• 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.
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Piecake said:
Heathen. At least you probably don't call a drinking fountain a bubbler
Click to expand...

I grew up in Wisconsin and I never knew anyone who called it that! Neither did any of my friends. People would always say "oh, haha, so do you call water fountains bubblers?" and none of us would have any idea what they were talking about.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
NY Times said:
David Barron and Martin Lederman had a problem. As lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, it had fallen to them to declare whether deliberately killing Mr. Awlaki, despite his citizenship, would be lawful... .

Their labors played out against the backdrop of how some of their predecessors under President George W. Bush had become defined by their once-secret memos asserting a nearly unlimited view of executive authority, like that a president’s wartime powers allowed him to defy Congressional statutes limiting torture and surveillance.

Indeed, Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman had produced a definitive denunciation of such reasoning, co-writing a book-length, two-part Harvard Law Review essay in 2008 concluding that the Bush team’s theory of presidential powers that could not be checked by Congress was “an even more radical attempt to remake the constitutional law of war powers than is often recognized.” Then a senator, Mr. Obama had called the Bush theory that a president could bypass a statute requiring warrants for surveillance “illegal and unconstitutional.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/w...aki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html

Needless to say now, these cretins did exactly what they earlier denounced in craven service to power when it was their turn They'd be disbarred, criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives if such a thing as justice existed.
 
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
The only hybrid that's worth buying is the Prius range. Others are still playing catch up.
The gains you get in the C Max Energi aren't worth its cost.

I'm not a huge fan of hybrids. They're like the fat-free fad of the car world. Sure it's pushing technology but there have been reports that efficiency gains get canceled out by more driving.
 
H

heliosRAzi

Banned
speculawyer said:
Man the WND is getting desperate.
PoliGafWNDTroll_zpse212915c.jpg
Click to expand...
Desperate enough to not have anyone proofread that.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
speculawyer said:
Ugh. Skyactiv.

(from the EV snob)

I would have recommended the C-Max Energi.
Click to expand...

We were not in the market for a new car, this was a 2009 Mazda 5. And we're steering clear of EVs for now, though in a few years or so when I'm back in the market, we might look at them then. To hit our price range, you have to get an older EV and the mileage plus the age of the batteries ruled it out.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
zero shift said:
Didn't sin taxes fail Denmark when they taxed unhealthy foods?
Click to expand...
It depends on the parameters of failure. It failed in that it was repealed after only a year. But the cause of its demise was largely attributable to opposition from the food industry. Whether it had the pernicious economic effects they alleged is questionable. Public dissatisfaction with elevated food prices was also a factor in its demise.

It's important to note the tax was not levied on unhealthy foods, though. It was levied on saturated fat. And although that might reduce consumption of unhealthy foods, it omits other problematic substances while targeting potentially healthful options. Thus, the design of the policy was inherently suboptimal. So whether it reduced the consumption of unhealthy foods is a more difficult question to answer. Moreover, any research will be bedeviled by the short frame. Notably, saturated fat consumption decreased by 10-20% over the course of the law, so it might have been successful at reducing the targeted nutrient; they note the outcome might be confounded by a poor economy.

A more interesting case is Hungary's experiment with excise taxes on salt, sugar, and fat. I've yet to see any data on the effects. But the taxes were far more comprehensive than in Denmark.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Jackson50 said:
It depends on the parameters of failure. It failed in that it was repealed after only a year. But the cause of its demise was largely attributable to opposition from the food industry. Whether it had the pernicious economic effects they alleged is questionable. Public dissatisfaction with elevated food prices was also a factor in its demise.

It's important to note the tax was not levied on unhealthy foods, though. It was levied on saturated fat. And although that might reduce consumption of unhealthy foods, it omits other problematic substances while targeting potentially healthful options. Thus, the design of the policy was inherently suboptimal. So whether it reduced the consumption of unhealthy foods is a more difficult question to answer. Moreover, any research will be bedeviled by the short frame. Notably, saturated fat consumption decreased by 10-20% over the course of the law, so it might have been successful at reducing the targeted nutrient; they note the outcome might be confounded by a poor economy.

A more interesting case is Hungary's experiment with excise taxes on salt, sugar, and fat. I've yet to see any data on the effects. But the taxes were far more comprehensive than in Denmark.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think its pretty stupid to tax fat (primal/paleo dieter) since there is some serious disagreement on the subject. Sugar though? Everyone agrees that sugar is addicting and bad for you
 
E

Ecotic

Member
Yikes, Intrade is completely shut down for the moment due to unspecified audit problems in Ireland. I doubt it'll ever be open again, all their accounts are now effectively frozen. You can't even withdraw your money back, so I doubt any of their customers will return even if they do get back up and running. I know I sure wouldn't trust them anymore.

That is a real shame, I really hope another company opens up a viable prediction market. Looking at the consensus of the market during elections was a very valuable political tool most of the time.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Oblivion said:
tumblr_mjivtzghcb1qzlc1ro1_1280.png
Click to expand...


He is like the most self-unaware person in fucking history.

If you don't need money or fame then why the fuck are you blabbering your bullshit? You can't seriously tell me you think you are teaching people something useful. You are fuck old right-wing crank that has no clue about about science and merely spews racism and old school bigotry and superstition.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Piecake said:
Personally, I think its pretty stupid to tax fat (primal/paleo dieter) since there is some serious disagreement on the subject. Sugar though? Everyone agrees that sugar is addicting and bad for you
Click to expand...
Yeah. Although I do not identify as paleo, I find the vilification of saturated fat unfounded. So I agree the tax was misguided. What's even stranger is that they also passed a tax on sugar content, but started with the fat tax.
AniHawk said:
what do you a mean?
Click to expand...
They spelled Oboma incorrectly.
 
A

alstein

Member
speculawyer said:
Indeed.
image.php


Tell them the chairforce should not qualify.



Man the WND is getting desperate.
PoliGafWNDTroll_zpse212915c.jpg
Click to expand...

Tuition assistance is not a huge government expense.

I say this as someone who may be losing the best job they've ever had permanently due to this. I am worried and stressed out as hell right now. (rumor is hammer comes Friday- and potentially shutting down my entire program forever, FAA gets their wish, and dumps more work on ATCs who won't want to do it)
 
G

gcubed

Member
How much is tuition assistance in the defense budget? Like scrap a few tanks cheap? It seems like an arbitrary and needless benefit cut
 
P

Piecake

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
Florida Senate Committee Rejects Medicaid Expansion

Nice going Florida. Keep voting the crazies in.
Click to expand...

sounds like they want to do that private medicare expansion like Arkansas. I really hope the govt only covers how much medicare would actually cost and if they want to do it private, the states need to put up the rest of the bill
 
I

Incognito

Troll
http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...driving-obama-is-better-than-nothing-20130312

Obama’s sudden burst of public outreach coincides with a drop in his approval ratings, noted first by Democratic pollsters advising the White House last week and now surfacing in a spate of public polls. This raises the uncomfortable question: Is this schmooze-a-thon a legitimate act of humility and leadership or a cynical public display?

I can’t answer that question because I don’t pretend to know Obama’s state of mind. I can tell you that some of his advisers are no more convinced that this strategy will work than they were a few days ago.

“This is a joke. We’re wasting the president’s time and ours,” complained a senior White House official who was promised anonymity so he could speak frankly. “I hope you all (in the media) are happy because we’re doing it for you.”

Another said the president was sincerely trying to find common ground with stubborn Republicans. “But if we do it,” the aide hastened, “it won’t be because we had steaks and Merlot with a few senators.”
Click to expand...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Incognito said:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...driving-obama-is-better-than-nothing-20130312
Click to expand...
Leadership.

I commend Obama for going around GOP leadership on any issue, but ultimately so far this has been clown shoes. The only good thing is that it proves how full of shit the Beltway is; wining and dining republicans won't convince them to be sensible.

Obama should probably just put his offer on the table, as he did with the Bush tax cuts. Go far to the left and wait for someone to respond with a far right bill, then work towards some middle ground. But so far it's like Obama doesn't even acknowledge liberal views on benefits. He has yet to seriously discuss eliminating the social security income cap, lowering the Medicare eligibility age, specific prescription drug reform, etc. The entire discussion is based around republican talking points (we have to cut something or else) meaning republicans can infinitely demand more compromises that move things from right to far right. To me that's a sign of no leadership or interest on Obama's part. Raising taxes and cutting social security aren't the only fucking options.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Ecotic said:
Yikes, Intrade is completely shut down for the moment due to unspecified audit problems in Ireland. I doubt it'll ever be open again, all their accounts are now effectively frozen. You can't even withdraw your money back, so I doubt any of their customers will return even if they do get back up and running. I know I sure wouldn't trust them anymore.

That is a real shame, I really hope another company opens up a viable prediction market. Looking at the consensus of the market during elections was a very valuable political tool most of the time.
Click to expand...

Chalk it up to the blue laws and the Vegas lobby. InTrade was pretty awesome and I sure wish I'd borrowed that $10,000 to buy Obama shares when I had the chance, but it's actually pretty hard to argue that it was legal, at least in America.
 
B

Boom Boom Pow

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Leadership.

I commend Obama for going around GOP leadership on any issue, but ultimately so far this has been clown shoes. The only good thing is that it proves how full of shit the Beltway is; wining and dining republicans won't convince them to be sensible.

Obama should probably just put his offer on the table, as he did with the Bush tax cuts. Go far to the left and wait for someone to respond with a far right bill, then work towards some middle ground. But so far it's like Obama doesn't even acknowledge liberal views on benefits. He has yet to seriously discuss eliminating the social security income cap, lowering the Medicare eligibility age, specific prescription drug reform, etc. The entire discussion is based around republican talking points (we have to cut something or else) meaning republicans can infinitely demand more compromises that move things from right to far right. To me that's a sign of no leadership or interest on Obama's part. Raising taxes and cutting social security aren't the only fucking options.
Click to expand...

what other options are there? you either cut expense, or raise revenues. that's how you either make more money or lose less money
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Boom Boom Pow said:
what other options are there? you either cut expense, or raise revenues. that's how you either make more money or lose less money
Click to expand...

That's not actually correct. You can raise revenues by raising expenses. In fact, it may in present economic conditions be the only way, as we're about to find out.
 
A

alstein

Member
Boom Boom Pow said:
what other options are there? you either cut expense, or raise revenues. that's how you either make more money or lose less money
Click to expand...

You do neither and don't make a bad economy worse. The deficit is a lesser concern than austerity.

Cutting expenses will slash revenue- it's been proven in Europe.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
empty vessel said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/w...aki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html

Needless to say now, these cretins did exactly what they earlier denounced in craven service to power when it was their turn They'd be disbarred, criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives if such a thing as justice existed.
Click to expand...
If you have enough money, you'll find a lawyer who would justify anything you like.
And by the way, as someone who studied both linguistics and computer science, I promise you that it is completely possible to have language in our laws that would not be open to such interpretations against intent, this is a side effect of the legal and academic framework we picked for ourselves.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
The UNAMA recently released its report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan for 2012. Civilian casualties decreased from 2011, and that seems indicative of progress. Indeed, the media has portrayed this as an achievement. But such conclusions are specious. An atypically harsh winter depressed casualties earlier in the year. But the second half of 2012 experienced elevated levels of violence. The only semblance of progress was a reduction in casualties by pro-government forces. New measures of engagement seem to have worked, but such limited success is only trifling at this point.
PhoenixDark said:
Leadership.

I commend Obama for going around GOP leadership on any issue, but ultimately so far this has been clown shoes. The only good thing is that it proves how full of shit the Beltway is; wining and dining republicans won't convince them to be sensible.

Obama should probably just put his offer on the table, as he did with the Bush tax cuts. Go far to the left and wait for someone to respond with a far right bill, then work towards some middle ground. But so far it's like Obama doesn't even acknowledge liberal views on benefits. He has yet to seriously discuss eliminating the social security income cap, lowering the Medicare eligibility age, specific prescription drug reform, etc. The entire discussion is based around republican talking points (we have to cut something or else) meaning republicans can infinitely demand more compromises that move things from right to far right. To me that's a sign of no leadership or interest on Obama's part. Raising taxes and cutting social security aren't the only fucking options.
Click to expand...
If Obama cannot appease Republicans with a more conservative offer as you reason, then a more liberal offer is not a workable solution. It's as facile as your belief that the problem is a lack of plans. But I agree Obama's effort to inveigle Republicans will fail.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Copernicus said:
I'm glad Ryan and co. are doing something about this scary scary chart.
Click to expand...

Ryan's new budget is a particularly impressive blend of cravenness and Randian zealotry. It's basically exactly like his last budget -- cut every government program except Social Security and defense, block grant Medicaid, voucherize Medicare, repeal Obamacare while keeping the taxes and cuts in Obamacare, etc., to basically Atlas Shrugged the entire country. Except his last budget took 40 years to balance and this one does it in 10. How does he accomplish this?

Well, it's simple, really. He proposes a tax reform that will magically produce way more revenue while lowering rates. Most of the ways this will happen are unspecified, but he does specify at least one thing -- getting rid of the homebuyer's credit. In other words, Ryan doesn't just balance the budget on the backs of the poor by cutting government programs -- he also wants to raise taxes on the middle class! Everybody in America except the 1% will be paying more for a government that no longer does anything under the Ryan Plan.
 
E

el retorno

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
Looks like Republs are going to filibuster Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Protrction Agency. Good job Harry fuckwad Reid.
Click to expand...

Who don't they filibuster?

Question though on appointments. I know Obama's not appointed a lot of judges but has it gotten better? I hate hearing stories in which Reagan or Bush appointees are making decisions. It will be nice to in a few years hearing Obama judge ruling on stupid GOP laws.

empty vessel said:
Presumably it will still wage war.
Click to expand...

Glad it still is doing something
 
P

pigeon

Banned
On that subject, everybody's favorite liberal dove said something interesting to Weigel:

slate said:
Early this morning, Sen. Rand Paul met with a small group of reporters this morning in the D.C. offices of National Review. The roundtable had been scheduled before Paul became "the man of the week," in the words of NR's Robert Costa -- before his filibuster of now-CIA director John Brennan. Paul said that "five or six" Democrats who didn't join the filibuster had since expressed some support for his line of questioning, about whether Americans could be targeted for killing on American soil as part of the war on terror....
A smart national security reporter and friend encouraged me to ask about one practical response to this. Why not repeal or tweak the 2001 Authorization of Force that effectively began the Global War on Terror? Is it time to revisit that?
"Actually, yes," said Paul. "All of this stems from a very expansive understanding of the use of the Authorization of Force in 2001. I think most of the people who voted on that, when they did, thought we were voting to go to war with the people who attacked us on 9/11. They didn't realize it was a war without geographic limits and without end. And that's the problem with saying, oh, we're just going to give up -- while we're involved in war -- we're going to give up some of our liberties here at home. This is a war that has no end and it's hard to stop."
Paul reminded the room that he'd tried, and failed, to end the Iraq War legislatively. "I'm going to try to do that again, if I can get the votes, to deauthorize the Iraq War, because we should have to vote again," he said. "I'm not saying there's never another time when we go back into any of these countries. Afghanistan included. If they regroup, and we think they're theatening to a attack us again, we might have to go in, or we might have to use the Air Force. There should be a debate again in Congress. It's not so much Afghanistan that's a problem. There's 20 other countries we're involved in now, all under that Authorization of Force, which I think is too loose of an understanding."
But could it be repealed? "I think it would have absolutely no chance of going anywhere if I were to introduce it right now," said Paul. There was progress, even in his party, in getting more people to question the GWOT. "I talk to congressmen who you would say reflexively support the interventions who now say we should come home."
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...ard_it_would_be_to_end_the_war_on_terror.html

Somebody needs to ask this guy about black people more, because he's sounding way too reasonable and likeable for my tastes. Again, the GOP isn't likely to run on a dove platform, but getting outflanked by the libertarians puts us in a really annoying place, because a large chunk of the previously unassailable Democratic base also thinks the GWOT is a nightmare we should be fighting against.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Jonathan Chait is a wizard. Called Lieberman's move to AEI in 2011

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81803/predicting-liebermans-future

I'm guessing he has a sinecure at a foundation or think-tank dedicated to promoting hawkish foreign policy or centrism. The right-wing version of this career plan would be an AEI fellowship where he will produce a book and a series of op-eds on the theme I Did Not Leave The Democratic Party, The Democratic Party Left Me. The left-wing version is a Brookings fellowship consisting largely of providing quotes to the mainstream media bemoaning the decline of bipartisanship, punctuated by service on a large number of blue ribbon panels. Or, again, possibly some kind of foreign policy-centered think-tank.
Click to expand...

pigeon said:
On that subject, everybody's favorite liberal dove said something interesting to Weigel:



http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...ard_it_would_be_to_end_the_war_on_terror.html

Somebody needs to ask this guy about black people more, because he's sounding way too reasonable and likeable for my tastes. Again, the GOP isn't likely to run on a dove platform, but getting outflanked by the libertarians puts us in a really annoying place, because a large chunk of the previously unassailable Democratic base also thinks the GWOT is a nightmare we should be fighting against.
Click to expand...

TMP ran a good thing about while Rand Might (I doubt it) be sincere his party is only running on this because it fits into the Black Helicopter myth. Once it starts to give up on the power to kill Islamist they'll join McCain
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
pigeon said:
On that subject, everybody's favorite liberal dove said something interesting to Weigel:



http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...ard_it_would_be_to_end_the_war_on_terror.html

Somebody needs to ask this guy about black people more, because he's sounding way too reasonable and likeable for my tastes. Again, the GOP isn't likely to run on a dove platform, but getting outflanked by the libertarians puts us in a really annoying place, because a large chunk of the previously unassailable Democratic base also thinks the GWOT is a nightmare we should be fighting against.
Click to expand...

Someone should also ask about filibuster reform. Why is he against reform that would require both sides to do exactly what he did last week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
946
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
847
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
58
2K
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom