Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
In a system set up to heavily favor the mother, yes, to me that puts up red flags, especially when the husband in this instance was given "right to designate."
cincydooley wrote: In a system set up to heavily favor the mother, yes, to me that puts up red flags, especially when the husband in this instance was given "right to designate."
Holy crapballs. I've seen you say some pretty outlandish things on this forum but that joint custody is a sign of bad character might be the king. I mean, I could show you a letter from the daughters themselves but at this point it seems clear this is one of those erroneous but useful memes that will keep going.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Well thats seriously incorrect, but in this instance, Davis will get curb stomped like a drunken frat boy. Her campaign has already effectively imploded down here, and unless you're political, people respond with "Wendy Davis who???"
"Will never" not "have never".
In the current political climate a Republican running for the Texas gubernatorial seat would have to be outed as a guinea pig in a suit to stand a realistic chance of losing.
That being said, there was a party switch in the 30s, yes? There probably hasn't been anyone we'd consider a Democrat by today's metric since then, aside from Mrs. Richards and Mr. White - is that fair to say?
For modern politicians party affiliation wasn't really a solid predictor of political positions until the late 60's, at least not at the national level. As such you would see Democrats and Republicans from the same state, or region, espousing similar views.
I don't agree with dogma's statement, but the actual reasons for disagreeing are because there was a recent Democratic victor, you do get blue party governors in red states and vice versa as they cater their message to local state politics, and Texas demographics signal a slow shift towards Democrats in the next decade or two.
Are you referring to Terry McAuliffe's victory?
If so Virginia isn't really a red state in the sense that Texas is, it lacks the libertarian bend and hasn't been anywhere near as strongly opposed to Obama's policies.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/02/22 05:33:05
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Are you referring to Terry McAuliffe's victory?
If so Virginia isn't really a red state in the sense that Texas is, it lacks the libertarian bend and hasn't been anywhere near as strongly opposed to Obama's policies.
Granted the n for Texas is significantly smaller, but it is consistent with the fact that Republicans carried Texas in '08 and '12, while Democrats carried Virginia in both of those years.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Granted the n for Texas is significantly smaller, but it is consistent with the fact that Republicans carried Texas in '08 and '12, while Democrats carried Virginia in both of those years.
Texas doesn't have an enclave that's basically DC, just on the other side of the river, that tends to swing the rest of the state. Get south of Stafford and it's basically another state.
cincydooley wrote: Wasn't the governor before Dubya a Lady Dem? I can't remember.
I swear Dubya had a Blue Lt Gov, too. Lemme check.
You're thinking of Ann Richards, and you are correct.
She pretty much got guaranteed a win when her opponent, Clayton Williams, said something at a barbque along the lines of rain being like rape, if it's going to happen, you might as well sit back and enjoy it.
I just know that I have to change radio stations every time a Republican ad comes on here in Texas. They're all the same: "Vote for me because I'm going to fight against Obama." I'm sorry, but no, I'm not going to vote for you because you're against the other side, and you're claiming to fight them every step of the way, and you're throwing out the usual political hot topic buzzwords that actually don't mean a damn thing (really, you have a "six point plan for immigration reform" but you're not running for federal office where you could actually do something with it? Who the hell cares, then?!). I might vote for you if you honestly told me who you were, where you stand on the really important issues, how you're willing to work with and compromise with the other side in order to actually get things done for the good of the entire state, etc. Hell, there's even one ad where the Republican is attacking the OTHER Republican for being "too liberal." And there's one for a Republican running for judge claiming she'll fight against special interests, etc. (call me crazy, but I thought the two largest special interest groups in this country are called the Republican and Democratic parties? I also like my judges to be impartial, and running as a party candidate would seem to cloud that impartiality a bit, wouldn't it?).
But then, I'm the kind of voter politicians don't like, because I like to do this crazy little thing called THINKING. Attacks ads (doesn't matter which party), automatically makes me not want to vote for them (and it doesn't say much for your "family values" or "faith" if you're willing to stoop to such levels).
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
He didn't acknowledge the racist element behind it. So i'm not sure whether he's sorry because it was pretty disgusting terminology or because it's reflected badly on him and others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/22 21:16:57
I also think he's one of the most intelligent and measured public figures that comments on politics today.
Which makes me a little sad, because it probably means he did intend for the allusion to Mein Kampf here.
But then again, Uncle Ted has been saying for years that Obama's desire to disarm and religiously neuter the US is very similar to the Nazi regime.
So, in short, I like Nugent, think he probably said this on purpose, and as such, am not entirely sure how I feel about it.
You should probably feel, as any decent person would, that he knew full well what he was implying with his insult and denounce the intentionally racist and occasionally murderous commentary of a draft-dodging ephebophile.
Texas doesn't have an enclave that's basically DC, just on the other side of the river, that tends to swing the rest of the state. Get south of Stafford and it's basically another state.
So Virginia is not a "red state" in the sense that Texas is?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Sorry Whembly, but that isn't really comparable. Nugent was using it as a clear insult, Obama was not. Either way, the subhuman portion of the insult is more significant especially in a country where nonwhites were considered subhuman by a significant minority of the population within the last century.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
trexmeyer wrote: Sorry Whembly, but that isn't really comparable. Nugent was using it as a clear insult, Obama was not. Either way, the subhuman portion of the insult is more significant especially in a country where nonwhites were considered subhuman by a significant minority of the population within the last century.
Yeah, I know that... but to me "subhuman" was the insult.
I think he was referring to the concept of African American as a broad sweeping label that defines a lot men and women with varying African origins.
Nugent said that Obama was a Subhuman Mongrel referring to him specifically, which relates to him being of mixed race. If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to say.
He's up there with Dave Mustaine in the 'should have probably kept his mouth shut' stakes. This behaviour isn't going to pull him out of the 'right wing nutter' category if he wants people to take him seriously.
Don't see how draft dodging is a bad thing, though; respect to anyone who does.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
