Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Yup, its a religion. Instead of automatically assuming that privatization is best for for everything, you should actually do a detailed study to see if thats the case.

Or better yet. Hire a private firm to do a study which then comes back and says "Yes, of course privatizing things is better!" And then privatize . . . . and don't talk about the failures.

I'm pretty sure they often know that privatization will be worse but they want to do it anyway because it allows them to do patronage on an even more profitable basis. Give your contractor friends a lucrative government contract and get campaign donations in returns. That is a much better deal than just giving your friends a government job.

I'm sure it was just a random coincidence that former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney manufactured an Iraq war where Halliburton got supply contracts and no-bid oil services contracts.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

How quickly do they put audio for oral arguments on the Supreme Court's website?

 

[Piecake]

Or better yet. Hire a private firm to do a study which then comes back and says "Yes, of course privatizing things is better!" And then privatize . . . . and don't talk about the failures.

I'm pretty sure they often know that privatization will be worse but they want to do it anyway because it allows them to do patronage on an even more profitable basis. Give your contractor friends a lucrative government contract and get campaign donations in returns. That is a much better deal than just giving your friends a government job.

I'm sure it was just a random coincidence that former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney manufactured an Iraq war where Halliburton got supply contracts and no-bid oil services contracts.

bout the only way I can explain republican states loving privatized medicaid expansion.

And I dont think Cheney is that evil. I'm sure he thought it was right, in his own twisted little mind. It was simply a benefit to the war that Halliburton got a shit ton of money out of it

 

[Chichikov]

bout the only way I can explain republican states loving privatized medicaid expansion.

And I dont think Cheney is that evil. I'm sure he thought it was right, in his own twisted little mind. It was simply a benefit to the war that Halliburton got a shit ton of money out of it

Read about his history before he became vice president.
Dude's a raging asshole who fucked America since the day he got into office, fuck him hard, worst vice president in history.

 

[Piecake]

Read about his history before he became vice president.
Dude's a raging asshole who fucked America since the day he got into office, fuck him hard, worst vice president in history.

Oh, I'm not denying that. I just have a hard time believing that anyone - psychopaths excluded - would say that they are going to war to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would rationalize it and make up some bullshit reason so that they can live with themselves. Could be that I have a higher opinion of humanity than deserved though

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/singapores-lessons-for-an-unequal-america/?hp

I quite liked this Opinion piece in the NYT. Singapore, free market republicans/libertarians super darling is actually a secret, dirty socialist who consciously practices wealth distribution

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Isn't that always the case for libertarian/free market examples?

 

[Mario]

It's textbook party over country, and I can't fucking believe we let congress get away with that bullshit.

Between stuff like this, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, executive privilege, policy pork, politicians obviously voting for re-election rather than to govern, elections happening constantly, drone strikes on US citizens, wiretapping laws, rampant revisionist history, "news" channels not being required to report actual facts, a largely misinformed electorate etc, I don't see how anybody can seriously claim the US is "the greatest democracy on Earth".

Politicians and the media have done such a great job diverting attention to the "tyranny" of government trying to legislate the likes of large sodas that the populace seem ignorant as to the very real and important freedoms they lack.

Well, as long as they are up to speed with what the Kardashians are doing at any given moment, it's a small price to pay I guess.

Spoiler

Seriously, I don't know how some of you guys can live like this.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bringing this over from OT, thought you guys might like it. Min. wage increase and pot decriminalization in NY. I'd rather it be closer to ten an hour, maybe a little higher, but I'll take what I can get. It'll be interesting to see how decriminalization affects the Stop and Frisk policy (and even the trial going on). When it eventually passes of course.

 

[Chichikov]

Bringing this over from OT, thought you guys might like it. Min. wage increase and pot decriminalization in NY. I'd rather it be closer to ten an hour, maybe a little higher, but I'll take what I can get. It'll be interesting to see how decriminalization affects the Stop and Frisk policy (and even the trial going on).

NYC decriminalized pot in the fucking 70s, possession of under 25 grams should be no more than a $100 fine even under the current law, the NYPD just don't give a fuck.

 

[B-Dubs]

NYC decriminalized pot in the fucking 70s, possession of under 25 grams should be no more than a $100 fine even under the current law, the NYPD just don't give a fuck.

Well shit, I can't say I knew that.

 

[RDreamer]

Why do minimum wage increase threads always bring out the face-palm worthy posts. I don't get it. GAF is typically pretty liberal, but holy hell those threads....

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Why do minimum wage increase threads always bring out the face-palm worthy posts. I don't get it. GAF is typically pretty liberal, but holy hell those threads....

GAF* is full of dumbshits. See: any thread about anything ever.

*correction, the Internet.

 

[GhaleonEB]

What makes John Boehner a first-rate Speaker of the House

Allowing votes on three bills that Boehner needed help from Dems to pass does not make him a first rate speaker, holy shit.

 

[KtSlime]

Between stuff like this, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, executive privilege, policy pork, politicians obviously voting for re-election rather than to govern, elections happening constantly, drone strikes on US citizens, wiretapping laws, rampant revisionist history, "news" channels not being required to report actual facts, a largely misinformed electorate etc, I don't see how anybody can seriously claim the US is "the greatest democracy on Earth".

Politicians and the media have done such a great job diverting attention to the "tyranny" of government trying to legislate the likes of large sodas that the populace seem ignorant as to the very real and important freedoms they lack.

Well, as long as they are up to speed with what the Kardashians are doing at any given moment, it's a small price to pay I guess.

Spoiler

Seriously, I don't know how some of you guys can live like this.

It's hard to, but it's even harder to move somewhere else, or to change the establishment.

You forgot crappy employment rates, shallow 'healthcare', corporate ownership of everything, and a collapsing education system that is being gutted in favor of privatization which brings no better grades.

The move to amend organization that EV pointed out last week looks like a good start, and I will try to scrape together some change to send them.

 

[Chichikov]

Well shit, I can't say I knew that.

It's not decriminalized to have it out in the open, so they search you, and now it's in the open.

The problem is not the laws, it's the stupid approach to crime fighting the NYPD (and its mayors) have.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

ahahahahahaha

http://www.bessettepitney.net/2013/03/gop-outreach-history.html?m=1

I wonder why they haven't been successful...

 

[fallagin]

Between stuff like this, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, executive privilege, policy pork, politicians obviously voting for re-election rather than to govern, elections happening constantly, drone strikes on US citizens, wiretapping laws, rampant revisionist history, "news" channels not being required to report actual facts, a largely misinformed electorate etc, I don't see how anybody can seriously claim the US is "the greatest democracy on Earth".

Politicians and the media have done such a great job diverting attention to the "tyranny" of government trying to legislate the likes of large sodas that the populace seem ignorant as to the very real and important freedoms they lack.

Well, as long as they are up to speed with what the Kardashians are doing at any given moment, it's a small price to pay I guess.

Spoiler

Seriously, I don't know how some of you guys can live like this.

Most people just ignore it. Which just makes it worse.

 

[Trurl]

mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1...-save-republicans-from-gay-marriage-mess.html

Think about what will happen if the Supreme Court does not find a constitutional right to gay marriage. Popular support for gay marriage will continue to rise. A Washington Post / ABC poll out today has support at 58 percent, up from 37 percent in 2004. The trend toward support is accelerating, and support will probably reach two-thirds within this decade. But 30 states have constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage; repealing these will take time and public effort, and they will persist long after they are unpopular.

Republican politicians will be in an uncomfortable situation: The remaining same-sex marriage bans will be very unpopular, but many in the conservative base will continue to favor the bans, and many Republican state lawmakers will vote against repealing them. And even after marriage equality becomes a settled issue in the north, Republicans will have to deal with the embarrassing problem of southern Republican politicians and voters clinging to their anti-gay laws -- much in the way that the retrograde racial politics of some southern Republicans have created national branding problems for the party in recent years.

In time, the share of states with laws against gay marriage will be small enough that they will face effective consumer boycotts, and corporations will yield to political pressure to shift business away from anti-gay states. It will be like if Loving v. Virginia had never happened, and Mississippi still had a law against interracial marriage in 1990.

A Supreme Court decision imposing gay marriage nationwide will not only make this problem go away, but it will also give Republican politicians a useful scapegoat to impotently shake their fists at. They can say they wish they could continue the fight against gay marriage, but alas, those judicial activists at the Supreme Court have made it impossible. And then, gradually, everyone who cares about stopping gay marriage will grow old and die, and we can stop talking about the issue.​

 

[PhoenixDark]

Allowing votes on three bills that Boehner needed help from Dems to pass does not make him a first rate speaker, holy shit.

I'm used to folks weaving Obama's fumbling politics into 12th dimensional chess brilliance, but I must say I didn't know Boehner had similar cheerleaders in the media. Still, it's a good article.

If anything Boehner seems to be at a point where he can admit he fought Obama for four years and has next to nothing to show for it. He probably realizes if he can get some basic stuff passed (plus immigration reform) as the economy continues to improve, he can hold onto the House at least until 2016, more likely 2020 due to the Census. The extremism didn't achieve anything, now it's time for a safe strategy. Gerrymandering has set the table quite favorably for the GOP house, now they have to work on not saying stupid shit that could hurt republicans in moderate districts.

Can't link to it now but Roll Call has an article up about 2014 that shows there are about 11 vunerable seats democrats can take, compared to 7 for republicans. Democrats need to win 17 seats to retake the house.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Between stuff like this, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, executive privilege, policy pork, politicians obviously voting for re-election rather than to govern, elections happening constantly, drone strikes on US citizens, wiretapping laws, rampant revisionist history, "news" channels not being required to report actual facts, a largely misinformed electorate etc, I don't see how anybody can seriously claim the US is "the greatest democracy on Earth".

Politicians and the media have done such a great job diverting attention to the "tyranny" of government trying to legislate the likes of large sodas that the populace seem ignorant as to the very real and important freedoms they lack.

Well, as long as they are up to speed with what the Kardashians are doing at any given moment, it's a small price to pay I guess.

Spoiler

Seriously, I don't know how some of you guys can live like this.

Manufactured consent. One of the few Chomsky books that I like.

 

[speculawyer]

Oh, I'm not denying that. I just have a hard time believing that anyone - psychopaths excluded - would say that they are going to war to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would rationalize it and make up some bullshit reason so that they can live with themselves. Could be that I have a higher opinion of humanity than deserved though

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/singapores-lessons-for-an-unequal-america/?hp

I quite liked this Opinion piece in the NYT. Singapore, free market republicans/libertarians super darling is actually a secret, dirty socialist who consciously practices wealth distribution

Are you sure that he doesn't fit?

The man did not vote against banning plastic guns that can get past airport metal detectors.

When people were trying to free Nelson Mandela, he called him a terrorist.

He condoned torture.


He is truly a loathsome creature.

 

[Piecake]

GAF* is full of dumbshits. See: any thread about anything ever.

*correction, the Internet.

A more important question is why every news comments section home to the most vile, stupid and partisan shit?

Don't really understand why all of the crazy stupid people seem to congregate there

Are you sure that he doesn't fit?

The man did not vote against banning plastic guns that can get past airport metal detectors.

When people were trying to free Nelson Mandela, he called him a terrorist.

He condoned torture.


He is truly a loathsome creature.

Well, he supports gay marriage because of his daugther, so he at least must love her. God, can't believe im defending Dick Cheney...

 

[ClassyPenguin]

A severe lack of critical thinking skills.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What a principled man

You know what, I'll defend Cruz. I can buy that he wanted to review the resolution first far more than I can buy he held it up because he's a dick. Given how quickly democrat staffers jumped on this, I'm even more inclined to think this happens all the time but because it's Cruz it's being turned into another "Cruz is a dick" story.

Not denying he's a dick of course. But at some point democrats have to admit he'll be Texas' senator for a very long time. He's clearly not in the senate to legislate, and I'm tired of democrats giving him exactly what he wants - attention.

 

[speculawyer]

Well, he supports gay marriage because of his daugther, so he at least must love her. God, can't believe im defending Dick Cheney...

Well yeah. Just like that recent Senator fuck him. I'm glad to get the support but fuck him for not giving a fuck about gay people or other people's gay sons/daughters until it hit him personally. Because that is what it is all about for Dick Cheney . . . what benefits him and his family. That is it. Period.

 

[Piecake]

Well yeah. Just like that recent Senator fuck him. I'm glad to get the support but fuck him for not giving a fuck about gay people or other people's gay sons/daughters until it hit him personally. Because that is what it is all about for Dick Cheney . . . what benefits him and his family. That is it. Period.

Eh, i see him more as an evil fuckwad who does a lot of evil shit because he thinks its for the greater good(its not), and only he has the balls to do the dirty work

 

[Frank the Great]

Eh, i see him more as an evil fuckwad who does a lot of evil shit because he thinks its for the greater good(its not), and only he has the balls to do the dirty work

every evil fuckwad who does a lot of evil shit thinks at some level they are doing it for the greater good. even the ones that think the greater good is served by their personal interests being furthered.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Allowing votes on three bills that Boehner needed help from Dems to pass does not make him a first rate speaker, holy shit.

Let's be honest, Pelosi's gotten more shit done since Republicans won the House than Boehner has.

 

[speculawyer]

Eh, i see him more as an evil fuckwad who does a lot of evil shit because he thinks its for the greater good(its not), and only he has the balls to do the dirty work

Gonna go Godwin . . . . . I'm sure Hitler thought he was serving the greater good as well.


Pretty much no one thinks they are evil. Everyone has a rationalization.

 

[Piecake]

Gonna go Godwin . . . . . I'm sure Hitler thought he was serving the greater good as well.


Pretty much no one thinks they are evil. Everyone has a rationalization.

And that's what my first and second post on this subject said

 

[bomma_man]

People have no idea how the House puts things up for a vote. Asking them how that works is like asking them how the water cycle works. They know it DOES work, from high school, but that's all the detail they have. I mean, when the topic came up before, several clued-in PoliGAF posters were shocked to learn that the Speaker controls the schedule!

Why/how on earth is the speaker a partisan position anyway? It really doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

 

[Gotchaye]

The House isn't that crazy or unusual of an institution, except maybe with respect to gerrymandering. Lots of partisan legislatures are set up to give the leader of the majority a great deal of power. Also note that the House can vote on bills that the Speaker doesn't want to deal with through the use of discharge petitions; the Speaker's power isn't absolute here. But this requires the cooperation of members in the majority.

The complaint seems to boil down to "a majority can block legislation without actually voting to block it", although they would at least have to conspicuously fail to sign a discharge petition, and in that way this is a lot like a (much more democratic) filibuster, and at the very least the Speaker would be seen to not want to have a vote on the thing. If you don't like the Speaker don't vote for someone who will vote to make that person Speaker. This is a pretty small procedural difference to ground claims that the way the House works doesn't make any sense. It's all a whole lot more sensible and accountability-promoting than the Senate, at least.

The Hastert rule itself is a pretty logical extension of partisan politics. Practically the whole point of a political party* is for different-minded people to make deals for each other's support in the hopes of achieving their own individual goals without having to compromise with people who are even farther away from them, ideologically. The system is absolutely reliant on some people voting against their own immediate preferences some of the time. There's no point in having party caucuses in the House if not to be able to agree to present a united front on at least some issues where individual members would really prefer to vote differently but don't in exchange for the support of the party elsewhere. This is complicated in the long-term because people have a tendency to adopt the strongly-held views of their co-partisans, but I'd say that even this can be understood as a way of internalizing the purpose of partisanship.

*In an abstract sense; obviously in the real world there are advantages to sharing a single strong brand for advertising purposes.

 

[PhoenixDark]

When can I change my avatar again?

 

[Oblivion]

When can I change my avatar again?

When Hilldawg's finally brought to justice.

 

[pigeon]

When can I change my avatar again?

When Dems take the House.

 

[Piecake]

When Dems take the House.

So, 9 years?

 

[Aaron Strife]

So, 9 years?

2

 

[bomma_man]

The House isn't that crazy or unusual of an institution, except maybe with respect to gerrymandering. Lots of partisan legislatures are set up to give the leader of the majority a great deal of power. Also note that the House can vote on bills that the Speaker doesn't want to deal with through the use of discharge petitions; the Speaker's power isn't absolute here. But this requires the cooperation of members in the majority.

The complaint seems to boil down to "a majority can block legislation without actually voting to block it", although they would at least have to conspicuously fail to sign a discharge petition, and in that way this is a lot like a (much more democratic) filibuster, and at the very least the Speaker would be seen to not want to have a vote on the thing. If you don't like the Speaker don't vote for someone who will vote to make that person Speaker. This is a pretty small procedural difference to ground claims that the way the House works doesn't make any sense. It's all a whole lot more sensible and accountability-promoting than the Senate, at least.

The Hastert rule itself is a pretty logical extension of partisan politics. Practically the whole point of a political party* is for different-minded people to make deals for each other's support in the hopes of achieving their own individual goals without having to compromise with people who are even farther away from them, ideologically. The system is absolutely reliant on some people voting against their own immediate preferences some of the time. There's no point in having party caucuses in the House if not to be able to agree to present a united front on at least some issues where individual members would really prefer to vote differently but don't in exchange for the support of the party elsewhere. This is complicated in the long-term because people have a tendency to adopt the strongly-held views of their co-partisans, but I'd say that even this can be understood as a way of internalizing the purpose of partisanship.

*In an abstract sense; obviously in the real world there are advantages to sharing a single strong brand for advertising purposes.

yeah I guess it really isn't that much different from an Anglo parliamentary system in practise, where party discipline is much stronger and the majority almost never loses a vote ( I think the last here was 1929).

 

[Diablos]

When Dems take the House.

Seriously?

I have a great avatar cooked up for our lil PD.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Why is conservative humor so... insulting?

How can this be seen as anything other than blatant racism?



edit- bonus pics!

Is there even a joke in this one?

While I see merit behind the sentiment in this one, it's still not funny.

 

[Clevinger]

Why is conservative humor so... insulting?

Not only are we entranced by his speeches, he brings us together as well.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Most Latinos don't like Rubio anyway apart from the usual old conservative Cuban-Americans.

Of course their humor is terrible. They pride themselves as being intellectually superior (ha!) so everything comes off as blatant as Victorian era cartoon about the uncivilized savages.

 

[Aaron]

I wonder if Republicans will still suffer the Rubio delusion in four years, putting him as their candidate certain he'll snag the latino vote, only to be shocked by the actual votes the way they seemed dumbfounded by the last election. From CPAC, they seem to have a collective mental disorder that makes them incapable of learning from their mistakes.

 

[Shirokun]

While I see merit behind the sentiment in this one, it's still not funny.

Is this really conservative humor?

I have a hard time believing that most in the GOP really care about the use drones and see this more as just an excuse to take digs at Obama.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1...-save-republicans-from-gay-marriage-mess.html

A Supreme Court decision imposing gay marriage nationwide will not only make this problem go away, but it will also give Republican politicians a useful scapegoat to impotently shake their fists at. They can say they wish they could continue the fight against gay marriage, but alas, those judicial activists at the Supreme Court have made it impossible. And then, gradually, everyone who cares about stopping gay marriage will grow old and die, and we can stop talking about the issue. [/indent]

Haha..haha haha haha hahaha.You had me for awhile.I wish but it's not something that will go away.They are not being assholes to just troll.They are assholes. And they troll.

Is this really conservative humor?
I have a hard time believing that most in the GOP really care about the use drones and see this more as just an excuse to take digs at Obama.

It's good.I get the point but relish the fact that drones and the current practices are their idea. Either your with us or against us.Slowly ceding their ground.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why is conservative humor so... insulting?

How can this be seen as anything other than blatant racism?

not only that it's completely wrong. Rubio does slightly better with Hispanics than Christie or Ryan in national polls, but it's not like they're going to leave the Democrats in droves.

oh but Herman Cain would have won one third of the black vote against Obama! why? because he's black of course. minorities are so dumb they'll vote for anyone the same color as them! /GOP

 

[Mario]

It's hard to, but it's even harder to move somewhere else, or to change the establishment.

I can see that (a large portion of) the country is resistant to change. Significantly so. And the indifference (or ignorance) of others doesn't help. So, I can agree change for the better will be an ongoing struggle. Especially change that requires questioning of the Constitution or "Founding Principles".

But is it actually hard to move somewhere else?

You forgot crappy employment rates, shallow 'healthcare', corporate ownership of everything, and a collapsing education system that is being gutted in favor of privatization which brings no better grades.

Well, I was making references to fundamental issues with the leadership, governance, and the political system. What you mention above I see as symptoms of a broken system (you could throw bloated military in there too).

It seems crazy that it is that way though. The US has the know how and resources to be able to deal with these issues, arguably moreso than any country on the planet. But the mis-allocation of resources or indeed the inability to allocate resources in some instances sees these social, health, and economic issues not only remain remain unresolved but worsen*.

I'm watching from the outside, but even I find it frustrating that the pettiness and selfishness of American politics is holding the country back and an ignorant and indifferent chunk of the population allows the situation to perpetuate.

*

Spoiler

well, some things are getting better in these areas but painfully slowly and not without people actively demonizing positive efforts or even fighting progress

The House isn't that crazy or unusual of an institution, except maybe with respect to gerrymandering. Lots of partisan legislatures are set up to give the leader of the majority a great deal of power. Also note that the House can vote on bills that the Speaker doesn't want to deal with through the use of discharge petitions; the Speaker's power isn't absolute here. But this requires the cooperation of members in the majority.

In and of itself it may not be problematic, but in conjunction with the other behaviors and issues mentioned it can be abused (similar to the filibuster) and contributes towards government becoming dysfunctional.

The whole becomes more than the sum of the parts. And not in a good way.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Rubio delusion might end in 2014 assuming immigration reform is passed. If Hispanics still vote democrat heavily then I can see Rush and others saying " I told you so"

 

[The Librarian]

David Brooks tried to criticize the CPC's budget. This was the result.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Rand running in 2016. Dat Latino outreach