• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
I would pay good money to see Biden go They Live on Trump in a back alley. This may sound appropos of nothing, but it's because Biden knows how a combover should work.

‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/
Click to expand...

Solution is still more guns. Student now has a gun, so the guard should have TWO guns in case this happens again.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
empty vessel said:
Because a firearm so empowers an individual vis-a-vis another individual that possession of one becomes the solution to the problem. Society exists in important part to afford safety to individuals within it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense represents to me, first, a belief that society is highly dysfunctional (which is true in my opinion) and, second, an abandonment of a social commitment to fix it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense is necessarily an individual solution to a social problem. Now, I do not mean to say by this that every individual who possesses a firearm is an anti-social cretin who has no interest in fixing a dysfunctional society. I am talking about what it represents at a very abstract level and why I, at least, refuse to accept that individuals ought to have a right to armed self-defense.
Click to expand...

A wild collectivist has appeared. :)
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Rocket Scientist said:
''Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

I'm guessing it's reliable?
Click to expand...

Sounds about right, the thing is reconciliation can only be used like once a year (if I remember the health care fight correctly). Either way there are plenty of ways to hold up a budget otherwise we'd just pass one every year.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Hasn't been raised yet. There's plenty of time for Obama to make some harmless comment/joke that offends house republicans to a point of further insanity
Click to expand...

Don't worry PD, I am sure that Obama will get on his knees and give Boehner whatever he wants. Though Michelle obviously would lose respect for him, that shouldn't matter much since the divorce is a done deal.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
B-Dubs said:
Sounds about right, the thing is reconciliation can only be used like once a year (if I remember the health care fight correctly). Either way there are plenty of ways to hold up a budget otherwise we'd just pass one every year.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's sad. Hadn't read that part of the Wikipedia page, but I remember hearing it during the healthcare debate indeed.

Edit: People lost excitement for the website idea?
 
R

RDreamer

Member
codhand said:
‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...eaves-unattended-handgun-in-student-bathroom/
Click to expand...

No harm no foul? What in fuck?

Being irresponsible with a gun is harm enough. wtf is wrong with this country..


Rocket Scientist said:
Edit: People lost excitement for the website idea?
Click to expand...

Definitely not. I'm pretty pumped. I just can't do anything about it now since I'm stuck at work.

I can set it up possibly tonight. If anyone doesn't come up with anything better than Dead Heat, I'll probably set it up under that. I'll be doing wordpress, since that's what I'm most familiar with.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ClovingWestbrook said:
Don't worry PD, I am sure that Obama will get on his knees and give Boehner whatever he wants. Though Michelle obviously would lose respect for him, that shouldn't matter much since the divorce is a done deal.
Click to expand...
Today's filibuster news should teach you not to count chickens before they hatch, friend.

Btw not a fan of Michelle's new weave
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
empty vessel said:
Because a firearm so empowers an individual vis-a-vis another individual that possession of one becomes the solution to the problem. Society exists in important part to afford safety to individuals within it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense represents to me, first, a belief that society is highly dysfunctional (which is true in my opinion) and, second, an abandonment of a social commitment to fix it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense is necessarily an individual solution to a social problem. Now, I do not mean to say by this that every individual who possesses a firearm is an anti-social cretin who has no interest in fixing a dysfunctional society. I am talking about what it represents at a very abstract level and why I, at least, refuse to accept that individuals ought to have a right to armed self-defense.
Click to expand...

I guess I just disagree. You're even willing to admit that this concept is not only abstract, but also that society isn't completly fucntional. I'm not sure why accepting reality is also the abandonment of a social commitment to fix an issue. To me, at least, this is like saying one shouldn't buy medical insurance because doing so would respresent the abandonment of a desire for a single payer system. You admit this as well though, and again to me at least, that seems like you're willing to cling to an ideal rather than accept the reality we currently live in.

ClovingWestbrook said:
###
Click to expand...

3 month extension? lol. Do they want a chance to look like assholes every three months? I do think it would be hilarious if none of them got paid for a while though.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Sirpopopop said:
A wild collectivist has appeared. :)
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged.

Fenderputty said:
I guess I just disagree. You're even willing to admit that this concept is not only abstract, but also that society isn't completly fucntional. I'm not sure why accepting reality is also the abandonment of a social commitment to fix an issue. To me, at least, this is like saying one shouldn't buy medical insurance because doing so would respresent the abandonment of a desire for a single payer system. You admit this as well though, and to me at least, that seems like you're willing to cling to an ideal rather than accept the reality we currently live in.
Click to expand...

I'm striving to attain an ideal, yes. Or at least, something closer to it. You're asking me to recognize a right to armed self-defense, not the mere practicality of it at a given time and context. (That isn't to say, by the way, that I think firearm possession is practical even now. I have never felt any personal need to arm myself despite living in a large urban environment.) Recognition of the right would be to give up on the idea that society can be functional. And I happen to know that it can be. In fact, other societies have at least maintained enough functionality--whatever their other shortcomings may be--such that their citizens feel no need to have a right to armed self-defense. And the US itself has not always been as it is now. So I'm certainly not prepared to give up on the ideal of (at least) a marginally functional society. I don't think that is pie-in-the-sky thinking.
 
R

remist

Member
Gotchaye said:
But the problem is that the relevant choice isn't between having or not having a gun in a given societal context. That's the choice an individual gun owner makes, and in some cases it's probably rational. In many cases it is not, though, because there are risks that come with gun ownership.

When we're talking about policy, we're not talking about that. The difference is that policy that promotes an individual's ability to keep a gun for self-defense necessarily promotes an individual's ability to obtain a gun for crime. It is possible that curtailing individuals' ability to obtain guns makes virtually everyone safer; yes, you would have fewer options for self-defense, but likewise there would be less need for that level of defensive capability.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's crazy to care more about your own options for self defense than the overall safety in society. Especially when certain experiments with tighter gun control, like the AWB in US and other policies in the UK and Australia have had mostly ambiguous results.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
For the new page: Think of some name ideas for the blog. If we don't come up with one, I'll probably use Dead Heat, or Dead Heat Politics.


remist said:
I don't think it's crazy to care more about your own options for self defense than the overall safety in society. Especially when certain experiments with tighter gun control, like the AWB in US and other policies in the UK and Australia have had mostly ambiguous results.
Click to expand...

I'd really hesitate to call the AWB much tighter gun control. I mean technically, sure, but...

And I think it gets fuzzier when your own option for self defense in policy form represents in inverse proportion someone else's options for harming others. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just that it's a bit more nuanced when you look at it closer.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Forcing 41 senators to sustain a filibuster is a welcome, big change. But it doesn't stop a well coordinated minority from stalling progress. If the last couple years have taught us anything about senate republicans, it's that Mitch McConell is very good at his job. He has a couple republicans who go off the reservation, but overall he's good at controlling his caucus.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Rocket Scientist said:
God damnit =(
Click to expand...

It's politico, but this does sound like a plan Reid would put together.

But he still may invoke what critics call the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules that would limit the use of the filibuster, force senators to hold the floor in certain situations and require those stalling legislation to deliver 41 votes, several people familiar with the matter said Thursday.
Click to expand...


Like PD says, it's not horrible and is much better than what we have now. I just want the talking filibuster back so I can point to the shithead who is holding something up.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
RDreamer said:
For the new page: Think of some name ideas for the blog. If we don't come up with one, I'll probably use Dead Heat, or Dead Heat Politics.
Click to expand...

I'm still cool with Dead Heat. No better name to mock the cheesy beltway press and Wolf Blitzer's soulless eyes while sounding like a normal political site.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Dax01 said:
Other than "Bad News for Liberals," I can't think of a new name, but I'm not too fond of "dead heat."
Click to expand...

I want a name that sounds like a normal politics site at least somewhat because I'd like it to be something that non-PoliGAFers could read and not be confused by its name because it's an inside joke. I'm not stuck on Dead Heat, but something a bit more general is what I'd like.

Edit: Keep the ideas coming, people.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
empty vessel said:
I'm striving to attain an ideal, yes. Or at least, something closer to it. You're asking me to recognize a right to armed self-defense, not the mere practicality of it at a given time and context. (That isn't to say, by the way, that I think firearm possession is practical even now. I have never felt any personal need to arm myself despite living in a large urban environment.) Recognition of the right would be to give up on the idea that society can be functional. And I happen to know that it can be. In fact, other societies have at least maintained enough functionality--whatever their other shortcomings may be--such that their citizens feel no need to have a right to armed self-defense. And the US itself has not always been as it is now. So I'm certainly not prepared to give up on the ideal of (at least) a marginally functional society. I don't think that is pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Click to expand...

You just said in your previous post that you acknowledge simply owning a firearm for protection doesn't automatically mean one has abandoned a desire to move twoards the ideal, yet your own personal beliefs represented in this statement here seem to contradict that. Until society is functional you're only giving into the reality in which we live.

BTW I own my shotgun for small game bird hunting with the family and not for self protection. Though it is somewhat comforting knowing it's there. Perhaps I would agree with you more had I never owned a gun and felt that comfort.

I guess I'm just asking you to recognize the right until the ideal is reached or we're close to it.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
B-Dubs said:
Sounds about right, the thing is reconciliation can only be used like once a year (if I remember the health care fight correctly). Either way there are plenty of ways to hold up a budget otherwise we'd just pass one every year.
Click to expand...

The link is referring to the budget resolution, which is non-binding and basically is just a blue print, or statement of intent, for Congress. However, the items eligible for reconciliation for that year are defined. The actual budget bills (annual appropriations) can be filibustered, the reconciliation portion aside.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
How about

"Political wonks that spend more time talking about naming web sites and the next PoliGAF thread than talking about actual politics"


I guess that's not very catchy.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.

speculawyer said:
How about

"Political wonks that spend more time talking about naming web sites and the next PoliGAF thread than talking about actual politics"


I guess that's not very catchy.
Click to expand...

pwtsmttanwsatnptttaac.com is available!
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
Dax01 said:
Other than "Bad News for Liberals," I can't think of a new name, but I'm not too fond of "dead heat."
Click to expand...
Bad News for Liberals Google +1
B-Dubs said:
It's politico, but this does sound like a plan Reid would put together.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/reid-seeks-middle-path-on-filibuster-86369.html

Like PD says, it's not horrible and is much better than what we have now. I just want the talking filibuster back so I can point to the shithead who is holding something up.
Click to expand...
Hm, that's not that bad. Thanks for the link.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Tim-E said:
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.
Click to expand...

'Political Banter & Jams'

We can call it 'PB&J'
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Fenderputty said:
You just said in your previous post that you acknowledge simply owning a firearm for protection doesn't automatically mean one has abandoned a desire to move twoards the ideal, yet your own personal beliefs represented in this statement here seem to contradict that. Until society is functional you're only giving into the reality in which we live.

BTW I own my shotgun for small game bird hunting with the family and not for self protection. Though it is somewhat comforting knowing it's there. Perhaps I would agree with you more had I never owned a gun and felt that comfort.

I guess I'm just asking you to recognize the right until the ideal is reached or we're close to it.
Click to expand...

I think we may be having a terminology issue here. While I recognize that rights are not permanent and effectively change with society, when I use that word, it nevertheless does have an aura of permanence to it. Or maybe "fundamentality" might be a better word. So I wouldn't be willing to accept a kind of temporary right to armed self-defense for periods when society is dysfunctional. That said, I think there is another aspect of the word as I use it that might be contributing to miscommunication. That an individual does not have a "right" to X is not the same as saying that an individual ought to be prohibited from "X." So when I say that I am not willing to recognize a right to armed self-defense, this does not mean that I am advocating a prohibition on armed self-defense. It simply means that democratic society is left free to prohibit it if it chooses.
 
H

Hop

That girl in the bunny hat
Tim-E said:
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.
Click to expand...

I would suggest "Southpawlitics" but I just cringed at my own pun
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Tim-E said:
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.
Click to expand...

"What's Left?"
 
T

tranciful

Member
Tim-E said:
Also, Obama's official second term portrait has been released:

AkCSu.jpg
Click to expand...

Do they not do paintings anymore? Always thought Kennedy had an awesome portrait

John_F_Kennedy_Official_Portrait.jpg
Click to expand...
 
P

pigeon

Banned
I promised myself if I ever started a left-wing political blog I'd call it "Shrill." But that might be taken already.

From that Politico article:

politico said:
Senators could still filibuster in any number of situations under this approach. But Reid is weighing whether to shift the burden of the filibuster from those who are seeking to defeat it onto those who are threatening to wage one. Rather than requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster, Reid is considering requiring at least 41 senators to sustain a filibuster. That would amount to a subtle shift to force opponents to ensure every senator is present in order to mount a filibuster.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/reid-seeks-middle-path-on-filibuster-86369.html#ixzz2IMNPe7zg

This is a huge change. Silent holds are effective because you don't even have to show up -- as long as your objection is registered (through the party machinery, currently), the proponents need to get 60 votes on the floor to proceed. Requiring 41 senators to SUSTAIN a filibuster shifts the power dynamic enormously in favor of getting stuff done.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
pigeon said:
I promised myself if I ever started a left-wing political blog I'd call it "Shrill." But that might be taken already.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to make it literally a left-wing blog. I mean most of us I guess do lean that way, but not necessarily in every fashion, and I wouldn't mind having some more right leaning people on there if they were good posters on here. People like AlteredBeast would be welcome (wherever the hell he went), for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
948
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
520
11K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
850
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom