|
glowing-fish posted:Unless it has a markedly different ecosystem and climate at the top, and presents a barrier to human transportation, animal and plant migration, and weather systems, a hill is not a mountain. Well, I knew we'd get an anti-science post quickly. Not surprised to see someone denying an earth science, but I expected climate science not geology.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
lol I thought the poo poo post tag was an intentional choice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:How about I remove the mountaintop from your loving face Hey, MTR is bad enough I wouldn't wish that on my worst foe. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Is today a day of the week? Must be a mass shooting in America somewhere:quote:Eight people were fatally shot Sunday evening in a home in Plano, Texas, including the suspected gunman, who was killed by police.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Economic hardship isn't the same thing as economic anxiety, turns out a good chunk of the people that report themselves most anxious about the economy are people who have above average wealth for their area and fear losing it and being like those around them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:forgive me if i can't tell the difference anymore after dems spent 2016 pretending raising the minimum wage, single payer healthcare, and free college were appeals to racism makes sense you wouldn't understand what economic hardship is
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:You really think this country is ready to elect a Muslim president in Ellison? I mean, I think we can do a lot, but I don't think that we're there yet. For the people that'd care about a Muslim president there already has been one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wtf why did it take five Doesn't Cosby have 60+ accusers at this point?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Edit: Never mind. I'm going to just end up digging a hole like others on these threads who earned everyone's wrath. Well you edited it, but consider this when talking about "middle America" if we wait until they'll approve before acting, when do we draw the line? Taking a historical example:  In what year did enough of "middle America" approve of interracial marriage for it to be the right thing to advocate in public in ways the opposition might call "disgusting"?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:i know it's a rhetorical question but still She's not wrong that protecting ACA should be the current legislative priority on healthcare and she's not wrong that single payer shouldn't be a litmus test.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I don't particularly want to champion Hillary's extremely average campaign that relied heavily on the support beams of Look At The Other Guy, It's Donald J. Trump. However, I'd say that of the various ingredients that lead to the baking of the poo poo cake that is the current administration, missteps by the Clinton Campaign are pretty much just the spices. Comey and The Media are the flour and liquids, sexism is the eggs, Weiner is the the sugar, passing out is the yeast, and Voter Suppression/the ED is the shortening. I thought emails would be the butter
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Seems like a whole lot of butter for one cake. I haven't baked in a while though, is there usually more butter than flour and water? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Lol at dems getting angry about Medicare for all purity tests then apply purity tests to Bernie and his supporters. Is the purity test Medicare for all or single payer or public option or UHC? They're all different.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Don't be pedantic I'm not, it is an important distinction (and a more interesting conversation to me). Some people clearly think a public option is insufficient and suportint a public option isn't good enough. Others think any UHC program that's actually universal is good enough to support the candidates. Seeing as there was some outrage that Pelosi refused to declare Single Payer a litmus test for party support in 2018, I think the nuances of what each of these positions means matters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:I don't care you pedant. Why don't you care about the differences between single payer and a public option?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Pretty sure I said this on the previous page but the book came out yesterday. Lol at the difference between the verified reviews and the unverified reviews.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:No it doesn't How would you know?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:is this your honest perception of leftists? i'm baffled But all the evidence points to the fact no one in the party is listening to her anymore. Politico had a recent article about how annoyed even her former staffers are with this book tour. Even if her donor base is still getting attention, there's no evidence she is guiding the party or that the DNC et al is taking her advice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:It's not really so much about Hillary anymore, but rather the shitloads of other awful centrists who are still in the party and are still pushing back against leftists. Who exactly are you thinking about? Do you mean Perez or Pelosi or Manchin or what?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Except for Harris being flown out to the Hamptons to be vetted by Hillary's personal donors. That's what I said, the people who used to fund Clinton are getting attention, sure. But that doesn't mean anyone is listening to Hillary herself.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You can't be this naive. You can keep pretending Hillary is some master manipulator who is secretly regaining the iron throne but I'm going to keep living in the reality where her stench of failure is well reported by the press and everyone with clear eyes can see she and her cadre have no political vision, no effective tactics and loyalty to each other instead of strategy. But you can keep thinking Verrit was part of a well articulated plan to Hillary 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Correct. Reid and Daou in particular go after leftists more than Republicans and that's telling. They are afraid because elitist Democrats failed miserably to beat an awful awful candidate. Rather than reflect on this they put the blame on anyone to the left of Hillary. This is actually a good thing to be honest. No one with any power in the Democratic Party likes Daou. Even the people running Hillary's campaign didn't like him. The more people like him are associated with those views the better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:among the really dumb things in this article, this stands out the most. participating in exploitative and white supremacist institutions doesn't make a person either and only thought-free caricatures of "the left" think so It's the classic "critiquing a system while embedded in it...hypocritical much?"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
That's why we need to wait 14 days after any mass shooting before discussing the American Gun Culture is allowed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
DR is playing the same boring game. Congress pulled funding for all gun safety research at the exact same time as the the Dickey amendment:quote:The dearth of research funding goes back to 1997, when an amendment was added to an operations bill that passed in Congress with the language that the CDC will be barred from any research that will “advocate or promote gun control,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard told ABC News. So while congress prevents the research willful idiots can pretend it isn't happening
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Pushing for gun control when people are increasingly afraid of being shot by the police is a really tone-deaf, stupid thing to do. That's why they want to focus the conversation away from Gun Culture to Gun Rights. If we start talking about Gun Culture it opens up questions about police armament, what trust means in society and broader questions about gun safety from community, process and design perspectives. Maybe an armed society isn't a polite society? Empirical evidence shows arming the police certainly hasn't made them polite. By limiting the conversation to Gun Rights, all those topics are excluded and instead the feelings and desires of would-be gun owners become the center of focus. It also "helpfully" excludes the rights and desires of non-gun owners. Edit: a small example of this has been the gun lobby's push to ban police gun buyback programs if the police destroy the guns. Sure they have some idiotic talking point, but this is about making it harder for communities to remove guns if they voluntarily chose to do so while giving any gun the status of historical artifact, unable to be destroyed but instead must be maintained for the good of society. That's not about gun rights, but its about gun culture. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/908402359709159426 The only people who might go to jail over this are security researchers, certainly no one from the company will be punished.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The better analogy would actually be your friend who barrows your car and leaves it unlocked in the mall parking garage overnight with the keys in the ignition. After promising over and over again that they're the most secure car-borrower in the world, refusing to share details of their "secure car borrowing program" except to say it is "secure" and also they were going to borrow your car exclusively so your buddy can snoop around inside and then tell anyone who wants to pay how much your buddy thinks you're worth based on the insides of your car. Also your buddy runs a side business where they will drive you around for cash since your car got stolen. Also your buddy did this to millions of people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Facebook allowed people to advertise to the demographic group of 'Jew Haters' This is the same company that previously let you racially red line your housing ads (in violation of federal law) https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/791979616609198080
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:you're not really departing from it if you eat less/no meat and say "i'm doing this for the environment". you're constructing a false departure so you can justify your choices as morally better than other people's choices. yes, you're having an incredibly tiny impact on AGW via your personal choices but it's nothing to grandstand or shame others over when you personally could be doing so much more I think the point is which moral acts escape that issue? If you're effectively saying "don't feel morally superior for the good acts you take" that's very different from saying "this category of good acts shouldn't make you morally superior because of the systemic nature of the problem." The former is a fairly common belief about morality and the second seems to apply as much to acts of anti-capitalism as acts of anti-emissions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
mdemone posted:That doesn't mean exactly what you think it does, IIRC. It was about combinations of descriptors and whether they are broad enough to be moderated for, i.e. "black children" isn't but "black men" would be, or "all children" would be, etc. And they worded it in an intentionally tricksy way to make a point during training. At least this is my understanding of it. That is correctly their policy but it leads to weird situations like: OK on Facebook: "black kids should be mass murdered" Not OK on Facebook: "white people are racist"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:What's the difference between men and children? I mean if "black men" is considered a group for Facebook posts, but "black children" aren't because it's a smaller, then doesn't that imply they should ignore all Native Americans (since they're a small group). Their rules are about "are all modifiers protected" so gender is protected and race is protected but age is not. Protected + non-protected = OK (e.g. Women drivers or black thugs) Protected + Protected = Not OK (e.g. White Men or Black Women)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
At a minimum we need to curtail civil immunity for cops. The idea that a cop can violate the law, departmental policy and direct supervisor orders but the people still have to pick up the tab is absurd. At least if we could sue cops and have the cops on the hook for the harm they cause that would be some incentive to not abuse and murder people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There are plenty of examples of officers turning off their body cameras in questionable situations, or thinking they had and incriminating themselves, but a 3rd party having access to the footage won't solve the issue of the footage not being collected in the first place. I'm asking for an example of when the department is alleged to have destroyed already collected evidence after the fact, which is the problem an outside body having access to the footage would solve. Watch those goal posts move. You originally quoted this post: Ze Pollack posted:you know how officers body cameras have a nasty habit of "stopping working" at moments of high tension, at the conclusion of which someone is dead but now you're asking for proof of destroyed footage not bodycams that fail to record.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Can't give the homeless housing, it doesn't solve the healthcare issues. Can't give them healthcare, no address to mail the outrageous bill. Not so simple as you socialists might think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont think you understand that the point of nuclear deterrence is to not use your nukes That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's the same problem of why you would allocate scarce military resources to attacking civilians instead of, you know, military targets, during a war I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Boon posted:Hmmmm yes, you and he certainly seem to know what you're talking about and seem credible. We get it, we should just trust you and you don't have to explain yourself because your personal experiences can only grant you authority and never bias.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
If you assume a forever war of global scale, then you're a fool if you don't think we should constantly increase military spending.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Do you have a pile of terrible posts you just pick and chose from or do voices whisper them to you while you sleep? I wonder what victory in the global war against terror would even look like anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 03:31
|
|