion monster and it's ridiculous to think that the GOP won't be falling over themselves to rank-and-file oppose her at every conceivable turn. As far as the opposition is concerned, HRC and capital-S Socialist Sanders are interchangeable. Saying that she's more electable or more likely to get Republicans to go along with her ignores history and buys into the same logic that sees the National Democrats actively trying to suppress local campaigns with genuine momentum for candidates that they don't deem adequately milquetoast enough to play to a center that doesn't exist anymore. Never mind the literally millions of one-time Obama voters (and younger people at this point too) that do exist. Trabisnikof posted:Oh yes, so the way to "change things" without the consent of the Republican party is....? To make a point. When literally none of your candidates are going to have a significantly better shot of reaching compromise with the opposition than the others, you back the symbolic candidate as a repudiation of its values and message. If I'm going to sign on to at least four more years of the president being called a socialist and symbolically opposed and hamstrung by the Right for it, then I'd much rather have an actual Socialist in the White House than a center-left pragmatism politician. trilobite terror fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:That's because Democrats value a woman in a leadership position and are willing to recognize that. If Republicans realized Carly Fiorina was a woman she'd lose votes. Voting for her would feel like a form of Affirmative Action and that just wouldn't sit right with them. Seriously, it's easier to tell yourself that you voted objectively if you stick to the whitest, malest candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Bernie has the enthusiasm of his base but you're not going to beat the widespread appeal of Hillary. The same years in the political arena that made Republicans ridiculously angry about her also increased her appeal with Democrats. You have a large portion of the voting Democratic population who have grown up with Hillary and will unequivocally support her. They might not be going I'M WITH HILLARY and attending record attendance crowds, but they will choose her over X. The real people who are furious at [insert scandal here] about her and won't go along with her even into the general are called Republicans and they were already a lost cause. Not to be glib, but people literally said all of this about Barack Obama in 2007. And now that we know what a Republican congress looks like with such a president, I think people are less afraid of backing "difficult" candidates as well. foobardog posted:This is partially because while both sides bemoan the purity of their candidates, the right has moved so far right that they bemoan them even if they do things that would tactically make sense. While liberals and lefties may groan and complain about half-measures like Don't Ask-Don't Tell, they have seen the light that the right is insane and will suck it up. The right wing, however truly believe that if they just had the Great Conservative Hope appear, they will achieve final victory. It helps that we're much closer to a satisfying conclusion on the marriage equality front than we were even in 2012. I think a lot of people gained an appreciation for how the long game works (and, crucially, how short it can really be). The narrative went from "we'll fight hard to reach a plateau but then we'll have to wait a few decades for lots of fundies to die before making more progress....or something" to a social revolution with a clear progression that you can trace through history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Isn't the excitement of young people part of the reason why Obama won much bigger against McCain, and their disappointment in him part of the reason Romney did better? Yes but that would require the National Dems and the pragmatic voters who back them to try appealing to those young people instead of throwing up their hands in exasperation when they don't come around to the 1990s-way of doing politics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Before the US and USSR made it into a proxy war zone it was doing pretty well actually... You mean when the Brits were there?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:This is all part of the Trump plan. He's said before he wants the debate to be only the top 5 at most, no Huckabee, Christie, Paul bullshit. He's giving them demands (cannot be more than 2 hours, opening and closing remarks) that they can't meet unless the debate was sans the low-energy morons. They can't change their guidelines to remove people this late in the game, and they're not going to be able to meet the demands. I don't think Trump needs all that. Think about what sort of a debater he is, who he's up against and the narrative that he's been trying to weave, and then think about what cutting down the allotted time will do to the format of the debate. Think about Webb's complaints during the Democratic debate about being treated unfairly and imagine a two hour debate with a field twice as big and Trump+Carson as the frontrunners commanding the lions' share of attention. It's the perfect venue for Trump to savage the scrubs, take comparatively minimal damage in return from any one candidate, and even minimize the number of possible Trump v. Carson moments, leaving that avenue of goodwill unblemished. Then he gets to say that Bush/Rubio/Paul/Cruz couldn't get a word in against him. Making the debate shorter but keeping everything else the same plays directly to Trump's advantage. TheQat posted:he thinks that because he believes the socialist tag will be too much for bernie to overcome in the general, not because the DNC won't support him We've had 8 years of virtually the entire opposition calling Obama a socialist over every conceivable thing. That word has totally lost its power as far as negatively affecting a Democrat is concerned. I also personally doubt that a significant number of voters exist who wouldn't mind voting for Hillary in the general but would be turned off from voting for a self-described socialist to the benefit of the GOP. If anything, running a candidate that beats FOX to the punch on the moniker makes the Dems look less cowardly and limp-wristed to the average American.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The myth that Obama was a scrappy underdog who had to claw his way into the top rather than a major establishment player who was held back initially by racist bullshit will never not be adorable. It's easy to forget that a lot of people backed Obama in '08 because he had "more crossover/centrist appeal" than Clinton did.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Medical report shows that Jeb's Paleo diet is paying off When the hell did Jeb! describe himself as a "joyful tortoise?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
greatn posted:I'm taking about after they get the Apocalypse out of the way. You think the Republicans will keep a non functioning literally cannot legally vote on anything leaderless Congress all the way through an election? Yes, if the Rightwing base stays fired up and holding the keys to the bus. All they're seeing is "Washington is broken and the insiders won't do what we want! Gotta vote 'em out!" As far as they're concerned, the fault lies with the moderates who can't/won't deliver them the world they were promised, not the hostage takers doing God's work. It doesn't help that three of the presidential front-runners (Cruz is third/fourth, right?) are actively fomenting that narrative among their faithful- who combined form a little more than half of GOP primary voters. The Freedom Caucus hasn't compromised yet and it's in their immediate interest (at least as they see it) to stay the course. I would expect to see Boehner stick around for a long time, if the Democrats can help it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I also read something today that Bernie received a donation from a pharma head in exchange for a meeting with him, and he donated the money to a hospital instead and still refused to meet with the pharma people.  Millenials warming to Sanders, cooling to Clinton quote:Millennials are feeling the Bern, according to the latest results from a national NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll of Democrats out Friday. Yeah yeah, group that doesn't vote, blah blah blah... It'll be interesting to see how the numbers shake up if Bernie continues to stick on Hillary's tail with fundraising. I think that a few months of neck-and-neck fundraising (and, more tellingly, continuing to raise 2-3x as much money as individual GOP candidates) will quell a lot of doubts about his viability as a candidate and bring a few more people around to his camp. Whether or not you want him to be President/think he can do it, you should absolutely want him to look as viable and stick around for as long as possible. Ultimately I'm not so hung up on getting him into the White House, though I'll probably vote for him in the primary. But more than anything, Bernie's surprise success is an opportunity to get actual Leftism back in the Democratic Party platform in a big way. This is why I find the hostility between the Hil/Bern camps here and elsewhere so toxic and perplexing. Like, cool don't vote for him if you think he isn't viable, but comparing his supporters to Paulites and Libertarians and painting this as the second coming of Ralph Nader only works against your interests, especially given how surprisingly large his contingent is. The faster that Democrats get comfortable with the idea of rallying behind actual Leftist candidates (sooner or later, we will be running more of them) and not just dismissing them outright, the faster we get out of this three decade slump to the Right that the GOP's pulled all of American politics into.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason why people call his supporters Paulites is because of statements like these. What I'm trying to say is that his current support base is proportionally much larger than that of your average fringe candidate, suggesting that his platform has legitimate traction with a significant (and growing, based on demographics) portion of the electorate. For a party whose message and voters have a long history of "well yeah, that would be great in an ideal world, but in this world we've got an election against a Republican to win so shut up" it's important not to smother that. We can have our cake and eat it too. We can have a president Clinton in 2016 and also not salt the earth of American leftism for another decade. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:uh, hun, I think you're missing where the vitrol is coming from and who it's aimed at. That's entirely possible. I don't go into RSF. trilobite terror fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:It won't mean anything because it's a fake story. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
God, what a butthole
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/rand-paul-2016-libertarianism-213265 Politico calling the death (stillbirth?) of lolbertarianism with the collapse of the Randyman's campaign. quote:Oh, and no less than 42 percent of millennials also think socialism is preferable to capitalism. Could this be what happens when the opposition spend seven years calling a relatively popular center-left president a socialist unceasingly? Have we all been conditioned? zoux posted:OK, I was just worried that crazy Republican primary voters were unaccountably not responding to her lies about the PP videos and well I need something to make sense anymore. Her second debate performance got her a lot of attention and coverage, which she subsequently used to prove how awful a candidate she was. Of the big three outsiders, Fiorina's campaign has always tried to play her as the rational option- a captain of industry like Trump without his boorishness or Carson's Adventist baggage. The anti-establishment wing's Kim Possible to Hillary's She-Go. She's also run as secularly as you can while Republican. So for all of the buzz that her PP comments got, I don't think her potential support base ever rested with the people who rallied behind those videos. Social Conservatives and Christ voters have Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee openly flying their flag and working way harder to court them. Debate attention opened Fiorina's record at HP and as a political campaigner up for scrutiny, and since that record's actually pretty bad in both cases, the effect on her campaign has been negative. Her defense when challenged about this has consistently been a mix of "nuh-uh, those be known Clintonite lies" or "let me tell you about some Planned Parenthood videos I saw" which, when taken with what I noted before should explain why her fan base hasn't been growing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think it's more she did not effectively use it to carve out a niche. She's a bad candidate but she didn't really flub anything that Republican voters care about, she just didn't make a case for why she's better than an alternative. She's running as a sort of mix between outsider and establishment but if you want either outsider there's Trump or Carson, if you want tea-party friendly establishment there's Rubio, if you want religious wingnut there's Carson, and if you want solid establishment and naps there's Jeb! There's not really any niche of voters Fiorina really targets well and so once she stopped getting attention then people went back to not caring. There isn't a group of voters who want an outsider candidate with establishment cred. We're describing different parts of the same elephant, I think. The absence of all other defining Conservative subcategory markers leaves her business experience as her main selling point and her record as CEO is unquestionably bad. Carly pushed her clout as a tech executive and Trump shat all over it. She countered by trying to dismiss critiques of her management as partisan and "Clintonite" which got a sizable contingent of the business press against her and writing rebuttals that not only illustrated how badly HP did under her tenure but also contrasted its fortunes to the successes that companies like Apple and Google have had since the turn of the century. I agree that she's failed to make a successful niche for herself and that her record probably wouldn't be too hard for the base to ignore in a general matchup against the great Democrat Satan but, like with Jeb! and 9/11, Trump has shown a remarkable talent for exposing long-time nude emperors to GOP voters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Biden just announced that he will not be running for president.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Wow that's literally insane. Fried Chicken posted:It is basically applying a lot of the old Jewish slurs and conspiracy theories to the Palestinians. Worth a read about the Rightward swing that Israel's been in over the past 20 years
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah HRC is getting positive coverage from the least likely sources . It's been a good few weeks for her. The NYT editorial board came down pretty heavily in her favor/defense over the hearing. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-the-benghazi-gang.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Maybe not Jeb!: Nah, I'd be surprised if the joyful turtle wasn't simply digging himself a little den in the muddy lake bottom, cutting down his resource expenditure, and going into a state of fiscal hibernation to wait for more favorable times- which may or may not arrive. All of the establishment teams (even Jindal, lmao) have been talking up "survive until the end and have your moment when Trump and the rest have finally and inevitably imploded" as the winning idea (I'm sure potential voters love hearing that from their Prezzy-to-be). Jeb! certainly has the finances to do it if he tightens his belt and I'm sure it'll be hilarious to watch him awkwardly putter around and act like he's in competition against whichever candidates are actually on top at that point. That said, I can't help but be convinced that if he ends up the nominee through some miracle/party voodoo by virtue of his simply having survived long enough, you can count on Republican voters to hold their noses and back him at the ballot against Hillary. But if/when Trump's springtime comes to an end before the primary, I can't imagine he'd stay quiet and respectfully let Jeb take the nom. He'd be gracious with several other candidates, but he'd let everyone have it over a Jeb! ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Update: I guessed wrong and he's going to put out a statement that they're staying on the panel. Not sure why that needs a statement, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Making it a formal statement drives home how stupid they think the whole affair is. "Just in case you all thought we might blow this retard party, and we totally understand why you'd think that, we're staying on the panel." It's arguably the right call, IMO. Outright walking off could potentially make the party look stronger/nicely tie up the witch hunt narrative and it would definitely play well within the base, but it could also easily backfire and make the Dems look really obstructionist and petty. Leaving the panel early also feeds the whole "Dems don't care about the truth they just wanted to defend their precious Hillary" tack. While they could point to the conclusions of 7(?) prior Benghazi investigations to answer that, the existence and conclusions of those panels deffo didn't stop the creation of this latest one either. Also, evidence of the democrats "acting unreasonable" could fire up the Horde and pump even more fuel onto their crusade. And in the "truth is in the middle" era of modern journalism, the Dems can't really afford to give an inch on conduct, lest they be tarred with the same brush as Gowdy & Friends by the mainstream press. It's in their best interest to stick around and humor everyone. Plus, now with this statement they can look fed up and like they're sticking around to "keep those fuckers honest" to the base and objective and gracious to the mainstream. trilobite terror fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:Reptiles: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/exotic_pets/facts/dangerous-exotic-pets-constrictor-snakes.html?credit=web_id85539248 "Allowing private possession of these dangerous reptiles threatens public safety, environmental health, and the welfare of the animals themselves." "Pythons, boa constrictors, anacondas, and other large snakes should not be kept as pets" This is actually the most biologically sound and ethical response to the vast majority of cases involving exotic herps and birds as pets. Hth, but those are essentially the consensus opinions held by experts across several branches of biology for a myriad of ecological and individual welfare reasons. As a working biologist and recovering herp enthusiast myself this happens to be my professional opinion as well. Now, are they the consensus opinions held by bird fanciers and herp
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I don't think Jeb!'s heart is in it, guys. They really nailed it when they named George Oscar Bluth after John Ellis Bush. TheRamblingSoul posted:People here are already putting up Hillary for Prison 2016 lawn signs. The idea of giving people like this the *best* Christmas 2016 gift possible makes me want to work extra hard to make sure she gets the White House. Joementum posted:I mean, if we're going for sartorial critique, we should probably start with the American flag cape and turban combo. If you followed her Instagram, you'd know she just got back from Cuba. ....Which I guess explains the whole Carmen Miranda thing. Also she seems to have worn a variation on that outfit idea every day she was down there. What? Katy Perry has a dope Instagram.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
sharkbomb posted:Ah, that's right. I remember reading about Rubio's benefactor (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html) rescuing him from his personal money problems. I think this will be difficult for Rubio to get past that as the attention shifts towards him-- the Republican base seems especially intolerant towards politicians that are perceived as "purchased" (as Trump's effective line of attack against everyone has shown). Will people tweet this article to Trump please? I would but I don't have a Twitter account ATM. I'm being totally serious. "Hi Mr. Trump, I think this Times article about Marco Rubio's sugar daddy would interest you." Let's influence some politics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Massasoit posted:I had very good sex ed in MA and they taught us how to use condoms. My health class (not sex ed) experience in CT circa 2002-2003 (7th or 8th grade) was so comprehensive that we even learned the difference between butt-safe condoms and those that weren't (but still better in a pinch than no condom at all).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Ryan's likely to be speaker for probably the next 10+ years actually. So instead of trying to follow his executive branch dreams he'll become Hillary's Boehner and his career will henceforth become a never-ending exercise in extreme frustration until he ignominiously quits? I'll take it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Rorschach as Speaker of the House seems apt. He would get along with the HFC and nobody else.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder if there's some interplay between Carson's soft-spoken persona, Trump's boisterous shitheelery, and the disparate Fav/Unfav numbers of both causing Carson to gain support as Trump turns up the volume and increases his attacks. The sense that I've been getting about Iowa, specifically, is that it's largely about faith and perceived hypocrisy. Iowan caucus voters of both parties tend to be more religious than the respective averages on both sides of the aisle (see 2008/2012 primaries, etc.) and it's pretty apparent from the polling/interviews that a lot of Christian voters don't buy Trump's lip service to Presbyterianism. Throw in some Carson sound bites about cracking down on professors who say mean things about Jesus and his performance shouldn't be surprising at all. It's surging Santorum all over again. Kro-Bar posted:I was homeschooled with cult-ish fundie textbooks, so my sex ed consisted of my mom pushing a book called "You're almost 12" or some poo poo at me, blushing and leaving the room. Thank literal gently caress for the internet. Lowtax and his merry band of misfits raised you better than your mother ever could. zoux posted:Watching the video I was surprised how many of the kids were just acting like nothing was going on at all. Nobody is better at internalizing and normalizing institutionalized racism than the children who suffer its brunt the most. My girlfriend's M.Ed program emphasized a focus on educational inequality and she completed her teaching practicum at a 75% Latino/20% black inner city high school. She probably spent about as much time trying to undo the years' worth of baggage that these poor kids were trucking around as she did actually teaching them academic subjects.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Ahahahahahahahahaha http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/campaigns-gripe-over-greenrooms-at-third-gop-debate-215226 quote:During a tense 30-minute meeting at the Coors Event Center, which was described by three sources present, several lower-polling campaigns lashed out at the RNC. They accused the committee of allotting them less-than-hospitable greenroom spaces while unfairly giving lavish ones to higher-polling candidates, such as Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Click on the link for hilarious pics of several of the greenrooms. They're all delightfully weird and different. They stuck Rubio's people in what is pretty clearly the video room for CU's basketball teams and Fiorina & co got a training/rehab room. No clue how they'll approach the jacuzzi. Rand Paul basically got a changing room/cell. The article unfortunately didn't include pics of Christie's bathroom. quote:“This is ridiculous,” fumed Christie’s campaign manager, Ken McKay. “We’re in a restroom.”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:False. Tomato based sauces are not ok. WHAT
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 15:10
|
|