Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

Bill kristol got his war boner raging.

Cheney, also.

 

[eBay Huckster]

If the Democrats won in 2010 I would bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that the districts wouldn't be fair.

Out of 18 majority-Democratic legislatures as of 2014, I can think of exactly two (11%) that were gerrymandered to hell and back - I've already named them and they're already not particularly competitive at any level.

Out of 27 majority-Republican legislatures as of 2014, I can immediately think of 8 (30%) that fit the same bill, except all of them except for Texas happen to be in states closer than 55-45 either way.

If this is any indication about Parallel America's districts, they're probably going to be much fairer.

Don't get your betting money out because you decided to make a false equivalence and got called on it.

 

[Oblivion]

Way to sock it to Obama, Republican states:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119011/map-how-much-24-states-lost-refusing-expand-medicaid

 

[Wilsongt]

Way to sock it to Obama, Republican states:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119011/map-how-much-24-states-lost-refusing-expand-medicaid

All that freedom from the tyrantical big government.

 

[speculawyer]

It means that they can never say he did anything right.

Seriously, it is pretty annoying. Watch this . . .

I think Bush's "Do-not-call law was great. Thanks, Bush." and "Bush did a nice thing by helping fight AIDS in Africa. Good job, Bush."

Is that so fucking hard? Can't they say "We are united with Obama in attacking these genocidal terrorists." FFS. All they can do is complain. Obama approved a risky attack which successfully killed Bin Laden . . . and they complain. Useless ungrateful pricks.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Kristol isn't 100% wrong. This airstrike isn't going to prevent thousands of people from getting slaughtered. It's nothing more than a slap on the wrist half measure. It reminds me of the initial calls for a no fly zone in Libya circa 2011, a policy that wouldn't do shit to stop Qaddafi's murderous march; shortly thereafter we went all out with air support to back up the rebels. BTW look how great that intervention turned out...

After the bombing then what? We temporarily save a few people on a mountain while hundreds of women and children are being captured daily. Do we pat ourselves on the back, call the planes how, and declare victory while the killing continues in areas we can't surgically bomb?

There should have been no intervention, and doing it half assed doesn't do anyone any favors in the long run.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, but Shikha's an open borders advocate. (And libertarian.)

Also, Indian, so there's always some nice comments on her articles everywhere along the lines of "why don't you go back and fix your shithole of a country instead of trying to ruin ours."

Those are the same thing . . . but you wouldn't know it with all people who think the Paul's are Libertarians.

And, yeah, aren't conservatives quite embarrassing in comments sections? For all the people that complain about conservatives being called racists, just go to the comments section on any conservative web site and read the comments on stories involving race. Fox News learned of this long ago and just about any story involving race on the Fox News website will say "Comments have been disabled on this story".

 

[speculawyer]

Hey speculawyer, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this stuff:

ThinkProgress: Electric Car Sales Are Up Over 70 Percent In Europe And The United States

Good news?

Don't ask me about EVs because I will just yammer on forever about them. That and solar PV.

Yes, it is quite encouraging to see the consistent growth. People will point out that both the Leaf and the Volt are not doing as well as some of the forecasts for them before their release but those forecasts were over-optimistic. It is very difficult to get people to adopt a new technology when the old one seems to work fine. The main advantage of switching to EVs is that they are REALLY cheap to fuel and they are environmentally better. But so far, people don't appreciate those aspects enough yet. Part of the reason is that we Americans don't like an expensive up-front cost even though it may save us money in the long term. Hence people get consoles not gaming PCs. People buy from the utility instead of installing solar PV. People buy rocks of crack instead of an 1/8th of coke. But as long as EV sales continue to grow and EVs remain available, I'll be happy. People will eventually see the light as gas prices go up and battery prices (slowly) come down.


I really wish more people would buy electric cars. Reduce our trade deficit (crude oil is the biggest aspect of it), create local electricity production jobs, reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases, improve national security, etc. Imagine how awesome it would be to tell Russia, Iran, Venezuela, dictators, etc. that we no longer need their oil.

It's good that sales are increasing, but the total amount out there is pretty pitiful. There aren't even half a million electric cars in the entire U.S. Even the Wii-U has better numbers than that.

We will cross 1/4 million in a month or so. Every journey starts with 1 step. Oh . . . and in relation to an earlier posting. Thank you George W. Bush for signing the law that provides the up-to-$7500 tax-credit on plug-in vehicles.

 

[speculawyer]

Kristol isn't 100% wrong. This airstrike isn't going to prevent thousands of people from getting slaughtered. It's nothing more than a slap on the wrist half measure. It reminds me of the initial calls for a no fly zone in Libya circa 2011, a policy that wouldn't do shit to stop Qaddafi's murderous march; shortly thereafter we went all out with air support to back up the rebels. BTW look how great that intervention turned out...

After the bombing then what? We temporarily save a few people on a mountain while hundreds of women and children are being captured daily. Do we pat ourselves on the back, call the planes how, and declare victory while the killing continues in areas we can't surgically bomb?

There should have been no intervention, and doing it half assed doesn't do anyone any favors in the long run.

Really? You are going to ball wash Bill Kristol now? Airstrikes will protect them and scare off ISIS. The Kurds will do the ground work. I suspect we'll strike a deal where we give them some weapons in exchange for their work on doing some ground work for us.

 

[FiggyCal]

Kristol isn't 100% wrong. This airstrike isn't going to prevent thousands of people from getting slaughtered. It's nothing more than a slap on the wrist half measure. It reminds me of the initial calls for a no fly zone in Libya circa 2011, a policy that wouldn't do shit to stop Qaddafi's murderous march; shortly thereafter we went all out with air support to back up the rebels. BTW look how great that intervention turned out...

After the bombing then what? We temporarily save a few people on a mountain while hundreds of women and children are being captured daily. Do we pat ourselves on the back, call the planes how, and declare victory while the killing continues in areas we can't surgically bomb?

There should have been no intervention, and doing it half assed doesn't do anyone any favors in the long run.

This isn't the first time Bill Kristol has asked us to send ground troops in Iraq. He's using Obama's reasonable and measured response to a bad situation to justify his long time goal of babysitting Iraq indefinitely.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Those are the same thing . . . but you wouldn't know it with all people who think the Paul's are Libertarians.

This may come as a surprise to you, but not every adherent to a given ideology believes exactly the same as every other adherent to that ideology.

Hell, Cato's been hosting a debate over the merits of a basic income guarantee for the last few days.

 

[Diablos]

31 isn't even old yet.

Er, that's not quite what I meant. I simply mean you notice time flying by much faster, and people around your age more prone to having bad stuff happen to their health. In your teens and twenties you are basically invincible.

Sure, it's not like hitting retirement age, but it's definitely not quite the same as being really, really young.

 

[speculawyer]

This may come as a surprise to you, but not every adherent to a given ideology believes exactly the same as every other adherent to that ideology.

Hell, Cato's been hosting a debate over the merits of a basic income guarantee for the last few days.

That is no surprise. But when you don't follow a very large percentage of them and instead follow the party line of another party . . . you are that other party. The Pauls are Republicans . . . that is their main ideology. They just breakaway from the GOP on a few small areas like drug laws and foreign policy. The are NOT Libertarians who are a little Republican.

 

[benjipwns]

PD The Oracle, Braley's a walking scandal machine:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e3d5e2-1e47-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

Brooklyn, Iowa — The battle for control of the U.S. Senate could come down to a dispute between two neighbors in this heartland hamlet over four plump, wander-prone hens.

This spring, Pauline Hampton’s chickens roamed onto Bruce and Carolyn Braley’s vacation property on tranquil Holiday Lake. Hampton said she did not know this until she walked over one day to offer Carolyn a dozen fresh eggs. To which she said her neighbor replied, “We aren’t going to accept your eggs — and we have filed a formal complaint against you.”

Carolyn took her complaint to their neighborhood homeowners’ association board meeting in May. Her husband, Bruce, then called the association’s lawyer, Thomas Lacina, to say that he believed “chickens are not pets and should not be permitted at Holiday Lake,” and that he wanted to “avoid a litigious situation,” according to an e-mail Lacina wrote. Braley denied that he threatened a lawsuit.

Regardless, Hampton relented and built a wire fence in her back yard to contain the chickens. No harm, no fowl — in the Braleys’ yard, at least.

But the problem for Bruce Braley is that he’s a congressman and Iowa’s Democratic nominee for the Senate. And his Republican opponent, Joni Ernst, and her allies are seizing on the dispute to demonize Braley as an arrogant trial lawyer-turned-politician who’s anything but “Iowa nice.”

...

Even if Braley didn’t threaten a suit, some around Holiday Lake bristled at his tactics. “They are not neighborly,” said Hampton, a mental health therapist who uses the hens as therapy animals. “In Iowa, we are very well known for being friendly, and if one has a problem with another, we always talk to them face-to-face. This kind of floored me.”

Another neighbor, William Nagel, who sits on the homeowners association board, said, “Buddy, we’re here in Iowa. We talk like men here and we act like men. Usually, a man’s word is like gold. A handshake is a contract. Neighbors are neighbors, and if you’ve got a problem with your neighbor, you talk it out.”

...

In her first major interview since winning the Republican primary on June 3, Ernst said this week that Braley — a former president of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association — is “a litigious individual” and that his character is “not the Iowa way.”

“You threaten to sue somebody because a chicken’s on your property? That’s absolutely ridiculous,” she said. “In Red Oak, my neighbor next door, when we first moved into our house, their kids were raising chickens in the garage as a project. No big deal. Oh, my goodness. It’s Iowa. Come on. Get over yourself.”

...

Big Iowa elections historically have turned on policy differences, but Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who backs Ernst, said he thinks this one will be about Braley’s character. “He’s arrogant and he feels entitled,” Branstad said in an interview. “Iowans like just the opposite. They like somebody that’s humble, that’s hard-working, that’s a good listener.”

 

[FiggyCal]

PD The Oracle, Braley's a walking scandal machine:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e3d5e2-1e47-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

“Buddy, we’re here in Iowa. We talk like men here and we act like men. Usually, a man’s word is like gold. A handshake is a contract. Neighbors are neighbors, and if you’ve got a problem with your neighbor, you talk it out.”

This is silly. It's a chicken scandal...

 

[PhoenixDark]

Really? You are going to ball wash Bill Kristol now? Airstrikes will protect them and scare off ISIS. The Kurds will do the ground work. I suspect we'll strike a deal where we give them some weapons in exchange for their work on doing some ground work for us.

How is it ballwashing to point out the obvious, which is that this airstrike isn't going to solve anything and is just a bandaid? I'm not advocating Kristol's boots on the ground argument, in fact I've been arguing against any intervention from the beginning. Why would airstrikes "scare" ISIS off? They'll simply hit elsewhere and force more humanitarian problems. There's also no guarantee the Kurds can withstand them either; didn't ISIS already defeat a Kurdish group a few days ago?

 

[Diablos]

Bad news for Kay Hagan (no, really):

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina's November election can be held under a new voting law approved by Republican lawmakers, a federal judge ruled Friday. The law is considered one of the toughest in the nation and the groups challenging it say it will suppress minority voter turnout.

...

The groups say the changes are designed to suppress turnout at the polls among minorities, the elderly and college students — blocs considered more likely to vote for Democrats.

...

The law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID, ends same-day registration, trims the period for early voting by a week and ends a popular high school civics program that encouraged students to register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/08/north-carolina-gop-voting_n_5663422.html

 

[benjipwns]

The Pauls are Republicans . . . that is their main ideology. They just breakaway from the GOP on a few small areas like drug laws and foreign policy.

Ron's always been more of a stickler for the Constitution than anything. It helps that the Constitution is a pretty libertarian document. Ron's almost an anarchist in comparison to the GOP base/establishment.

Rand is trying to position himself between his father and the mainstream of the GOP.

And I wouldn't call the War on Drugs a "small area" let alone foreign policy considering how many lives they ruin and crimes they help perpetuate.

 

[Owzers]

I have now decided we have to give weapons to the Kurds if we are going to say the airstrikes are to help the Kurds regroup and rearm when their main problem is lacking sufficient weapons to go against ISIS who has our weapons. I will report back during the next Iraqi civil war, but for now this seems like a necessary thing.

 

[speculawyer]

Ron's always been more of a stickler for the Constitution than anything. It helps that the Constitution is a pretty libertarian document. Ron's almost an anarchist in comparison to the GOP base/establishment.

Rand is trying to position himself between his father and the mainstream of the GOP.

And I wouldn't call the War on Drugs a "small area" let alone foreign policy considering how many lives they ruin and crimes they help perpetuate.

Sure . . . well except for that law he wanted a pass that would strip the courts from reviewing various constitutional issues.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr539-111/show

Consider for example Paul’s sponsorship of the We the People Act. This bill, if passed, would have dreadful consequences for the protection of civil liberties. The proposal would prohibit the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding cases challenging state laws that implicate:
1. the free exercise or establishment of religion;
2. the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
3. the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

Yeah, he loves the constitution . . . as long as they enforce the parts he likes in the way he wants it enforced.

*rollseyes*

 

[WayneMorse]

PD The Oracle, Braley's a walking scandal machine:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e3d5e2-1e47-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

This race is becoming a nightmare, a generally innocuous Democrat is losing to an extreme right wing true believer and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

 

[benjipwns]

Sure . . . well except for that law he wanted a pass that would strip the courts from reviewing various constitutional issues.

Yeah, he loves the constitution . . . as long as they enforce the parts he likes in the way he wants it enforced.

*rollseyes*

Okay, and...?

I never said anyone, let alone Ron Paul, was perfect or the personification of any position. He's also one of the many Congressman to put their entire family on the payroll and there was that time in the 1990's when he ignored what Lew was putting under his name. And he's a baptist. And he doesn't find incorporation compelling enough. And he's probably a jerk. et al

He still constructed his political positions more around his interpretation of the Constitution and its liberalism than coming to them via libertarianism.

 

[speculawyer]

Okay, and...?

I never said anyone, let alone Ron Paul, was perfect or the personification of any position. He's also one of the many Congressman to put their entire family on the payroll and there was that time in the 1990's when he ignored what Lew was putting under his name. And he's a baptist. And he doesn't find incorporation compelling enough. And he's probably a jerk. et al

He still constructed his political positions more around his interpretation of the Constitution and its liberalism than coming to them via libertarianism.

My point is that he has his own Ron Paul views and pushes those views. And there is nothing wrong with that. People should elect him or not based on those views. I just don't like this attempt to try to claim some high moral ground of 'defending the constitution' when he has actively ATTACKED the constitution. He's just a politician with a certain set of views. And I agree with several of his positions. But he's no better or worse than the rest of the politicians.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Okay, and...?

I never said anyone, let alone Ron Paul, was perfect or the personification of any position. He's also one of the many Congressman to put their entire family on the payroll and there was that time in the 1990's when he ignored what Lew was putting under his name. And he's a baptist. And he doesn't find incorporation compelling enough. And he's probably a jerk. et al

He still constructed his political positions more around his interpretation of the Constitution and its liberalism than coming to them via libertarianism.

And he wouldn't use the same toilet as a gay dude.

 

[speculawyer]

How is it ballwashing to point out the obvious, which is that this airstrike isn't going to solve anything and is just a bandaid? I'm not advocating Kristol's boots on the ground argument, in fact I've been arguing against any intervention from the beginning. Why would airstrikes "scare" ISIS off? They'll simply hit elsewhere and force more humanitarian problems. There's also no guarantee the Kurds can withstand them either; didn't ISIS already defeat a Kurdish group a few days ago?

Because you just go with the assumption that Obama and the military have no idea what they are doing and thus play into the narrative that only the GOP can deal with the military properly.

I get it that you are a non-interventionist. But don't assume that because we are intervening that we are doing completely incompetently. I've got more faith in our military than that.

 

[Cat]

Don't ask me about EVs because I will just yammer on forever about them. That and solar PV.

Yes, it is quite encouraging to see the consistent growth. People will point out that both the Leaf and the Volt are not doing as well as some of the forecasts for them before their release but those forecasts were over-optimistic. It is very difficult to get people to adopt a new technology when the old one seems to work fine. The main advantage of switching to EVs is that they are REALLY cheap to fuel and they are environmentally better. But so far, people don't appreciate those aspects enough yet. Part of the reason is that we Americans don't like an expensive up-front cost even though it may save us money in the long term. Hence people get consoles not gaming PCs. People buy from the utility instead of installing solar PV. People buy rocks of crack instead of an 1/8th of coke. But as long as EV sales continue to grow and EVs remain available, I'll be happy. People will eventually see the light as gas prices go up and battery prices (slowly) come down.


I really wish more people would buy electric cars. Reduce our trade deficit (crude oil is the biggest aspect of it), create local electricity production jobs, reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases, improve national security, etc. Imagine how awesome it would be to tell Russia, Iran, Venezuela, dictators, etc. that we no longer need their oil.



We will cross 1/4 million in a month or so. Every journey starts with 1 step. Oh . . . and in relation to an earlier posting. Thank you George W. Bush for signing the law that provides the up-to-$7500 tax-credit on plug-in vehicles.

I like it when you yammer about it, helps me know some of what's going on in that area. I would one day like to own one myself if the proper pieces fall into place to make it possible financially.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Because you just go with the assumption that Obama and the military have no idea what they are doing and thus play into the narrative that only the GOP can deal with the military properly.

I get it that you are a non-interventionist. But don't assume that because we are intervening that we are doing completely incompetently. I've got more faith in our military than that.

Why would you have faith in this administration, or nearly any modern administration, in the Middle East? What have we accomplished there recently? We toppled Qadaffi and "saved" innocent lives in 2011 and what was the result? Mass unrest, more deaths, and four dead Americans. Likewise we spent a decade in Iraq only to watch Malaki (with an assist from the Iranians) destroy the political infrastructure and sow the seeds for AQI and ISIL.

How many decades of this shit do you need before realizing that we have no idea what we're doing, we're making it worse, and there's next to nothing we can do "fix" what cannot be fixed? We broke it decades ago - tinkering around the edges and patting ourselves on the back after meaningless victories isn't doing anything.

I'm not 100% non-interventionist, I am against dumb interventions like this one which serve no purpose. We created a vacuum in Iraq by destabilizing the region (Bush) and then passively watching as the political situation went to shit (Obama). There are no half measures here: either we return to Iraq to decimate ISIL or we don't. Which is it?

 

[Oblivion]

So...Obama hates the Iraqis and doesn't hate White people, apparently:

“What do they say about Disneyland, Disneyworld, the happiest place on Earth?” conservative radio host Mark Levin said on his show Friday. “I think they say about Martha’s Vineyard — for you racialists and race-baiters out there — I think they say it’s the whitest place on Earth.”

Levin spent some time criticizing President Barack Obama for taking his family to a vacation on Martha’s Vineyard while “there’s genocide going on” in Iraq. “Little kids are now being hung on crosses, crucifixes, they’re being crucified,” Levin said. “And decapitated, where their heads are being put on posts in parks in Mosul.”

He lists off some more horrors being committed by the “Islamo-Nazis” before asking, “Why would we expect the president to cancel his vacation to Martha’s Vineyard?” While he found it “amazing” that Obama is finally “showing some muscle” in Iraq with military airstrikes on ISIS artillery, he could not get over the fact that he was, in the same week, traveling to “the whitest place on Earth.”

“And we know how you hate whites,” Levin continued, saying Obama would be better off vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. “He talks race, he uses race, he pushes race. Vacation? Martha’s Vineyard.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-attacks-obama-for-vacationing-at-whitest-place-on-earth/

Um...yeah.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

So...Obama hates the Iraqis and doesn't hate White people, apparently:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-attacks-obama-for-vacationing-at-whitest-place-on-earth/

Um...yeah.

LOLWUT

 

[kehs]

I'm about to start calling these people a different species altogether.

 

[benjipwns]

My point is that he has his own Ron Paul views and pushes those views. And there is nothing wrong with that. People should elect him or not based on those views. I just don't like this attempt to try to claim some high moral ground of 'defending the constitution' when he has actively ATTACKED the constitution. He's just a politician with a certain set of views. And I agree with several of his positions. But he's no better or worse than the rest of the politicians.

If you read his books and watch him from olden times on Firing Line or Morton Downey it's almost annoying to the extent in which Ron invokes the Constitution as his justification for his liberal and libertarian (and sometimes otherwise) views.

What I was saying is that Ron's positions, if they are liberal and libertarian stem from his adherence to his interpretation of the Constitution more than than something deontological. Obviously he does some convenient fitting and he came from a Taft/Goldwater conservatism to begin with.

I was contrasting this to the general liberal/libertarian pattern of having the ethics first and then noting that The Constitution/Federalist Papers/etc. come pretty close and could be good enough with some tweaks or is a realistic goal.

Or it's usefulness as supreme law.

And he wouldn't use the same toilet as a gay dude.

They're supposed to be one at a time.

 

[Wilsongt]

So...Obama hates the Iraqis and doesn't hate White people, apparently:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-attacks-obama-for-vacationing-at-whitest-place-on-earth/

Um...yeah.

And the base gobbles it up.

 

[Wilsongt]

Florida redrew its district lines... And it's basically the same fucking map.

thinkprogress.org/election/2014/08/08/3469129/new-florida-maps-gerrymander/

This shit reeeeeeeally needs to be illegal. Maybe in my lifetime.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Florida redrew its district lines... And it's basically the same fucking map.

thinkprogress.org/election/2014/08/08/3469129/new-florida-maps-gerrymander/

This shit reeeeeeeally needs to be illegal. Maybe in my lifetime.

But... it is illegal. That's why they had to redraw the maps.

(Also, a minor point of correction to the article: it says a federal court ordered them to redraw the maps, but it was a state court. EDIT: Also also, it says that the court required the maps to be redrawn because of "racial gerrymandering," but it was actually on account of partisan gerrymandering.)

(Also also also, here's a good place to compare the old maps with the new. It also indicates that the "proposed map is not the final redraw.")

 

[benjipwns]

Also also also also the judge basically only told them they had to redraw two of the districts. The 5th and 10th. (And obviously the nearby ones.) Which they did.

 

[thepotatoman]

GOP files lawsuit to overturn pay to play laws

Wall Street is one of the biggest sources of funding for presidential campaigns, and many of the Republican Party's potential 2016 contenders are governors, from Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rick Perry of Texas to Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. And so on Thursday, the GOP filed a federal lawsuit aimed at overturning the pay-to-play law that bars those governors from raising campaign money from Wall Street executives who manage their states' pension funds.

In the case, New York and Tennessee's Republican parties are represented by two former Bush administration officials, one of whose firms just won the Supreme Court case that invalidated campaign contribution limits on large donors. In their complaint, the parties argue that people managing state pension money have a First Amendment right to make large donations to state officials who award those lucrative money management contracts.

(...)

That aggressive posture could play a significant role in Republican presidential politics, especially for Christie.

In April, PandoDaily reported on campaign contributions flooding into New Jersey and the Christie-led Republican Governors Association from employees of financial firms doing business with the state's pension fund. That included donations directly to Christie's campaign. It also included a $10,000 contribution to the New Jersey Republican State Committee from Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial frontrunner Charlie Baker just months before Baker's firm, General Catalyst, was given a pension contract by the Christie administration.

Baker responded to the revelation by arguing that despite listing himself as a partner in General Catalyst, he is not affiliated with the firm. There is now a New Jersey investigation into the Baker contribution, and the Massachusetts attorney general has called for an SEC probe into the matter.

A Christie aide admitted to Businessweek,“There is no way around [the SEC pay-to-play rule] and there are no loopholes."

I guess they just want straight up political corruption to be considered free speech now. At least they might as well at this point.

Seriously, at what point does the first amendment version of money as speech end? Why not just let everyone straight up say "I'm giving you this campaign money so you will give me government money once you win" and call it free speech?

 

[benjipwns]

With the $3 trillion public pension system controlled by elected officials generating billions of dollars worth of annual management fees for Wall Street, Securities and Exchange Commission regulators originally passed the rule to make sure retirees' money wasn't being handed out based on politicians' desire to pay back their campaign donors.

Uh, about that...

From the linked story about New York:

The SEC alleges that Rattner secured investments for Quadrangle from the New York State Common Retirement Fund after he arranged for a firm affiliate to distribute the DVD of a low-budget film produced by the Retirement Fund’s chief investment officer and his brothers. Rattner then caused Quadrangle to retain Henry Morris – the top political advisor and chief fundraiser for former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi – as a “placement agent” and pay him more than $1 million in sham fees even though Rattner was already dealing directly with then-New York State Deputy Comptroller David Loglisci and did not need an introduction to the Retirement Fund.

The SEC alleges that after receiving pressure from Morris, Rattner also arranged a $50,000 contribution to Hevesi’s re-election campaign. Just a month later, Loglisci increased the Retirement Fund’s investment with Quadrangle from $100 million to $150 million. As a result of the $150 million investment with Quadrangle, the Retirement Fund paid management fees to a Quadrangle subsidiary. By virtue of his partnership interest in Quadrangle and its affiliates, Rattner’s personal share of these fees totals approximately $3 million.

Rattner agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying $6.2 million and consenting to a bar from associating with any investment adviser or broker-dealer for at least two years.

Nice. NICE.

According to the SEC’s complaint against Rattner filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris informed Rattner in the fall of 2003 that Loglisci’s brother was involved in producing a film called “Chooch.” Morris suggested that Rattner help Loglisci’s brother with the theatrical distribution of the film. Rattner met with Loglisci’s brother and agreed to assist him, but Rattner’s efforts did not lead to a distribution deal. Approximately one year later, Loglisci’s brother contacted Rattner about DVD distribution of “Chooch.”

...

After GT Brands made clear to Rattner that it was not interested in distributing the film, Rattner instructed the GT Brands executive to “dance along” with Loglisci’s brother. According to an e-mail, Rattner telephoned Morris to inquire whether “GT needs to distribute [the Chooch] video” in order to secure an investment from the Retirement Fund. Morris offered to “nose around” to determine how important the DVD distribution deal was to Loglisci. GT Brands ultimately reversed course and offered to manufacture and distribute the DVD at a discount from its standard fee. Rattner approved the proposed terms of the distribution deal.

The life of Queens resident Dino Condito is about to take a surprising turn. After letting down his softball team by striking out in the bottom of the ninth against Hoboken, his crew brands him the chooch. Trying to cheer up his cousin Dino, Jubilene Condito cashes in his savings from his first holy communion and springs for a vacation to Cancun. You mean leave Queens? asks Dino, as if the thought had never occurred to him. But there's a mix-up on the way to the airport involving a mysterious bag of money. As soon as Dino and Jube land in Mexico, they're abducted by a pair of thugs and left in the desert at the mercy of a trio of soldiers. It takes reuniting Dino's old Queens crew, including Dino's beloved pet dachsund, to save the two cousins. Only after a jail bust, donkey ride, chicken coop explosion, and a life-changing love affair at the local bordello does the crew finally arrive to save the day. Returning home in triumphant glory with his reunited crew and newfound love Ladonna, Dino discovers the meaning of family, friendship and neighborhood.

Looks great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbChdO2GW2M

One of the quotes may need a SPOILER ALERT!

 

[Baraka in the White House]

So...Obama hates the Iraqis and doesn't hate White people, apparently:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-attacks-obama-for-vacationing-at-whitest-place-on-earth/

Um...yeah.

Mark Levin is a fucking maniac even by AM radio standards.

 

[benjipwns]

His rants are epic though in that voice of his. I should probably listen to this one because of that.

I like that he uses Linkin Park as his bumper music too.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Neocons to Obama: No half-measures

The neocons have a message for President Barack Obama: Don’t screw this up.

Former Bush administration officials and other hawkish voices of the Bush era say the Democratic president deserves credit for signing off on airstrikes against an Islamist extremist group on the march in Iraq. But they fear Obama will let his reluctance toward military engagement in the region keep him from striking a death blow against a group of militants with strong anti-Western views.

They also worry his actions now may be too little, too late.

“We’re not out of Iraq. The pledge [Obama] made [to leave Iraq] was premature — we’re back,” said Elliott Abrams, who served on former President George W. Bush’s National Security Council. “Let’s now do the job, and not do two airstrikes when we really need to do five."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/conservatives-obama-iraq-airstrikes-109861.html#ixzz39ubXUGzG

My point from yesterday. I'm not a neocon, but I fail to see the point in some weak airstrikes that ultimately serve as a bandaid on a major "problem." Either you go all the way or not at all. Do we send troops to defend the dam, do we bomb further in the country to destroy more of ISIL, etc.

Obviously it's laughable that Bush alumni have the audacity to criticize anyone on Iraq, but ultimately they're right about this being a half measure that doesn't solve anything. The problem is that I have a feeling this could very easily be the beginning of a longer military campaign. And you can put a lot of blame on Obama for doing nothing as Malaki and the Iranians destabilized the political situation after we left.

 

[East Lake]

I think I'm actually ok with half measures at this point.

If the choices are between nation building, do nothing, and a few air strikes I don't think the air strikes are that bad an option. It's like if in Lawrence of Arabia he just skipped the Damascus stuff.

 

[speculawyer]

Why would you have faith in this administration, or nearly any modern administration, in the Middle East? What have we accomplished there recently? We toppled Qadaffi and "saved" innocent lives in 2011 and what was the result? Mass unrest, more deaths, and four dead Americans. Likewise we spent a decade in Iraq only to watch Malaki (with an assist from the Iranians) destroy the political infrastructure and sow the seeds for AQI and ISIL.

How many decades of this shit do you need before realizing that we have no idea what we're doing, we're making it worse, and there's next to nothing we can do "fix" what cannot be fixed? We broke it decades ago - tinkering around the edges and patting ourselves on the back after meaningless victories isn't doing anything.

I'm not 100% non-interventionist, I am against dumb interventions like this one which serve no purpose. We created a vacuum in Iraq by destabilizing the region (Bush) and then passively watching as the political situation went to shit (Obama). There are no half measures here: either we return to Iraq to decimate ISIL or we don't. Which is it?

These issues are never clear cut. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes there is an initial victory, then a sliding back, and then better situation. We helped this one country gain independence from a dictator but then they later had a really bloody civil war . . . however, it ultimately it worked out very well.

Spoiler

That country would be the USA of course.

So you can't just throw up your arms and refuse to do anything.

I think the intervention in Libya was and continues to be a good thing. We eliminated a dictator and have given the people of Libya a chance to build their own state. Did it work out great? Well, the dictator is gone, it seemed OK for a while, it is falling into sectarian fighting now . . . but the ultimate fate? Well it is up to them. Tunisia overthrew its autocratic ruler and has become a pretty good success. Egypt is still a big question mark . . . I think it is still in transition.

We have a massive powerful military with unmatched capabilities. We pay a lot of money for it whether we use it or not. And when we can use it to help some thousands of people that may be exterminated in a genocide then we should do it. Will the end result be good? I don't know but at least those people will get a chance as opposed to a certain death. By using air power in conjunction with the Kurds on the ground, I think we can certainly smack ISIS pretty hard. But can we completely defeat them from the air? No. But like in Libya, if the locals want to defeat the local evil and just need our help in the air, then I say "bombs away".

I also find your lack of faith in any middle-east government being successful a bit racist. Do these attempts at democracy always go smoothly? No, almost never. I think they'll all go through a lot of growing pains including local political violence. It has ever been. Heck, we STILL have spasms of fringe political violence in the USA and Europe every year so I don't see how you can expect the middle-east to quickly become peaceful Jeffersonian democracies, especially coming from a long past of dictatorship.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

John McCain going around tomorrow on Sunday shows talking about Obama not doing enough when last year he was talking about supporting the same Syrian rebels that turned into these ISIS motherfuckers.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/conservatives-obama-iraq-airstrikes-109861.html#ixzz39ubXUGzG

My point from yesterday. I'm not a neocon, but I fail to see the point in some weak airstrikes that ultimately serve as a bandaid on a major "problem." Either you go all the way or not at all. Do we send troops to defend the dam, do we bomb further in the country to destroy more of ISIL, etc.

Obviously it's laughable that Bush alumni have the audacity to criticize anyone on Iraq, but ultimately they're right about this being a half measure that doesn't solve anything. The problem is that I have a feeling this could very easily be the beginning of a longer military campaign. And you can put a lot of blame on Obama for doing nothing as Malaki and the Iranians destabilized the political situation after we left.

You're too of an absolutists when it comes to this. Either go all the way or do nothing at all? Where is the middle ground here? I agree with you in that we cannot fix all problems, but to deny our ability to achieve limited objectives is to not be realistic. What is the point of having the best military in the world if you do not use it? And Obama is using it as strategically as possible while avoiding mission creep.

The strategy basically boils down to using the military to achieve humanitarian ends and not let it be used for political ones. It ensures that civilians are protected (caveat here: only happens if the US will not be brought in for a long engagement) or a major security threat is neutralized. Obama ensures that we don't get bogged down into political fights. We don't choose who comes out on top in Libya, Egypt, Syria, or Iraq. The people and political factions there must make that choice themselves. We are also not tied to dubious partners who have their own baggage. For example, supporting Maliki means turning away Sunnis and giving aid to an Iranian ally. Why would we want to do that?

If the US has the means to stop civilian deaths without getting dragged into picking a side in a civil war, then it should try to do that. That is why we bomb Gaddafi. He said he was going to go door to door and cleanse Benghazi before we stopped his army. The actually air campaign was over in months. It is why we are in northern Iraq right now. We want to protect the Kurds and the Yazidi. But we aren't in Syria because the opposition groups as bad as the government and it would require a long term commitment. It is all about limited objectives.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that the people had better lives under the strong men before the conflicts occur. But this was all an illusion. If there was true stability and the majority of people were having a good quality of life, then these crises would not have happen in the first place. Since a majority of peoples' needs were not being met, then the illusion broke. The only way to reassert it would be for the strong men to crack down to maintain their authority. To blame Obama for this situation is asinine because this has building long before he assumed the head of our government. You can see this throughout the Middle East: Saudi Arabia giving more money to its citizens, Jordan more freedoms, protests in Iran, etc. Obama can only try to react to as best he can which is assuring that the innocent are not harmed and keeping US involvement to a minimum. There are no easy solutions here, and generally the only good you can do is half measures.

PS I miss Jackson50 posts on foreign policy. What happen to him?

 

[Diablos]

John McCain going around tomorrow on Sunday shows talking about Obama not doing enough when last year he was talking about supporting the same Syrian rebels that turned into these ISIS motherfuckers.

Dude's a trip, right?

PS I miss Jackson50 posts on foreign policy. What happen to him?

Perhaps the Obama campaign told him to stop posting. :-D

 

[Owzers]

John McCain going around tomorrow on Sunday shows talking about Obama not doing enough when last year he was talking about supporting the same Syrian rebels that turned into these ISIS motherfuckers.

And he'll say, like Graham already did, that bombing ISIS in Iraq is not enough we have to bomb them in Syria too.

 

[speculawyer]

And he'll say, like Graham already did, that bombing ISIS in Iraq is not enough we have to bomb them in Syria too.

Now, now, Obama . . . don't bring bombs to the region unless you brought enough to share with everyone.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Florida redrew its district lines... And it's basically the same fucking map.

thinkprogress.org/election/2014/08/08/3469129/new-florida-maps-gerrymander/

This shit reeeeeeeally needs to be illegal. Maybe in my lifetime.

Its not the same map and does make things a little less partisan

 

[speculawyer]

Its not the same map and does make things a little less partisan

What we should do is just have computers draw the maps. Then again, the two sides would fight to have their own programmers design the computer program. But if we created a computer program that had some mutually agreed upon algorithm that would be fed with a random seed for initial starting points, we could easily create nice districts without much human input at all.

But will we do this? Or will we just remain stuck with the current crappy system?

 

[benjipwns]

Its not the same map and does make things a little less partisan

It's not the same map, it's not the same content.

What we should do is just have computers draw the maps. Then again, the two sides would fight to have their own programmers design the computer program. But if we created a computer program that had some mutually agreed upon algorithm that would be fed with a random seed for initial starting points, we could easily create nice districts without much human input at all.

But will we do this? Or will we just remain stuck with the current crappy system?

They already have a mutually agreed upon algorithm. Even in the states with commissions they usually get to pick the members.

I wonder if Iowa's system would be acceptable in states with large minority population centers.