That's a reservation that I have, as well. I mean we can probably guess the audience it will attract, but I feel the same way.
-
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
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
That's a reservation that I have, as well. I mean we can probably guess the audience it will attract, but I feel the same way.
Oh man, real joe beats onion joe hands down! :lol
Or you could not have it lean left or right at all, just do it all objectively and fact based. Call out the Dems for their cowardice and call out the GOP for the batshit insanity.
If you have to "lean left" make sure to mark said article as an opinion piece.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Deadheat is absolutely perfect.
I've got some minor interest in contributing, but I don't think I am as qualified. But I will be an ardent follower/commenter at very least.
I've got some minor interest in contributing, but I don't think I am as qualified. But I will be an ardent follower/commenter at very least.
gaffeprone.com is available 
This is what I'd prefer.
I still like Dead Heat the best, I'm just throwing stuff out.
This is what I'd prefer.
Well, first of all it's a blog, so pretty nearly everything will be an opinion piece.
I don't think anyone's going to give anyone a pass, really. It's not going to lean left or whatever by design, it's more by virtue of the people writing there seem to be mostly that way. Calling out dems for cowardice and GOP for insanity is still usually "left" leaning, just not being a dem lapdog.
But, yes, I wouldn't want this thing to have some sort of agenda, left or right.
Frank the Great
Banned
I like Dead Heat.
A blog can be ideological without being partisan. So in that sense, of course some pieces would go after the Democrats. We just all happen to be left-leaning; why pretend we are something we are not?
I have zero desire to do objective fact-based reporting. If I wanted to do that I would have become a journalist.
That said, it would be cool to get some right-leaning writers on the blog. But the individual posts would be opinion pieces making arguments.
A blog can be ideological without being partisan. So in that sense, of course some pieces would go after the Democrats. We just all happen to be left-leaning; why pretend we are something we are not?
I have zero desire to do objective fact-based reporting. If I wanted to do that I would have become a journalist.
That said, it would be cool to get some right-leaning writers on the blog. But the individual posts would be opinion pieces making arguments.
PhoenixDark
Banned
That's a different thing. The Obama picture is the official picture that will hang in federal and state buildings; basically you'll see it when you go to the post office, sec of state office, etc. The JFK one is his official portrait, which all presidents get and hangs in the White House.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Second term portrait looking like an old school throwback to his Senate portrait.
Black Mamba
Member
hydrophilic attack
Member
Regarding the discussion about whether the possibility of armed self defense should be a right:
I think you need to make a distinction between what is the rational choice for an individual in a given society and what is the rational choice for society itself.
If you live in a society where gun ownership is allowed, and which is fucked up enough that you would feel that you actually need a gun in order to defend yourself, and that this would outweigh the risks of owning a gun, I could buy the argument that it may be rational to own a gun.
On the other hand, since it can easily be argued that a high gun density in a society could lead to things such as higher crime rates, higher suicide rates and more gun-related accidents, the rational choice of the government would be to crack down on gun ownership.
In this case, I would argue that needs of the collective outweighs the needs of (some) individuals.
I think you need to make a distinction between what is the rational choice for an individual in a given society and what is the rational choice for society itself.
If you live in a society where gun ownership is allowed, and which is fucked up enough that you would feel that you actually need a gun in order to defend yourself, and that this would outweigh the risks of owning a gun, I could buy the argument that it may be rational to own a gun.
On the other hand, since it can easily be argued that a high gun density in a society could lead to things such as higher crime rates, higher suicide rates and more gun-related accidents, the rational choice of the government would be to crack down on gun ownership.
In this case, I would argue that needs of the collective outweighs the needs of (some) individuals.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
I think the biggest problem will be figuring out what kind of content to focus on. If it's just your opinion on the big news of the day then obviously it'll be hard to avoid making a circle-jerk.
That'd actually be a lot more effective than the talking fillibuster, I think, particularly with how much Congress hates to work when it's supposed to be on break.
It seems like Dead Heat is the presumed frontrunner in this general election.
I envision it being something that is more along the lines of lengthier discussions of public policy and political activity. Not just "the liberal take" on the day's news. I'm sure that will still be there, but my hope is for it to be more editorial-like
I envision it being something that is more along the lines of lengthier discussions of public policy and political activity. Not just "the liberal take" on the day's news. I'm sure that will still be there, but my hope is for it to be more editorial-like
Black Mamba
Member
Poli-Wonks damn it!
PhoenixDark
Banned
finally some good old fashioned beef
We've discussed before whether Christie will end up like Gulianni: a slick east coast republican who goes to the heartland and realizes how out of touch he is with his party. It's hard to imagine Christie gaining much success with crazy Iowa republicans, or (worse yet) South Carolina republicans. Plus he'll likely be the only candidate with a real record. What has Rand Paul done since 2010? What about Rubio? They haven't voted for anything, or accomplished anything...thus ensuring they're safe to the nihilists who vote in GOP primaries. Meanwhile Christie will be stuck defending various compromises he came to with democrats in NJ - you know, actually getting shit done. I'm not defending Christie's legislative record, just saying he actually has to govern whereas most republicans don't.
It's amazing how good Rand Paul is at saying stupid, simple stuff his base can eat up. Christie reprimanding the NRA's idiotic ad targeting Obama's children=criticizing the second amendment movement. I honestly feel bad for moderate republicans.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-chris-christie-will-regret-going-off
We've discussed before whether Christie will end up like Gulianni: a slick east coast republican who goes to the heartland and realizes how out of touch he is with his party. It's hard to imagine Christie gaining much success with crazy Iowa republicans, or (worse yet) South Carolina republicans. Plus he'll likely be the only candidate with a real record. What has Rand Paul done since 2010? What about Rubio? They haven't voted for anything, or accomplished anything...thus ensuring they're safe to the nihilists who vote in GOP primaries. Meanwhile Christie will be stuck defending various compromises he came to with democrats in NJ - you know, actually getting shit done. I'm not defending Christie's legislative record, just saying he actually has to govern whereas most republicans don't.
It's amazing how good Rand Paul is at saying stupid, simple stuff his base can eat up. Christie reprimanding the NRA's idiotic ad targeting Obama's children=criticizing the second amendment movement. I honestly feel bad for moderate republicans.
Hooray for another primary in which it's base completely eats itself to the point where it's unsuitable for the general.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I constantly get the WND or newsmax ones that say 'Vote now'. Of course they are all just phishing expeditions for people to add to the sucker conservative email lists which seems to be a large business in the conservative world.
I'm all for it, in particular in the House, since that's going to be pretty much the only way Dems make any headway in the next few elections; Republicans nominating people too far to the fringe for their own base.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Is it possible that by 2016 the tea party will have created an official third party that will truly split the GOP?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I doubt it, but then again GOP establishment guys like Dick Armey are fleeing the tea party. They were the ones who connected the movement to the GOP initially, and now that relationship seems to be breaking. Still, a complete separation would make the tea party irrelevant nationally.
Plus the 2016 nominees will appeal more to tea partiers, ie Rand Paul and Marco Rubio (depending on how immigration goes)
RustyNails
Member
I know you like your political generalizations but Christie is hardly slick.
You know that right before elections, they dye his hair so he looks younger, right? All presidents have this done.
What if, for example, a guy who legally owns a gun breaks into your house for malicious reasons. At that point should you just let the guy steal or injure and instead rely on civil services that can't respond instantly? Isn't taking matters into your own hands by following the rules set in the constitution (protection of life and property) better? I'm not saying when you have the gun to level the playing field that anyone has to die, but that at that point anything less than a gun brings you to a disadvantage.
In some places, there are an overabundance of Wolves and mountain cats. So much so that they'll come near people's land.
Rhomega Beta
Member
*facepalm* At first, I thought the Communist Muslim thing was just an exaggerated joke on part of liberals, but no...
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Depends on your priorities. Statistically confronting someone who is armed with a gun of your own increases your chances of getting shot.
Regarding a PoliGAF blog, I would totally follow and read it regularly, but I doubt I would have time to contribute between school, work, and personal life.
I don't post in here often, but I lurk nearly every day to see PoliGAF's take on things, so I would definitely like to see a blog with all the regulars posting in it.
I don't post in here often, but I lurk nearly every day to see PoliGAF's take on things, so I would definitely like to see a blog with all the regulars posting in it.
Right, I know that but here's another thing: How many people who've bought a gun have had training in how to fire it?
When you buy a gun, there's no requirement on how to fire a gun properly.
I dont think that makes a difference for the majority of districts thanks to gerrymandering. Most people will vote dem or repub just because thats how they always vote. Personally, I would like to see every primary adopt Cali's primary reforms. That way our congressmen will be less worried about getting primaried to the right or left because the top two will go onto the general election and the more moderate candidate will probably have the better chance of winning
If that's not part of the bill, that should definitely be part of the bill - and not only that, but requirements on owning and knowledge of how to store/unload weapons safely.
How many incidents have been reported because of dumbfuck accidents where the gun is not safely stored or leaving a fully loaded gun unattended?
Goddamn, so many basic knowledge and safety things that the NRA and House GOP fuckers have scrapped away in order to sell more guns.
Like any other corporation, they don't give a fuck about people, they care about their bottom line.
(neither are corporations, but they get paid by those corporations for taking their side)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/18/can-oregon-save-american-health-care/
Anyone from Oregon care to comment how they think this is working so far? Pretty crazy that they estimate that if every state adopt Oregon's reforms the US govt would save 1.5 trillion with no real loss in benefits or cuts in doctors payments.
Thats pretty insane to me. 14.25 trips a year to the ER for those 144 patients? You're not forced to go to the ER if youre on medicaid, are you?
Be nice if we could implement some cost saving measures in the private sector since medicaid is stupid cheap compared to that. Oh well, one can dream...
Anyone from Oregon care to comment how they think this is working so far? Pretty crazy that they estimate that if every state adopt Oregon's reforms the US govt would save 1.5 trillion with no real loss in benefits or cuts in doctors payments.
Thats pretty insane to me. 14.25 trips a year to the ER for those 144 patients? You're not forced to go to the ER if youre on medicaid, are you?
Be nice if we could implement some cost saving measures in the private sector since medicaid is stupid cheap compared to that. Oh well, one can dream...
I've been saying Christie is a paper tiger for a while now, looks like the rest of the world has finally started to catch on.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Can someone here explain to me how Obamacare helps to make the system more efficient and reduces the deficit? I knew a few months ago but I'm having an argument with a friend right now and struggling to remember
ClassyPenguin
Banned
And yet hyper inflation is right around the corner!
Gotta make up for lost time!
Clearly, our deficit is too high.
The beauty of rejecting empiricism is that you can never be proven wrong.
NOOOOOO
Angry Fork
Member
Who thought 'alien' was a name that should be given to another person who is in your country illegally. And why did that name stick.
I can't tell if you're joking, but -
alien (adj.) 14c., "strange, foreign," from Old French alien "alien, strange, foreign; an alien, stranger, foreigner," from Latin alienus "of or belonging to another, foreign, alien, strange," also, as a noun, "a stranger, foreigner," adjectival form of alius "(an)other" (see alias). Meaning "not of the Earth" first recorded 1920.
Angry Fork
Member
Right but everyone knows alien implies they're not human. If it's a foreigner say foreigner. It feels like people say alien to increase the negative connotation, as if they're not even worthy of human rights.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
alien didn't mean extraterrestrial till later. It doesn't imply non-human
It's meant foreigner for longer than it has meant extra terrestrial. I don't think anyone who uses the term alien is trying to purposefully dehumanize foreigners.
Hobbestetrician
Member
It is when someone simply refers to them as "Illegals" that they are purposely bringing in negative connotations.
speculawyer
Member
- Status