The Community section isn't a "'sent to die' area." Plenty of sub-groups on GAF thrive here.
The Community section isn't a "'sent to die' area." Plenty of sub-groups on GAF thrive here.
I don't see why it matters. We have as much to discuss, even more so, than many videogame-based communities.Mainly relating to videogames. All this decision has done is clog the OT with a series of bad "Republican says x dumb thing; Obama does y bad thing" individual threads to go alongside the more traditional libertarian trap threads.
Why aren't sports threads in the community thread? Why isn't the GAF-hop thread, or the Victorious thread, etc here? The decision making makes no sense.
I don't see why it matters. We have as much to discuss, even more so, than many videogame-based communities.
Mainly relating to videogames. All this decision has done is clog the OT with a series of bad "Republican says x dumb thing; Obama does y bad thing" individual threads to go alongside the more traditional libertarian trap threads.
Why aren't sports threads in the community thread? Why isn't the GAF-hop thread, or the Victorious thread, etc here? The decision making makes no sense.
Why would I address that? My original post wasn't about the policy. Stop trying to connect my posts to something I wasn't talking about, please.That still does not address the general problem of the random decision on what constitutes a "community" and what doesn't on an internet forum. The LA, NY, etc threads are on the OT, as are the other threads I mentioned earlier.
Is the OT just supposed to be a series of news stories, virgin/thirsy-gaf crying, celeb talk, and sports stuff?
Anyway back on topic. Wouldn't want individual posts to be regulated as well...
Why would I address that? My original post wasn't about the policy. Stop trying to connect my posts to something I wasn't talking about, please.
Okay. You do not necessarily trust Newt. But you are attracted to his big ideas. Although, the notion that Newt's ideas are "big" is risible unless big is synonymous with inanely absurd. Newt promotes pablum: a moon colony, child labor, citizen immigration boards, impeaching federal judges. He's a fraud who spews nonsense.he's got some big ideas and some of his plans seem to make sense. if things get worse with Obama and its proved his plans and escapades haven't worked out voting for.him is going to be iffy for me. Even if I don't fully support Newt I hope he gets the nomination
The thing that kills a thread is when people stop discussing in it. The PoliGAF Megathread was mostly filled with regulars anyway. The only reason PoliGAF is "dying" now is because so many of you would rather talk about how PoliGAF is now doomed to die. We can make this work if we try.
Now, to get slightly on topic, I'm so surprised by how suddenly all my facebook friends are interested in politics. I'm in Virginia, so I'm not sure what the catalyzing event could be but suddenly everyone is posting political pictures and statuses (mostly wrong, but who am I to say that. I'm not too well informed either). I'm wondering what the reason is for this sudden interest, but I guess the more people pay attention, the better.
he's got some big ideas and some of his plans seem to make sense. if things get worse with Obama and its proved his plans and escapades haven't worked out voting for.him is going to be iffy for me. Even if I don't fully support Newt I hope he gets the nomination
Ideas like what? Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a moon base that is pretty much useless at this point? Relaxing child labor laws? Making Sarah Palin a hallmark of his cabinet? Attacking Iran which would cause the entire Middle East to erupt in war? Fire judges who he disagrees with? Arresting judges that are too liberal for his liking? Doing away with an entire circuit of judges because they offer decisions he finds anathema? Working to make the U.S. a theocratic system of sorts? REALLY?
Trucks now limited to 80,000 pounds on interstate highways could run as heavy as 97,000 pounds under a proposal contained in the long-awaited transportation reauthorization bill set to be unveiled Tuesday by House Republicans.
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/base...to-Be-Considered-in-House-Transportation-BillIn addition, the bill would mandate that New York City and Washington, D.C., allow 53-foot single trailers. States allow those trailers but the two cities restrict them.
I'm sure its just pandering. Something people in both parties are guilty of. How else are they going to win an election -_-
The house is at it again.
Their new transportation proposal does two things:
a) Massive handouts to the truck and oil lobby, by allowing higher truck weights.
Why is this a big deal? Wear and tear on the road is exponential with weight.
Most of the maintenance required on roads is due to trucks, and now they want to make it worse with no additional funding mechanism.
Oh, and the whole "state/county etc rights" bullcrap?
Straight out the window when it comes to micromanaging things for their oil friends.
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/base...to-Be-Considered-in-House-Transportation-Bill
Thats right, apparently congress can now tell individual cities what they can and cannot do.
I'm sure its just pandering. Something people in both parties are guilty of. How else are they going to win an election -_-
The weight limit is outdated as many steel companies can run wider/heavier coils than in the past. So, the cap is actually hurting production, as companies have to limit the amount per unit to meet weight specifications.
Also, trucks are required to get (state) permits for loads over a certain weight (per axle). This is a revenue generator for them and that money is funneled back into state DOT coffers. States can merely raise the costs of these permits accordingly and offset any additional damage done to roads.
I think the best defense for Newt is the one some tried to make for Dean in 2004. This election is going to be about the incumbent. It's not about the Republican ideology or any new way of governing, it's about what Obama has done and if you agree with that direction in the future.
So, you need to elect the person that can most effectively attack Obama and his record. That person is Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is not an effective person when he tries to attack his opponent and will not sway enough people to win the election.
I bet it'll be called early for Romney tonight.
Probably in the same sentence in which the polls are announced to be closed.
The system in place absolutely does not take into account the level of damage done by trucks to roads. Not at all. And the bill doesnt address it either. Worse is that most states charge per axle...meaning trucks have an incentive to use as few as possible. But wait, that means the wight is distributed over less points, meaning greater force applied to the road! Doh. A 20 axle truck would be better for roads than a 3 axle.
If steel companies want to ship heavier loads, we've got these nice big trains for that.
SETA would give each state the option to raise interstate weight limits selectively from 80,000 pounds to up to 97,000 pounds. The higher limit applies only to vehicles equipped with six axles instead of the typical five. The additional axle would not affect truck size, but would allow shippers to use extra cargo space.
I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:
Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?
I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:
Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?
I can't wait to see Romney attacking the health care law to Obama's face in debates, I just don't see how it will work. Either it'll be a double negative where neither candidate takes an advantage, or Obama wins out with the "republicans disagree with me even when they agree with me" narrative.
Every time Romney defends the MA law it sounds like he's defending Obama's law. Private insurance, exchange groups, a mandate to prevent people from free loading off emergency care...
Understanding large groups of people through individual Facebook/youtube comments.
I think we are breaking ground into a new social science here.
I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:
Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?
Understanding large groups of people through individual Facebook/youtube comments.
I think we are breaking ground into a new social science here.
Faceotology.
I admit that I just wanted to find an excuse to post it in here.
For the love of space jesus, please post the comments.
Not really. Saying you'd vote for Romney over Obama and actually making the effort on election day are two different things. Romney will lose, because the large GOP voting bloc of evangelical Christians are not excited to vote for him. He's too moderate and too Mormon.Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...
http://i.imgur.com/Pxgg3.gif
This is why Gingrich has to win the nomination, but he's probably not going to.
Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...
This is why Gingrich has to win the nomination, but he's probably not going to.
Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...
I can't wait to see Romney attacking the health care law to Obama's face in debates, I just don't see how it will work. Either it'll be a double negative where neither candidate takes an advantage, or Obama wins out with the "republicans disagree with me even when they agree with me" narrative.
Every time Romney defends the MA law it sounds like he's defending Obama's law. Private insurance, exchange groups, a mandate to prevent people from free loading off emergency care...
He'll have to say something. This will be brought up in the debates.I think it's simple: He won't attack the health care law.
Isn't a basic tenant of whether you want the incumbent out be that you're okay with the person replacing him? I agree your argument is Newt's best hope, but at the end of the day, I'm guessing the anti-Newt sentiment is enough for independents to ignore whatever anti-Obama sentiment is there. Just my thinking, though.I think the best defense for Newt is the one some tried to make for Dean in 2004. This election is going to be about the incumbent. It's not about the Republican ideology or any new way of governing, it's about what Obama has done and if you agree with that direction in the future.
So, you need to elect the person that can most effectively attack Obama and his record. That person is Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is not an effective person when he tries to attack his opponent and will not sway enough people to win the election.
I think it's simple: He won't attack the health care law.
tenet.Isn't a basic tenant