• 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.

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
That's your opinion (which I agree with). Your going to have a hard time proving that and its a vague and amorphous definition of damaging.

Fox isn't the problem though, government policy and money in politics are

You know, there IS flexibility in a society. Just because you protect freedom of the press and free speech doesn't mean you HAVE to let people say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, however they want.


The idea is to foster communication and the peaceful dissemination of information (about current events, history, politics, etc) among the masses.

NOT to allow everyone to be entitled to their own reality, or to use your speech or press for whatever purpose you see fit.
 
McCain's recent "let's give them weapons, they're good guys" Syria spiel feels like a rerun of 40 years of bad US foreign policy. It has never worked for us and never will.

For someone who spent years getting tortured due to idiots in Washington (LBJ most of all...) starting an illegal war that shouldn't have been fought, he sure spends a whole lot of time trying to send troops off to illegal wars that shouldn't be fought.
 
McCain's recent "let's give them weapons, they're good guys" Syria spiel feels like a rerun of 40 years of bad US foreign policy. It has never worked for us and never will.

For someone who spent years getting tortured due to idiots in Washington (LBJ most of all...) starting an illegal war that shouldn't have been fought, he sure spends a whole lot of time trying to send troops off to illegal wars that shouldn't be fought.

We backed the fighters in Afghanistan and . . . . . oops.
We backed the Monarchy in Iran and . . . oops.
To oppose those revolutionaries in Iran, we backed Saddam Hussein and . . . oops.


People have got to realize that "The enemy of my enemy is NOT NECESSARILY my friend."
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
We backed the fighters in Afghanistan and . . . . . oops.
We backed the Monarchy in Iran and . . . oops.
To oppose those revolutionaries in Iran, we backed Saddam Hussein and . . . oops.


People have got to realize that "The enemy of my enemy is NOT NECESSARILY my friend."

But it always works out so well in the movies :(
 
Ok, so I've been to Enniskillen many times (visiting Loch Erne with my family), and:
a) why the hell are they holding a G8 summit there? It's not a major city, it's a small town, kind of run-down, nothing particularly interesting about it.
b) yeah, it's not an economic powerhouse, and remembering from the last time I was there, there are plenty of shuttered businesses, which just makes this odder.
also c) who are they kidding?

IMHO, the answer is A.

Small towns are easy to physically control, which will make it more efficient for the police when the protesters come to Enniskillen.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise

GAFFNEY: Two episodes that are on our mind, one is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been in Syria recently hobnobbing with Jihadists about the necessity of the United States of not only continuing to support them in various ways but to fund them and to arm them and basically to start using its military forces to protect them. I’d like to get your thoughts on that sir as well as your current thinking about whether we’re going to get a proper investigation of the Benghazi-Gate scandal, one of the imbroglios that I believe Sen. McCain’s bad advice got us into previously.

GOHMERT: Well exactly and I’m not sure what to think about his trip apparently to Syria. We had seen his tweet about meeting with Qaddafi in Libya at his ranch and then he said “Oh no somebody else must have tweeted from his phone.” But apparently there had been meetings with Qaddafi before yet they came after Qaddafi, he was one of the early ones to sign on to going after Qaddafi.

GAFFNEY: So he was for him before he was against him as they say.

GOHMERT: Yeah and then we know if it had not been for Sen. McCain and President Obama being for what we knew at the time included al-Qaeda in the rebel forces then we would still have a U.S. ambassador and three others alive today because Benghazi would not have happened. But by giving power to the rebel forces that included al Qaeda that brought that whole mess about and helped create problems in Tunisia and Algeria. So I’m not sure what to think about his going to Syria. If history is any lesson the people he met with he wants us to help should be very careful about what Sen. McCain’s support could mean for them.

Uh, what? Why should the Syrians that met with McCain be careful of that support?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Can anyone provide an example of a businessman hiring someone in any instance that was independent of demand?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Can anyone provide an example of a businessman hiring someone in any instance that was independent of demand?

Why would they do that? You hire the amount of people you need to keep up with demand, from there you upgrade your shop/factory/office so that you always have good performance and no one is getting in anyone else's way. Why would anyone hire people they don't need?
 

pigeon

Banned
Can anyone provide an example of a businessman hiring someone in any instance that was independent of demand?

People hire based on hypothetical demand all the time. You may make ice cream, but you might believe that the real money is in cakes. If you had the cash, you might hire a baker to make cakes. People aren't coming to you to ask for cakes, because you're an ice cream parlor, but you might firmly believe they will. (Another way to say this is that most of the time it's actually pretty difficult to measure demand outside of a relatively small niche of stuff you currently sell that people buy -- and even then it's tricky.) Of course, the smart thing to do is to launch a pilot program or hire researchers to measure demand, but even so you'll be investing speculatively on the possibility of demand.

Edit: another way to look at this is tht any time you open a business you're hiring based on hypothetical demand.
 
Fox is part of the problem. Media has been deregulated specifically to empower corporate business at the expense of the public. The chamber of commerce, at least, certainly understands the importance of media. If you control a person's mind via controlling the information he receives, you can control his vote. Media is not unimportant.

That said, I agree with you that money in politics is a fundamental problem. But media helps corporate business interests keep those policies entrenched. That's why they were smart enough to "deregulate" media in the first place.

Media has been deregulated?

Where in US history has it been subject to heavy regulation? Corporations or their forerunners like moguls have always controlled the media. Pushing their interests.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
People hire based on hypothetical demand all the time. You may make ice cream, but you might believe that the real money is in cakes. If you had the cash, you might hire a baker to make cakes. People aren't coming to you to ask for cakes, because you're an ice cream parlor, but you might firmly believe they will. (Another way to say this is that most of the time it's actually pretty difficult to measure demand outside of a relatively small niche of stuff you currently sell that people buy -- and even then it's tricky.) Of course, the smart thing to do is to launch a pilot program or hire researchers to measure demand, but even so you'll be investing speculatively on the possibility of demand.

Edit: another way to look at this is tht any time you open a business you're hiring based on hypothetical demand.

Even then, that isn't independent of demand. It's trying to predict it.
 

tekumseh

a mass of phermones, hormones and adrenaline just waiting to explode
Gohmert is literally insane, but I have no sympathy for McCain. You reap what you sow.

I agree, Louie Gohmert is an absolute moron, and if he never opened his mouth again, it would be too soon.

Having said that, I'm not so certain that McCain isn't getting close to encroaching on treason with this unsanctioned trip to Syria. He clearly is attempting to undermine the official government position at this point of not tangibly intervening, we have no diplomatic relationship with Syria currently, and the armed resistance in Syria is rife with Al-Qaeda, who is organizationally recognized as an enemy of the US. The current administrative policy is to encourage both sides to sit down in Geneva in June, and to provide non-lethal aid. Going INTO Syria, and further encouraging your country to arm the rebels WHILE you're there seems to be dancing precipitously close to treason to me...
 
Media has been deregulated?

Where in US history has it been subject to heavy regulation? Corporations or their forerunners like moguls have always controlled the media. Pushing their interests.

Media deregulation began in the 1980s. Your argument about free speech is basically the argument made for deregulation by the Reagan Administration.

See generally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.salon.com/2003/05/31/fcc_4/
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED298550
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fcc.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fcc-media-deregulation,14564/

This is why a lot of self-professed liberals frequently express and endorse very conservative ideas, just like the ones you are against media regulation. They learned it from deregulated media, which is its purpose. It is indeed quite frustrating.
 

None of that regulates what they say. Except for the fairness doctrine which only applied to broadcast news AKA over the air which would not change anything in today's internet and cable arena and not fox. (which I think a flawed doctrine)

And I agree with a lot of those things. I'm not a fan of government controlling or regulating the news. And that last comment is stupid. Especially with the internet.
 

Jackson50

Member
i forget jackson's not a robot sometimes.
Sometimes.
McCain's recent "let's give them weapons, they're good guys" Syria spiel feels like a rerun of 40 years of bad US foreign policy. It has never worked for us and never will.

For someone who spent years getting tortured due to idiots in Washington (LBJ most of all...) starting an illegal war that shouldn't have been fought, he sure spends a whole lot of time trying to send troops off to illegal wars that shouldn't be fought.
It might have worked in the 90s in Bosnia. But the situations are not remotely comparable. The program in the Balkans required a specific task force for providing training and monitoring. And it was accompanied by not only a UN peacekeeping mission, but an American military program to ensure implementation. And given the fluidity of the conflict in Syria, in addition to the opacity of the opposition, a similar operation would fail. The notion that we could successful track the flow of armaments, especially without a large physical presence in Syria, is risible.
Gingrich makes some good points whereas Laffer is a crazy person.
Admittedly, I only listened to the debate as background noise, so I might have ignored Gingrich's good points. But that seems doubtful to me. Gingrich offered the same disingenuous, facile, tired arguments for ever decreasing tax rates for the wealthy. And he blatantly ignored the economic growth of the 1990s which, in addition to preceding his unfortunate revolution, followed Clinton's tax increase. That's hardly systematic evidence for the pro side, but it subverts his apocalyptic prognostications. The United States has not only survived, but thrived, under high rates on the higher income brackets. It did not induce economic Armageddon. So what were his good points? You could knock me over with a feather if he made any.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Paul: GOP needs to become a 'bigger' party

WASHINGTON (AP) — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Friday that Republicans could appeal to a broader electorate in blue states like California by connecting with voters who have shunned the party in the past and by being big enough to agree to disagree on some issues.

Paul, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2016, said the path to victory needs both principle and pragmatism, noting that the GOP is consistently losing campaigns on the West Coast, in New England and in Midwest states like Illinois. Invoking President Ronald Reagan during his speech, Paul said Republicans need to become a "bigger, more inclusive party" to restore their fortunes.

"I think the party can be big enough to allow people who don't all agree on every issue. It's not going to change who I am or what I talk about but I think we can be a big enough party to include people," Paul said at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. "It's like when you talk to your family — do you agree on every issue?"

Paul, the son of former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, said the party should not "dilute" its message of limiting government's reach and curtailing spending but said it needs to put together a broader coalition that includes Hispanic and black voters. He urged Republicans to appeal to voters on issues like the environment and education that have been more associated with Democrats.

"If we want to win in bluish-getting-bluer states like California, we have to change the current perceptions of who we are," he said.

The libertarian senator has challenged Republicans to confront the results of the 2012 election, saying it requires outreach to new voters and a willingness to reform government. He won applause at the California speech when he pointed to a bill he has introduced that would require the Senate to hold off voting on a measure for one day for every 20 pages of legislation it considers. He quipped that President Barack Obama's health care reform law would have required a long wait.

The speech honoring Reagan, who remains revered within the party, capped a month that took Paul to the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He held fundraisers in Silicon Valley earlier in the week and met with executives and employees representing technology companies such as Google, Facebook and eBay.

In June, Paul is scheduled to headline fundraisers in South Carolina and make another trip to Iowa, giving him more visibility among Republicans searching for someone to help it rebound from two terms under Obama.

"When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we'll win again," Paul said.

The vacuum is pretty tightly sealed, isn't it? It's not about being inclusive, it's about NOT BEING FUCKING BATSHIT INSANE.
 
Sometimes. It might have worked in the 90s in Bosnia. But the situations are not remotely comparable. The program in the Balkans required a specific task force for providing training and monitoring. And it was accompanied by not only a UN peacekeeping mission, but an American military program to ensure implementation. And given the fluidity of the conflict in Syria, in addition to the opacity of the opposition, a similar operation would fail. The notion that we could successful track the flow of armaments, especially without a large physical presence in Syria, is risible.Admittedly, I only listened to the debate as background noise, so I might have ignored Gingrich's good points. But that seems doubtful to me. Gingrich offered the same disingenuous, facile, tired arguments for ever decreasing tax rates for the wealthy. And he blatantly ignored the economic growth of the 1990s which, in addition to preceding his unfortunate revolution, followed Clinton's tax increase. That's hardly systematic evidence for the pro side, but it subverts his apocalyptic prognostications. The United States has not only survived, but thrived, under high rates on the higher income brackets. It did not induce economic Armageddon. So what were his good points? You could knock me over with a feather if he made any.

I thought in general he made some good points about China and he even made some global warming/environment comments that struck me as honest (now that he isn't running for president, I suppose he can go back to sitting on couches with Nancy Pelosi and discuss tackling global warming). I'm far from a global warming guy or environmentalist, but in general I believe we could be doing more in those areas.

Most impressively he argued for cutting the military budget by 20%, specifically focusing on gutting out of date and bloated programs that don't make us safer. The nature of the threat has changed, it's time for our military to reflect that.
 
What's up with the page count obsession? It's such a childish focus that you'd think anyone who's ever had a job would realize is bullshit. Running things is hard, and running a state or country is even harder and complex. Laws that potentially impact the life of every American are going to be long. There should be more critique over what's in the bill than a superficial focus on page counts.

So this is what Paul believes will win moderate/purple votes? It's like the gas tax all over again. People are smarter than that. Almost makes me want to watch that video of Obama at the GOP retreat, back in 2010. Multiple republicans were waving their 10 page "health care bill" at him, claiming it fixed the entire system. Come on.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
What's up with the page count obsession? It's such a childish focus that you'd think anyone who's ever had a job would realize is bullshit. Running things is hard, and running a state or country is even harder and complex. Laws that potentially impact the life of every American are going to be long. There should be more critique over what's in the bill than a superficial focus on page counts.

So this is what Paul believes will win moderate/purple votes? It's like the gas tax all over again. People are smarter than that. Almost makes me want to watch that video of Obama at the GOP retreat, back in 2010. Multiple republicans were waving their 10 page "health care bill" at him, claiming it fixed the entire system. Come on.

This post has 732(!) letters in it. Surely a sign of the failure of Obama's PhoenixDark's leadership, and a recrimination of his flawed vision of America neo-GAF.
 
Paul: GOP needs to become a 'bigger' party

The vacuum is pretty tightly sealed, isn't it? It's not about being inclusive, it's about NOT BEING FUCKING BATSHIT INSANE.

I love how the guy who went on record of opposing the Civil Rights Act talks about becoming a 'bigger' party. Yeah . . . you burned that bridge already, genius. And your appeals to conspiracy theory nuts is also not a brilliant way of building a bigger party.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I like how he thinks the problem is that his party is too homogenous and not that his party is fucking batshit insane.
 
lol rand paul.

On this episode of The Republicans Continue To Eat Themselves

GOHMERT: Yeah and then we know if it had not been for Sen. McCain and President Obama being for what we knew at the time included al-Qaeda in the rebel forces then we would still have a U.S. ambassador and three others alive today because Benghazi would not have happened. But by giving power to the rebel forces that included al Qaeda that brought that whole mess about and helped create problems in Tunisia and Algeria. So I’m not sure what to think about his going to Syria. If history is any lesson the people he met with he wants us to help should be very careful about what Sen. McCain’s support could mean for them.

Sick of blaming Obama, Representative gohmert wants to blame McCain too!

Oh, and in case you're wondering, Grover Norquist is a Secret Muslim!!!

Create a monster you cannot control and it will eventually turn on its own...
 

Gotchaye

Member
What's up with the page count obsession? It's such a childish focus that you'd think anyone who's ever had a job would realize is bullshit. Running things is hard, and running a state or country is even harder and complex. Laws that potentially impact the life of every American are going to be long. There should be more critique over what's in the bill than a superficial focus on page counts.

So this is what Paul believes will win moderate/purple votes? It's like the gas tax all over again. People are smarter than that. Almost makes me want to watch that video of Obama at the GOP retreat, back in 2010. Multiple republicans were waving their 10 page "health care bill" at him, claiming it fixed the entire system. Come on.

I'll take a shot at this. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time and without warning.

I'm not sure that Congress is the best institution we have for deciding the sorts of little details that end up making these laws so long. The Constitution's a pretty good example of nominally short (but actually quite complicated) law that basically works, and there are civic advantages to having a short Constitution even if the actual law of the land consists of pages upon pages of precedent.

With the ACA, there are a lot of little technocratic details (not to mention horse-trading masquerading as technocratic details) in there which Congress isn't really fit to judge. If they're doing their jobs, they're just going to invite experts to testify and then do what those experts say is a good idea. It seems like the obvious thing to do is to just set up the panel of experts in advance and give them some broad guidelines to use in designing all the little technocratic rules. After they come up with rules, an unhappy Congress can vote to repeal whatever authority they previously granted (this is a short bill), and an unhappy citizen could pursue a judicial remedy insofar as there's a case to be made that the panel didn't follow Congress' guidelines (or if the resulting rules are just unconstitutional, of course).

Maybe this also has some accountability advantages. This sounds odd, since Congress would be directly responsible for less, but by limiting the debate in Congress to a smaller number of more comprehensible issues (and the selection of a relatively small panel of technocrats), it might be much easier to see what sort of influence each Congressman is having on the outcome of the process. Basically, it's actually really hard to seriously "critique what's in the bill" when the bill is really hard to understand. People still have no idea what Obamacare does. Obviously the right would be up in arms about unelected bureaucrats being tyrannical if this is how we were doing things, but it would be really easy to understand what Congress was trying to accomplish. The implementation would be complicated, but the people responsible for setting up that implementation are going to tend to be people who are highly capable of defending the decisions that were made. Or, if they're industry shills, they'll be called out as such and the Congressmen who pushed to get them on the panel might catch some flak for it.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Why would they do that? You hire the amount of people you need to keep up with demand, from there you upgrade your shop/factory/office so that you always have good performance and no one is getting in anyone else's way. Why would anyone hire people they don't need?

Nepotism and cronyism

I guess sometimes business hire for future demand but I think it always factors in.

People hire based on hypothetical demand all the time. You may make ice cream, but you might believe that the real money is in cakes. If you had the cash, you might hire a baker to make cakes. People aren't coming to you to ask for cakes, because you're an ice cream parlor, but you might firmly believe they will. (Another way to say this is that most of the time it's actually pretty difficult to measure demand outside of a relatively small niche of stuff you currently sell that people buy -- and even then it's tricky.) Of course, the smart thing to do is to launch a pilot program or hire researchers to measure demand, but even so you'll be investing speculatively on the possibility of demand.

Edit: another way to look at this is tht any time you open a business you're hiring based on hypothetical demand.

Every one of these cases has to do with demand.

I know the question sounded dumb, but I was trying to give the supply siders a shot and see how they rationalize job creation independent of demand.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Every one of these cases has to do with demand.

I know the question sounded dumb, but I was trying to give the supply siders a shot and see how they rationalize job creation independent of demand.

There is no logic to it. Demand drives hiring. It's doesn't matter if it's hypothetical, theoretical, or actual demand. Only an idiot would hire people for no reason other than to hire someone.
 

Clevinger

Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vKPXo0ytRZM


Greatest bitch slap on Fox News ever? I think so.

Got to give that woman props. Holy fuck.

That was great. And I love how Erickson inadvertently was saying "You can't look at high income earners! If you have less money, your kids are going to do worse! Let's look at lower income people!"

Yeah, it's almost like the problems have nothing to do with what your fat dumb ass is talking about and has a bunch to do with income inequality in America.
 
When I saw that McCain had "snuck" into Syria I started to wonder if this guy's marbles are still truly there. I mean you read the reports of Jihadist and Al-Nusra/Sunni extremists fighting alongside rebels and rebels warming up to and welcoming help from Jihadists. I mean does he not know that things are extremely nuanced when it comes to Syria? Shit reading an article or two about it from the NYTimes would pretty much tell you all this.

It looks like he's still playing up that "Maverick" angle although it just screams "Senile" now. Poor guy.

At least he still has immigration to stand on.
 

dabig2

Member
Megyn Kelly really is an interesting one. I remember her anger over the maturity leave issue and of course her hilarious election night "is this math republicans do to make themselves feel better?" or something like that.

So when I first heard Erickson's comments, I knew she'd jump in and take him down a notch.
 
That was great. And I love how Erickson inadvertently was saying "You can't look at high income earners! If you have less money, your kids are going to do worse! Let's look at lower income people!"

Yeah, it's almost like the problems have nothing to do with what your fat dumb ass is talking about and has a bunch to do with income inequality in America.

My mind was more blown by the fact that fox was quoting studies and slapping down the guy that said "yeah but that science is politically motivated!" Which is the same shit they do in regards to climate science. That whole thing was surreal.

I've also seen tht lady say some super crazy shit. So it comes back to republicans not getting upset or wanting to use facts until it suits them. That dude reminds me of Champ from Anchorman. "And that is a scientific fact!"
 

phaze

Member
The late 19th Century is a premature designation of America's superpower status. The foundation for its eventual transformation was laid then. But the U.S. was only an incipient great power at that juncture. It had developed the largest national economy, although the British Empire as a whole remained larger, yet it had barely begun to translate its economic power into other mechanisms of influence. Conceptually, a superpower encompasses more dimensions than economics. A superpower also exhibits extensive political, martial, and cultural influence on a global scale. By the turn of the 20th Century, the U.S. had only recently asserted its power in international politics.

Demographics might have contributed to America's transformation to a superpower, but it was far from the sole factor. An array of factors, including America's geographic security, resource endowment, and investment in human capital, contributed to its ascension. I agree on the social safety net, however.

Sorry for the late, late reply.

I generally see where you're coming from and don't disagree very strongly. One small point though.
The influence that US acquired in 40's/50's was facilitated by the international situation. WWII finally forced USA to spend some monies on the army. The outcome and then Korean War necessitated keeping that spending at higher level than before. Had such situation arose earlier, the results would be the same because from the end of XIX century, they had the economic potential to achieve them. They simply chose not to use that potential.

I agree that demographics were not the sole reason but for me it was the most important one. (Second being the overall development of the economy)
It seems to me that after some point the geographic isolation may have retarded the US rise.
 

Plumbob

Member
Liberals are disgusting. Short term memory and hard-ons for blonde show hosts, even those that spout bullshit time and time again, galore.

I think she did a good job and:
A) don't care that she's blonde as I am gay.
B) Just because someone has been wrong in the past does not mean we can't 'give her props' when she is right for once.
C) You're spouting at straw men "liberals." Quit it. If you're going to call someone "disgusting" do it by name.
 
Liberals are disgusting. Short term memory and hard-ons for blonde show hosts, even those that spout bullshit time and time again, galore.

What's with the rage? I can't give credit to a woman whom I disagree with on most issues? When I think someone is right, I can't agree with them? She should go after Erick Erickson.
 

Talon

Member
This IRS video crap is so stupid. 16k is absolutely nothing for any sort of training video or presentation. The bare minimum is 10k, and that's pretty shit quality.

These same tax-payer funded congressman going on a witch hunt against fellow tax-payer funded entities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom