• 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.
P

pigeon

Banned
Oblivion said:
How? More than likely, most of the Republicans who voted to break the filibuster will switch their votes to no on the next vote.
Click to expand...

There were only two Democratic defections (Pryor and Begich), so there are still enough Dems to pass it with no Republicans.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
If an assault weapons ban or magazine limit gets added via amendment, it could very easily be shot down before the final vote.

I don't think that'll happen though.
 
G

gcubed

Member
pigeon said:
There were only two Democratic defections (Pryor and Begich), so there are still enough Dems to pass it with no Republicans.
Click to expand...

meh, if they don't get a handful of GOP members on it, there will be no incentive for Boehner to break the Hastert Rule
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Man, Obama promised us global warming. This is my driveway today

562304_10201004423451530_139675551_n.jpg
 
G

gcubed

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Man, Obama promised us global warming. This is my driveway today

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/562304_10201004423451530_139675551_n.jpg[/i1mg][/QUOTE]

thats apparently blocked by my work, but there is a good chance its of snow. It was 91 in Philly yesterday.
Click to expand...
 
R

RoninChaos

Member
I'm surprised. CNN actually did some reporting. I was just downstairs getting lunch and saw a report where CNN went into gun shows and bought guns without having to present IDs or anything else like that.

I don't think a lot of people who haven't bought guns realized how absolutely INSANE it is that being at a gun show means you can buy a weapon without having to present ID. The fact that people are fighting something like this is INSANE.

I have friends who have felonies and have bought guns at gun shows. A weapon that isn't traceable is the same thing as one that has the serial number scratched off. This shit is bananas. Good on CNN for actually SHOWING people how simple it is to get a gun. People always break it down into "Well, criminals are going to be criminals and they'll get guns however!" Letting people side step back ground checks just because they're at a gun show is sheer insanity, and it invalidates back ground checks in the first place. ANYONE can get a gun at a gun show. A crazy person, a criminal, anyone.
 
R

RoninChaos

Member
Black Mamba said:
It's impossible to know if Obama or the GOP stepped into a trap. Clearly the white house believes the GOP is stepping into a trap by demonstrating their completely unwillingness to compromise while the GOP feels it has Obama on record to attack him by.

fucking mess.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the chained CPI the GOP idea? Couldn't Obama simply go "I took their ideas and now they don't want to use them. What's it going to take?"
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RoninChaos said:
I'm surprised. CNN actually did some reporting. I was just downstairs getting lunch and saw a report where CNN went into gun shows and bought guns without having to present IDs or anything else like that.

I don't think a lot of people who haven't bought guns realized how absolutely INSANE it is that being at a gun show means you can buy a weapon without having to present ID. The fact that people are fighting something like this is INSANE.

I have friends who have felonies and have bought guns at gun shows. A weapon that isn't traceable is the same thing as one that has the serial number scratched off. This shit is bananas. Good on CNN for actually SHOWING people how simple it is to get a gun. People always break it down into "Well, criminals are going to be criminals and they'll get guns however!" Letting people side step back ground checks just because they're at a gun show is sheer insanity, and it invalidates back ground checks in the first place. ANYONE can get a gun at a gun show. A crazy person, a criminal, anyone.
Click to expand...

It's a story that's been done before, but I'm glad to see it was done again. People really have no idea how easy it is to get a gun. Everyone thinks illegal guns come from shady guys in a back alley, when in reality most of them make their way through a gun show at some point.

RoninChaos said:
Wasn't the chained CPI the GOP idea? Couldn't Obama simply go "I took their ideas and now they don't want to use them. What's it going to take?"
Click to expand...

To be fair, they never actually said they wanted a chained-CPI so they can just deny away.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Club For Growth Brands NRCC Chair A ‘RINO’

The conservative advocacy group Club for Growth placed Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) on notice Thursday, branding him a "Republican In Name Only" for opposing President Obama's proposed cuts to Social Security.

Walden, who chairs the National Republican Campaign Committee, was placed on the group's www.primarymycongressman.com website, which seeks to solicit primary opponents to lawmakers opposed to the conservative agenda. It lists extensive complaints with Walden's record:
Click to expand...
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-brands-nrcc-chair-rino?ref=fpb

Wow
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
K

kingkitty

Member
Americans are bad at not dying of injuries.

anywho, my dad just got deployed, although it's relatively short. Can't wait for us to finally call it a day for Afghanistan.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Heh

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Thursday told reporters that he disagrees with the criticism of President Obama's budget from Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), who called the President's proposal "a shocking attack on seniors."

"I've made it clear that I disagree with what (National Republican Campaign Committee) Chairman Walden said," Boehner said at a press conference. "He and I have had a conversation about it. This is the least we must do to begin to solve the problems in Social Security."

Walden criticized Obama's proposed adoption of Chained CPI, which essentially cuts Social Security benefits. Walden has faced criticism from the right, including from the Club for Growth. The NRCC on Thursday said that Walden stands by his comments.
Click to expand...

.
 
R

reggieandTFE

Member
zero shift said:
So apparently if we took out fatal injuries from life expectancy the United States ranks #1.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

National-Life-Expectancy.png


What am I missing here?

Its especially questionable since Sweden had a much higher life expectancy in general in 2000. Only one year after the study. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=30

EDIT - Wait why the fuck would REMOVING fatal injuries DECREASE life expectancy for most countries?
Click to expand...

Does fatal injuries include black men being shot?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
zero shift said:
So apparently if we took out fatal injuries from life expectancy the United States ranks #1.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

National-Life-Expectancy.png


What am I missing here?

Its especially questionable since Sweden had a much higher life expectancy in general in 2000. Only one year after the study. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=30

EDIT - Wait why the fuck would REMOVING fatal injuries DECREASE life expectancy for most countries?
Click to expand...

It's a Forbes article that links to a PowerPoint presentation hosted by the American Enterprise Institute with no listed methodology, so it could really be anything. My educated guess is that they averaged out homicide and accident fatalities among the listed countries and the second chart calculates life expectancy as if they all had the same rate. Since the US has extremely high homicide and accident fatality rates, this will naturally make us look better.

The very presentation cited says that, at BEST, the American system is the same as everybody else's system except way more expensive for patients, so I don't consider this a particularly good argument. It still means we have the worst return on health care dollars spent of any OECD country.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
I'm curious to as of how they got those numbers to begin with. Why would Japan and other nations go DOWN? That makes no sense.

pigeon said:
It's a Forbes article that links to a PowerPoint presentation hosted by the American Enterprise Institute with no listed methodology, so it could really be anything. My educated guess is that they averaged out homicide and accident fatalities among the listed countries and the second chart calculates life expectancy as if they all had the same rate. Since the US has extremely high homicide and accident fatality rates, this will naturally make us look better.
Click to expand...

This would be my guess but why would the life expectancy go down in many countries? That's what blows my mind. The use of standardized mean I guess.
 
Z

Zero-Crescent

Member
zero shift said:
I'm curious to as of how they got those numbers to begin with. Why would Japan and other nations go DOWN? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

According to the update in the Forbes article, it sounds like they compared each country's fatal injury statistic (FIS) to the average. I'm guessing that it may be as pigeon said, if a country has a FIS higher than the average, their life expectancy goes up; if a country has a FIS lower than the average, their life expectancy goes down. Won't know for sure unless they have a paper that details their methodology.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
So I'm in class we just did this phlosophical example of the whole "If a man has a sick wife and the doctor charges ten times more for medicine for his dying wife should he steal it?" Well we did that and it took place in Europe. I made the off-hand comment that this would never hapen anyway since they have free healthcare. I pissed off some of the kids in my class (most are rich white kids) and one made the comment that in Europe once you get old the government stops paying for your care, like if you need heart surgery you have to pay completely out of pocket.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
zero shift said:
This would be my guess but why would the life expectancy go down in many countries? That's what blows my mind. The use of standardized mean I guess.
Click to expand...

Because they have lower accident and homicide statistics than the mean, yeah. Basically, the study says that if Switzerland had as many murders and car accidents as America, assuming that the rate of death from such events is consistent across health care systems, they'd have worse life expectancy than we do.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
pigeon said:
Because they have lower accident and homicide statistics than the mean, yeah. Basically, the study says that if Switzerland had as many murders and car accidents as America, assuming that the rate of death from such events is consistent across health care systems, they'd have worse life expectancy than we do.
Click to expand...

This is so ridiculous that my brain can't comprehend this. I mean what? You know forget it. My head hurts.
 
T

Thagomizer

Member
pigeon said:
Because they have lower accident and homicide statistics than the mean, yeah. Basically, the study says that if Switzerland had as many murders and car accidents as America, assuming that the rate of death from such events is consistent across health care systems, they'd have worse life expectancy than we do.
Click to expand...

Meaning if Switzerland had the same rate of murders and car accidents, or the same absolute number?

It's a little silly either way, but using the latter is especially asinine because the US has more people and thus would have more accidents and just pasting that number into a country with a lower population would massively skew it.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Frank the Great said:
dat eleventh dimension chess
Click to expand...

Could be. He gets them to fight amongst themselves. Divide and conquer.

Various members may choose to go closer to Obama's positions and they can get something done. Or maybe if they do that they get primaried from the right by some wingnut loon that eventually talks about rape and loses the general.

Or they go hard right and thus make them more likely to lose in a general.



11th dimensional chess? Maybe. Or maybe Obama is just a moderate Republican. Who knows?
 
S

speculawyer

Member
pigeon said:
It's a Forbes article that links to a PowerPoint presentation hosted by the American Enterprise Institute with no listed methodology, so it could really be anything. My educated guess is that they averaged out homicide and accident fatalities among the listed countries and the second chart calculates life expectancy as if they all had the same rate. Since the US has extremely high homicide and accident fatality rates, this will naturally make us look better.

The very presentation cited says that, at BEST, the American system is the same as everybody else's system except way more expensive for patients, so I don't consider this a particularly good argument. It still means we have the worst return on health care dollars spent of any OECD country.
Click to expand...

This is the way I interpreted it as well.

Also note that although the USA is #1 . . . it is really essentially tied at the top since difference between all the countries in that 2nd chart is less than a year. We pay twice as much to get a few more months? Not worth it. Bring on the death panels.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
speculawyer said:
Could be. He gets them to fight amongst themselves. Divide and conquer.
Click to expand...

No. He got one guy to go off script. What he did really accomplish is change the discussion from "Should we cut Social Security/Medicare?" to "How much should we cut from Social Security/Medicare?"

speculawyer said:
11th dimensional chess? Maybe. Or maybe Obama is just a moderate Republican. Who knows?
Click to expand...

I used to think the hardcore liberals over at Somethingawful were a little crazy when they would say Obama truly just wants to cut welfare. I'm starting to believe them.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Thagomizer said:
Meaning if Switzerland had the same rate of murders and car accidents, or the same absolute number?

It's a little silly either way, but using the latter is especially asinine because the US has more people and thus would have more accidents and just pasting that number into a country with a lower population would massively skew it.
Click to expand...

Per capita obviously.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
zero shift said:
This is so ridiculous that my brain can't comprehend this. I mean what? You know forget it. My head hurts.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

UPDATE: A number of mathematically astute readers have asked why some countries have increased average life expectancies once you take out fatal injuries. I asked Robert Ohsfeldt about this, who responded that the adjustment factor was based on fatal injury rates relative to the average. Hence, the adjusted numbers shouldn’t be seen as hard numerical estimates of life expectancy, but rather as a way of understanding the true relative ranking of the various countries on life expectancy excluding fatal injuries.
Click to expand...
Math is not about accuracy, it's about feelings, and man, that feels very right, isn't?

p.s.
That argument is to math what this scene is to computer science.

p.p.s
LOL, mathematically astute?
You don't need to be Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to figure out that excluding fatal injuries should increase the life expectancy, not decrease it.
In fact, it has nothing to do with math.
Mathematically, it's perfectly possible to go the other way, for example, it would be true if the average age of dying of a fatal accident is higher the average age of dying from other reasons, it's our knowledge about the world that inform us that it is wrong, not our knowledge of math, but I guess the writer has neither.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Clevinger said:
No. He got one guy to go off script. What he did really accomplish is change the discussion from "Should we cut Social Security/Medicare?" to "How much should we cut from Social Security/Medicare?"
Click to expand...

So you are saying the GOP script is "Cut social security! Cut Medicare!" That is exactly what he wants them to say out loud instead of the generic cryptic "cut spending". Meanwhile, lots of Dems have come out against Obama on this. The battle lines are drawn. So who are the old people going to vote for?


(Not Obama, he is done.)
 
C

Chichikov

Member
speculawyer said:
So basically, the AEI is just making shit up to support their ideological view instead of doing actually research. Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...
All their economic world view is based on a theory that rejects empiricism, they use graphs, numbers with decimal point and other things that make them look scientific, but this is mainly because try as they might, the public at large prefer empiricism over rationalism (the public obviously doesn't often think on those terms, I think it's mostly come down to the fact we're more impressed with results we got from the former).

But never forget, those are people who don't think the scientific method can be applied to gather insights about the economy, they're to scientists what naughty nurses are to healthcare professionals.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
That gun control progress

The bipartisan Senate compromise on background checks appears to suffer from a crucial flaw that could reduce its effectiveness, experts and gun control advocates fear, although they broadly say it’s an important step toward preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

The proposal unveiled Wednesday by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) would expand mandatory background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. But it would exempt criminal checks for private, non-commercial sales of firearms or transfers between friends or family members. The legislative language is not final yet but the senators have promised those exemptions to background checks for gun purchases.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” told TPM that the proposal “doesn’t ‘close’ the private sale loophole” but merely “reshape it.”

“Private sales still won’t require a background check, so long as they occur outside a gun show or without a publicized advertisement,” Winkler said. “There’s nothing in the law that prevents someone from going to a gun show, finding the gun he likes, then meeting the seller off-site to complete the sale without a background check.”
Click to expand...


More at the link
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
Chichikov said:
Yeah.


Math is not about accuracy, it's about feelings, and man, that feels very right, isn't?

p.s.
That argument is to math what this scene is to computer science.

p.p.s
LOL, mathematically astute?
You don't need to be Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to figure out that excluding fatal injuries should increase the life expectancy, not decrease it.
In fact, it has nothing to do with math.
Mathematically, it's perfectly possible to go the other way, for example, it would be true if the average age of dying of a fatal accident is higher the average age of dying from other reasons, it's our knowledge about the world that inform us that it is wrong, not our knowledge of math, but I guess the writer has neither.
Click to expand...
Holy shit at that quote! He literally just made up numbers.

I mean at least most places at least try to invent bullshit mathetatics ala South Park's TMI to back up their points.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
That gun control progress


“Private sales still won’t require a background check, so long as they occur outside a gun show or without a publicized advertisement,” Winkler said. “There’s nothing in the law that prevents someone from going to a gun show, finding the gun he likes, then meeting the seller off-site to complete the sale without a background check.”
Click to expand...
More at the link
Click to expand...
This would still be progress because it would make it (slightly) harder. But yeah, it would still be a huge loophole.


I still think the best solution would be to mandate ALL sales have a background check. But you could let local gun stores do this for private parties for a $20 or so fee. This would make every sale get a background check (less guns to criminals) AND gun biz gets a new way to collect easy money (happy gun pimps!). Of course the gun stores could also run things like a consignment shop too.
 
7

789shadow

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
So basically the legislation, if it even passes the house, is fucking useless on any practical level?

Fuck this country so hard for letting the problem get this bad and STILL are taking half-ass steps to address it.
Click to expand...
Nothing will ever get done without a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Sad that it's come to that.
 
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
943
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
517
10K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
837
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