Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.
whembly wrote: [Good... give up that line of attack because it's never going to be what you want it to be.
Line of attack? No, it's going to be the usual thing where you say something ridiculous, people call you out on it, you double-down on it without actually giving anything of substance, people get exasperated, and then you move on to another Hilary Clinton scandal story from your preferred right-wing echo chamber "news" source.
You know, how this thread has worked for the last 180 fething pages.
"Denmark: We Are Not The Socialist Utopia Bernie Sanders Thinks We Are
In the first Democratic primary debate, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spoke of their fondness for Denmark.
Sanders, in particular, suggested that the US could adopt a socialist system by emulating Scandinavia. “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” said the US presidential candidate, who identifies himself as a “democratic socialist.”
But Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government this week, says Sanders got more than a few things wrong.
“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
I think other than the folks that like to pretend that any mention of socialism = communism, the vast majority of people actually do know that mixed market economies are a thing that exists.
d-usa wrote: I think other than the folks that like to pretend that any mention of socialism = communism, the vast majority of people actually do know that mixed market economies are a thing that exists.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, D.
The article that Whembly posted (shocker!) doesn't actually say that anything Sanders said about Denmark was "wrong" and neither does the article it sources. For instance, the article quotes Rasmussen as saying, "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” However, I can't find anything that has Sanders claiming that Denmark is a socialist planned economy. Quite the opposite, there is a video in one of the links in Whembly's article has a video of Sanders talking about the fact that Denmark is a mixed market economy.
I think Rasmussen is actually addressing people that are critical of Sanders' statement about how the United States could learn from Denmark and the Nordic system as the prevailing notion among right-leaning people in the States is that the Nordic countries are one step away from full-blown communism.
Anonymous claims to have leaked KKK members online and some Republican leaders are on there. So fake or is this going to blow up into a big scandal?
Without dealing with a bunch of the inbetween gak....
I've been watching this via my FB feed today. One of my buddies lives in a city whose mayor (or maybe it was the neighboring town?) was on that list as a KKK member.... Within moments of him posting, another of his friends pointed out that that particular mayor, is openly gay.
With that being said, I wouldn't be surprised at some of the "bigger" names on the list being true, but as has already been mentioned.... This isn't a credible source of information, and I completely withhold judgement until better information comes out.
Confirms Sanders already understood Rasmussen's point. Rasmussen..unsure why he opened his mouth.
@Ensis Ferrae
Yah, I saw that too. Certainly stranger things have happened but it also does not bode well for credibility. Its possible (probable) the non affiliated leaker took info out of context or fabricated a bunch to be the first to break the story.
I think there is literally no reason anyone should believe anything on the current KKK list, neither when Anonymous actually releases it, and certainly not when some random other people post one that's not even the list in question.
I well remember when the internet "identified" the Boston Bomber.
Ouze wrote: I think there is literally no reason anyone should believe anything on the current KKK list, neither when Anonymous actually releases it, and certainly not when some random other people post one that's not even the list in question.
I well remember when the internet "identified" the Boston Bomber.
What's that? Persons unknown with zero accountability and sketchy history with reliable information shouldn't be trusted? But what else is the internet for!
What's that? Persons unknown with zero accountability and sketchy history with reliable information shouldn't be trusted? But what else is the internet for!
Ouze wrote: I think there is literally no reason anyone should believe anything on the current KKK list, neither when Anonymous actually releases it, and certainly not when some random other people post one that's not even the list in question.
I well remember when the internet "identified" the Boston Bomber.
True.
Pretending that politicians could never be closet racists and maybe possibly KKK members is silly.
Trusting the internet hacker called Anon is even sillier.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This just needs a "scared of Hillary '16" text and you have the first GOP ad!
whembly wrote: Not plausible at all... considering the source.
Did you even read what I said? I said that it's plausible that some republicans (but probably not any important ones) are KKK members because the republican party includes the racist right, not that the source is a credible one. In fact I explicitly stated that the list alone is worthless without supporting evidence.
Honest question. Why do you associate racism with 'the right'? (I'm not really worried about your attributed party affiliation, more your left/right ideological spectrum). Plenty of leftist racists out there. One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist. There are plenty of US left of center (some far left of center) racists out there as well. Not all are white either.
I'm not close to convinced racism is a purely or even a mostly right wing trait. I believe there are racists spanning the spectrum.
CptJake wrote: One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist.
I think you are conflating 'college students who wear t-shirts' with 'the left'. Many on the left, in fact the majority of them in the US, aren't Communist radicals who are ok with killing the opposition. It is more of one of those things the right imagines about the left than is actually all that true.
CptJake wrote: One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist.
I think you are conflating 'college students who wear t-shirts' with 'the left'. Many on the left, in fact the majority of them in the US, aren't Communist radicals who are ok with killing the opposition. It is more of one of those things the right imagines about the left than is actually all that true.
Those college kids are taught by a left leaning group of professors for the most part, and like it or not, Che is an icon of the left. Hell, they still make movies romanticizing his life.
I never said all/most/many on the left in the US are communist radicals okay with killing the opposition. What I did say, and stand by, is that racism is not a right wing trait, and that there are racists spanning the political left-right spectrum. Folks on both ends of the spectrum use racism to further their agendas. That is not new.
I have two brothers adopted from Korea, and went to a school OCONUS on the economy where I was the only white kid in my grade (and at one point the only in the school). I've been to several Central and South American countries where skin tone and or amount of indian physical characteristics you showed could determine how you were treated. I've got a daughter adopted from China. I've seen that racism is not limited to white folks, let alone conservative/right wing folks.
CptJake wrote: One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist.
I think you are conflating 'college students who wear t-shirts' with 'the left'. Many on the left, in fact the majority of them in the US, aren't Communist radicals who are ok with killing the opposition. It is more of one of those things the right imagines about the left than is actually all that true.
Those college kids are taught by a left leaning group of professors for the most part, and like it or not, Che is an icon of the left. Hell, they still make movies romanticizing his life.
Do they?
Do they, really?
I never said all/most/many on the left in the US are communist radicals okay with killing the opposition. What I did say, and stand by, is that racism is not a right wing trait, and that there are racists spanning the political left-right spectrum.
If you try and equate "Black Lives Matter" to racism, I might have to laugh at you. For a year.
CptJake wrote: One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist.
I think you are conflating 'college students who wear t-shirts' with 'the left'. Many on the left, in fact the majority of them in the US, aren't Communist radicals who are ok with killing the opposition. It is more of one of those things the right imagines about the left than is actually all that true.
Those college kids are taught by a left leaning group of professors for the most part, and like it or not, Che is an icon of the left. Hell, they still make movies romanticizing his life.
Do they?
Do they, really?
I never said all/most/many on the left in the US are communist radicals okay with killing the opposition. What I did say, and stand by, is that racism is not a right wing trait, and that there are racists spanning the political left-right spectrum.
If you try and equate "Black Lives Matter" to racism, I might have to laugh at you. For a year.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It didn't sound like he said that the R's are rasicts, just that racists are more likely to be R's. Which makes sense. Racism and liberalism tend no to go hand in hand. Racism is a reactionary thing, and the R's attract the conservatives and the reactionaries. Does this mean that the R's are a racist party, no. In fact, I'd posit Carson's success is proof that the R's aren't a racist party.
Edit: double ninjaed
horse gak. Commies are excellent at oppressing minorities by killing them. look at Europe and its treatment of Jews in the last decade, or same on college campuses today.
n
Ahtman wrote: Right, because there have never been biopics about other people, just Che.
How would that refute my point? I never said the only bio-pics ever made were of Che. I said he is an icon of the left, and that they still make movies romanticizing his life. Where am I wrong?
Co'tor Shas wrote: It didn't sound like he said that the R's are rasicts, just that racists are more likely to be R's. Which makes sense. Racism and liberalism tend no to go hand in hand. Racism is a reactionary thing, and the R's attract the conservatives and the reactionaries. Does this mean that the R's are a racist party, no. In fact, I'd posit Carson's success is proof that the R's aren't a racist party.
Edit: double ninjaed
horse gak. Commies are excellent at oppressing minorities by killing them. look at Europe and its treatment of Jews in the last decade, or same on college campuses today.
n
...
Which isn't liberalism. Those dictatorships that those attempts at communism created are hard to describe as "liberal". Radical maybe, but they are nothing like liberalism. Because liberal is a social construct. Liberal has very little to do with economics. The word you are looking for there is authoritarian (the opposite of libertarian).
Racism is reactionary, plain and simple. This does not mean that reactionaries are racist, and I never said that, or even suggested that. Now people can be reactionary on one front, but left-leaning on most others. But racism is reactionary.
Ahtman wrote: Right, because there have never been biopics about other people, just Che.
How would that refute my point? I never said the only bio-pics ever made were of Che. I said he is an icon of the left, and that they still make movies romanticizing his life. Where am I wrong?
Eh, the people who do so tend not to be particularly mainstream, and most of the time don't have a fething clue what they are talking about. From my limited experience at the very least.
Ahtman wrote: Right, because there have never been biopics about other people, just Che.
How would that refute my point? I never said the only bio-pics ever made were of Che. I said he is an icon of the left, and that they still make movies romanticizing his life. Where am I wrong?
The idea that he is some kind of universal "icon on the left".
I legitimately do not know anyone who considers themselves a lefty and considers Che an icon.
Ouze wrote: I think there is literally no reason anyone should believe anything on the current KKK list, neither when Anonymous actually releases it, and certainly not when some random other people post one that's not even the list in question.
I well remember when the internet "identified" the Boston Bomber.
Even if it were true that active politicians were members of the KKK it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The Democratic party happily embraced Robert Byrd and supported his multi-decade career in the Senate while he kept winning statewide elections in West Virginia.
Ahtman wrote: Right, because there have never been biopics about other people, just Che.
How would that refute my point? I never said the only bio-pics ever made were of Che. I said he is an icon of the left, and that they still make movies romanticizing his life. Where am I wrong?
The idea that he is some kind of universal "icon on the left".
I legitimately do not know anyone who considers themselves a lefty and considers Che an icon.
Ahtman wrote: Right, because there have never been biopics about other people, just Che.
How would that refute my point? I never said the only bio-pics ever made were of Che. I said he is an icon of the left, and that they still make movies romanticizing his life. Where am I wrong?
The idea that he is some kind of universal "icon on the left".
I legitimately do not know anyone who considers themselves a lefty and considers Che an icon.
And yet his image is on posters and t-shirts and they still make movies romanticizing his life.
I have yet to see you provide actual evidence that those movies "romanticized his life". Have you seen Che? Because I haven't--so I can't comment that it does or not.
As for t-shirts and posters, so what? There's a great number of t-shirts/posters spoofing the Che t-shirt thing.
But yeah, I can see how you would dismiss my point.
Have you actually read the list of people in your own link?
You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.
Ouze wrote: I think there is literally no reason anyone should believe anything on the current KKK list, neither when Anonymous actually releases it, and certainly not when some random other people post one that's not even the list in question.
I well remember when the internet "identified" the Boston Bomber.
Even if it were true that active politicians were members of the KKK it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The Democratic party happily embraced Robert Byrd and supported his multi-decade career in the Senate while he kept winning statewide elections in West Virginia.
In which we pretend there is no difference between someone being in the KKK right now in 2015, and a guy who was briefly in the KKK 75 years ago (when the country was segregated), described it as "the greatest mistake he ever made", and spent the latter part of his career apologizing for it.
The best part about this post is it took very little effort to compose since someone literally made this exact point a single page ago
To sum up the last page: you know the left wing in america is just as racist as the right wing in America because a guy was racist for about a year before WW2, and because they make movies about Che Guevara, a non-American who has been dead for 50 years. I'd add some snarky comment but truthfully, even had Alpharius not warned against it, I truly think that observation stands on it's own.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It didn't sound like he said that the R's are rasicts, just that racists are more likely to be R's. Which makes sense. Racism and liberalism tend no to go hand in hand. Racism is a reactionary thing, and the R's attract the conservatives and the reactionaries. Does this mean that the R's are a racist party, no. In fact, I'd posit Carson's success is proof that the R's aren't a racist party.
Edit: double ninjaed
horse gak. Commies are excellent at oppressing minorities by killing them. look at Europe and its treatment of Jews in the last decade, or same on college campuses today.
n
...
Which isn't liberalism. Those dictatorships that those attempts at communism created are hard to describe as "liberal". Radical maybe, but they are nothing like liberalism. Because liberal is a social construct. Liberal has very little to do with economics. The word you are looking for there is authoritarian (the opposite of libertarian).
Racism is reactionary, plain and simple. This does not mean that reactionaries are racist, and I never said that, or even suggested that. Now people can be reactionary on one front, but left-leaning on most others. But racism is reactionary.
Liberalism has a lot to do with economics. Half of the core tenets of liberalism are economics. Capitalism is liberalism, open markets and free trade between states is essential to liberalism being successful. In the US Republicans are all pretty much liberals, except neoconservatives which break from some of the liberalist ideals.
Racism exists on either side of the political spectrum. Its a myth that left equals peace love and understanding and right equals bad guys. Eugenics would be a left spectrum justification for racism.The so called reverse racism is also a left wing conceot of racism. Radicalism of the communist states IS left wing. You can't twist away because its ugly. However, the far right system of fascism is the only inherently racist political system I'm aware of.
No, that's libertarianism. Liberalism and conservatism are social. They often bleed into economics, but they are based around social ideas. Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the economic ones.
The terms are often used incorrectly (in fact, they are usually).
Liberalism is social freedom, libertarianism is economic freedom. Conservatism is social control, authoritarianism is economic control. The D's tend to lean liberal authoritarian, and the R's tend to lean conservative libertarian.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, that's libertarianism. Liberalism and conservatism are social. They often bleed into economics, but they are based around social ideas. Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the economic ones.
The terms are often used incorrectly (in fact, they are usually).
Liberalism is social freedom, libertarianism is economic freedom. Conservatism is social control, authoritarianism is economic control. The D's tend to lean liberal authoritarian, and the R's tend to lean conservative libertarian.
No man, liberalism needs economics to work. Liberalism is more than a social ideology. It believes in individual freedom and free trade open markets.
You are being the people that use the term wrong. I don't study this stuff for no reason. An I'm not making a career out of it for funzies.
Liberalism is an entire political philosophy dealing with domestic and international relations. It is counter to the philosophy of Realism which is a belief system often held by conservatives but not solely by them. Liberal and Conservative are social concepts of the political spectrum. Liberalism is a philosophy that makes use of ideas in the left wing of political ideology.
For the record libertarian exists slightly right of anarchism in ideology.
CptJake wrote: One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist.
I think you are conflating 'college students who wear t-shirts' with 'the left'. Many on the left, in fact the majority of them in the US, aren't Communist radicals who are ok with killing the opposition. It is more of one of those things the right imagines about the left than is actually all that true.
Those college kids are taught by a left leaning group of professors for the most part, and like it or not, Che is an icon of the left. Hell, they still make movies romanticizing his life.
Do they?
Do they, really?
I never said all/most/many on the left in the US are communist radicals okay with killing the opposition. What I did say, and stand by, is that racism is not a right wing trait, and that there are racists spanning the political left-right spectrum.
If you try and equate "Black Lives Matter" to racism, I might have to laugh at you. For a year.
Did I do that? No.
As for movies
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Just out of curiosity but have you actually seen either of those films or read the books they are based on? They do not, in my opinion, romanticise Che.
They are both based on his own actual words, with The Motorcycle Diaries being based on the book of the same name, Che Part 1 being based on his memoirs from the cuban revolutionary war and Che Part 2 being based on the diary which he kept during his time in Bolivia.
I've seen all three films and read the source material and the films are accurate portrayals of said source material. If the film showed him single handedly defeating 200 Bolivian special forces soldiers before being captured then I think you may have had a point about it being romanticised. But it doesn't.
Showing an accurate depiction of parts of his life is not romanticising him. It is just showing him as he was during those times, an at times brutal man who fought for what he passionately believed in.
BrotherGecko wrote: Liberalism is a philosophy that makes use of ideas in the left wing of political ideology.
"The left" of conservatism, certainly, but on the right wing compared to socialism or social liberalism. The "left-right" dichotomy is rather annoying in that way.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Ah, so that's the problem. I'm talking about the social concepts.
Yep, the social spectrum is fairly clear cut inside a single culture. Most Americans are probably socially liberal, to include Republicans. Yet Americans are probably fairly conservative socially compaired to other cultures. Social spectrum only works with in a culture or a single state/nation.
The ideological spectrum is relatively universal.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote: Liberalism is a philosophy that makes use of ideas in the left wing of political ideology.
"The left" of conservatism, certainly, but on the right wing compared to socialism or social liberalism. The "left-right" dichotomy is rather annoying in that way.
Of course, as it is a linear spectrum. There are other ways to describe the spectrum with out the right-left but it is probably the easiest to describe. Liberalism is definitely closer to the right then social democracy is though lol.
Co'tor Shas wrote:It's because people use them to describe political parties, and since we have only two are large amount of differing viewpoints get crammed into them.
There is a problem when people vote towards parties because of that parties over arching social ideals while not knowing the rest. So Dems are almost completely liberalist or neoliberalists which has a lot of baggage past social freedoms. There is a reason why Dems voted for the Iraq War (they believed knocking down Saddam and installing an open market would create democracy) and why they push so hard for free trade agreements. Neoconservatives are similar to neoliberals except they believe in American unilateralism and not international concensus when taking action.
Americans keep voting in people they don't like because they are focused on one aspect of politics. They see liberal or conservative and don't notice the whole philosophy held by the politician. People who want social freedoms exclusively should probably vote for Bernie Sanders or social democrats if they are liberal and Rand Paul or libertarians if they are conservative.
(CNN)President Barack Obama tore into Republican presidential candidates Monday night at a Democratic fundraising event in New York, saying their complaints about CNBC's debate moderation aren't an encouraging preview for their governing abilities.
"Have you noticed that everyone of these candidates say, 'Obama's weak. Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he's going to straighten out,'" Obama said, impersonating a refrain among Republican candidates that he's allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin too much leeway.
"Then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can't handle those guys, then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you," Obama said.
Republicans widely decried the GOP primary debate sponsored by the financial news network last week, saying the questions lacked substance and the moderators failed to adhere to agreed-upon standards. An effort to insist upon debate reforms, however, appeared uncertain Monday evening.
In 2007, when he was pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama had his own issues with debate hosts: Fox News. He, along with candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, skipped out of a Fox News-Congressional Black Caucus co-hosted debate, spurred by pressure from the liberal Moveon.org, which claimed Fox News was biased against Democrats.
Obama, launching a series of darts on the Republican slate of candidates, said Monday they "occupy a different reality" on issues like health care, climate change and the economy.
"According to them everything was really good in 2008," he said. "When we were going through the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, unemployment and uninsured rates were up, we were hopelessly addicted to foreign oil and (Osama) bin Laden was still on the loose. This apparently was the golden age that I messed up."
Obama was speaking ahead of a performance of the musical "Hamilton," an audacious hip-hop telling of Alexander Hamilton's life.
"They're so glum," he said of the 2016 GOP field. "They're really so frustrated ... Everybody here's got a list of things we've got to tackle. But maybe what makes us a little different as Democrats is we try to base our analysis on facts."
Referring to GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe's use of a snowball on the Senate floor to question the existence of climate change -- a recurring element of Obama's criticism of Republicans -- the President said only "that's crazy."
"I was going to quote Kanye but I can't, because this is a family audience," he said. "But it's cray."
Fox News and a black political group say they will not hold a Sept. 23 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, which the leading candidates already were planning to skip.
A new date had not yet been set, Fox News spokesman Michael Murphy said Thursday.
The campaigns of U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards had said they would not participate in the debate. Opponents have criticized Fox as biased against Democrats.
I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I don't think you understand what "The will" means.
I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.
I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I don't think you understand what "The will" means.
I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.
Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.
I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I don't think you understand what "The will" means.
I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.
Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.
Even if we had been willing to drop nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq and carpet bombed their industrial and population centers until they offered their unconditional surrender we still wouldn't have had the political will or popular support for committing to rebuilding both nations and maintaining an active and large military presence in the countries for 60+ years as we did with Germany and Japan. Plus the differences between prewar Japan and Germany and the post war Japan and Germany that we created were much smaller than the degree of change we would have had to engineer in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if we had had a better plan for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the one we used was still very successful) we were still going to screw up the post conflict reconstruction. Leaving now was better than wasting more time, lives and treasure over there before eventually leaving later with the same failure to enact the changes we wanted to put in place.
Have you actually read the list of people in your own link? You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.
Yes I read the list. I'll note Reagan is on it. Do you think the leftists hold Reagan as an iconic figure? I submit, no, they do not, the right does. The list does not give two gaks about political sides, it is a list of Iconic politicians. To make that list you must be perceived as an iconic figure, correct? So, in your opinion, which side made Che an icon, and a big enough icon that he makes the list?
Have you actually read the list of people in your own link?
You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.
Yes I read the list. I'll note Reagan is on it. Do you think the leftists hold Reagan as an iconic figure? I submit, no, they do not, the right does.
The list does not give two gaks about political sides, it is a list of Iconic politicians. To make that list you must be perceived as an iconic figure, correct? So, in your opinion, which side made Che an icon, and a big enough icon that he makes the list?
Which side made Hitler an icon, and a big enough icon to make the list?
It doesn't seem to care much about US politicking so much as world influence.
Have you actually read the list of people in your own link? You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.
Yes I read the list. I'll note Reagan is on it. Do you think the leftists hold Reagan as an iconic figure? I submit, no, they do not, the right does. The list does not give two gaks about political sides, it is a list of Iconic politicians. To make that list you must be perceived as an iconic figure, correct? So, in your opinion, which side made Che an icon, and a big enough icon that he makes the list?
Which side made Hitler an icon, and a big enough icon to make the list?
It doesn't seem to care much about US politicking so much as world influence.
(That wasn't a Godwin! Honest!)
Not a lot of Hitler shirts and posters being sold at this point though, are there?
But honestly, all this is nothing but deflecting from my main point, I still do not see racism as a right vs left trait. There are racists across the political spectrum but there seem to be posters here who view it as a right wing phenomenon.
I'm more surprised anyone is actually making Hitler T-Shirts than anything. I mean, I guess Neo-Nazi's, but "Hitler was right Donuts are awesome." The feth is that about XD
I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I don't think you understand what "The will" means.
I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.
Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.
And what was the justification for going to war with Afghanistan?
That they refused to hand over Al-Qaeda's leadership. It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked the United States--it was Al-Qaeda.
Iraq was accused of supporting Al-Qaeda and also of attempting to develop a WMD program.
So once again:
Comparing the Second World War to Iraq/Afghanistan is nothing but an attempt at trying to set up the argument of "See, back then people had gumption! Not like these weak-willed lilies today!"
I'm well aware of the circumstances surrounding both Iraq/Afghanistan and WWII. That's why I am harping so heavily upon the nonsense that you are espousing here. Simply saying that it was a matter of "will" is like saying that it was "will" that won the Cold War.
I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I don't think you understand what "The will" means.
I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.
Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.
To be fair nation building was always going to fail. The moment Bush's hanger ons convinved him he could build democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan was the moment we lost. Lost years ago so don't put that one on Obama's head. Syria and Ukraine are Obama's failure for sure. Syria is failing because of the notion of nation building in Syria. Ukraine is failing because nobody wants a shooting war between the US and Russia. If the choice is war between US and Russia or Russia annexing Ukraine....Ukraine can pound sand, realistically of course. Obama would be better off saying your on your own Ukraine and how can we help in Syria Putin? But that doesn't make us feel good even when that is by far the best decisions to be made.
To reiterate, Bush lost Iraq/Afghanistan and Obama got the bill. An that is the real, no spin, bull partisan face saving. Repubicans screwed the pooch by letting themselves become infested with Neocon ideologues.
What they own is the product being grown. Chickens being the most obvious and egregious example. (See: John Oliver's segment on Tyson and US chicken farms)
Besides, what cooler mascot could there be than a Bull Moose! If it was good enough for Teddy "The Man" Roosevelt, it's good enough for America!
Your choices for president: an android, a creationist neurosurgeon or a postcoital cat
The absurdly long run-up to the US election has begun. This will be the first election fought under new rules where there are no limits to campaign donations: a change brought in on the grounds of “free speech”, when the supreme court decided that the Koch brothers not being able to say, “We own the president,” infringed their rights under the first amendment. Personally, I think Obama will be quite lonely once it’s all over, not least because he has allowed the police to kill most of the other black people.
Differences between the candidates are usually so slight that what the Democratic frontrunner thinks is pretty much just what the Republican frontrunner thinks on the days that he remembers to take his meds. But in something of a format twist, Bernie Sanders – an old-school socialist – has crowdfunded himself into a credible position for the Democratic nomination. I sincerely hope he wins, if only so that we see the first inauguration speech made from inside a giant, bulletproof hamster ball. The Democratic frontrunner is Hillary Clinton, a ruthless, steel-haired troll doll. Hers is the face that would haunt a lot of Libyans’ nightmares, if they were still alive. Unfortunately for her election prospects, Hillary has never quite learned to introduce humour or compassion into her speaking voice and on a good day sounds like an android trying to trick the last human out of a bunker.
At last week’s Republican debate, the candidates accused CNBC of displaying liberal bias. One reading would be that the GOP candidates are now so rightwing that they make a giant media conglomerate look liberal. Let’s not forget that the essential message of a Republican candidate is a tricky sell. That you love America, but hate all the groups that make up America. That you love democracy, but hate people. Donald Trump, who at best looks like a plughole in an orangutan sanctuary, is probably only running for president because this dimension doesn’t have a Superman he can give a hard time to. His hair, looking like a slovenly, postcoital cat, is actually one of the least weird things about him. He is lacking in charm or wit and is almost ferociously inarticulate. The US public has identified with him strongly. It seems that the electorate, possibly bored with rational thought, is toying with the idea of cutting out the middleman and just electing one of the business class through sheer force of Stockholm syndrome.
The old politics is dull, and what could be more exciting than electing a man who might declare war on the sea? His plans to build a giant wall sealing the US border with Mexico are entertaining, not least because it would be interesting to see a nation as heavily armed as America go into cocaine withdrawal. Somehow, I always imagine that Trump spends the evenings with his forehead pressed against the cold glass of an aquarium, talking telepathically to the tormented albino squid in which he has hidden his soul.
Indeed, the whole Republican field offers a bracing challenge to conventional notions of sanity. The current poll leader is Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who happens to be a Seventh Day Adventist and creationist. Creationists have often made me doubt evolution, but probably not in the way they think. His taxation policy is based on Biblical tithing, taking economic pointers from people who had a GDP of one golden calf.
Why do both parties rage against bias in what is actually a laughably servile media? Maybe it’s because the political class have an instinctive contempt for asking the public to decide anything meaningful, such as policy. So their campaigns have to be largely symbolic affairs about hope or hard work or whatever flavour of horsegak is polling well. Most campaign spending goes on advertising (65% of Obama’s “grassroots” campaign of 2012 was media spend) and advertising speaks in symbolism. Thus the parties may actually distrust any kind of rational inquiry, as what they’re saying doesn’t, and can’t, make any sense. Or maybe the reality of what they’re voting on is something nobody dare express. They’re voting on the exact speed of the drift toward a future of armies run by corporations corralling permanently travelling communities of cooks, cleaners and sex workers, as they underbid each other outside the entrances to gated communities to ensure they’re the ones let inside to service the fortunate. A future where the pursuit of happiness will make about as much sense as mounting an expedition to reach the horizon.
Of course it could be that the whole election is a bit like The X Factor, and they put a few lunatics in the early rounds to lure us into something we promised we’d never engage with again. By the end we’ll be back to two corporate glove puppets belting out the same tired standards. And no matter how bad the choice is, we’ll always have a preference. Clinton will be offering an expanded kill list of official enemies, secret corporate courts, and her first speech about Palestine will sound like it was written by the Hulk. A lot of otherwise rational minds will be praying for her to win.
But honestly, all this is nothing but deflecting from my main point, I still do not see racism as a right vs left trait. There are racists across the political spectrum but there seem to be posters here who view it as a right wing phenomenon.
Here's the view from where I sit:
The Republican part is the current party of "racists" because it is consistently voting to get rid of, or limit/cut spending to the numerous social welfare programs (WIC, PP, etc) Quite often times, the rhetoric I see used by the people who want to get rid of these programs gets quite inflamed, and so racist that I wouldn't dream of ever repeating it here.
The irony is, you have traditionally right leaning states continuing to vote for congressmen who want to get rid of these programs, when the majority of the people receiving benefits, are white... The usual excuse I hear in these situations quite mind boggling.
I don't think that the majority of the politicians themselves are racists, any more than they are from the Dem/Left camps. IMO, it is that very vocal and absurd minority rearing it's ugly head that give credence to the view that "racism is a right wing thing"
If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention
◆"So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach." - Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013
◆"We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope." - Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013
◆"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan." - Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013
◆"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision." - News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013
◆"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility." - News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013
◆"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground." - Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013
◆"Tomorrow I'll speak to the American people. I'll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We're not talking about — not boots on the ground. We're not talking about sustained airstrikes." - Interview with the PBS Newshour, Sept. 9, 2013
◆"What I'm going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that." - Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 2013
◆"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria." - Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013
◆"We are doing everything we can to see how we can do that and how we can resource it. But I've looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem." - Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014
◆"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria." - News conference in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014
◆"The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that." - Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2014
◆"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil." - Address to the Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014
◆"Right now we're moving forward in conjunction with outstanding allies like Australia in training Iraqi security forces to do their job on the ground." - News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014
◆"The resolution we've submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. ... As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East." - Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015
◆"It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists." - Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015
whembly wrote: Isn't the Obama administration using Bush's AUMF authorization to do this?
That's the attempt anyways. I find it a little dubious because ISIS is no longer officially affiliated with al-Qaeda. Of course, a new AUMF was put to vote last year, but Congress being Congress meant it went nowhere.
If so, any lefty head 'spoded yet?
Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?
And more importantly... why isn't this BIG news on the media???
That's a good question, Whembly. It isn't even on the Fox News front page.
whembly wrote: Isn't the Obama administration using Bush's AUMF authorization to do this?
If so, any lefty head 'spoded yet?
And more importantly... why isn't this BIG news on the media???
Honestly? Because it's 12 years later. People stopped physically demonstrating against the Iraq War by 2005, at the very latest, at least in any memorable way. Nobody really cares anymore, R or D or I. At this point a lot of people are angry, but, you know, keyboard angry.
Did anyone else catch that there were no Syrians at the recent peace talks? I only found out through John Oliver, but I mean how loud can you say proxy war before it gets meta?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention
The best (worst) part about that is that the GOP butthurt not because President Obama said we would not intervene and now are, but because the intervention isn't big enough.
And, they're not wrong. In the choice between deciding we can't improve the situation and staying out (my pick) or deciding freedom exceptionalism whatever and sending 60,000 troops, he's picked a weird sucky middle ground. Essentially, we are going to get involved enough to get stuck with all the gakky parts of being involved, but not involved enough to actually make a functional difference.
I think it's a terrible decision, and I think it's also (another) unlawful conflict without any legal basis from Congress.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention
The best (worst) part about that is that the GOP is super butthurt not because President Obama said we would not intervene and now are, but because the intervention isn't big enough.
Ouze wrote: And, they're not wrong. In the choice between deciding we can't improve the situation and staying out (my pick) or deciding freedom exceptionalism whatever and sending 60,000 troops, he's picked a weird sucky middle ground. Essentially, we are going to get involved enough to get stuck with all the gakky parts of being involved, but not involved enough to actually make a functional difference.
I think it's a terrible decision, and I think it's also (another) unlawful conflict without any legal basis from Congress.
I agree that it is an absolutely terrible decision. We are involved in a small enough measure to be unable to do much to affect change. Getting involved more would not improve the situation much. No one in this Administration has an end game in sight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?
Didn't he run on a platform, and continually promise, that he was not going to continue Bush-era policies?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?
Didn't he run on a platform, and continually promise, that he was not going to continue Bush-era policies?
Yes, but he has failed to live up to that promise. It's the reason why I laugh at Whembly et al. when he regurgitates all the derposphere "Obama is a commie socialist" nonsense; it just doesn't hold up when you take an objective look at what's going on.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention
The best (worst) part about that is that the GOP butthurt not because President Obama said we would not intervene and now are, but because the intervention isn't big enough.
And, they're not wrong. In the choice between deciding we can't improve the situation and staying out (my pick) or deciding freedom exceptionalism whatever and sending 60,000 troops, he's picked a weird sucky middle ground. Essentially, we are going to get involved enough to get stuck with all the gakky parts of being involved, but not involved enough to actually make a functional difference.
I think it's a terrible decision, and I think it's also (another) unlawful conflict without any legal basis from Congress.
And yet the congress critters will continue to fund it, implicitly granting permission/authorization.
and realize that even when constitutionally mandated, idiots are going to do idiotic things. Hell, the example in that article is flat out fraud/waste/abuse and someone should see the inside of a cell for a while over it. Several someone's more likely.
Don't tell me we can't make cuts to defense when you use the money we are giving you as in the example above.
Of course you can make the argument that defense spending IS one of the things the Feds are supposed to do accodring to the constitution...
Actually, the Constitution makes no mention of what the Federal government is supposed to do, it deals only with what it is permitted to do. Congress has the Constitutional authority to dissolve the entire military tomorrow.
I don't see defense spending as 'the good welfare' as it is spending the Fed gov't is constitutionally supposed to do.
Having said that, they (DoD) sure as gak don't spend efficiently/smartly and then whine that they need more. I guess at that point you become correct as a lot of DoD funding ends up being nothing more than welfare $$$ to spend in some congress critter's state/district.
I'm against ALL the mis-spending and waste we get from our gov't.
Of course you can make the argument that defense spending IS one of the things the Feds are supposed to do accodring to the constitution...
Actually, the Constitution makes no mention of what the Federal government is supposed to do, it deals only with what it is permitted to do. Congress has the Constitutional authority to dissolve the entire military tomorrow.
You're smarter than this. The constitution was not meant to be all permissive. It laid out what the Feds can do. It left everything else to the states. There is no "and anything else not mentioned the Feds should do if they feel the urge' clause.
You're smarter than this. The constitution was not meant to be all permissive. It laid out what the Feds can do. It left everything else to the states. There is no "and anything else not mentioned the Feds should do if they feel the urge' clause.
I didn't say otherwise. Congress has the Constitutional authority to dissolve the military because it has no Constitutional duty to maintain one. Everything under Article 1, Section 8 is prefaced by the phrase "The Congress shall have power to..." including both "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;", and "To provide and maintain a navy;". It can do either of these things if it so chooses, but it doesn't have to.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?
Didn't he run on a platform, and continually promise, that he was not going to continue Bush-era policies?
Yes, but he has failed to live up to that promise. It's the reason why I laugh at Whembly et al. when he regurgitates all the derposphere "Obama is a commie socialist" nonsense; it just doesn't hold up when you take an objective look at what's going on.
I never said he's a "commie socialist"... only that he's a "leftist donkey-cave".
Get your facts straight!
Seriously... I think the blue flavor-aid drinkers can acknowledge that Obama hasn't kept his promises... but, then they'd think what if a Romney was president... then, they'd give Obama a pass.
To be fair, the red flavor-aid drinkers would do the exact opposite too.
But it'd be nice if the Obama supporters would call his gak out. The only two I can think of right now both Ouze and d-usa has publically criticized Obama here... You? You just want a pound-o-whembly's flesh.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!
No clue...
But we 'Murricans do it right.
Yeah, that's why it's called the "Red scare", eh?
Heh.
Honestly, I think it used to be that the colors are switched periodically. Blue was the Republican's color for the longest time.
So, what is the general consensus of the Elections held on the 2nd? Obama was handed some significant losses with a Republican taking the Governorship in Kentucky despite the amount of money Bloomberg threw into that race. A Sheriff in San Francisco who openly supported sanctuary city status got booted. Ohio rejected legal pot. Lots of other stuff.
Breotan wrote: So, what is the general consensus of the Elections held on the 2nd? Obama was handed some significant losses with a Republican taking the Governorship in Kentucky
A poor candidate running on repeal of Obamacare won over an established strong Democratic candidate.
Also, his Lt. Govenor is the first elected female black politician in state of KY (a Tea Party activist too).
What's even more interesting, is that the polls prior to the election had the Democratic candidate up by 5% points, and yet he lost by 8%. That's a hella swing and calls into questions of the veracity of any polls.
despite the amount of money Bloomberg threw into that race.
I think you meant the Virginian state elections? If so, yup, the Republican retained their control of both houses, despite Bloomberg pooring so much gun-control ads.
A Sheriff in San Francisco who openly supported sanctuary city status got booted.
Good.
Ohio rejected legal pot. Lots of other stuff.
That one was a weird one... as I understood it, it would allow a vote later on for medicinal & recreational use. In addition, it'll create state sponsored monopolies of the weed growers (aka, for the donors), which may have been the main reason why this was rejected. As it would obviously create a few super wealthy weed growers, who in turn, would donate to their respective parties.
whembly wrote: In addition, it'll create state sponsored monopolies of the weed growers (aka, for the donors), which may have been the main reason why this was rejected. As it would obviously create a few super wealthy weed growers, who in turn, would donate to their respective parties.
Ya, I thought that looked fishy. Good thing people can still spot and reject such crass and blatant corruption.
It should be mentioned, however, that the Ohio legislature is going to talk about it now, so that's a plus.
Looks like there are moves in the direction here in NY. We don't really have the same sort of ballot initiatives out here, but there are moves in the state legislature.
Let's hope not. Because, as much as I want that sweet, sweet, tax money, I sure as hell don't want them to use the same techniques they use with cigarettes (all sorts of crap in those, beyond just tobacco, ans they are often marketed to kids, which is something I'd like to avoid, same as alcohol).
Co'tor Shas wrote: Let's hope not. Because, as much as I want that sweet, sweet, tax money, I sure as hell don't want them to use the same techniques they use with cigarettes (all sorts of crap in those, beyond just tobacco, ans they are often marketed to kids, which is something I'd like to avoid, same as alcohol).
What is worse;
The utterly disgusting Tobacco Industry
The very bloody/expensive Drug War
Literally the choice of a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Decisions decisions...
A Sheriff in San Francisco who openly supported sanctuary city status got booted.
Good.
It bears mentioning that Mirkarimi (the sheriff in question) narrowly avoided losing his seat following a domestic violence conviction, and that 2 of the 4 supervisors who voted to reinstate him subsequently lost their positions. As San Francisco will remain a sanctuary city, it seems likely that the domestic violence scandal was the primary reason for his ouster.
I never said he's a "commie socialist"... only that he's a "leftist donkey-cave".
Get your facts straight!
Except he isn't a "leftist" in the real world, only in the right wing derposphere that you place so much stock in. He's pretty much Bush 2.0, so I guess Bush is now a "leftist donkey-cave" to you now?
Seriously... I think the blue flavor-aid drinkers can acknowledge that Obama hasn't kept his promises... but, then they'd think what if a Romney was president... then, they'd give Obama a pass.
I love it when you just assume things without anything to actually back it up. What else is going on in this imaginary land you've created? It sounds interesting!
To be fair, the red flavor-aid drinkers would do the exact opposite too.
So.... you're admitting you do that?
But it'd be nice if the Obama supporters would call his gak out. The only two I can think of right now both Ouze and d-usa has publically criticized Obama here... You? You just want a pound-o-whembly's flesh.
No, I've been critical of Obama plenty of times and I'm also certainly not an "Obama supporter" (outside of voting for him, which I wish I hadn't). Yet no matter how many times I've explained that I'm not, you just ignore it and pretend I said the opposite (which is kind of par for the course for you it would seem). Kind of like all those times you've accused me of being a Hilary or Sanders supporter, even though I have never supported either one of them. For whatever reason, you think because I disagree with most of your stupid bs that I must love Obama or whomever else you don't like.
If you want to ignore the things I say and just pretend I'm trying to pick on you, go right ahead.
I never said he's a "commie socialist"... only that he's a "leftist donkey-cave".
Get your facts straight!
Except he isn't a "leftist" in the real world, only in the right wing derposphere that you place so much stock in. He's pretty much Bush 2.0, so I guess Bush is now a "leftist donkey-cave" to you now?
Seriously... I think the blue flavor-aid drinkers can acknowledge that Obama hasn't kept his promises... but, then they'd think what if a Romney was president... then, they'd give Obama a pass.
I love it when you just assume things without anything to actually back it up. What else is going on in this imaginary land you've created? It sounds interesting!
It's called an observation.
Where's the cry to have Obama shut down Gitmo? What about his extra-judicial drone killers? What about NSA wiretapping? etc... These are only SOME things that happened under Obama's watch and had it been a Republican, it'd be news 24/7 in yo face!
Another example... remember the Grim Milestones of US servicemen's death during Bush's tenure? That was a mainstay in the media Every. Single. Day. During Obama's tenure? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.
But, go ahead and keep on making yourself looking silly.
To be fair, the red flavor-aid drinkers would do the exact opposite too.
So.... you're admitting you do that?
You first.
But it'd be nice if the Obama supporters would call his gak out. The only two I can think of right now both Ouze and d-usa has publically criticized Obama here... You? You just want a pound-o-whembly's flesh.
No, I've been critical of Obama plenty of times and I'm also certainly not an "Obama supporter" (outside of voting for him, which I wish I hadn't). Yet no matter how many times I've explained that I'm not, you just ignore it and pretend I said the opposite (which is kind of par for the course for you it would seem). Kind of like all those times you've accused me of being a Hilary or Sanders supporter, even though I have never supported either one of them. For whatever reason, you think because I disagree with most of your stupid bs that I must love Obama or whomever else you don't like.
If you want to ignore the things I say and just pretend I'm trying to pick on you, go right ahead.
Well... by the nature of our tango here, at least admit that you do give that impression.
I'm glad that you wished you hadn't voted for him... was that more like buyer's remorse? Did you like Obama "The Greatest Campagner" more than Obama "I have no fething Clue what I'm doing at the WhiteHouse"??
Where's the cry to have Obama shut down Gitmo? What about his extra-judicial drone killers? What about NSA wiretapping? etc... These are only SOME things that happened under Obama's watch and had it been a Republican, it'd be news 24/7 in yo face!
There were lots of news stories about NSA wiretapping, and extra-judicial drone killings when those stories broke. Then the stories became old, and the major news organizations moved on, just as they would have done if a Republican had been President. There have been intermittent stories regarding Obama's failure to close Guantanamo (Or a fairly constant barrage of them, if you look at very liberal outlets.), but that's never really been a breaking story that would be plastered all over the front page of any major news website.
This is argument that Democratic Presidents are somehow given a free pass by the press is an argument that gets trotted out time and again, and it just gets more tired with time.
A quick Google search of CNN shows a story about it not closing yet every couple months. Not a constant garage, but not ignoring it either.
The same groups that have wanted to see it shut down are still wanting it shut down. But without any action there is just no story to cover. News are not going to do a "today's top story: no new story" report.
Of course today's report is that the WH is gonna execute order the issue and present their plan to congress in a few days.
I know that voting records in Congress aren't a real measure of whether someone is liberal or conservative is something that has been discussed here in the past, which I'm sure you have either forgotten about or just disregard because it doesn't fit with how you see things. I'm pretty sure it was Dogma that brought that up months ago.
It's called an observation.
Okay, so you're observing things and making up an imaginary narrative that isn't real life.
Where's the cry to have Obama shut down Gitmo? What about his extra-judicial drone killers? What about NSA wiretapping? etc... These are only SOME things that happened under Obama's watch and had it been a Republican, it'd be news 24/7 in yo face!
Another example... remember the Grim Milestones of US servicemen's death during Bush's tenure? That was a mainstay in the media Every. Single. Day. During Obama's tenure? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.
But, go ahead and keep on making yourself looking silly.
How am I making myself look silly? I'm talking about the fact that Obama isn't crazy far left commie and more a continuation of Bush and you're bringing up things that prove my point while complaining that the media isn't fair. I know you watch Fox News (the largest and most watched cable news channel), do they not talk about Obama and his "scandals" every single day? I mean for feth's sake, they have a "Scandals" tab on their website.
I know you're big into the "Republicans are persecuted by the media" myth, but dude... wake the feth up and come back to Earth for the sake of us all. You're better than this.
Well... by the nature of our tango here, at least admit that you do give that impression.
No, you just think that anyone who doesn't agree with your bs must be the exact opposite of you. Unfortunately, the world isn't black and white.
I'm glad that you wished you hadn't voted for him... was that more like buyer's remorse? Did you like Obama "The Greatest Campagner" more than Obama "I have no fething Clue what I'm doing at the WhiteHouse"??
Here's the difference between you and I: I think he knows what he's doing, I just don't agree with it. You just think he's an idiot.
Moving on, Obama actually did something I very much agree with (and I didn't see anyone bring it up yet):
On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.
It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call "ban the box" - the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant's record.
President Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democrat Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.
The White House says it is "encouraged" by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president's order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government's HR department "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process."
President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.
"If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process," he told them, "you're more likely to be hired." Obama described what many studies show - that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant's criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.
"If they have a chance to at least meet you," the president continued, "you're able to talk to them about your life, what you've done, maybe they give you a chance."
About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.
Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer's interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, "the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%)."
Obama's move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform - from broad calls by groups like Blacks Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.
The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.
While we need a ton of reform in our criminal justice system on the front end of things (criminalization of things, sentencing guidelines, prison conditions, rehabilitation, etc) it is also encouraging to see movement on the post-conviction and incarceration side of things.
On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.
It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call "ban the box" - the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant's record.
President Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democrat Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.
The White House says it is "encouraged" by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president's order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government's HR department "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process."
President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.
"If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process," he told them, "you're more likely to be hired." Obama described what many studies show - that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant's criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.
"If they have a chance to at least meet you," the president continued, "you're able to talk to them about your life, what you've done, maybe they give you a chance."
About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.
Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer's interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, "the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%)."
Obama's move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform - from broad calls by groups like Blacks Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.
The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.
Good.
Although we're doing/have done something similar here in Washington, There's realistically only one criminal category that I'd "like" to see still on employment apps: sex-crimes perpetrated against minors.
d-usa wrote:While we need a ton of reform in our criminal justice system on the front end of things (criminalization of things, sentencing guidelines, prison conditions, rehabilitation, etc) it is also encouraging to see movement on the post-conviction and incarceration side of things.
I couldn't agree more. When someone has paid their debt to society, it should be done. This is a great first step but more needs to be done, like ending felony disenfranchisement.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Good.
Although we're doing/have done something similar here in Washington, There's realistically only one criminal category that I'd "like" to see still on employment apps: sex-crimes perpetrated against minors.
I kind of agree and kind of not agree because not all of the crimes covered under that umbrella are equal.
Of course, we could be like one of my extreme right wing friends who's reaction to this story was "Obama isn't even trying to hide his hatred of America. This isn't what the Founders had in mind!"
When it comes to cannabis, anything that doesn't allow for legal age citizens to grow 6 or more plants in their own home like CO, is bunk. I'm fine taxing retail stores, just like alcohol, but to still criminalize a plant growing at someone's house is just beyond asinine.
Realistically that should be 6 flowering plants at any one time, as clones don't have the highest success rates and most seasoned growers like to sift through genetics, but I would love to not be facing a felony for my closet. That would be ideal.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I kind of agree and kind of not agree because not all of the crimes covered under that umbrella are equal.
Of course, we could be like one of my extreme right wing friends who's reaction to this story was "Obama isn't even trying to hide his hatred of America. This isn't what the Founders had in mind!"
Agreed on not all being equal... And perhaps it's a bit of societal bias, but I just think that pedophiles should have to report such. I don't know, maybe it's a bit extreme, because some part of me would hope that someone who did time for one of those sorts of crimes wouldn't be trying to apply for a job where they'd be around kids again...
And yeah... that friend probably should read the constitution or something, because while I'm no lawyer, even I know that our system is set up (in theory) to allow those who have paid their debt to society to reintegrate into it.
DutchWinsAll wrote: When it comes to cannabis, anything that doesn't allow for legal age citizens to grow 6 or more plants in their own home like CO, is bunk. I'm fine taxing retail stores, just like alcohol, but to still criminalize a plant growing at someone's house is just beyond asinine.
I believe the phrase is Crony Capitalism.
On a completely different topic, it's a week old but I just caught Stephen Colbert's take on the Democratic race...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Agreed on not all being equal... And perhaps it's a bit of societal bias, but I just think that pedophiles should have to report such. I don't know, maybe it's a bit extreme, because some part of me would hope that someone who did time for one of those sorts of crimes wouldn't be trying to apply for a job where they'd be around kids again...
Well, I'm not a big fan of self reporting for sex crimes but I'm also not a big fan of sex crimes. It's tough position for sure.
And yeah... that friend probably should read the constitution or something, because while I'm no lawyer, even I know that our system is set up (in theory) to allow those who have paid their debt to society to reintegrate into it.
I typically ignore his poutrage posts, but I actually had to comment on this one.
When asked at a recent event what non politicians he would like to have a beer with, Marco Rubio said Gary Kasparov (Because former chess champions and Russian dissidents have gotta be a blast, but ok), Dan Marino (probably was a Dolphins fan growing up, no problem there, and Malala Yousafzai (umm, she is an underage Muslim).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Here's the difference between you and I: I think he knows what he's doing, I just don't agree with it. You just think he's an idiot.
This here is the only thing we both agree on.
Moving on, Obama actually did something I very much agree with (and I didn't see anyone bring it up yet):
On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.
It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call "ban the box" - the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant's record.
President Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democrat Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.
The White House says it is "encouraged" by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president's order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government's HR department "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process."
President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.
"If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process," he told them, "you're more likely to be hired." Obama described what many studies show - that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant's criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.
"If they have a chance to at least meet you," the president continued, "you're able to talk to them about your life, what you've done, maybe they give you a chance."
About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.
Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer's interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, "the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%)."
Obama's move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform - from broad calls by groups like Blacks Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.
The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.
Good. It's a start.
Incarceration reform is a must too. Private prisons need to be prohibited (if the state can't/won't pay/maintain any prison system... why bother?)
When asked at a recent event what non politicians he would like to have a beer with, Marco Rubio said Gary Kasparov (Because former chess champions and Russian dissidents have gotta be a blast, but ok), Dan Marino (probably was a Dolphins fan growing up, no problem there, and Malala Yousafzai (umm, she is an underage Muslim).
In general the selections make sense, though. Kasparov makes him look like a strategic thinker, Marino makes him seem down to earth, and Malala Yousafzai shows that he cares about social justice issues without tying him to any of the ones in the US.
Still, considering how calculated his response was, the slip up was a bit silly.
On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.
It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call "ban the box" - the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant's record.
President Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democrat Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.
The White House says it is "encouraged" by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president's order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government's HR department "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process."
President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.
"If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process," he told them, "you're more likely to be hired." Obama described what many studies show - that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant's criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.
"If they have a chance to at least meet you," the president continued, "you're able to talk to them about your life, what you've done, maybe they give you a chance."
About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.
Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer's interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, "the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%)."
Obama's move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform - from broad calls by groups like Blacks Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.
The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.
A positive step that I approve of. When can we expect that felons will have all their rights restored post-release?
There is a reason folks don't like hiring convicted thieves to work around money or pilfer-able goods... You guys honestly don't think employers should be able to know who they are hiring? Often hiring/training an employee is an investment, making the wrong hire can cost you. Having a good understanding of the applicant and their background makes sense to me.
I don't think that when people go to jail, we should make it nearly impossible for them to re-integrate into society and thus make it much more likely they're going to go back to jail. We've been doing it this way for a long time and it's not working out very well for us.
Also, the measure in question doesn't mean that employers can never find out, just that they can't ask on the application. They can ask later, during an interview (presumably) at which point a former convict has had an attempt to at least make their case.
And, obviously, not everyone in prison is a "former thief", which i feel sad I had to type out
Ouze wrote: I don't think that when people go to jail, we should make it nearly impossible for them to re-integrate into society and thus make it much more likely they're going to go back to jail. We've been doing it this way for a long time and it's not working out very well for us.
Also, the measure in question doesn't mean that employers can never find out, just that they can't ask on the application. They can ask later, during an interview (presumably) at which point a former convict has had an attempt to at least make their case.
And, obviously, not everyone in prison is a "former thief", which i feel sad I had to type out
No gak. The crime the person was convicted of is, or at least can be, relevant to a hiring action depending on the position being hired for, which is why I used thief in respects to hiring to work around money/pilfer-able goods.
CptJake wrote: There is a reason folks don't like hiring convicted thieves to work around money or pilfer-able goods... You guys honestly don't think employers should be able to know who they are hiring? Often hiring/training an employee is an investment, making the wrong hire can cost you. Having a good understanding of the applicant and their background makes sense to me.
By not permitting it, you are setting these employers up for lawsuits. " Why did you have a a felony to be around CHILDREN??? Won't someone think of the children???"
So we're going to keep doing this thing were we don't read the first 3 sentences of the story and then mischaracterize it by pretending that the employers are never allowed to find out, right?
Ouze wrote: I don't think that when people go to jail, we should make it nearly impossible for them to re-integrate into society and thus make it much more likely they're going to go back to jail. We've been doing it this way for a long time and it's not working out very well for us.
Also, the measure in question doesn't mean that employers can never find out, just that they can't ask on the application. They can ask later, during an interview (presumably) at which point a former convict has had an attempt to at least make their case.
And, obviously, not everyone in prison is a "former thief", which i feel sad I had to type out
No gak. The crime the person was convicted of is, or at least can be, relevant to a hiring action depending on the position being hired for, which is why I used thief in respects to hiring to work around money/pilfer-able goods.
Except proof of a crime committed in the past is not proof that they're going to commit that crime in the future, or even that they are likely to. Crime is a symptom of poverty, not genetics.
A kid who got caught doing burglary but then got his high school diploma in prison and comes out and wants to get a job shouldn't be stuck blocked out of all legitimate work because of what he did years ago.
Ouze wrote: So we're going to keep doing this thing were we don't read the first 3 sentences of the story and then mischaracterize it by pretending that the employers are never allowed to find out, right?
Ouze wrote: I don't think that when people go to jail, we should make it nearly impossible for them to re-integrate into society and thus make it much more likely they're going to go back to jail. We've been doing it this way for a long time and it's not working out very well for us.
Also, the measure in question doesn't mean that employers can never find out, just that they can't ask on the application. They can ask later, during an interview (presumably) at which point a former convict has had an attempt to at least make their case.
And, obviously, not everyone in prison is a "former thief", which i feel sad I had to type out
No gak. The crime the person was convicted of is, or at least can be, relevant to a hiring action depending on the position being hired for, which is why I used thief in respects to hiring to work around money/pilfer-able goods.
Except proof of a crime committed in the past is not proof that they're going to commit that crime in the future, or even that they are likely to. Crime is a symptom of poverty, not genetics.
A kid who got caught doing burglary but then got his high school diploma in prison and comes out and wants to get a job shouldn't be stuck blocked out of all legitimate work because of what he did years ago.
recidivism rates insure that he is now a major risk for any employer. Its the quandary. TO avoid going back to jail he needs gainful employment, but the fact he is an ex con means he's very likely to commit crimes again.
“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.
[…]
And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, ‘well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how-’ you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.”
“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.
[…]
And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, ‘well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how-’ you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.”
You sure can pick'em America
He does realise that this guy is not a scientist, right? Right?
Ouze wrote: So we're going to keep doing this thing were we don't read the first 3 sentences of the story and then mischaracterize it by pretending that the employers are never allowed to find out, right?
1. Carson is a ground breaking surgeon that has done more than anyone who ever posted on this board has done or will do in regards to helping people. 2. Not one person has voted for him for any elected position. People forget that. 3. I think he's secretly a failsafe option. In case the aliens attack they will see him and be almost instantly lulled to sleep....snoooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreee...
Ouze wrote: So we're going to keep doing this thing were we don't read the first 3 sentences of the story and then mischaracterize it by pretending that the employers are never allowed to find out, right?
The OT
You beat me too it so thank you for saying that.
Why are you guys trying to force the private sector into hiring arsonist baby rapists?
But yeah, leave it to the OT to take "meet the person before you learn about their past" and turn it into "nobody is ever allowed to find out their past". Nobody is saying that an employer hiring for a position that involves kids shouldn't be able to exclude a person that has a history of sex crimes against kids, or that a position that involves access to narcotics may not be a good choice for a person convicted of drug crimes. Background checks are still a thing. But at least interview people and find out if they would even be considered for a job and then check for disqualifying circumstances instead of just automatically throwing every application into the trash to begin with just because they checked the box.
1. Carson is a ground breaking surgeon that has done more than anyone who ever posted on this board has done or will do in regards to helping people.
2. Not one person has voted for him for any elected position. People forget that.
3. I think he's secretly a failsafe option. In case the aliens attack they will see him and be almost instantly lulled to sleep....snoooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreee...
I think Carson is a good example of:
1) A smart dumb person.
We all know at least a few of those folks. They are really good when it comes to their field, and just make you shake your head when they talk about anything else.
2) Being good at [x] doesn't make you a good politician.
Physician, surgeon, CEO, community activist, whatever. You can be good in your field, but none of that guarantees that you will be good in politics.
We all know at least a few of those folks. They are really good when it comes to their field, and just make you shake your head when they talk about anything else.
2) Being good at [x] doesn't make you a good politician.
Physician, surgeon, CEO, community activist, whatever. You can be good in your field, but none of that guarantees that you will be good in politics.
In an interesting twist of the usual "candidates bad teenage years" revelations in campaigns, Carson's story is being challenged because he possibly wasn't the violent child he described himself as...
d-usa wrote: In an interesting twist of the usual "candidates bad teenage years" revelations in campaigns, Carson's story is being challenged because he possibly wasn't the violent child he described himself as...
d-usa wrote: In an interesting twist of the usual "candidates bad teenage years" revelations in campaigns, Carson's story is being challenged because he possibly wasn't the violent child he described himself as...
d-usa wrote: In an interesting twist of the usual "candidates bad teenage years" revelations in campaigns, Carson's story is being challenged because he possibly wasn't the violent child he described himself as...
My theories range from "habitual liar", "everybody loves a good redemption story", and "maybe wanted to look less privileged and have more 'street cred' (aka: connect more with the black target audience of his book)".
“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.
[…]
And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, ‘well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how-’ you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.”
reds8n wrote: .
And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, ‘well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how-’ you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.”
Ouze wrote: I must say that, out of all the discussions topics I could have foreseen this thread leading to, "Hillary Clinton Anal" was not one of them.
The IRS scandal — the denial of essential tax-exempt status to conservative advocacy groups, thereby effectively suppressing the groups’ activities — demonstrates this: When government is empowered to regulate advocacy, it will be tempted to suppress some of it. And sometimes government will think like Oscar Wilde: “The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.”
These truths should be on the Supreme Court’s nine fine minds on Friday when they consider whether to hear a challenge to a lower court’s decision that disregards some clear Supreme Court pronouncements pertaining to the First Amendment. The amendment says there shall be no laws abridging freedom of speech, but various governments are persistently trying to regulate, and perhaps chill, advocacy. The most recent wrinkle in this disreputable project comes from California.
There the Democratic attorney general has decreed that all entities wishing to solicit tax-deductible contributions in California must disclose their donors to the state government. One such entity — unfortunately for the attorney general, but fortunately for the cause of freedom — is the Center for Competitive Politics. Its litigators are tenacious opponents of government attempts to appoint itself regulator of the marketplace of ideas.
The CCP asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for protection from the attorney general’s decree. The appeals court sided with California’s attorney general, so the CCP is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit and rebuke California’s attorney general. In doing so, the Supreme Court would be defending a doctrine adumbrated in decisions over six decades.
In the 1950s, when the civil rights movement was surging, an Alabama court, pursuant to a state law requiring corporations doing business in the state to produce certain information, ordered the state chapter of the NAACP to produce, among other things, its membership lists. In 1958, the Supreme Court upheld the NAACP’s refusal, finding that forced disclosure would serve no compelling state interest and would deter civil rights supporters from exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and association.
The 1958 ruling was not, as California’s attorney general suggests, limited to the circumstances of that time and place. And the NAACP ruling did not establish, as the 9th Circuit believes, that governments can compel disclosure of donors’ participation unless the advocacy group (and charity and educational organizations) can demonstrate the probability of threats or reprisals. This would leave governments with effectively unlimited power to intrude into the conduct of private associations.
Actually, from the NAACP and subsequent decisions has come the principle that compelled disclosure is an inherent injury to First Amendment rights. Therefore governments bear the burden of proving, under exacting judicial scrutiny, that compelled disclosure is a narrowly tailored response to a specific and paramount government interest.
Because California’s attorney general does not acknowledge this burden, she has not even attempted to demonstrate how compelled disclosure of donors serves any plausible law enforcement interest. Instead, she misreads cases concerning the source of so much First Amendment mischief — campaign-finance regulations. From these, and with the 9th Circuit’s approval, she conjures government’s power to demand, upon the invocation of an unspecified law enforcement interest, disclosure of donors to non-candidate private associations wishing to solicit contributions. This is especially pernicious because it comes in the following context:
For almost eight decades, courts, without justification from the Constitution’s text or history, have distinguished between “fundamental” rights, such as speech and association, and supposedly lesser rights involving economic activity, property and contracts. When judging government infringements of these secondary rights, courts have adopted the extremely permissive “rational basis” test: Any government regulation is permissible if the government asserts, or a court can imagine, a rational basis for the regulation.
Now, California’s attorney general implicitly wants the rational basis test extended to government’s infringement of rights to which courts have ascribed “fundamental” status — speech and association. This demonstrates three converging dangers.
One is that of relegating some rights to inferior status. A second is that of making those supposedly nonfundamental rights vulnerable to the nonprotection of the rational basis test. A third is that of allowing government, when it claims to be acting to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof, to merely assert a rational basis for regulating advocacy concerning public affairs.
By accepting the CCP’s appeal, the Supreme Court can stand athwart this confluence of sinister trends. And it can achieve this large good by doing something modest — by reminding the 9th Circuit of a redundantly affirmed constitutional principle.
This is the case that SC ruled in favor of the defendent: NAACP v. Patterson
Wonder if the SC would take this case... We'll know Friday...
Seems like the omitted piece of the argument is the tax-deductable part. The state is requiring disclosure of donations that will affect taxation... That does not seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I misunderstand. Similarly, even if the CCP go to the Supreme Court and win, the state could just remove tax deductible status as a response. But I will admit I do not know the matter in detail so please correct me if I'm wrong.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Seems like the omitted piece of the argument is the tax-deductable part. The state is requiring disclosure of donations that will affect taxation... That does not seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I misunderstand. Similarly, even if the CCP go to the Supreme Court and win, the state could just sent tax deductible status as a response. But I will admit I do not know the matter in detail so please correct if I'm wrong.
Read up the NAACP v. Patterson case was about.
The gist was that a black church was contributing campaign funds to their candidates and their members was anonymous. There were real fears that had the member's name been published, then that opens up intimidation.
I'm at a crossroad with this too, as we're all concerned about the amount of money involved in politics now. That's why I've advocated new laws to ensure anonymity up to "x" dollars per individual and "x" dollars per group. Now, what "x" would be... I have no clue.
I suppose that my point is the matter does seem to be a valid issue to the state since it affects taxation. It also seems to be a broad measure that only one affected party has a problem with, while the NAACP issue was rather obviously a case of trying to enable discrimination.
Great, great article on the current state of the PPACA:
Obamacare Is Dead
It doesn’t work because it couldn’t work. Regardless of whether there is a President Cruz or a President Rubio in January 2017, regardless of the existence or size of a Republican majority in Congress, the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has failed. The grand vision of an efficient pseudo-market in health insurance under enlightened federal management — the heart of Obamacare — is not coming to pass.
Obamacare, meaning the operating model that undergirded the law that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed with great fanfare — is dead, and it will not be revived. What remains is fitful chaos.
A brief refresher:
The fundamental problem with ACA is that under it, insurance ceases to be insurance. Insurance is a prospective financial product, one that exploits the mathematical predictability of certain life events among very large groups of people — out of 1 million 40-to-60-year-old Americans, x percent will get in car wrecks every year, and y percent will be diagnosed with chronic renal failure — which allows actuaries and the insurance companies that employ them to calculate premiums based on risk, thus funding the reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by the insurance pool’s members. Insurance is, by its very nature, always forward-looking, considering events that have yet to come to pass but that may be expected and, to a reasonable extent, predicted with some level of specificity. Under ACA, insurance is retrospective. ACA mandates that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, meaning events that already have happened, which renders the basic mathematical architecture of insurance — the calculation of risk among large pools of people — pointless. Insurance ceases to be insurance and instead becomes something else, namely a very badly constructed cost-sharing program.
Not all cost-sharing programs are bad ideas. Medi-Share, for example, is precisely the sort of voluntary, privately administered mutual-aid program that could — and, I believe, will — end up displacing government-run health-care programs entirely.
But Obamacare is a very different kind of beast: It creates a deeply perverse incentive structure by combining compulsory coverage of pre-existing conditions with a mandate that is enforced in theory more than in fact. The mandate is necessary to prevent the ruthless exploitation of the preexisting-coverage rules: If insurers have to cover you no matter what, then there’s no point in buying insurance — thereby sharing in the costs — until you are sick enough to need it.
As James Freeman reports in the Wall Street Journal, the ACA’s plethora of exemptions — there are at least 30 of them — ensure that a great many people — 12 million last year — will simply opt out. “It is easy to avoid or limit exposure to the penalty with some simple tax planning,” he writes. In 2016, there were supposed to be 21 million people enrolled in ACA programs; the Obama administration currently predicts that the actual number will be somewhat less than half of that. This was entirely predictable; in fact, it was predicted in the pages of National Review, in my book The End Is Near (and It’s Going to Be Awesome), and elsewhere.
Many of Obamacare’s failures came fast and early.
Strike one: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
Strike two: Obamacare will save “the average family $2,500 a year on their premiums.”
Strike three: Obamacare will add “not one dime” to the deficit.
We all knew that was coming, just as we knew that people would respond to the very strong incentives not to buy insurance by not buying insurance.
Other failures took longer to become manifest. The architects of Obamacare are deeply distrustful of the role of for-profit companies in the health-care business because, in their nearly pristine ignorance, they falsely believe profits to be net deductions from the sum of the public good rather than measures of the creation of real social value. So they created incentives to set up co-ops, nonprofit enterprises that would administer Obamacare plans in particular states and jurisdictions. It was obvious from the beginning that if Obamacare’s perverse incentives created insurance pools that were older and sicker rather than younger and healthier, these co-ops wouldn’t be economically viable: You need lots of young, healthy insurance subscribers to offset the costs associated with your older, sicker subscribers.
Many of us — myself included — assumed that the federal government under President Obama would simply write these co-ops huge checks to keep them afloat. We were half right: The government is writing them huge checks, but they are failing anyway, so fundamental is their economic unsustainability. Half of the co-ops have gone belly-up already, including large, prominent, splendidly subsidized ones in Kentucky, New York, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Hundreds of thousands of customers have lost their coverage as a result. Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money has been poured into these enterprises, to no avail.
Obamacare’s partisans were confronted with the economic facts long before the law was even passed, and their answer was: “Never mind the economics, we’re the good guys, and you want poor people to die.” Democrats argued that Republicans literally wanted to kill poor people, that their plan was for the poor to “die quickly.” This is a habitual mode of discourse among progressives: Reality doesn’t matter; only the purity of Democrats’ motives matters. Obamacare is what it is: Another damned five-year plan based on wishful thinking and very little else.
The fact is that Obamacare has fallen apart without Republicans’ dismantling it. Almost all of its basic promises have failed, it is an economic shambles, and it is a political mess: Unsurprisingly, people still don’t like it. Less than a third of Americans support the individual mandate, three-fourths oppose Obamacare’s tax on high-end health-care programs, and more voters oppose the law categorically than support it. A quarter of voters say the law has hurt them personally. The question isn’t why Republicans haven’t gotten around to repealing and replacing it — the answer to that question resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a while, still — the question is when Democrats will get around to admitting that, purity of their hearts notwithstanding, they and they alone — not one Republican voted for Obamacare — have created a mess that has introduced nothing to American health care except chaos.
The basic principles of meaningful health-care reform are these: Let insurance be insurance; understand that ordinary, regular medical procedures, such as physicals and prostate exams, are not insurable events, and account for that in your calculations; the only way to mitigate the effects of scarcity on health care is to make it less scarce by expanding the supply of medical practitioners and facilities; the only way to make insurance more competitive, and therefore more affordable and more responsive to consumers, is to increase the number of players in the markets; the best way to deal with people who are, for example, profoundly disabled, children, or otherwise unable to provide for their own care, is direct, clear-eyed subsidy of their medical expenses, rather than laundering those payments through the insurance market; so long as practicing medicine pays less than filing frivolous lawsuits against doctors, there’s going to be a lot of politically induced inefficiency in the system.
Of course markets work for most people, and of course there are exceptions to that. For 93 percent of the population, the solution to health-care reform is: Let markets do their thing. The only real argument is how big a check to write to those looking after the other 7 percent, and how to structure the payments. That’s a real fight, too, but it isn’t the one we’re having. Right now, the Republicans and the Democrats are two political coroners arguing over what time and cause of death to put on the paperwork; rigor mortis set in long ago.
Of course nothing will change until after the election. It's in the Republicans' best interest to not fix it now, so they can campaign on it (it's how they won in 2014, and it's why they haven't fulfilled their so-called "mandate from the people" because they want to use it for 2016's elections).
whembly wrote: ACA mandates that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, meaning events that already have happened, which renders the basic mathematical architecture of insurance — the calculation of risk among large pools of people — pointless. Insurance ceases to be insurance and instead becomes something else, namely a very badly constructed cost-sharing program.
This is where the article lost all credibility, as it (deliberately or otherwise) misrepresents what coverage of preexisting conditions entails.
Admittedly I should have just hovered over the link, realized it was from the National Review, and saved myself the face palm.
whembly wrote: ACA mandates that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, meaning events that already have happened, which renders the basic mathematical architecture of insurance — the calculation of risk among large pools of people — pointless. Insurance ceases to be insurance and instead becomes something else, namely a very badly constructed cost-sharing program.
This is where the article lost all credibility, as it (deliberately or otherwise) misrepresents what coverage of preexisting conditions entails.
Cherry picking again? Read further as to *why* it's a problem.
Cherry picking again? Read further as to *why* it's a problem.
I did. I read the entire article. But that particular point nicely summed up the problem with the author's argument, which was hardly novel. The issue with allowing companies to deny coverage for preexisting conditions is that many people can be left in the lurch, through no fault of their own*, if they suffer from a chronic illness, an injury with long term ramifications, or even any injury at all.
As an example, after I tore my ACL my parents had to threaten legal action against 2 separate insurance companies in order to have separate injuries to the same knee covered as both companies denied coverage because they considered the injuries to be the result of my ACL tear and reconstruction. They had to actually sue a third in order to secure coverage for treatment of chronic knee pain as the company considered it the result of the three prior injuries, despite the fact that it freely covered treatment for the same in the opposite knee; something which could just as easily have been construed to be the result of the issues arising from my prior injuries. In essence, my parents had to expend both time and money in order to secure coverage they, or their employer, were already paying for.
This basic misunderstanding of what it means to enable insurance companies to deny coverage for preexisting conditions ultimately corrupts the remainder of the dreck he wrote.
*Say they get a new job, or their employer switches healthcare providers, or even healthcare plans.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
"Jesus, Ronald Regan, ISIS." -every 2016 presidential candidate
Yeah... but then they'd lose (again) because then every voter in America would think they're *gasp!* gaaaaaayyyyyyy. (seriously, nothing wrong with being homosexual or anything else, it is just ludicrously funny how much these clowns rail against it)
CptJake wrote:There is a reason folks don't like hiring convicted thieves to work around money or pilfer-able goods... You guys honestly don't think employers should be able to know who they are hiring? Often hiring/training an employee is an investment, making the wrong hire can cost you. Having a good understanding of the applicant and their background makes sense to me.
The problem isn't that an employer won't know that a person was previously convicted of theft (as per this example), but the problem is that the vast majority of people who check that block never receive a call back. By removing the block, if you find this out during the interview, or prior to it, you can ask the applicant in person, "can you please explain the circumstances of X, and have you learned from this mistake?"
Just for funsies, if a guy convicted of stealing car stereos does his time, and is applying for a job as a car stereo installer at a place like Car Toys, certainly he may be one to hire... Often times, one would assume that the theft must be quick (he obviously knows something about the stereo systems) which means in theory, that he could remove and install systems much quicker than perhaps someone coming into the interview process "straight" more stereo installation/turnover at the store = more money. And as we know, in today's corporate world profit is everything.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
"Jesus, Ronald Regan, ISIS." -every 2016 presidential candidate
Yeah... but then they'd lose (again) because then every voter in America would think they're *gasp!* gaaaaaayyyyyyy. (seriously, nothing wrong with being homosexual or anything else, it is just ludicrously funny how much these clowns rail against it)
Hey, I'm just glad someone acknowledged my zinger because I thought it was pretty good!
CptJake wrote:There is a reason folks don't like hiring convicted thieves to work around money or pilfer-able goods... You guys honestly don't think employers should be able to know who they are hiring? Often hiring/training an employee is an investment, making the wrong hire can cost you. Having a good understanding of the applicant and their background makes sense to me.
The problem isn't that an employer won't know that a person was previously convicted of theft (as per this example), but the problem is that the vast majority of people who check that block never receive a call back. By removing the block, if you find this out during the interview, or prior to it, you can ask the applicant in person, "can you please explain the circumstances of X, and have you learned from this mistake?"
Just for funsies, if a guy convicted of stealing car stereos does his time, and is applying for a job as a car stereo installer at a place like Car Toys, certainly he may be one to hire... Often times, one would assume that the theft must be quick (he obviously knows something about the stereo systems) which means in theory, that he could remove and install systems much quicker than perhaps someone coming into the interview process "straight" more stereo installation/turnover at the store = more money. And as we know, in today's corporate world profit is everything.
I agree. I don't understand where the argument against this comes from. As a construction worker, it should come as no surprise that I've known plenty of ex-cons and most of them are decent enough people that did stupid gak and figured out that it was a probably not the best way to live.
My best friend is an ex-felon and has spent the better part of his adult life convincing the Commonwealth of Virginia to re-enfranchise him. Luckily, he managed to have his rights fully restored last year but it makes no sense that he has to fight tooth and nail to get it after more than decade had passed since he paid his debt to society.
On the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, Mr. Sanders didn’t say he regretted his debate remarks. “You get 12 seconds to say these things,” he said of the debate setting. “There’s an investigation going on right now. I did not say, ‘End the investigation.’ That’s silly.…Let the investigation proceed unimpeded.”
Nothing changed. Your "nugget" doesn't say anything to reverse his debate statement that the voters don't really care about the issue, or that he isn't interested in attacking Hillary over it. Acknowledging that an investigation is happening, one which could very well conclude "she isn't guilty of anything", and stating that he doesn't want to interfere with it is not at all the same as an attack. In fact, your own source explicitly states that he doesn't want to change what he said at the debate.
Nothing changed. Your "nugget" doesn't say anything to reverse his debate statement that the voters don't really care about the issue, or that he isn't interested in attacking Hillary over it. Acknowledging that an investigation is happening, one which could very well conclude "she isn't guilty of anything", and stating that he doesn't want to interfere with it is not at all the same as an attack.
BIDEN changed the dynamic when he decided against running.
Had Biden jumped in, he'd be taking more of Clinton's support than Sanders.
So now that Biden is out, Sanders need to subtlety whack Clinton a bit. What's interesting is that this is the WSJ... not sure if there's that many Clinton/Sanders supports would've seen it. It would've have more zing had he said this on MSNBC or HuffingtonPost.
*shrugs*
Not that'll matters... HRC is the next President. Her theme song ought to be I Will Surivive:
Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
is it really? I assume every president in the last 100 years has done far, far worse in the pursuit of political expediency.
Also, as someone who really did try to follow the Benghazi investigation, I am more and more convinced that it was all crap, that Hilary was guilty of becoming blasé to her job as just about anyone would, and that the Republicans have destroyed the possibility that I would ever take any of their accusations seriously again.
whembly wrote: Now you see why I think you're team blue.
Or maybe it's because you just like to assume everything?
Anyways, I'm still failing to see what makes that one sentence from an entire interview such a bombshell to you... or what it has to do with Joe Biden.
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
Is that the new right wing tactic? Use their names for extra emphases on how truly evil Hilary Clinton is?
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
BIDEN changed the dynamic when he decided against running.
Had Biden jumped in, he'd be taking more of Clinton's support than Sanders.
So now that Biden is out, Sanders need to subtlety whack Clinton a bit.
Sanders' comment was not an attack on Clinton and, even if it were, it has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Biden. His comment would have been exactly the same if Biden were in the race as the thrust of it was to dismiss the notion that he didn't care about any potential malfeasance. The article you cited alludes to this very fact in the third paragraph.
BlaxicanX wrote: What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
Oh, that's fine. You have to remember that Hillary Clinton is a Lizard Man from Hollow Earth sent to destroy America. On her own she could be managed, but after the Lizard People made peace with the Mole Men in the wake of the inroads made by their emissary, Barrack Obama, the threat is too great to ignore.
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
Why, I am just shocked you would even suspect such a thing. I'm sure Whembly also knows the names of the 87 people who died at embassy attacks under the previous administration just as well. The idea that he would only be concerned with the deaths of Americans when they're politically useful - well, who would even do such a thing?
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
dogma wrote:*Say they get a new job, or their employer switches healthcare providers, or even healthcare plans.
This was me. I had to have a salivary gland removed, but found it out a few months before changing jobs. If my insurance were allowed to reject my claim based on pre-existing (which pre-ACA they were allowed), I would have had to turn down my cushy government job because there is no way I could have afforded the $60,000+ bill for the surgeon alone. To say nothing of the hospital stay or (most expensive part) the anesthesiologist.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:I agree. I don't understand where the argument against this comes from. As a construction worker, it should come as no surprise that I've known plenty of ex-cons and most of them are decent enough people that did stupid gak and figured out that it was a probably not the best way to live.
My best friend is an ex-felon and has spent the better part of his adult life convincing the Commonwealth of Virginia to re-enfranchise him. Luckily, he managed to have his rights fully restored last year but it makes no sense that he has to fight tooth and nail to get it after more than decade had passed since he paid his debt to society.
Look at this guy. Treating them like they're people.
Seriously, part of the reason recidivism rates are so high is because many times once a felon gets out (regardless of the actual crime) they are basically blocked from ever finding work. So their choices become "be homeless and/or starving" or "go back to doing what I did". It's insane that we expect felons to BOOTSTRAP, but then basically tell every employer it's okay to cut off their BOOTSTRAPS. A felon is still a human being, and still an American citizen. Not every felony is so heinous that someone gives up their humanity or whatever.
dogma wrote:Oh, that's fine. You have to remember that Hillary Clinton is a Lizard Man from Hollow Earth sent to destroy America. On her own she could be managed, but after the Lizard People made peace with the Mole Men in the wake of the inroads made by their emissary, Barrack Obama, the threat is too great to ignore.
whembly wrote: Lying to the families while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty)... for the sake of fething political expediency. If that's not evil... it's fething close.
What about using four dead Americans (U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty) as a opportunity for scoring points over a politician that you don't like? Where does that rate on the "evil" scale, Whembly?
#whataboutery
Is a phrase you don't understand the meaning of, if you think it applies to my post.
Hilarious. Carson makes a bald-faced lie and is a victim for being called out on it?
gak son, Obama spent his entire campaign fighting off attacks that weren't even based in reality. Call me about "vetting" when people are demanding to see Carson's birth certificate.
Hilarious. Carson makes a bald-faced lie and is a victim for being called out on it?
The distinction here was thus:
"with your grades and ROTC performance, you'd get a full ride at West Point"... All I was thinking was that this was an example of loose languange, because if that Westmore visit is indeed true, I can see them discussioning Carson's grades and ROTC membership that Carson *could* get a full ride.
Additionally... I didn't know he was ROTC or that he got good grades. Which is good I guess...
We had a virtual Iron Curtain on Obama's going ups.
*shrug*
gak son, Obama spent his entire campaign fighting off attacks that weren't even based on reality. Call me about "vetting" when people are demanding to see Carson's birth certificate.
Son... it was the Clinton peeps who started that.
Question for you... do you know who Bill Ayers is?
Well, Keystone just got shut down (until 2017, anyway). I don't know what to think about it myself (never did the research to make my own decision), but many of the responses are the typical pot-calling-the-kettle-black by accusing Obama of supporting special interests. I would argue that if you are currently campaigning for election, and taking money from people to support that campaign, you've got no business throwing around any accusations of "special interests".
Bill: How would any of us know who he is or how he is relevant to anything considering that the media never once talked about anything having to do with Obama's background?
West Point: there is no such thing as a "full ride scholarship", at least that's my understanding. You apply, you get accepted, you get your degree, then you belong to the Army.
d-usa wrote: Bill: How would any of us know who he is or how he is relevant to anything considering that the media never once talked about anything having to do with Obama's background?
Indeed, it was like their was an iron curtain surrounding the past of a man who wrote 2 autobiographies. How could anyone know anything about him?
d-usa wrote: How would any of us know who he is or how he is relevant to anything considering that the media never once talked about anything having to do with Obama's background?
vetting:
1 - going through a person's background with a microscope, provided that the person is a Republican, especially a conservative, super-especially a black conservative, who might take the presidency from the MSM's favorite Democrat;
1a - See Palin;
1b - See Obama's connection to Frank Marshall Davis; Bill Ayers; Bernadine Dorne; Jeremiah Wright; Father Felger; Kalidi. Common retort is "Those are folks in my neighborhood.
2 - taking the word of Barack Obama at face value and throwing accusations of racism at anyone who says something insanely offensive like 'but, what about..?"
West Point: there is no such thing as a "full ride scholarship", at least that's my understanding. You apply, you get accepted, you get your degree, then you belong to the Army.
Yeah... everything's paid for... then you do your 4 (or is it 5) years in the service.
When Obama flunkies are confronted with The President's past associations... it's almost verbatim, pesshaw... *waves hands dismissively* they're just members of his neighborhood. Nevermind that Obama's political career was launched from a god damned terrorist's own living room.
When only 29% of republicans believe that Obama is an American citizen, RIGHT NOW,, and you brush it off as "well, the Clinton camp started it" (which is in dispute) it nonetheless belies an intellectual dishonesty that frankly cannot be countered with facts, just laughed at.
When there is a claim that Ben Carson is getting the vetting that Obama never got, and there were in excess of 3,000 news pieces about Jeremiah Wright within a 6 month timeframe, there is simply not a rational counter. This is a horse that does not want to drink water. You want to believe what you want to believe, and the facts can get fethed. In the face of that, I'd be an idiot to do anything other than mocking.
d-usa wrote: Who is this Ayers everybody keeps talking about? And was Obama even alive prior to his time in the Senate?
We don't know anything about any of this, why is everyone inventing people?
You know...Ayers the terrorist bomber. He's a college professor now (of course). He was one of the founders of the Weathermen, the terrorist group known for a long string of bombings in the US in late 60s and early 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions
reds8n wrote: It was also incredibly well documented and analysed so it it won't be hard for you to present some actual proof for what you're saying then.
Sir, are you saying one Donald J Trump might tell a falsehood?
Allies of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are defending his long-told story of a "scholarship" to West Point by saying that he merely shorthanded the free ride he'd been offered to the military academy. The argument -- which depends on a careful parsing of verbs -- is that he never applied, even after being told he'd be a sure-thing candidate, and that the controversy can be dismissed as a witch hunt.
That reasoning came together Friday morning, after Politico's Kyle Cheney published a story titled "Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." After confirming that Carson had never applied to West Point, and that a meeting Carson described with Gen. William Westmoreland apparently did not happen when the candidate had claimed, Cheney quoted Carson campaign manager Barry Bennett's new explanation.
"He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors,” Bennett said. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”
[The Fix: Ben Carson didn’t get a ‘full scholarship’ from West Point. That’s a big problem for his campaign.]
In an interview, Carson's close friend Armstrong Williams argued that Politico had written a false headline off of Bennett's accurate quote.
"In the story itself, the campaign does not say Dr. Carson applied to West Point," Williams said of Politico. "Dr. Carson boasts about his scores in ROTC. Westmoreland encourages him to apply. As Dr. Carson says, they were impressed by his scores, but he never applied. They said to him, we could get you in. This guy got into Yale -- obviously he could have got in. The headline was a fabrication."
Carson, whose steady rise to the top of presidential primary polls has started to draw media scrutiny his way, is depending on a loose interpretation of the word "scholarship." There is no tuition at West Point; there is no equivalent of a "scholarship" as generally understood at most universities. In his memoir "Gifted Hands" and in anecdotes about the offer, Carson never says that he "applied," only that some "scholarship" came his way after a meeting with Westmoreland and "congressional medal winners."
"I was offered a full scholarship to West Point," Carson wrote. "I didn't refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know that a military career wasn't where I saw myself going. As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship, I wasn't really tempted. The scholarship would have obligated me to spend four years in military service after I finished college, precluding my chances to go on to medical school."
That description of the offer came with its own problems -- it is not, for example, impossible for a West Point graduate to complete his service than become a doctor. But Carson's allies insist that the gap between "applying" and being offered a "scholarship" debunks the Politico story. Indeed, in "Gifted Hands," Carson repeatedly described how he had only $10 to submit with a college application, limiting his choices.
"Each college required a ten-dollar non-returnable entrance fee sent with the application," Carson wrote. "I had exactly ten dollars, so I could apply only to one."
In an August 2015 Facebook post, Carson described that situation again, to tell a questioner that he applied only to Yale.
"I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point," wrote Carson. "But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (It was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me."
Williams, who had not spoken to Carson since Politico's story went online, insisted that it was "shoddy journalism" and oversold what Carson himself had claimed.
"It gives journalism a bad name," said Williams. "It only fits into Dr. Carson's narrative of a witch hunt."
I still thinks this hurts Carson... as the damage was done. Even though Poltico's narrative just went to gak, this will feed to what people will believe.
Exhibit 9,740,330 guys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm not actually 100% sure anymore. I still think it's true but I'm not positive.
Nice stealth edit again...
Remember the PUMAs? That where it started. Seriously, things got [i]ugly [/i]in 2007.
It should've been dropped one Hawaii released it. In fact, it never should've been started.
d-usa wrote: Who is this Ayers everybody keeps talking about? And was Obama even alive prior to his time in the Senate?
We don't know anything about any of this, why is everyone inventing people?
You know...Ayers the terrorist bomber. He's a college professor now (of course). He was one of the founders of the Weathermen, the terrorist group known for a long string of bombings in the US in late 60s and early 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions
Never heard of him. Nobody in the media talked about him at any point because they didn't want to hurt Obama. Everybody managed to keep completely quiet about it.
They also never talked about:
- his frequently changing stance on gay marriage
- his pastor
- his flag pin
- his drug use
- his voting record consisting of "present"
- his wife not being a proud American before this
- wearing his true Muslim clothes when visiting "home"
- tax records
- birth certificates
- bitter Americans clinging to guns
- his race
- his citizenship
- attending secret Muslim school as a child
- refusing to say the pledge of allegiance
- his stance on NAFTA
- his school record
- being accepted because of affirmative actions
- his father being his father
All stuff that was never talked about because nobody vetted him.
When Obama flunkies are confronted with The President's past associations... it's almost verbatim, pesshaw... *waves hands dismissively* they're just members of his neighborhood.
I know, right, its almost like people will ignore certain associations a candidate they like might have because they don't consider them to be as important as other factors in determining their preference.
Seriously Whembly, I know it might be difficult for you to understand, but people do have priorities and desires which are distinct from your own.
Nevermind that Obama's political career was launched from a god damned terrorist's own living room.
Are you suggesting that it was only Obama's attendance at a function (or series of functions) held at Ayers' home that enabled him to become a successful politician? If so, then you massively overestimate the political importance of Bill Ayers.
Err, huh? Do you have some private copy of this thread that the rest of us don't get to read? Because in the version of the thread I see there was no "salivating" over the potential list. In fact pretty much every post on the subject included some kind of statement about how the list isn't going to mean much without additional proof, even if there are republican names on it, and probably won't be a major scandal.
Right... media matters is the gold standard in non-partisan reporting.
It was one of the ugliest primary in memory and it was the Clinton supporters who pushed that.
But it was the political right which picked up the idea and ran with it.
Funny thing, though, the Media Matters article actually agrees with what you just stated. Hillary Clinton did not start the birther scandal, one of her supporters did. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what is written, it will help you cut through your own biases.
d-usa wrote: Who is this Ayers everybody keeps talking about? And was Obama even alive prior to his time in the Senate?
We don't know anything about any of this, why is everyone inventing people?
You know...Ayers the terrorist bomber. He's a college professor now (of course). He was one of the founders of the Weathermen, the terrorist group known for a long string of bombings in the US in late 60s and early 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions
Never heard of him. Nobody in the media talked about him at any point because they didn't want to hurt Obama. Everybody managed to keep completely quiet about it.
They also never talked about:
- his frequently changing stance on gay marriage - his pastor - his flag pin - his drug use - his voting record consisting of "present" - his wife not being a proud American before this - wearing his true Muslim clothes when visiting "home" - tax records - birth certificates - bitter Americans clinging to guns - his race - his citizenship - attending secret Muslim school as a child - refusing to say the pledge of allegiance - his stance on NAFTA - his school record - being accepted because of affirmative actions - his father being his father
All stuff that was never talked about because nobody vetted him.
Strange, I thought they did, except his school record of course because he never released his transcripts. I'll admit I don't know his NAFTA stance.
As for Carson, I'm not studying up. I know some of his surgeon record and how he vaulted to popularity but he's not high on my list of candidates as I don't view him as qualified. Of course Nader wasn't qualified and I still voted for him.
Remember folks: whembly doesn't invent many of these accusations and interpretations of sinister actions that he talks about, he is simply an unbiased poster asking "what if it's true..." and makes sure that as many people as possible can ask themselves the same question.
But, many of you dearly wished it was germinated by Clinton's camp.
That's a fiction of your own invention. I doubt many people here particularly care who started the scandal, as it isn't especially relevant given that it did not come from Clinton's campaign; a point you admitted to when arguing with me earlier in this thread.
Never said otherwise. I even said it shouldn't have started that firestorm as there were better things to ding Obama. Like his associate to Ayers.
And yet you also said that Obama did not receive the vetting that Carson is now getting. You can have that argument, or the above one, but not both.
BS.
Obama's was the Democrat's savior. Thus he had favorable media treatment as it was always "Republicans overreach with this story on Ayers... what's the next crazy thing they'll do".
But, many of you dearly wished it was germinated by Clinton's camp.
That's a fiction of your own invention. I doubt many people here particularly care who started the scandal, as it isn't especially relevant given that it did not come from Clinton's campaign; a point you admitted to when arguing with me earlier in this thread.
Not my invention as it was started during the 2007 Democratic Primary season.
Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
During the primary... yes. That's what the Clinton's are known for. But afterwards? During the General Election?
Didn't you know Obama was going to halt the rising sea level and heal earth?
That's the worship we were dealing with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back to Carson.
FWIW: I want him to flame out as he's too fething green for me and too zonky. (although, I'm interested if it was a Civ II fan. Loved that game. lol )
WIth that said... all I can do is groan at this. From my twittah:
"Ben Carson's camp has made a case, and not a terrible one, that Politico oversold things a bit with this." - MSNBC reporter just now.
That's going to feed the idea that this is a witchhunt is only going to make him more popular as the media is generally hated by the Republican party.
Obama's was the Democrat's savior. Thus he had favorable media treatment as it was always "Republicans overreach with this story on Ayers... what's the next crazy thing they'll do".
Many such stories existed, true, but there were just as many stories about how Obama's association with Ayers meant that he hated America, was a terrorist, or liked terrorism. It was a vitriolic issue fought over in opinion pieces across the internet, with both sides largely appealing to a readership that was firmly in one camp or the other. Claiming that the Ayers scandal wasn't a matter of vetting is simply the result of your own selective memory, likely driven by the mistaken belief that conservatives are treated unfairly by the media.
Indeed, I would hazard that at the time you considered any story which didn't try to hammer Obama for the association to be in his favor by default.
Not my invention as it was started during the 2007 Democratic Primary season.
The fiction of your own invention is that many liberals didn't want the issue to be started by a Clinton supporter. I doubt many liberals care about who started the scandal, because it isn't all that important.
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
Many many Clinton supporters would disagree with you vehemently on that. I believe there was even an SNL skit about it.
Ouze wrote: I'm not actually 100% sure anymore. I still think it's true but I'm not positive.
Nice stealth edit again...
My second "stealth edit" was to add the second sentence which supports you. It's an accurate statement. I've always believed the rumor started in the Clinton camp and I never really dug into it too closely. I'm digging more into it and now I'm not that sure, there are some sources for both sides of the argument. My personal opinion is that it is in dispute. I am willing to change my opinion because one of the best pieces of advice I've gotten on this forum is from Sebster and Ahtman, respectively - I try as much as I can to not let my beliefs harden to the point that new information can't change them, and that "being a flip flopper" might be a good political attack but that's about it.
- his frequently changing stance on gay marriage
- his pastor
- his flag pin
- his drug use
- his voting record consisting of "present"
- his wife not being a proud American before this
- wearing his true Muslim clothes when visiting "home"
- tax records
- birth certificates
- bitter Americans clinging to guns
- his race
- his citizenship
- attending secret Muslim school as a child
- refusing to say the pledge of allegiance
- his stance on NAFTA
- his school record
- being accepted because of affirmative actions
- his father being his father
All stuff that was never talked about because nobody vetted him.
I guess it happened after he won the election, but I always thought the best scandal was this one:
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
Many many Clinton supporters would disagree with you vehemently on that. I believe there was even an SNL skit about it.
Are you sure you're not thinking about a specific McCain skit? (You might not be, and I might not know about the one you are referring to).
"My friends, I must say, that reminds me of an attack George Bush made on me in 2000."
d-usa wrote: Obama got more negative press than Hillary in 2008, and of course this it not the first time that you have been called out on that lie. Yet every few weeks it creeps back into your usual arguments.
Many many Clinton supporters would disagree with you vehemently on that. I believe there was even an SNL skit about it.
Are you sure you're not thinking about a specific McCain skit? (You might not be, and I might not know about the one you are referring to).
"My friends, I must say, that reminds me of an attack George Bush made on me in 2000."
"He won that election, right?"
"I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."
No it was the skit with a debate between Clinton and Obama. The moderators where giving Hillary the Benghazi treatment and then turning to Obama and asking things like "this must be tiring. Do you need a pillow?" and getting him one. It was great.
Wow, the Whembly-verse seems like an interesting place to live. Are hats worn on the feet and hamburgers eat people? Do the people that live there believe every poorly edited video of Obama? Because here's the actual transcript from his speech:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America
This is why it's impossible to argue with you... Garbage in, garbage out.
d-usa wrote: I can hardly even notice the edits, and that moment where he said "I will stop the oceans from rising" was amazing.
Well... he said:
... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...
So you claimed that Obama said that "he will stop the rising sea levels and heal the earth".
Then you post a video titled "Obama Claiming He Can Halt the Rise of the Oceans".
A video that required four separate clips edited together for a 24 second speech during which Obama actually still never said "I will stop the rising sea levels".
Of course something that did happen since 2008:
And my guess is that Obama is actually smart enough to realize that if you have an electorate that is willing to accept the facts of climate change and is willing to demand changes you will, in fact, end up with the changes needed to "slow the rising of the sea levels" (which is what he actually said).
Now I know that "the science isn't settled(tm)" will follow, and that none of this actually matters.
So I'm sorry to interrupt this regularly scheduled crazy rant time, now back to our regular programming:
What exactly is the problem with the "rising oceans" comment? All he's really saying is that he's going to support policies that reduce environmental damage and global warming. So unless you're part of the tinfoil hat crowd that believes that global warming isn't real I don't really see anything to complain about.
Peregrine wrote: What exactly is the problem with the "rising oceans" comment? All he's really saying is that he's going to support policies that reduce environmental damage and global warming. So unless you're part of the tinfoil hat crowd that believes that global warming isn't real I don't really see anything to complain about.
Clearly when he said:
America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past...
(APPLAUSE) ... our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless...
(APPLAUSE)
... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...
He never actually said that the american people working together are able to make the changes needed to combat climate change and did in fact say that he alone will summon his Obama power and tell the ocean to stop messing around and stay put.
Edit: highlighted the portions that were actually in the video just to make it obvious how bad of an edit it was.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Wow, the Whembly-verse seems like an interesting place to live. Are hats worn on the feet and hamburgers eat people? Do the people that live there believe every poorly edited video of Obama? Because here's the actual transcript from his speech:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America
This is why it's impossible to argue with you... Garbage in, garbage out.
Well, what he actually said was worse.
He said he has "limitless faith" in the capacity of the American people. You know who else had faith? Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans. Does Obama support killing thousands of Americans? People who kill thousands of Americans should be in jail, but Obama is still running around, free. You know who else runs around free? Roman Polanski. Did Obama rape a girl, and then hide from justice in France? You know who else was in France? Hitler.
What you see here is an example of some vetting in attempt to damage a candidate.
The headline was misleading. So... in politico's own article:
"Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit,” campaign manager Barry Bennett wrote in an email to POLITICO. “In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer. He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors,” Bennett added. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”
What we have here is that the Politico piece is deeply misleading because it misstates the lie that Carson supposedly told and mischaracterizes the campaign's response.
Regardless, this'll feed into the witchhunt thang. *sigh*
Is this exhausting? Would you like a pillow? *hands you a pillow*
whembly wrote: What we have here is that the Politico piece is deeply misleading because it misstates the lie that Carson supposedly told and mischaracterizes the campaign's response.
So he didn't write, twice, in two different books, that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point?
Let's gloss over the date anomaly in the article - I certainly can't imagine I'd remember the exact date of when I met someone nearly 50 years ago and I wouldn't really expect someone else to. The other part, above, seems significant though.
But an informal "you could probably get a scholarship" conversation and a formal scholarship offer just waiting for your signature are exactly the same thing!
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, Keystone just got shut down (until 2017, anyway). I don't know what to think about it myself (never did the research to make my own decision), but many of the responses are the typical pot-calling-the-kettle-black by accusing Obama of supporting special interests. I would argue that if you are currently campaigning for election, and taking money from people to support that campaign, you've got no business throwing around any accusations of "special interests".
I would have been more impressed if he actually had the balls to make the decision years ago.
Instead he makes the decision after the prize of oil drops to a point where it is a crappy idea and nobody really wants to build it because it for economic reasons and the only people who are really supporting it are doing so for political reasons, and he also makes it after an election in Canada that resulted in the election of somebody that won't push for it either.
Making a decision now is just pretending that he made a decision.
Gabriel Malor @gabrielmalor
Note: Politico just altered the headline and lede to remove the bombshell claims about Carson. Doesn't note that it made the changes.
3:04 PM - 6 Nov 2015
84 84 Retweets 41 41 likes
Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship
Carson's campaign on Friday admitted that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated. By Kyle Cheney
11/06/15 11:29 AM EST
Updated 11/06/15 11:34 AM EST
Current version:
Exclusive: Carson claimed West Point 'scholarship' but never applied
Republican hits POLITICO story, later admits to The New York Times he wasn’t offered aid. By Kyle Cheney
11/06/15 11:29 AM EST
Updated 11/06/15 03:42 PM EST
Technically, it's the third time they've changed it: they added "exclusive" to a middle one I didn't reproduce.
At least he was able to go on Hannity's radio show and set the record straight that this is just another example of liberal media bias and they are parsing words. Yup.
Gordon Shumway wrote: At least he was able to go on Hannity's radio show and set the record straight that this is just another example of liberal media bias and they are parsing words. Yup.
Carson was lying through his teeth. the general he supposed talked to, wasn't even in town, he was in DC playing tennis.
According to records of Westmoreland’s schedule that were provided by the U.S. Army, the general did not visit Detroit around Memorial Day in 1969 or have dinner with Carson. In fact, the general’s records suggest he was in Washington that day and played tennis at 6:45 p.m.
Gordon Shumway wrote: At least he was able to go on Hannity's radio show and set the record straight that this is just another example of liberal media bias and they are parsing words. Yup.
Carson was lying through his teeth. the general he supposed talked to, wasn't even in town, he was in DC playing tennis.
According to records of Westmoreland’s schedule that were provided by the U.S. Army, the general did not visit Detroit around Memorial Day in 1969 or have dinner with Carson. In fact, the general’s records suggest he was in Washington that day and played tennis at 6:45 p.m.
liberal bias? no, a liar caught lying? Yep.
Damn, everybody else was getting away with irony for the last two pages (I think Frazz missed a few there too) I thought I would be able to too. Guess I need a few more posts.
Spoiler:
by the way how does one go about getting new tags underneath names here? Is it just how many times one has posted?
I thought the yup was good enough. Is there an irony Ork emoticon?
d-usa wrote: Attack ads are always pretty rough, but this one is just brutal...
Tell us how you really feel there...
This is the harshest political ad I think I've seen. It's up there with the George W Bush push poll attack on McCain.
But Vitter is an donkey-cave, so I'm good with it.
Never underestimate the power of the Press Conference of Sin and Repentance. The people of Louisiana can handle a whoremonger, so long as he's a recovering whoremonger.
Gotta love it when a politician campaigns on how their morals are stronger than the other guy's morals....and then a few years after election they're caught sending pictures of their junk to interns, or they accidentally send a video of themselves with another woman to everyone on their phone's contacts list, or they're misusing their position for personal gain, decorating their office to look like a TV show, etc., etc.
1. One applies through the normal way one does a college/university
2. One applies through a sponsorship of a General Officer/Senators. Which only two candidates can be sponsored by G.O./Senator.
Westmoreland pretty big so I can see a Letter of Recommendation from him would cut the selection process to...none...get his arse in now type of induction
My Ex Wife required three Letters of Recommendations to OCS. Her company commander, Gen Kernann, and Gen Keene provided her letters. Her cute butt was sent within four months of applying
West Point is a full ride once you pass but you are committed to five yrs in the US Army. No choice in MOS's unless your like in the top 10%
I can see how Carson can see it as a full ride. I also can see it him really not knowing how its done. If Westmoreland offered him a Letter of Recommendation and as his sponsor I can see West Point taking in Carson rikitick. I do not think Carson really understood how the process is done. I also can see how the media can make the same mistake. I also see some here who really not sure how it is done. (Applies to the Citadel in Charleston South Carolina) to enter West Point.
I stopped tracking this story when both sides bolo'ed the point; counter point
1. One applies through the normal way one does a college/university
2. One applies through a sponsorship of a General Officer/Senators. Which only two candidates can be sponsored by G.O./Senator.
This is generally how I understood it as well. As I understand it, there really aren't any "recruiters" going around the country looking for top prospects the way say, Nick Saban does for Alabama Football.
When I was in high school, I had to dig around for information on applying to the AFA, and ultimately never applied because I was gak at math and wasn't in a high enough level to even warrant a look
Gordon Shumway wrote: At least he was able to go on Hannity's radio show and set the record straight that this is just another example of liberal media bias and they are parsing words. Yup.
Carson was lying through his teeth. the general he supposed talked to, wasn't even in town, he was in DC playing tennis.
According to records of Westmoreland’s schedule that were provided by the U.S. Army, the general did not visit Detroit around Memorial Day in 1969 or have dinner with Carson. In fact, the general’s records suggest he was in Washington that day and played tennis at 6:45 p.m.
liberal bias? no, a liar caught lying? Yep.
Damn, everybody else was getting away with irony for the last two pages (I think Frazz missed a few there too) I thought I would be able to too. Guess I need a few more posts.
Spoiler:
by the way how does one go about getting new tags underneath names here? Is it just how many times one has posted?
I thought the yup was good enough. Is there an irony Ork emoticon?
Hey don't involve me in the Carson mess. Trump is right in that, this er...he's defending saying he wanted to hit his mom with a hammer. That's just what we call ed in the head.
Sometimes moms need to have a little tap in the head with a hammer, just to get our political ducks all lined up. Speaking of hammers to the head, did anybody else paint models while watching SNL this week?. I was too distracted while the some chaos cultists to really care. They at least give me a 6+ save and a flamer template. With trump, I just get the flamer template.
The only one that shinned to me is Rand Paul. Mad props for calling out all the BS these candidates are feeding people. I enjoy the fact that he knows he can't win so he is calling it like it actually is (unlike the butt vomit from Chump).
I felt Paul last night was trolling the GOP and "conservatives only in name".
Rubio was all right. Kaisch didn't say much but it wasn't dumb at least. Everybody else was pure trash. Nothing but empty pandering trash.
Indeed... Normally, during a debate (both sides), my facebook feed fills up with the good, bad, and ugly comments the various candidates make.
Last night, there was only one thing talked about.... Trump being booed when he called out Carly for interrupting people.
Its as if people never realized Trump is a narcissist and is incapable of understanding irony.
Honestly nothing new was discussed. You had Kasich and Paul being the only voices of conservative reason. You had Rubio trying as hard as he can to look and sound like a president in hopes people vote only on that (which they do....solid strategy). Trump still pushing his blindingly stupid ideas with out people getting sick of it. Carson attempting to hypnotize viewers because he has nothing to debate on. Fiornia who has convinced herself that she needs to out man the men and so has crossed in to idiotsville with Trump and Carson. An then there is Cruz...who makes my skin literally crawl when he talks.
Democrats have only to continue their strategy of being quiet and they should have this in the bag. Like I honestly expect the 2016 race to be Bernie vs HRC right now.
Indeed... Normally, during a debate (both sides), my facebook feed fills up with the good, bad, and ugly comments the various candidates make.
Last night, there was only one thing talked about.... Trump being booed when he called out Carly for interrupting people.
Its as if people never realized Trump is a narcissist and is incapable of understanding irony.
Indeed... he doesn't say anything new either. I still hold that he's out by Christmas...
Honestly nothing new was discussed.
Disagree... this was the BEST debate yet because, ya know what? That actually debated policies and ideas... avoided the whole personal claptrap that the last debate formented...
You had Kasich and Paul being the only voices of conservative reason.
Paul... yes, because he wasn't talking about foreign policies... that's his albatross. (and also his "congress must review the Fed Reserver" bs).
Kaisch... they guy pushed for obamacare, want's to raise taxes, raise min-wage federally... that conservative? Dude been running on a 'center of left' platform.
You had Rubio trying as hard as he can to look and sound like a president in hopes people vote only on that (which they do....solid strategy).
He kicked arsed, and by most measures, he *won* the debate last night.Trump still pushing his blindingly stupid ideas with out people getting sick of it.
Carson attempting to hypnotize viewers because he has nothing to debate on.
Heh... he got is joke in that folks will continue to like him. But on actual policy questions... he meandered quite a bit...
Fiornia who has convinced herself that she needs to out man the men and so has crossed in to idiotsville with Trump and Carson.
Fiorina I thought did really well... but, not enough to budge the the crowd her way... she's actually the kind of candidate that gains support the more interviews/debates she does... so, don't count her out yet.
An then there is Cruz...who makes my skin literally crawl when he talks.
He does come off "smarmy" doesn't he? Here's the deal with Cruz... he has great ideas... but, he comes off as an donkey-cave. Donkeycaves may win the primary, but will absolutely lose in the General Election. Charisma is a thing... hence why obama and bill clinton won their elections. Rubio is the only one, imo, that has the charisma to challenge HRC.
Democrats have only to continue their strategy of being quiet and they should have this in the bag. Like I honestly expect the 2016 race to be Bernie vs HRC right now.
Bernie doesn't have a chance... even if he wins the Primary, he'll auto-lose.
whembly wrote: Sanders' socialism is the same breed of U.S.S.R., Cuba, or Venezuela... not the clean, clinical Academia kind of "socialism".
You've said some real whoppers on this thread, but this has to place in the top three.
I mean, I really don't have a response other than "go read a political science book and maybe also a history book."
So... what did the U.S.S.R. do to it's own people? A place with Sanders actually honeymooned there... while they were quite literally The Evil Empire™.
Cuba? Venezuela? He has a fething hard-on for those governments.
Disagree... this was the BEST debate yet because, ya know what? That actually debated policies and ideas... avoided the whole personal claptrap that the last debate formented...
Causing many of them to make incorrect statements. Rubio's welder v. philosopher comment, for instance. And Cruz's comments about his tax plan, and his comment about Obamacare exemptions for Congress.
whembly wrote: So... what did the U.S.S.R. do to it's own people?
Which has what to do with what, exactly?
A place with Sanders actually honeymooned there...
You mean that trip he took with a delegation while he was mayor of Burlington, VT after he was married that some conservative journalist tried to spin into Sanders being pro-gulag?
while they were quite literally The Evil Empire™.
This is where the "read a history book" line comes into play. The USSR was very much in the process of completely falling apart by 1988 (remember, the Soviet Union completely dissolved in 1991). Your Lord and Savior, Ronald Regan spoke in Red Square in 1988 as well (it was actually his fourth time visiting the USSR). Also, during the trip Regan was asked by a journalist if he still thought that the USSR was an "evil empire," to which he replied, "No. I was talking about another time, another era."
Cuba? Venezuela? He has a fething hard-on for those governments.
Based on what, exactly? Because he was critical of how Latin America was treated in the 1980s? When we were overthrowing governments just for the hell of it?
Why is that?
You tell me because you seem to be the one that thinks it.
Causing many of them to make incorrect statements. Rubio's welder v. philosopher comment, for instance.
That was accurate... critics thought they heard philosopher professor... which Rubio didn't say.
Well, it depends on what data you use to compare the two fields. Welders can make good money in relation to their overall level of higher education, but you won't be rich by a damn sight (unfortunately).
Also, what you weld and where you weld it makes a huge difference in what you're paid.
You tell me because you seem to be the one that thinks it.
I am not talking about the pie-in-the-sky, non-existent brand of socialism that is embraced by the left, but the real socialism practiced in the real world. The one that enslaves people, that poisons their cultures, that murders them for disobedience or sometimes, simply for mere convenience. Those are the hard facts in those countries that Sanders (many Democrats for that matter) willfully turn a blind eye on because it isn't the "real socialism" as described in their textbooks.
So let's give it a chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.
Funny enough, he sometimes forget that this isn't the 70's anymore and the scandinavian countries are NOT the socialist countries he believes they are... but, forgive him 'cuz he's totes kewl!
ed in the head.