• 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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
Reid had 60 votes for 72 days.

As for running over, he had to figure out a way to get people like Lieberman, Nelson, and the like to vote for bills, especially when he wasn't going to magically convince supposed liberals like Carl Levin to get rid of the filibuster.
You don't need 60 votes to go nuclear, and as NeoXChaos pointed out, he routinely blocked votes from coming to the floor that he thought are going to become a liability to some senators. And you know, had that worked we could argue about whether it is worth refusing to govern effectively in order to win future election*, but it didn't work, those people got voted out anyway.

* it isn't.
 

benjipwns

Banned
KuGsj.gif


Also, dude got like 10 pinko commies banned in this thread, the OT's body was not ready.
Mercury Fred doesn't count, it was nice to see him reaching apocalyptic levels of rage again though in threads recently, he had been too happy for like a year.

NeSumns.jpg


EDIT: Or, you know, "I Budapest ver" over and over again.
I think I blew my wad too early by posting the part of the original story that nobody ever read.
 
LOL nyt:

“Right now, he has no foreign policy legacy,” said Cliff Kupchan, an Iran specialist who has been tracking the talks as chairman of the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm. “He’s got a list of foreign policy failures. A deal with Iran and the ensuing transformation of politics in the Middle East would provide one of the more robust foreign policy legacies of any recent presidencies. It’s kind of all in for Obama. He has nothing else. So for him, it’s all or nothing.”

Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Drones, OBL, Israel pivot, Libya = No legacy

KuGsj.gif


Also, dude got like 10 pinko commies banned in this thread, the OT's body was not ready.

What is this about?
 
You don't need 60 votes to go nuclear, and as NeoXChaos pointed out, he routinely blocked votes from coming to the floor that he thought are going to become a liability to some senators. And you know, had that worked we could argue about whether it is worth refusing to govern effectively in order to win future election*, but it didn't work, those people got voted out anyway.

* it isn't.

You don't need 60 votes, but you do need the support for nominal liberals, such as Carl Levin, to go nuclear in the 1st place.
 

Diablos

Member
LOL nyt:



Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Drones, OBL, Israel pivot, Libya = No legacy
Translation: "We're hoping our readers forget everything else he did in regards to foreign policy so that if this deal goes bad or Iran behaves super badly afterwards, Obama will have kicked himself in the gut with nothing else to show for it (or so we say)!"
 

Chichikov

Member
Mercury Fred doesn't count, it was nice to see him reaching apocalyptic levels of rage again though in threads recently, he had been too happy for like a year.
Dude has a hair trigger, always had, especially on this issue.
And while I generally don't enjoy seeing people banned, I also really really really hate Queen, so on some level*, this is like someone just burned A Night at the Opera, and that's a good thing.

* Granted, that level is stupid, crazy and doesn't make sense, but again, I would like to remind you that Queen fucking blows, terribly, and only bad people like that band.

What is this about?
In the Indiana gay pizza thread, meta was being meta, and plenty of people who do not yet have antibodies to his, *ahem*, unique style of debating lost their shit and lost their posting privileges.

You don't need 60 votes, but you do need the support for nominal liberals, such as Carl Levin, to go nuclear in the 1st place.
Considering the level of bullshit that was going on in the Senate, if you are enable to bring 51 senators to mount at least a credible threat, than you suck at your job (I also think he totally could've, just look at what happen in 2013 when he went mini-nuke).
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
In the Indiana gay pizza thread, meta was being meta, and plenty of people who do not yet have antibodies to his, *ahem*, unique style of debating lost their shit and lost their posting privileges.

Whatever do you mean?

***

Because I cite him so often, here's a nice little article about Eugene Volokh. I wonder if Kagan really is a regular reader of his blog?

Eugene Volokh leads me into the kitchen of his graceful two-story Mediterranean-style house in Pacific Palisades and offers me a cup of coffee. When he realizes that the sugar bowl is empty, he reaches into a cupboard and pulls out a box of sugar. I tell him not to bother filling the bowl, but he ignores me. “It’s a fixed cost that will be amortized over family visits in the future,” he says, an impish grin appearing on his face.

Even though he’s 47, Volokh still exudes a smartest-kid-in-the-classroom vibe. He first came to local prominence when the Los Angeles Times profiled him in 1980 in a feature story that ran under the headline “ ‘Gifted’ 12-Year-Old Math Genius Is UCLA’s Youngest Undergrad.” Now, after two decades as a law professor at his alma mater, he’s emerged as one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars. He’s also become a leading conservative and libertarian legal theorist, establishing himself as one of the few Angelenos to play a prominent role in hard-right political circles. Volokh writes prolifically—law review articles, op-ed essays, legal textbooks—but it’s his Web presence that has earned him the most recognition. Founded in 2002, The Volokh Conspiracy is among the oldest and most widely read legal blogs in the country. The site’s mainstream reach expanded dramatically after the left-leaning Washington Post started carrying it on its Web site last year, and its impact extends far beyond its 22,500 unique visitors per weekday. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is said to be a regular reader.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Clinton on the other hand has been around for years. Her approval ratings aren't stellar (49-46) but better than most other politicians, and her numbers are pretty baked in at this point.
I would disagree. I think she has room to grow, especially with younger voters once Obama's campaign team and OFA start doing their thing.
 

Wilsongt

Member
I don't think it's out of the question that people search out opposing viewpoints in order to keep themselves honest and challenge/strengthen/questions their own convictions. I mean, we're all regular readers of you, at this point.

People read what Meta says? Usually I just ram my face against a brick wall and I get the same effect.

Kinda <3 you, Mucinex.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I wanted to make a joke about Kagan being this progressive troll that used to respond to every single post on Volokh by accusing anyone who disagreed with them of "ranting" but I realized I couldn't remember the name of the troll.

Then I realized nobody else here probably read Volokh back then.

Also, there was a cop apologist who posted there all the time defending cops no matter what they did. And would always point to polls about cops as proof that nobody was afraid of them.
 
Meta pulls the points of debate over issues out of y'all because of his unique views. Not that anybody is hiding them, but it helps flesh things out for those of us who don't watch the news as much. PoliGaf is better for it.

That being said, following him through the Indiana thread was pretty funny.
 

benjipwns

Banned
A lot of people on GAF can't quite grasp when you're stating your view of the facts at hand and your opinion of an ideal. And vice versa for that matter. (Once again, see: Discussion, Gaming.) So they'll try to force you into arguing whichever one they want to argue against you about, Meta's good at refusing to play along.

I think the earlier issue is part of why people don't understand facetious posts. And then get angry about the "trolling" rather than realizing the rhetorical point being made.

No, I'm not talking about any of you, why would you think that?

If people understood the difference between sarcastic and facetious, I'd be out of a job.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
I wanted to make a joke about Kagan being this progressive troll that used to respond to every single post on Volokh by accusing anyone who disagreed with them of "ranting" but I realized I couldn't remember the name of the troll.

Sounds like you could use a mind palace.

It would be hilarious if Kagan trolled blogs, though.

People read what Meta says? Usually I just ram my face against a brick wall and I get the same effect.

That's weird. I actually use a brick wall as my word processor. That's probably where that sensation comes from.

It's super-inefficient.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Oh! Didn't even know their archives were still up, thought they got thrown down the memory hole like when other bloggers "move up" in the world: http://volokh.com/2014/01/#ARCHIVES

The Volokh Conspiracy was also where I learned that the Homosexualist Agenda is distinct from the Homosexual Agenda. Thanks to one poster named Barb I think. Gay marriage is actually pushed more by the former to undermine society than the latter who enjoy their sin. Truthfact.
 

benjipwns

Banned
BARB!!!

it just took a search for "gay barb" lololol from the first thread I clicked, her first three comments:
Barb • 3 years ago

Jordan Rosenberg: Nobody said gays are bad parents. Were that so gays would be forbidden to be parents, to raise children, to adopt. They aren’t.
There aren't many years of research on gay parents and kids to see what the outcomes will be. But I understand that there are some research returns that suggest gay parenting is not the same in outcomes --nor better. What we know for sure is that a functional Mom and Dad in the home, unconflicted by divorce, step parents, and blended families, have the best outcomes compared to single parents' kids and children of divorce --who have more than 90 percent liklihood of divorcing also. And more than 90 per cent liklihood that single unwed teen moms' daughters will follow their footsteps. Here is enough evidence that we should all support DOMA.

John Howard: I’ll ask again: Are you saying you don’t think we should prohibit same-sex couples from conceiving children together? I hope you give a different answer than you gave above.
Good grief --science fiction (now) allowing men to use their sperm together to produce a baby --in a test tube, e.g. --or in his artificial womb? or via surrogate? Definitely a possible Frankensteinish experiment.

I agree, that should be just as illegal as cloning humans should be. A terrible waste of money, too.

Barb • 3 years ago
I believe --if a boy NEVER has gay sex, he'll never crave it or identify as homosexual. No sleepovers. If he shows gender insecurity or confusion, no scout tents or camp dorms for him without his father there. Same if he is demonstrably popular and weak-willed at the same time.

Barb • 3 years ago

Jon Rowe: Barb: “Swift’s” “gay manifesto” was satire. C’mon, you are smart enough to understand that.
I guess I'm not. Sounds scary to me. And some of it was prophetic --predicting an agenda that is coming to fruition. Starting with bleeding-heart, elite, effete liberals.

Jon Rowe: Could the gay men have gay sex on the side while still maintaining the “image” of the “father” married to the mother, sleeping in the same bed, attending social events together, etc.
I think it's possible to protect kids from abnormal gender identity and orientation, and that should be our common goal. Gays should want to see youngsters avoid this sort of problem --which they say has been a problem for them. Legalizing their unions, calling them "marriage," letting them raise children who belong to neither partner and don't know their mother and therefore can't have a mother --this is not in the best interest of society at all --no matter how educated and rich the gay "parents."

As for what will the gay guy do? he can live with his boyfriend and do whatever --his predilictions disqualify him for marriage --unless he's willing to work on the original problems and the resulting same-sex sodomy addiction. He started into this feel good substitute for normalcy, and chose a route. He may have suffered damage to his gender identity. I'd be more willing to pay for gender-reparative counsel than create a new definition of marriage.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Seriously, though, who reads comments?
Comments are often the most informative part of an article.

Once upon a time Volokh had 90% legal discussions in their comments.

Actually, I've noticed this trend on most sites, like Volokh and an economics blog:
Site powered comments (legal/economics professors or people highly interested/read in law/economics) -> Disqus (more people who argue about the political issue parts of posts and hunt for "conservatives/liberals" in hiding, crazies seep in, insane people who respond to every post) -> Facebook (the goggles, they do nothing).
 

benjipwns

Banned
APK (and others) BFF to the rescue:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416307/war-private-mind-kevin-d-williamson
There are two easy ways to get a Republican to roll over and put his paws up in the air: The first is to write him a check, which is the political version of scratching his belly, and the second is to call him a bigot. In both cases, it helps if you have a great deal of money behind you.

Tim Cook, who in his role as chief executive of the world&#8217;s most valuable company personifies precisely the sort of oppression to which gay people in America are subjected, led the hunting party when Indiana&#8217;s governor Mike Pence signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while Walmart, a company that cannot present its hindquarters enthusiastically enough to the progressives who hate it and everything for which it stands, dispatched its CEO, C. Douglas McMillon, to head off a similar effort in Arkansas, where Governor Asa Hutchison rolled over immediately.

There are three problems with rewarding those who use accusations of bigotry as a political cudgel. First, those who seek to protect religious liberties are not bigots, and going along with false accusations that they are makes one a party to a lie. Second, it is an excellent way to lose political contests, since there is almost nothing &#8212; up to and including requiring algebra classes &#8212; that the Left will not denounce as bigotry. Third, and related, it encourages those who cynically deploy accusations of bigotry for their own political ends.

An excellent illustration of this dynamic is on display in the recent pronouncements of columnist and gay-rights activist Dan Savage, who, in what seems to be an effort to resurrect every lame stereotype about the shrill, hysterical, theatrical gay man, declaimed that the efforts of those who do not wish to see butchers and bakers and wedding-bouquet makers forced by their government at gunpoint to violate their religious scruples is &#8212; you probably have guessed already &#8212; nothing less than the consecration of Jim Crow Junior. &#8220;Anti-black bigots, racist bigots, during Jim Crow and segregation made the exact same arguments that you&#8217;re hearing people make now,&#8221; Savage said. Given the dramatic difference in the social and political position of blacks in the time of Bull Connor and gays in the time of Ellen DeGeneres, this is strictly Hitler-was-a-vegetarian stuff, the elevation of trivial formal similarities over dramatic substantial differences. The choices for explaining this are a.) moral illiteracy; b.) intellectual dishonesty; c.) both a and b.

Adlai Stevenson famously offered this definition: &#8220;A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.&#8221; We do not live in that society.
The ancient rival to étatism in the Western world is the church militant, both in its formal institutional expression and in the relatively newfangled (and thoroughly American) choose-your-own-adventure approach to Christianity. For the culture warrior, bringing these nonconformists to heel is a strategic priority. Gay couples contemplating nuptials are not just happening into cake shops and florists with Christian proprietors &#8212; this is an organized campaign to bring the private mind under political discipline, to render certain moral dispositions untenable. Like Antiochus and the Jews, the game here is to &#8220;oblige them to partake of the sacrifices&#8221; and &#8220;adopt the customs&#8221; of the rulers. We are not so far removed in time as we imagine: Among the acts intended to Hellenize the Jews was a ban on circumcision, a proposal that is still very much alive in our own time, with authorities in several European countries currently pressing for that prohibition.

&#8220;I expect to die in bed,&#8221; Francis Eugene Cardinal George famously remarked. &#8220;My successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.&#8221; Perhaps it will not come to that. But we already are on the precipice of sending men with guns to the homes and businesses of bakers to enforce compliance with dictates undreamt-of the day before yesterday.

Yes, render unto Caesar, and all that. But render only what is Caesar&#8217;s &#8212; and not one mite more.
so good .gif

The people who have hijacked the name &#8220;liberal&#8221; &#8212; the étatists &#8212; always win when social questions are decided by the state rather than in private life, because the expansion of the state, and the consequent diminution of private life, is their principal objective. The self-styled progressive sets himself in rhetorical opposition to Big Business, but the corporate manager often suffers from the same fatal conceit as the economic étatist &#8212; an unthinking, inhumane preference for uniformity, consistency, regimentation, and conformity. It is no surprise to see Apple and Walmart joining forces here against the private mind. There is a reason that the atmosphere and protocols of the corporate human-resources office are a great deal like those of the junior-high vice-principal&#8217;s office: All reeducation facilities have a little something in common.
actual so good .gif ;)


EDIT: Wait, better:
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ew-mccarthyites-and-theyre-proud-it-john-fund
Liberals Are the New McCarthyites&#8212;and They&#8217;re Proud of It
Harry Reid leads today&#8217;s Pitchfork Persecutors.
...
Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, was asked by CNN&#8217;s Dana Bash this week if he regretted his 2012 accusation on the Senate floor that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney &#8220;hasn&#8217;t paid taxes for ten years.&#8221; Reid presented no evidence at the time and claimed he didn&#8217;t need any: &#8220;I don&#8217;t think the burden should be on me. The burden should be on him. He&#8217;s the one I&#8217;ve alleged has not paid any taxes.&#8221; Reid&#8217;s response in the interview was fascinating. When asked by Bash if his tactic was McCarthyite he visibly shrugged on camera, smiled, and said &#8220;Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn&#8217;t win, did he?&#8221; White House spokesman Josh Earnest refused to criticize Reid for his comment because it &#8220;was three years old,&#8221; when in reality Reid&#8217;s televised reveling in it was only three days old.

Las Vegas journalist Jon Ralston, who has observed Reid over the latter&#8217;s 30-year career in the Senate, has had enough. He revealed that he had written a harshly critical column in 2012 about Reid&#8217;s &#8220;ruthless, Machiavellian politics&#8221; in response to the senator&#8217;s accusation against Romney but saw it spiked by the Las Vegas Sun because its editor wanted to protect Reid.

The column pulled no punches in going after Reid: &#8220;He doesn&#8217;t care about being criticized for using the same tactics that Joe McCarthy used. . . . Is there anything more dangerous than a man who does not care? And a related question: Is there anything more sadly desperate than a party that will do anything not to talk about the economy and to change the subject to Mitt Romney&#8217;s wealth? . . . Sometimes the ends do not justify the means, even in the political swamp.&#8221; But increasingly the political swamp is being governed by the law of the jungle.

Take the Koch Brothers, who Reid has ceaselessly pilloried as &#8220;un-American&#8221; in speeches on the Senate floor. And the vilification continues, even with no election in sight. Just this past February, Salon published a piece by Thom Hartmann, America&#8217;s leading liberal talk-radio-show host, about the Koch Brothers. The title: &#8220;Fascism Is Rising in America.&#8221;

Liberals have become quite fond of using fascist imagery to denounce their opponents in some of the same ways conservatives used to warn about Reds under every bed. Al Gore calls his critics &#8220;digital brownshirts.&#8221; Last month, Vice President Joe Biden accused foes of union power of being &#8220;blackshirts.&#8221;

And then there are the &#8220;naming of names&#8221; and economic pressure that seem wildly out of place in a supposedly free marketplace of ideas. Last month, a group of 39 scientists accused the Smithsonian&#8217;s Museums of Science and Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History in New York City of compromising their &#8220;integrity&#8221; by accepting money from the Koch Brothers.

A related petition demanded the Koch Brothers be removed from any museum boards. The scientists claimed that the &#8220;only ethical way forward&#8221; was for institutions to &#8220;cut all ties&#8221; with climate-change skeptics and fossil-fuel companies. Syracuse University did just that this week by announcing its full divestment from fossil-fuel companies.

Senator Reid&#8217;s Democratic colleagues have joined in the shaming. Senators Barbara Boxer of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sent a letter in February to over 100 companies and think tanks demanding they reveal their ties to any efforts to argue against climate-change policies.
 

Chichikov

Member
Comments are often the most informative part of an article.

Once upon a time Volokh had 90% legal discussions in their comments.

Actually, I've noticed this trend on most sites, like Volokh and an economics blog:
Site powered comments (legal/economics professors or people highly interested/read in law/economics) -> Disqus (more people who argue about the political issue parts of posts and hunt for "conservatives/liberals" in hiding, crazies seep in, insane people who respond to every post) -> Facebook (the goggles, they do nothing).
That's like your supervillain origin story.

"One fateful day, benji, a mild manner duck trying to research his favorite Ammonite god Molokh makes momentous typo. Soon, overwhelmed by the legalistic tedium, semantic arguments and weirdly personal attacks in the comments section, his young fertile mind is warped more than his corkscrew shaped duck penis. And thus benjipwns is born, able to answer every post, to never let anything go, to break even the shortest of posts into 12 different quotes."
 
Considering the level of bullshit that was going on in the Senate, if you are enable to bring 51 senators to mount at least a credible threat, than you suck at your job (I also think he totally could've, just look at what happen in 2013 when he went mini-nuke).

I'd point out he was only able to do that because many of the old guard has either retired or lost their seats, any new members came in knowing what the GOP were going to do, and those that left over had gone through four to five years of pure GOP obstruction.

Remember, much of the caucus in '08 had been around since the "good ole' days" of the Senate, when everybody got along, had drinks, and made deals of bipartisanship and like many old people, haven't realized that the world has changed (like nominal liberals such as Levin or Dodd). Or ya' know, were fuckheads who were never going to agree anyway (hi Senator Lieberman!).
 

benjipwns

Banned
The Gang of 14. Byrd, Chafee, Collins, DeWine, Graham, Inouye, Landrieu, Lieberman, McCain, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Salazar, Snowe and John Warner.

Pryor was the only Democrat from that group left to vote against the "nuclear option" though I guess you could consider Manchin to be Byrd's replacement.

That was one of the most hilariously dumb SENATE WE'RE THE SENATE WE'RE SENATORS AND WE'RE IN THE SENATE things that politicos and Senators get boners about:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
OH YEAH BIPARTISANISM OH YEAH YES YES YES YES SENATORS UNDERSTANDING YES YES PRACTICES YES OH OH AGREEMENT
 

benjipwns

Banned
Henry Saad of Michigan, on the other hand, was opposed by his two Democratic home state Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, because he had angered Stabenow in September 2003 by sending out an e-mail critical of her participation in his original filibuster. In the e-mail, Saad wrote to a supporter about Stabenow, "This is the game they play. Pretend to do the right thing while abusing the system and undermining the constitutional process. Perhaps some day she will pay the price for her misconduct." Stabenow became aware of the e-mail when Saad accidentally sent it not only to the supporter but also to Stabenow's office
lol, that's my Stabenow
 
All according to kotaku

Could Chris Christie Appoint Himself To The U.S. Senate? Yes, He Can

To trigger this scenario, Menendez, who was indicted Wednesday on corruption charges, would first have to step down or be convicted. Menendez has given no indication he's going anywhere. Then again, stranger things have happened.

Consider why Christie might want to think about appointing himself IF a Senate seat were to be vacated:

He's term-limited as governor. He can't run again after serving two consecutive terms; and

His presidential hopes seem bleak at the moment.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...-appoint-himself-to-the-u-s-senate-yes-he-can
 
Hillary's signed the lease for her campaign HQ in Brooklyn. FEC rules means she'll announce by April 16.
Hillary Clinton’s team has signed a lease for office space in Brooklyn earlier this week, two people familiar with the move said Friday, triggering a regulatory countdown clock toward a more formal acknowledgment of what’s already clear: She’s running for president.

Her campaign-in-waiting has committed to nearly 80,000 square feet at 1 Pierrepont Plaza on the eastern edge of Brooklyn Heights, half a mile south of the Brooklyn Bridge and near a dozen subway lines and just as many buses. The lease was signed on Wednesday, one of the people said.

The decision to situate Clinton’s campaign headquarters in the borough had been final for weeks, as was the selection of the building. But Clinton’s team held off on inking the deal, since it gives her 15 days under Federal Election Commission rules to launch either an exploratory committee or a full-fledged candidate committee. That gives her until April 16 to take a next step.

Right next to Clinton Street and Hill Country BBQ. I see you Hilldawg.

CBrNCVGUsAA-P_c.png
 
The democrat party ladies and gentlemen

At one point earlier this winter, it seemed as though the perfect storm of MTA funding had appeared on the horizon. The MTA had issued a request for a funding plan for a $15 billion capital budget gap while New York State had a $6 billion windfall in fines from financial institutions. When the dust finally settled on the budget discussions this week, yacht owners earned themselves a tax break while the MTA received a big, fat nothing. Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his staff plan to work toward a resolution on the capital plan while budget watchers and transit advocates are left shaking their heads in dismay as Albany again lets down New York City.
http://secondavenuesagas.com/

A yacht credit?

Of the thousands of items packed into Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo&#8217;s $150 billion budget for New York State, one in particular seemed to float to the top: a tax credit for buyers of luxury boats.

Though the word &#8220;yacht&#8221; is never used, the budget contains a tax break for anyone in the market for a &#8220;vessel&#8221; valued at more than $230,000. Specifically, buyers will not have to pay sales tax beyond that amount, regardless of the final price tag. A vessel is defined in state law as &#8220;every description of watercraft, other than a seaplane, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.&#8221;

&#8220;We were simply looking for things like property tax relief for regular folks and we found the yacht exemption,&#8221; said Ronald Deutsch, the institute&#8217;s executive director. &#8220;I think it is incredibly sad you have so many New Yorkers who are struggling and this government&#8217;s priorities are on a yacht tax credit.&#8221;

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/n...-new-york-budget-offers-a-tax-break.html?_r=0

If you vote for the Cuomo Democrat party, you're a monster.
 

Teggy

Member
Well, poor Memories Pizza is now half a million dollars richer and counting.

How did these guys get on the news anyway? Did they call up and say, "hey, we'll say we won't serve a gay wedding - come interview us!"
 

benjipwns

Banned
How did these guys get on the news anyway? Did they call up and say, "hey, we'll say we won't serve a gay wedding - come interview us!"
It appears that Alyssa Marino, the reporter for ABC57, was going around to businesses asking if they would comment on the new law and this was the first one that agreed to or gave the answer close to what she wanted: "we wouldn't cater gay weddings."

The fun part being that the story was then headlined: "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service" while stuck at the bottom of the story was the fact that owners had stated they wouldn't refuse service to anyone, just that they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Which was presumably a question Marino posed to them because of similar cases around the country. And is I think something very distinctly different and nowhere near the same level of bigotry or anything.
 

AntoneM

Member
It appears that Alyssa Marino, the reporter for ABC57, was going around to businesses asking if they would comment on the new law and this was the first one that agreed to or gave the answer close to what she wanted: "we wouldn't cater gay weddings."

The fun part being that the story was then headlined: "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service" while stuck at the bottom of the story was the fact that owners had stated they wouldn't refuse service to anyone, just that they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Which was presumably a question Marino posed to them because of similar cases around the country. And is I think something very distinctly different and nowhere near the same level of bigotry or anything.

"We'll take your money every other day, but, we think your marriage is amoral and disgusting."
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://time.com/3763552/hillary-clinton-age-president/
Forget politics — she's biologically primed to be a leader

At 67, Hillary Clinton is now a “woman of a certain age.” So much emphasis and worry are put on physical aging in women that the emotional maturity and freedom that can come at this time are given short shrift. That robs everyone of a great natural resource. As women of a certain age, it is our time to lead. The new standard for aging women should be about vitality, strength, and assertiveness.

One of the largest demographics in America is women in their forties to sixties, and by 2020 there will be nearly 60 million peri- and post-menopausal women living in the United States. Because women’s average life expectancy is currently 81 years, we’re easily spending a third of our lives postmenopausal. That is a great opportunity for growth and change.

The long phase of perimenopause is marked by seismic spikes and troughs of estrogen levels, which can last for more than a decade in many women. But afterward, there is a hormonal ebbing that creates a moment of great possibility. As a psychiatrist, I will tell you the most interesting thing about menopause is what happens after. A woman emerging from the transition of perimenopause blossoms. It is a time for redefining and refining what it is she wants to accomplish in her third act. And it happens to be excellent timing for the job Clinton is likely to seek. Biologically speaking, post-menopausal women are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well, and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.

Estrogen is a stress hormone that helps a woman be resilient during her fertile years. It rises and falls to help her meet her biological demands, which are often about giving to others: attracting a mate, bearing children, and nurturing our family. When estrogen levels drop after menopause, the cyclical forces that dominated the first half of our lives have been replaced with something more consistent. Our lives become less revolved around others’ and more about finally taking our turn.

...

And the post–menopausal emergence, if you will, coincides with the point at which most women will have a fair amount of experience under their belts. (Perhaps they’ve already served as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, for instance.) This is often the right time to make a push, to take more of a leadership position, enter a new arena, or strike out on your own. My mother was a great role model in her perimenopause, taking her symptoms in stride and referring to her hot flashes as “power surges.” She got another degree and switched careers; that appealed to me as a teenage girl. Now I see this rise in power as a way to channel new energy and even new anger. It’s a chance to make changes that should’ve been made decades ago. This may also be the time when children — adolescents, in particular — are ready to take on more responsibility, so perhaps there is a benefit for everyone in changing that family dynamic.

“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” said a 73-year-old Ronald Reagan of 56-year-old Walter Mondale. Hillary would begin her presidency at exactly the same age Reagan did, but her life expectancy would be longer than any other president in recent times. And she would have all the experience and self-assuranceof a post-menopausal woman, ready to take her rightful place at the table — or in the Oval Office.
 

dabig2

Member
I've lost count of the number of times I've read the word "Chamberlain" today.

The GOP has been abusing this "comparison" since even before Barack Hussein Obama became President. Salon had a pretty good article about this a couple weeks ago.

<snip>
...
The takeaway from all this is that conservatives see a world that is just jammed full of Hitlers. Cuba, the Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia, Iran – Hitlers all. And once you’ve reduced every single international conflict into “us versus Hitler,” well, anything less than full-on, guns-blazing, hard-line, World War II-type swagger starts to sound weak and unreasonable. If only Obama would get serious and realize that literally everyone is Hitler, he wouldn’t be such a Chamberlain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom