• 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 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chichikov

Member
Oblivion said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2fHN-IAkZY

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit, this is is on the level of Ron Paul being placed in a parking lot during the Republican debates on SNL.
Click to expand...
Is he improvising it?
Highlights:
  • wooooooooooooooooooooooo! broke the one minute barrier before mentioning rape, an all time best for Gohmert.
  • Jesus gave oil to Texas and that's why oil prices are down.
  • If we just lower the corporate tax rate that US could be a super power!
  • We're assholes to Mexico because we're encouraging their best and brightest to come to the US and be evil lazy illegals.
  • Drug cartels and radical Muslims working together, OMFG, we're all dead.
  • And just when you least expect it, a Woodrow Wilson reference.
  • Did you know? I'm even dumber than Arthur Laffer.
  • Taxing the rich is hard, let's not try.
  • Also, raising tax on the rich reward the rich for some reason.
  • Flat tax!
  • Build the fence and I'll stop being an asshole, I promise!
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Oblivion said:
What, any chance of bipartisan cooperation?
Click to expand...

Yep. Republicans were planning on working with him, but Obama blew it when he made fun of them during the SotU address. How can republicans work with him after that?

Thanks Obama.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Vahagn said:
Civil Rights supporters in 1944?
Click to expand...
Read about Smith v. Allrwright. The 1948 Democratic Convention. Etc. Yes, civil rights supporters (like FDR and opponent Thomas Dewey) existed during the 1940's.

Lol the confederacy. ... Invalidating that by moving goalposts to 11 states is cheap parlor tricks because no one was talking about Florida or Texas.
Click to expand...
This entire discussion started with people talking about not just the Confederate states but actual fucking Confederates controlling the Democratic Party into the 1950s with Truman as a citation.

Re: Citizens United - The liberal position has always been that the rich shouldn't have enormous affects on our political process because the liberal position has always been about spreading power out.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine a liberal whose position isn't that freedom of the press/speech/association is absolute and the state cannot offense against it in the name of restricting access to the political process.

A conservative, sure, could find reason that only those who are traditional political players should be allowed to determine who is let into the club. And the progressive position is that people are idiots and need their choices restricted, so they ally with the conservatives to maintain the power of the political elite and undermine the liberals whenever possible. Sometimes they fall short though, often through inner conflict between the anti-liberal forces, and rights are restored or protected from the reactionary backlash against the Liberal Revolution.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Vahagn said:
CU was a response to Obama's insanely effective fundraising machine. Understanding that they needed better fundraising to be effective and that one 500 million dollar check would be easier than getting 25 bucks from 20 million people, they went around getting that done. It's a gimmick because a liberal Supreme Court would never allow it, and as soon as the balance of power shifts by one justice, that shit is getting reversed.
Click to expand...

Citizens United had nothing to do with fundraising.

Also, while on that topic, I read an article by Cato's Ilya Shapiro, which criticized Obama's 2010 SOTU as follows:

Ilya Shapiro said:
First, Citizens United didn't reverse a century of law. The president was referring to the Tillman Act of 1907, which banned corporate donations to campaigns. Such donations are still banned. Instead, the decision overturned a 1990 precedent that upheld a ban on independent spending by corporations. That 1990 ruling was the only time the court allowed a restriction on political speech for a reason other than the need to prevent corruption.
Click to expand...

Is the bolded true?
 
A

AntoneM

Member
Oblivion said:
What, any chance of bipartisan cooperation?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and having the official response come from some one who ran, in part, on impeaching the president and removing him from office is a strong showing of bipartisan cooperation.
not sure if you're serious
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Some tabloid fun for poligaf

Holly Fisher became a social media phenomenon in July after posting a pair of photos showing her holding a variety of conservative totems – a Bible, AR-15 rifle, a Chick-fil-A cup, and wearing a pro-life T-shirt.

“ATTENTION LIBERALS: do NOT look at this picture,” Fisher posted on her Twitter account. “Your head will most likely explode.”

Conservative provocateur Charles C. Johnson recently contacted Fisher after hearing rumors that she had engaged in an extramarital affair last fall with Joel Frewa, then a video editor with the Tea Party News Network.

In a screen capture of their text conversation, Fisher strongly denies having an affair and asks Johnson why he would publish that information when the country is “literally going to hell.”

“Look, I have multiple people saying this and I have the messages your husband wrote,” Johnson said. “Do you want to stop lying?”

Fisher admitted to the affair less than an hour later in a Facebook post, saying she had been overwhelmed by the media attention but had since reconciled with her husband.

“In the overwhelming mess of the political spotlight and trying to find myself and where I belong, I actually completely lost myself,” she said in the post. “I lost my faith in my marriage, I lost my faith in this life that not only I’ve chosen for myself, but a life that I promote. Happy military wife with kids and church and happy, happy, happy. False. My life crumbled. My marriage crumbled. I lost my faith in God.”

The affair allegedly took place during the Restoring the Dream event, a Faith and Freedom conference, and on Election night.
Click to expand...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...on-combat-vet-husband-with-tea-party-staffer/
 
V

Vahagn

Member
benjipwns said:
Read about Smith v. Allrwright. The 1948 Democratic Convention. Etc. Yes, civil rights supporters (like FDR and opponent Thomas Dewey) existed during the 1940's.


This entire discussion started with people talking about not just the Confederate states but actual fucking Confederates controlling the Democratic Party into the 1950s with Truman as a citation.


I can't imagine a liberal whose position isn't that freedom of the press/speech/association is absolute and the state cannot offense against it in the name of restricting access to the political process.

A conservative, sure, could find reason that only those who are traditional political players should be allowed to determine who is let into the club. And the progressive position is that people are idiots and need their choices restricted, so they ally with the conservatives to maintain the power of the political elite and undermine the liberals whenever possible. Sometimes they fall short though, often through inner conflict between the anti-liberal forces, and rights are restored or protected from the reactionary backlash against the Liberal Revolution.
Click to expand...

We have a different idea of what it means to be a liberal or a progressive. The idea that progressives believe people are idiots and need their choices restricted vis a vis the political process is lulz.

Progressives think people need their choices restricted when it comes to, say, arsenic in their water, cars with no safety features and tanks on their lawn. But not to participating in the political process. They wouldn't have faught to expand voting rights for centuries if they did.

As for your civil rights nonsense, comparing FDR's record in civil rights and LBJ's is kind of a joke. You still haven't explained why that switch happened. And why it stayed for the better part of 60 years.


Metaphoreus said:
Citizens United had nothing to do with fundraising
Click to expand...

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe this. Next you'll tell me that voter ID has nothing to do with suppressing the vote and that gerrymandering has nothing to do with winning elections and creating safe districts.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Alright, which one of you did this?

A handful of spectators disrupted the opening of Wednesday morning’s Supreme Court session by rising one by one from their seats to shout protests over the Citizens United decision and other populist themes on the fifth anniversary of the controversial ruling.

Just after the Justices had taken the bench at 10 a.m., and as they were about to announce opinions, a woman stood from her seat near the back of the courtroom and said, “I rise on behalf of democracy.” She continued with a mention of Citizens United, the 2010 ruling that removed limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. Three Supreme Court police officers quickly converged on her, causing a loud commotion as they pushed through an area of the courtroom where single wooden chairs are in use, forcefully subdued her, and then removed her from the courtroom.

As what at first seemed like the lone demonstrator was removed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. quipped, “Our second order of business this morning …” to laughs from the crowded courtroom.

But before he could finish that thought, a second demonstrators stood and said, “One person, one vote.” It was perhaps a continuation of the Citizens United theme, or a reference to a key phrase from the Court’s voting rights jurisprudence. As the second protestor was being approached by officers, a third and a fourth one stood and uttered similar lines.

The Chief Justice was heard to mutter, “Oh, please.”
Click to expand...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Early, but PolliGAF is always fun..

5a73bd0ba38da3afeaa924b54a5b2998.jpg

(Out today)
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Supreme Court to hear the case on the Fair Housing Act.

http://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-courts-latest-race-case-housing-discrimination

They are poised to hurt minorities yet again, I'd imagine.

It's weird how at the end of the day the Roberts Court will end up being great for civil rights of homosexuals (or in the realm of sexuality) but horrible for racial and ethnic minorities...
Click to expand...

The Court’s aggressive tack has been welcomed by conservative groups, who believe the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, intended to ensure former slaves equality under the law, requires strict legal colorblindness.
Click to expand...

First of all we should stop calling conservatives conservatives and label them more accurately as reactionaries and revanchists.

Second this doesn't pass any logical understanding of original intent which conservatives bandy about. The same people that passed this amendment passed laws like the Freedman's Bureau that were targeted at black folk almost exclusively. They weren't colorblind. Its an absurd concept.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
In advance of his presidential campaign, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) home-state support continues to drop. A new Quinnipiac poll shows the Republican governor with a 46% approval rating, while 50% disapprove. The pollster's report noted this is Christie's "worst overall score in almost four years."
Click to expand...

Aw yeah.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
First of all we should stop calling conservatives conservatives and label them more accurately as reactionaries and revanchists.

Second this doesn't pass any logical understanding of original intent which conservatives bandy about. The same people that passed this amendment passed laws like the Freedman's Bureau that were targeted at black folk almost exclusively. They weren't colorblind. Its an absurd concept.
Click to expand...
They sense that their time as the reactionary majority is short, and they're hacking away at whatever they can while they can, knowing it'll take huge effort to re-establish these protections. /tinfoil
...

I wonder what Hillary's coattails would look like. And I really, really wish someone over at FreeRepublic would post that polling image.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
20,000 jobs cut in the past week amidst record profits in the oil industry.

Upcoming job numbers will be interesting.

Recession. Soon.


....in Texas
 
C

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
The President is here in Boise today. There are jets and helicopters all over the place as well as cop cars all around downtown. I'm really bummed that I can't be there to hear his speech.
 
JetBlackPanda

JetBlackPanda

Member
I don't even know what my libertarian friend is trying to do here.

Ending federal subsidies for education....would this really make collage affordable? Would campuses really lower their prices dramatically if nobody was able to get federal loans or grants? This would be an interesting experiment if it could actually happen. Would competition lower prices so low that the very poor could afford it? And, should the poor be able to get a higher education without first lifting themselves out of poverty? Sadly, I don't think we will ever have a chance to see how it could play out. I do hope that the push for more government in higher education makes our economy and nation stronger. But I still do often wonder if it is the answer. Btw, nothing in this is rhetorical. I'd like to hear your opinions.
Click to expand...
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
Hobbestetrician said:
I have been out of the collage game for a bit, have prices really gone up that much?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it has increased a ton, but it has increased far more than earnings and other costs recently. Notice an increase in early 90s then a much more pronounced one in 05 or so. Here's a chart I see often:
ishyZ4vV8iWU.png


And here's college costs vs. earnings.
p32_26302_image001.gif


I think the idea is that colleges know how much federal aid is (going up), and how much people are willing to spend out of pocket on top, and that college is seen more an more as a prerequisite for a job, so they up their prices to make sure they capture the full amount possible. So the theory is that by removing the federal aid portion, colleges would act rationally and reduce the cost to just what people are willing to spend, cutting internal costs in the process as well. In reality, I am not sure the quality of the education would be the same without the significant federal money going into the system, whether as aid or research grants or whatnot.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Vahagn said:
We have a different idea of what it means to be a liberal or a progressive. The idea that progressives believe people are idiots and need their choices restricted vis a vis the political process is lulz.

Progressives think people need their choices restricted when it comes to, say, arsenic in their water, cars with no safety features and tanks on their lawn. But not to participating in the political process. They wouldn't have faught to expand voting rights for centuries if they did.
Click to expand...
They didn't for centuries, progressives are a relatively new political movement that spawned during the socialist reactionary period and blended corporate technocrats with social gospel warriors, silverites/inflationaries (populists) and labor in order to get a handle on those groups. The goal was to prevent socialist and communist revolution and agitation while seizing control of liberal institutions and twisting them to serve the elite "superior" classes. (See: Wilson decrying anything that prevents the government from acting, including individual rights of citizens, checks and balances, voters and individual legislators having too much say vs. party whips; Condemning the large trusts and "monopolists" while establishing their own monopolies in the now vacant fields by force; Everything about the hype regarding eugenics; Setting about destroying flexible institutions like currency by further control and centralization in order to promote inflation, benefiting the wealthy and Wall Street classes.)

Which is why they're committed to the illusion of democracy (and choice in general), combining every slight broad and visible expansion with extensive minority-targeted restrictions on press/speech/assembly and intertwining the actions (and thus the costs) of two private corporations with the government. And creating an administrative state that operates permanently shielded away from the idiot voters/legislators and their fickle whims.

Also seen in the rise of the imperial presidency. Progressives have carried the banner for that since Teddy Roosevelt first did mostly nothing (leaving it to underlings) while waging endless rhetorical war establishing the blueprint for winning political battles on two separate unrelated fronts.

As for your civil rights nonsense, comparing FDR's record in civil rights and LBJ's is kind of a joke.
Click to expand...
LBJ's hand was forced by the three Presidents before him (and the Supreme Court) and the rapid growth in the civil rights movement into a real political movement with majority support. He tried to scuttle the 1957 Act, an act similar to 1964's in 1960, temper JFK's ambitions before he caved into the Kennedy faction post-death because he was busy trying to send American boys to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves. (And he wanted to kick RFK to the curb and in the nuts asap.)

FDR is who originally broke the Republican hold on the black vote by finally getting around to washing the Democrats bloody shirt.

You still haven't explained why that switch happened.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did:
The sexual revolution, acid, amnesty and abortion, death penalty, crime and riots, the Democrats desire to surrender the Cold War to the Soviets, etc.* all seem like they'd be more relevant issues to the South becoming competitive than one Federal Civil Rights Act (in an era with a number of them) that didn't stop them from voting for the Democrat who pushed it and signed it the same year it was passed and signed.

*aka things the parties were not polarized on by any significant amount before 1964 but strongly were by 1984.
Click to expand...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Wilsongt said:
Apparently Boehner invited Bibi to come and address the congress. What the fuck?
Click to expand...

Trying to scuttle any deal with Iran?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I see a lot of reasons why GOPers would hate to do a deal with Iran:
-Keep their Christian Zionist base happy
-Keep their oil & gas base happy by not allowing more oil & gas on the world markets
-Keep the Iranian boogeyman around to endlessly fear-monger with
-Keep their AIPAC donors happy


That said, there are some that would like to open up Iran. Halliburton could get some oil services contracts there . . . Dick Cheney was pushing hard for this as Halliburton CEO. Lots of business expansion to be done there (selling autos, computers, medicines, heavy construction equipment, etc.) Heck, if Iran wants nuclear power, shouldn't we sell a reactor to them so we can keep a close eye on it?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
So apparently by a 98-1 vote, the Senate agreed that climate change is real and not a hoax.

That 1 being Roger Wicker (R–MS).

On whether man contributes to it is where the 59-40 fail came from.

And apparently there's another similar amendment that failed 50-49? "To express the sense of the Senate that human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

Possible that it's the same thing and 1 was a typo and it was always 50-49?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Black Mamba said:
So apparently by a 98-1 vote, the Senate agreed that climate change is real and not a hoax.

That 1 being Roger Wicker (R–MS).

On whether man contributes to it is where the 59-40 fail came from.

And apparently there's another similar amendment that failed 50-49? "To express the sense of the Senate that human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

Possible that it's the same thing and 1 was a typo and it was always 50-49?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 50-49 is a typo. It was 59-40.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Jim Inhofe @jiminhofe · 2h 2 hours ago
Climate change is real, and it is not a hoax. How arrogant is it for people to say that man can do something about changing the climate?
Click to expand...

Man, this guy makes me blow a gasket. Arrogant? What the hell is he even talking about?
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
It comes from the idea that only a super being can change the climate, that we're too "small" to change something as "big" as the Earth. When our ecosystem is actually fragile as all hell and actually not at all that big.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
speculawyer said:
There is going to have to be an economic meltdown, war, or other huge influence for the GOP to win. Definitely could happen but they have a tough row to hoe.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Every day that passes without the world imploding, their chances drop.

Thinking more about logistics of 2016, I was also looking forward to convention speech comparisons. On one side, you'll have:
the GOP nominee
George W Bush, maybe?
and then who?

On the other side, you'll have:
Hillary - who can be pretty decent
Barack - remarkable
and Bill effing Clinton - one of the best of all time?

That's almost not fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom