Link
The Autumn Wind
At least you know he probably worked hard to get you back as much money as possible.
-
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
I especially liked his cutting funding to local governments forcing them to raise property taxes bit. Well, Pawlently didnt do it! The local governments did!
I dont think thats the goal. I think the goal is to simply boost our economy and shore up our terrible infrastructure. Doing something stupid like this is pretty much the only way its going to get done, and it needs to get done, especially now when interest rates or so low
So you have the option of doing it right, option of doing it a shitty way, or not at all. Sadly, in this case, I would prefer the shitty way to not at all since doing it right is just not happening
zero shift
Banned
Its funny. People always think of the midwest as bright blue as the Northeast. In reality it couldn't be more different. Its incredibly red everywhere that isn't a city.
He's really determined to cut SS, isn't he. Jesus.
speculawyer
Member
Of course you can say that about the NorthEast as well. But it isn't totally true though. The Minnesota DFL is pretty strong even out in rural areas.
Someone is always saying that the chained-cpi is on the table but it's never actually come up in formal negotiations yet. I agree we should make a big stink about it, but pigeon never said where the WSJ source was from. Could be the White House, could be some Congressional aide. If the WSJ has said where said source is from that would be an interesting tidbit to add to the conversation.
I don't actually have a WSJ account -- I saw it through Frum, and Klein picked it up this morning. The quote is from "sources close to the White House." What that means is pretty up in the air. It's also worth noting that the WSJ had the scoop, not the Post. During the cliff and budget wars, leaks about the White House perspective usually went straight to Ezra Klein.
Yea if they aren't saying "sources in the White House" or "close to the President" that means it's probably just a congressional staffer who occasionally visits on business or something. When it comes to attributing anonymous sources, you want to describe their role and position as accurately as possible without giving away, or giving any hints toward, their identity. Or at times they may give you a way to attribute to them. Basically if it's not from "in" then take it with a grain of salt. Plus I doubt the White House is giving the WSJ any scoops.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
HAHAHAHAHA, they really don't get it and probably never will.
Aaron Strife
Banned
But once Marco Rubio single handedly solves immigration it'll save the party!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I just got a Robocall from him today asking for money to fight "Obama's liberal agenda." It was "urgent".
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well yeah. Obama's trying to push through his liberal agenda RIGHT NOW.
Look at'em, right now. That's probably tofu!
The only way you can stop it is if you send us money!
Well yeah. Obama's trying to push through his liberal agenda RIGHT NOW.
Look at'em, right now. That's probably tofu!
The only way you can stop it is if you send us money!
What is that? A chili dog? I love chili dogs!
RustyNails
Member
Yep, no doubt. You should meet my landlord. I mean the guy is 80 years old but if you talk to him you'd think he's part of some nutty survivalist group gearing up for the great obamarecession.
What do you do if you're the RNC and you want to fix your huge Latino problem? Why, you hire an incompetent buffoon who's wrong about everything.
Brave the Indians? Yea, that is going to go over well...
I'd think that's just Morris' moronic paraphrasing and that Riebus isn't dumb enough to say something like that. But then again, he did just hire Dick Morris...
It's a match made in the 13th and a half dimension.
rocketknight
Member
Oh, wow. So this is how the rebranding is going to go.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's not surprising why they wouldn't send SS cut info to Klein. The NY Times also has a story about Medicare cuts being discussed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/u...gton-for-medicare-changes.html?pagewanted=all
The Medicare changes seem fine on paper (thus far), I'd have to see more. As the article points out, most of the folks impacted by this would have other means of coverage open to them.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/us/supreme-courts-glimpse-at-thinking-on-same-sex-marriage.html?hp[/URL]
Not to sure what to make of this...
Not to sure what to make of this...
rocketknight
Member
It won't literally say that. I mean, unless it does. Oh god.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Sounds like a cave to me, typical obummer
They really don't want that South Dakota seat do they?
Part of me wants to think that they can't possibly have the ad say that. The other part of me knows they are Republicans, and it is Dick Morris and Reince Priebus...
PhoenixDark
Banned
[cue ominous camera shots of hazardous weather, wild animals, and Native Americans]. Narrator: "our ancestors overcame a lot of obstacles to get where we are today" [cue shot of July 4th parade, Dow Jones average, New York city skyscrapers]. "Now you [cue shot of Hispanic family] face your own obstacles [cue shot of unpicked tomatoes, unemployment line, Pitbull]. But the republican party stands with you [cue shot of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan] as fellow Americans. Together let's build a future for all our children [cue shot of Home Depot, truck with smiling Hispanics]"
I think I read a similar argument to this on ThinkProgress. I don't know that I agree with all the shading, though. I think SCOTUS could definitely dismiss as improvidently granted -- in fact, they'll have to if they can't get five votes. It's also conceivable that they might split different ways -- imagine Roberts writing a 5-4 decision striking down DOMA on federalism grounds, and Kennedy chairing a 5-4 striking down Prop 8 on equal protection grounds. That would definitely be fun to watch.
Um...can I get a second opinion on this article to make sure I'm not the only one going wtf:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...ave-to-apologize-for-his-‘bestiality’-remark/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...ave-to-apologize-for-his-‘bestiality’-remark/
No that's fucked up. That guy's got problems.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I can understand this slippery slope argument with respect to polygamy (that involves willing adult participants). Sotomayor did a bit of a freestyle on that very point last week, wondering how else the definition might be changed.
But when you bring illegal, reprehensible acts like pedophilia into the discussion as a means of comparison you move into troll territory IMO. I'm not sure I'd say Carson was directly equating homosexuality with pedophilia in terms of both being equally wrong/immoral, but his slippery slope clearly is set up to argue redefining marriage would somehow lead to statutory rape laws being banned because...because. Two grown men being married in no way is comparable to a man marrying a child - legally it's not even in the same fucking ballpark.
Likewise marrying an animal can't logically be compared to two human adults being married. But I do think the polygamy question is legit.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No its really not. Because gay marriage doesn't change the 2 partners committing to a union all it does is change a homophobic discrimination on who can be in one. I don't know how it "redefines" anything. A marriage is just a legal union between two people. Its doesn't fall under equal protection and because there is a rational basis for banning it (unequal treatment of members for one) and there is no oppressed class that can't change who they are.
Byakuya769
Member
That's the weakest argument of the lot. Go with the federal fisk one.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The funny thing is that the polygamy argument doesn't work on me at all. I'm all for it being legalized. Although practically speaking it'd be a nightmare for the tax code. It would definitely be harder to implement than just saying "okay, you can get married now."
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What is that?
Its just the first one that popped into my mind and I was talking about unequal treatment for things like the tax code, inheritance and the lot.
Byakuya769
Member
What aaron said, basically. The cost of extending federal benefits and preferential tax treatment to an inordinate amount of unions would be prohibitive.
They specifically talk about this in the arguments. The equal protection argument is about regulating characteristics, not conduct -- you're allowed to regulate one but not the other. That's why it was important to establish that being gay isn't a choice. Now, if you were to argue that polyamorousness is an innate characteristic, that would be one thing (and an interesting discussion), but I don't think that's settled to the extent that homosexuality being a characteristic is, so the argument doesn't extend.
There are clear public policy reasons to worry about polyamory that simply don't apply to homosexual unions. Legalizing gay marriage probably isn't going to turn everyone gay; it's a lot more plausible that, over time, normalized polyamory will produce lots more polygamy than polyandry to the detriment of sexual equality and with unfortunate side effects similar to what China sees as a result of widespread sex-selective abortion. This isn't even that speculative - polygamy has been widespread before, and societies with lots of polygamy have had lots of problems because of it. Polyamory may not be in-principle problematic, but we have a lot more work to do on sexual equality before we try to normalize it. There is no similar reason to worry about legitimizing homosexual unions; it's ridiculously implausible that some huge percentage of the population will turn gay as homosexuality becomes less stigmatized, and it's likewise implausible that there will be a large and problematic imbalance of openly gay men to openly gay women. It's much easier to make the rational basis argument here.
Also, the polyamorous relationships that would actually seek legal recognition would be the ones that we want to discourage. There are plenty of harmless polyamorous relationships, but the ones that would jump at legal plural marriage are often abusive.
Edit: And the psychological slippery slope argument - the idea that making marriage no longer "special", in a very particular sense, will lead to people becoming more inclined to accept kinds of sexual relationships that we all think are problematic - is silly because it cuts both ways. If your position is that it's really, really important that everyone think that particular sorts of relationships are better than others and that it's really, really important to have a special institution for this, then you should be really, really concerned with making sure that the sorts of relationships that people do think are better than all others are in that institution. The institution of marriage does in fact face a crisis of legitimacy. Something like 70% of young people (the people whose attitudes towards marriage we're most concerned about) think that marriage as it exists in most of the US is a bigoted institution. People with stable, loving relationships who want to be married are told that they can't get married, and are instead forced to model admirable unions that aren't marriages. I'm having a hard time imagining a politically feasible policy which would do a better job of blurring the lines between the relationships we deem marriages and those we don't. Unless gay marriage is problematic in itself - and people making this sort of slippery slope argument are typically making it precisely because they don't want to argue against gay marriage directly - there's every reason to quickly move all of these unproblematic gay relationships into the "marriage" category so that we can all go back to uncontroversially sneering at other sorts of relationships. Don't fight a battle where winning means convincing lots of people that "marriage" just isn't that big of a deal. It is absolutely bizarre that the mainstream conservative argument against gay marriage is that it's perfectly acceptable for two people who love each other and who may even want to raise children together to remain unmarried.
Also, the polyamorous relationships that would actually seek legal recognition would be the ones that we want to discourage. There are plenty of harmless polyamorous relationships, but the ones that would jump at legal plural marriage are often abusive.
Edit: And the psychological slippery slope argument - the idea that making marriage no longer "special", in a very particular sense, will lead to people becoming more inclined to accept kinds of sexual relationships that we all think are problematic - is silly because it cuts both ways. If your position is that it's really, really important that everyone think that particular sorts of relationships are better than others and that it's really, really important to have a special institution for this, then you should be really, really concerned with making sure that the sorts of relationships that people do think are better than all others are in that institution. The institution of marriage does in fact face a crisis of legitimacy. Something like 70% of young people (the people whose attitudes towards marriage we're most concerned about) think that marriage as it exists in most of the US is a bigoted institution. People with stable, loving relationships who want to be married are told that they can't get married, and are instead forced to model admirable unions that aren't marriages. I'm having a hard time imagining a politically feasible policy which would do a better job of blurring the lines between the relationships we deem marriages and those we don't. Unless gay marriage is problematic in itself - and people making this sort of slippery slope argument are typically making it precisely because they don't want to argue against gay marriage directly - there's every reason to quickly move all of these unproblematic gay relationships into the "marriage" category so that we can all go back to uncontroversially sneering at other sorts of relationships. Don't fight a battle where winning means convincing lots of people that "marriage" just isn't that big of a deal. It is absolutely bizarre that the mainstream conservative argument against gay marriage is that it's perfectly acceptable for two people who love each other and who may even want to raise children together to remain unmarried.
speculawyer
Member
This sounds like an SNL skit.
TacticalFox88
Banned
The line between parody and reality have long since blurred.
I'm honestly shocked Onion even has a job anymore.
They make due with Biden jokes, which will never get old.
That phrase at least helps divert attention away from "to help harvest our food".
adamsappel
Member
It's like saying "colored the Negroes." Cognitive dissonance with a touch of racism!
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
The Librarian
Banned
RNC hired PD?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Morris either went completely insane or has just been acting to make money. It's hard to believe he's the same guy who molded Clinton's (bad policy good politics) triangulation strategy and helped navigate through Lewinsky.
I can tell when Rove is bullshitting but perhaps Morris has tricked us all lol
I can tell when Rove is bullshitting but perhaps Morris has tricked us all lol
- Status