• 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 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Its 2011 every day.

“We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”

Damn son. Give this man the white house.

There are better ways to reduce unemployment and increase jobs in DC. This seems really vindictive and not for the best. Why not like yglesias points too have a more modest universal wage increase?

Not that I'm on Walmarts side. They should pay they're people better, but targeting certain businesses rather than business practices isn't something I like. And I don't think other retailers will just fill up Walmarts absence. More people will be unemployed.

I agree that the square footage requirement is dumb and starbucks for example should also be required to pay this wage.

That being said, how on earth do you think more people will be unemployed if walmart stays out...? They come in and put people out of business, jack up unemployment rates, and then hire workers for part time jobs at minimum wage. Theyre the ebola of the retail world.
 
I agree that the square footage requirement is dumb and starbucks for example should also be required to pay this wage.

That being said, how on earth do you think more people will be unemployed if walmart stays out...? They come in and put people out of business, jack up unemployment rates, and then hire workers for part time jobs at minimum wage. Theyre the ebola of the retail world.

I don't think walmart is always a net job creator. Though I'm probably more "prowalmart" than most people here. I don't think it's the problem but rather a symptom of low wages.

But my main points is that there is 20% unemployment in dc for people without a degree. There are no jobs for them and I don't see other people investing or the council acting to improve the situation.


Walmart was jobs for thousands, at least in the short term. A kind of stimulus. And I think DC is a unique market that can continue to support local business and places like walmart.
 
I don't think walmart is always a net job creator. Though I'm probably more "prowalmart" than most people here. I don't think it's the problem but rather a symptom of low wages.

But my main points is that there is 20% unemployment in dc for people without a degree. There are no jobs for them and I don't see other people investing or the council acting to improve the situation.


Walmart was jobs for thousands, at least in the short term. A kind of stimulus. And I think DC is a unique market that can continue to support local business and places like walmart.
Now I'm curious why you think that, and I'm also curious if there's any research into that happening elsewhere. It's never mentioned in the stuff I read, but I don't really go seeking out pro-Wal-Mart articles.
 
Now I'm curious why you think that, and I'm also curious if there's any research into that happening elsewhere. It's never mentioned in the stuff I read, but I don't really go seeking out pro-Wal-Mart articles.

Why I think what? I'm not reading pro-walmart articles I just don't hate big retail. I think its got its positives too
 
Why I think what? I'm not reading pro-walmart articles I just don't hate big retail. I think its got its positives too

I wasn't trying to sound accusatory (sorry), just wondering if that had happened anywhere (Wal-Mart coexisting peacefully with smaller stores). Would be interesting to read a case study.
 
WE ARE NO LONGER FRIENDS!!

How do you feel about banana hammocks?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Unless you go full nude, otherwise

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Sacrilege in the guy-code, I know! Thing is, bikinis don't have a lot of material to work with. I've always thought these bathing suits were better, more fun, and cuter.
 

gcubed

Member
i dont want to get into an entire abortion debate, and i've always considered myself pro choice, so i have a question with a lot of hubbub around some abortion bills... whats the purpose of a >20 week abortion? Why is it allowed beyond cases of emergency medical needs, which should be able to be fulfilled at a hospital and not a clinic?
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
I agree that the square footage requirement is dumb and starbucks for example should also be required to pay this wage.

Is it cumulative square footage? As in across all stores, or a store by store basis.

And it seems like a stupid rule overall. Discriminatory without a seemingly rational basis.

Sacrilege in the guy-code, I know! Thing is, bikinis don't have a lot of material to work with. I've always thought these bathing suits were better, more fun, and cuter.

Heh, my wife has that suit. And she looks fantastic in it.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Was this posting? Because it needs to be posted, and it were already posted, it needs to be posted again due to how absurd the original bill was.

Fucking Florida.

Florida Accidentally Banned All Computers, Smart Phones In The State Through Internet Cafe Ban: Lawsuit

When Florida lawmakers recently voted to ban all Internet cafes, they worded the bill so poorly that they effectively outlawed every computer in the state, according to a recent lawsuit.

In April Florida Governor Rick Scott approved a ban on slot machines and Internet cafes after a charity tied to Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll was shut down on suspicion of being an Internet gambling front -- forcing Carroll, who had consulted with the charity, to resign.

Florida's 1,000 Internet cafes were shut down immediately, including Miami-Dade's Incredible Investments, LLC, a café that provides online services to migrant workers, according to the Tampa Bay Times.


The owner, Consuelo Zapata, is now suing the state after her legal team found that the ban was so hastily worded that it can be applied to any computer or device connected to the Internet, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Miami Herald.

The ban defines illegal slot machines as any "system or network of devices" that may be used in a game of chance.

And that broad wording can be applied to any number of devices, according to the Miami law firm of Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, who worked with constitutional law attorney and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz.

The suit maintains that the ban was essentially passed "in a frenzy fueled by distorted judgment in the wake of a scandal that included the Lieutenant Governor’s resignation" and declares it unconstitutional.

Oops, can't play blackjack or slots on your iPhone/iPad. It's illegal!

How fucking stupid.
 
i dont want to get into an entire abortion debate, and i've always considered myself pro choice, so i have a question with a lot of hubbub around some abortion bills... whats the purpose of a >20 week abortion? Why is it allowed beyond cases of emergency medical needs, which should be able to be fulfilled at a hospital and not a clinic?
I'd be interested in talking about this. Isn't four months enough time to decide whether you'd have an abortion or not?
How....Conservative of you.

:p

Bwahahahaha
Well, to bring this on topic, I guess I'm a conservative when it comes to fashion. It is a bit hypocritical of me seeing as how I'm all for women being equal to men in a society, and it's really only fashion in the end, but... Sorry, boys. Frocks are for girls. I'll fight for that privilege until the day I die.
 

gcubed

Member
how many governor pick ups do the dem's get coming up? Any that they are losing?

Florida, PA, Ohio, Michigan, any others?

I'd be interested in talking about this. Isn't four months enough time to decide whether you'd have an abortion or not?

agreed. I know that in Texas there was a lot extra tied to the bill (requiring all clinics to become ambulatory care and require admitting rights), but I just don't understand the need for a non-emergency abortion post 20 weeks. Maybe i have my shit together enough but why wait any longer then is required? You can take a pill if its early enough. Miss a period, take a test, test is positive, you decide you don't want a baby, take a pill, done. (i realize i'm trivializing the process for the woman, but just using it as an example). Do these clinics give free pregnancy tests?
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
i dont want to get into an entire abortion debate, and i've always considered myself pro choice, so i have a question with a lot of hubbub around some abortion bills... whats the purpose of a >20 week abortion? Why is it allowed beyond cases of emergency medical needs, which should be able to be fulfilled at a hospital and not a clinic?
I don't think a single person in this thread would argue with the 20-week cutoff; it's the other restrictions they always try to staple to it that are the problem. Laws that shut down most clinics, mandatory ultrasounds, etc. It's all just to make getting an abortion as difficult as possible, regardless of how far along you are, and it's very transparent.
 
how many governor pick ups do the dem's get coming up? Any that they are losing?

Florida, PA, Ohio, Michigan, any others?

MI, FL, and PA definitely barring economic changes; Snyder could probably win if Michigan's economy improved, but I doubt that will be the case. Plus Detroit is pissed and might actually vote heavily.

Ohio...hasn't Kaish rebounded?
 

RDreamer

Member
I don't think a single person in this thread would argue with the 20-week cutoff; it's the other restrictions they always try to staple to it that are the problem. Laws that shut down most clinics, mandatory ultrasounds, etc. It's all just to make getting an abortion as difficult as possible, regardless of how far along you are, and it's very transparent.

I would. Because largely women aren't waiting 20 weeks and then dumping it off for no reason at all. That just doesn't happen. What happens is medical emergencies and things like that, and I'd rather not have doctors and patients in that situation have to jump through hoops proving to the damned government that it actually is an emergency or that it was needed. The decision should be up to the doctor and the patient, not the government or you and I.

Also, there are so many hoops put up (by republicans) nowadays that tend to push people that want to have early abortions later and later until they hit that line where they legally can't anymore. That's another reason an abortion would wait until later, and it's reprehensible to me.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
how many governor pick ups do the dem's get coming up? Any that they are losing?

Florida, PA, Ohio, Michigan, any others?

I can't possibly see how Rick Snyder is reelected in Michigan.

Then again, it's Michigan.
 
MI, FL, and PA definitely barring economic changes; Snyder could probably win if Michigan's economy improved, but I doubt that will be the case. Plus Detroit is pissed and might actually vote heavily.

Ohio...hasn't Kaish rebounded?
Those three and Maine.

If you count 2013, Virginia.

WI, OH, SC are outside chances.
 
I'd be interested in talking about this. Isn't four months enough time to decide whether you'd have an abortion or not?



Well, to bring this on topic, I guess I'm a conservative when it comes to fashion. It is a bit hypocritical of me seeing as how I'm all for women being equal to men in a society, and it's really only fashion in the end, but... Sorry, boys. Frocks are for girls. I'll fight for that privilege until the day I die.
Curiously, are you the same way with dating and/or sex?
 

gcubed

Member
MI, FL, and PA definitely barring economic changes; Snyder could probably win if Michigan's economy improved, but I doubt that will be the case. Plus Detroit is pissed and might actually vote heavily.

Ohio...hasn't Kaish rebounded?

i haven't followed the Kaish bump if there was one. Anyone announced running against him?

edit... looks like initial polling this far out is pretty slanted toward Kaish

Those three and Maine.

If you count 2013, Virginia.

WI, OH, SC are outside chances.

Hmm, i thought VA was still pretty close? I'm not internal to WI, but it seems like Walker gets the shit wiped off his boots for how terrible he is. I guess ~5 isn't too bad.
 

zargle

Member
Oh my goodness, this is pretty fantastic:

@RepMarkTakano said:
I edited a draft letter by GOP members to Boehner that is looking for cosigners. Not signing it. #Immigration pic.twitter.com/xhLYSYi3lx

BO5q0WNCMAAIBBP.jpg
 
A new Quinnipiac poll finds President Obama with a negative 44% to 48% approval rate.

Key finding: Obama a negative 40% to 52% percent approval for the way he is handling foreign policy, his worst grade ever on that score.

Said pollster Peter Brown: "President Obama is in a slump, under water for the last two surveys. His negative ratings come at the same time that voters are becoming more optimistic about the economy, saying 35% to 22% that it's improving, with 43% saying it's unchanged. Voter optimism about the economy usually helps presidential approval numbers."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/11/obama_approval_underwater_despite_better_economy.html

Lame duck in six months? Must be a record.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
I'd be interested in talking about this. Isn't four months enough time to decide whether you'd have an abortion or not?

I don't think a single person in this thread would argue with the 20-week cutoff.

There is still a lot of disagreement with the simple 20 week limit.

Because you may not realize you are pregnant until 1-3 months in. But more importantly, many women do not go see the doctor and have an ultrasound until around week 20. It's only at this point that many/some pregnancy problems may become apparent, which could be the basis for an abortion decision. So the decision time frame can be severely curtailed if you limit it to 20 weeks. Additionally, some insurance plans do not cover non required procedures, and if medical guidelines and your doctor say ultrasound at 20, then you would need to have an ultrasound at your own expense, before the 20 week deadline in order to detect issues and still have time for an abortion decision.

So its not as simple as it sounds when you think of the real life implications.
 
I would. Because largely women aren't waiting 20 weeks and then dumping it off for no reason at all. That just doesn't happen. What happens is medical emergencies and things like that, and I'd rather not have doctors and patients in that situation have to jump through hoops proving to the damned government that it actually is an emergency or that it was needed. The decision should be up to the doctor and the patient, not the government or you and I.

Also, there are so many hoops put up (by republicans) nowadays that tend to push people that want to have early abortions later and later until they hit that line where they legally can't anymore. That's another reason an abortion would wait until later, and it's reprehensible to me.

Same here. I find it almost hysterical now. Especially with comments like legit rape and things about rape kits that will "clean a woman out!"

It's blatantly hypocritical to say you have an issue with big government and then want the government regulating what happens with a woman's womb. Specifically the ultra sound thing. That's literally there just to shame the woman who wants to abort. It's transparent as disgusting.
 

gcubed

Member
There is still a lot of disagreement with the simple 20 week limit.

Because you may not realize you are pregnant until 1-3 months in. But more importantly, many women do not go see the doctor and have an ultrasound until around week 20. It's only at this point that many/some pregnancy problems may become apparent, which could be the basis for an abortion decision. So the decision time frame can be severely curtailed if you limit it to 20 weeks. Additionally, some insurance plans do not cover non required procedures, and if medical guidelines and your doctor say ultrasound at 20, then you would need to have an ultrasound at your own expense, before the 20 week deadline in order to detect issues and still have time for an abortion decision.

So its not as simple as it sounds when you think of the real life implications.

a lot of these sounds like symptoms that should be addressed, and not fixed with later abortions. I agree completely on anything that is a medical need/issue that arises, and don't think the government would have any say it, as I would assume that a medically necessary abortion would be taken care of in a hospital.

I'm completely ignoring the requirements that a lot of the GOP bills are hanging around FP clinics necks, (and ANY requirement to try to dissuade or guilt someone before an abortion). I'm just interested in knowing what things come up
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I would. Because largely women aren't waiting 20 weeks and then dumping it off for no reason at all. That just doesn't happen. What happens is medical emergencies and things like that, and I'd rather not have doctors and patients in that situation have to jump through hoops proving to the damned government that it actually is an emergency or that it was needed. The decision should be up to the doctor and the patient, not the government or you and I.

Also, there are so many hoops put up (by republicans) nowadays that tend to push people that want to have early abortions later and later until they hit that line where they legally can't anymore. That's another reason an abortion would wait until later, and it's reprehensible to me.

There is still a lot of disagreement with the simple 20 week limit.

Because you may not realize you are pregnant until 1-3 months in. But more importantly, many women do not go see the doctor and have an ultrasound until around week 20. It's only at this point that many/some pregnancy problems may become apparent, which could be the basis for an abortion decision. So the decision time frame can be severely curtailed if you limit it to 20 weeks. Additionally, some insurance plans do not cover non required procedures, and if medical guidelines and your doctor say ultrasound at 20, then you would need to have an ultrasound at your own expense, before the 20 week deadline in order to detect issues and still have time for an abortion decision.

So its not as simple as it sounds when you think of the real life implications.
Fair and valid points. I just meant that the 20-week limit isn't the part of these bills people are most upset over. It's a much more acceptable line in the sand than all the other crap.
 
a lot of these sounds like symptoms that should be addressed, and not fixed with later abortions.

There is a reason ultra sounds are at 20 weeks and are generally not sooner. Sooner than 20 weeks and you miss things the ultrasound is trying to catch. Also, the 20 week mark for an abortion limit is more arbitrary than a rational limit. Like, why 20 and not 19 or 21. I'd rather us determine for some scientific reason rather than a nice round number. Even if that determination isn't a set week and is more of a developmental milestone.
 
i'm really curious to see what happens with the primary process. Is it going to be treated like an incumbent primary process and Hillary does nothing (assuming she's in), or will some people want to try to challenge her (to no avail)?

It'll be like 1980: one inevitable winner and a bunch of people running to be VP. I think it'll come down to Martin O'Malley vs Mark Warner for VP. Given O'Malley's leftward turn, I think Warner is probably the front runner (if he runs). He'll lock down Virginia and be popular with moderates.

Brian Schweitzer sounds like he's running for senate, unfortunately; I'd love him as VP.
 
Is there a more clear version of this? I can barely read it.
There is still a lot of disagreement with the simple 20 week limit.

Because you may not realize you are pregnant until 1-3 months in. But more importantly, many women do not go see the doctor and have an ultrasound until around week 20. It's only at this point that many/some pregnancy problems may become apparent, which could be the basis for an abortion decision. So the decision time frame can be severely curtailed if you limit it to 20 weeks. Additionally, some insurance plans do not cover non required procedures, and if medical guidelines and your doctor say ultrasound at 20, then you would need to have an ultrasound at your own expense, before the 20 week deadline in order to detect issues and still have time for an abortion decision.

So its not as simple as it sounds when you think of the real life implications.

I would. Because largely women aren't waiting 20 weeks and then dumping it off for no reason at all. That just doesn't happen. What happens is medical emergencies and things like that, and I'd rather not have doctors and patients in that situation have to jump through hoops proving to the damned government that it actually is an emergency or that it was needed. The decision should be up to the doctor and the patient, not the government or you and I.

Also, there are so many hoops put up (by republicans) nowadays that tend to push people that want to have early abortions later and later until they hit that line where they legally can't anymore. That's another reason an abortion would wait until later, and it's reprehensible to me.
Good points here.
Well, you say your conservative when it comes to fashion. What I mean are you conservative with how you view dating and sex or are you more liberal and free like say, Devolution, for example.
If a boy were to ask me out I don't think I'd allow him to pay for my own meal or have him hold the door open for me and whatnot. I don't really care who asks whom out, though nobody has ever asked me out and I haven't really been on any dates.

I'm not sure how you mean by sex. I can't really say there because my sexuality is so goddamn confusing and contradictory that it has led to me crying about it in anger sometimes. Here or there I may say I'm asexual to keep things simple, but that's not accurate.
 
There is a reason ultra sounds are at 20 weeks and are generally not sooner. Sooner than 20 weeks and you miss things the ultrasound is trying to catch. Also, the 20 week mark for an abortion limit is more arbitrary than a rational limit. Like, why 20 and not 19 or 21. I'd rather us determine for some scientific reason rather than a nice round number. Even if that determination isn't a set week and is more of a developmental milestone.

Viability
 

RDreamer

Member
There is a reason ultra sounds are at 20 weeks and are generally not sooner. Sooner than 20 weeks and you miss things the ultrasound is trying to catch. Also, the 20 week mark for an abortion limit is more arbitrary than a rational limit. Like, why 20 and not 19 or 21. I'd rather us determine for some scientific reason rather than a nice round number. Even if that determination isn't a set week and is more of a developmental milestone.

It should be viability outside the womb. If the fetus is not viable, then the doctor only has one patient whom he should be helping make decisions for her best interest. If the fetus is viable outside the womb, then I consider that a secondary patient that could/should be saved by that doctor and his/her decisions with the mother should revolve around that also.

I have a hard time believing most doctors wouldn't try to save a viable baby anyway, or wouldn't advise just giving birth and giving it up at that point, though. I mean, I guess I could be wrong on that.
 

FLEABttn

Banned
Part of my problem with the 20 week cutoff is it, to me, seems like a "harmless" way to restrict it more later. That once you take it to 20, you're that much closer to taking it to 16, then 12, then 8...
 

RDreamer

Member
Part of my problem with the 20 week cutoff is it, to me, seems like a "harmless" way to restrict it more later. That once you take it to 20, you're that much closer to taking it to 16, then 12, then 8...

Once they get a hard line at 20 I don't think they really need to push it inward any more. What they do then is make things take longer outward so the mother is pushed past that deadline by having to do mandatory procedures and fill out mandatory things and go to special hospitals, etc. Far easier to restrict it that way.
 

RDreamer

Member
Watching republicans unite behind a Paul will be hilarious to watch.

The thing is that it feels very plausible to me. Paul gets that weird balance and crossover of libertarian nutso and republican nutso. I know my dad loves the shit out of the guy and would probably cheer for him with a passion I haven't seen since he cheered for Palin...
 
The GOP establishment will probably nuke Paul by any means necessary. His libertarian views will ensure his staff includes people the left (racists) and right (pro-gay rights) will howl over, the hawk wing will not support his views, and he'll be slammed by pro Christie/Jeb Bush/etc PACs on his Medicare & Social Security extremism.

If he survives, which is likely given how popular he is, oh boy...Goldwater time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom