• 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 2016 |OT2| we love the poorly educated

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Makai

Member
pigeon said:
Isn't this just a variation on Monty Haul?
Click to expand...
Yes. The original is famous because many people refuse to believe the answer. In the thread, some people believe it's distinct from Monty Hall and some even try to discredit probability outright.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
If the gun was legal to sell, and if the person to whom the manufacturer sold to gun to sell to consumers was licensed by the state to do so, I don't really see an argument for why that manufacturer should even have to go to court. If you sell a legal ware according to legal strictures, and it works as advertised and does not malfunction and harm consumers, why should it be an option for you to be "held accountable"? The whole thing largely seems to me to be a backdoor way for people who don't think the gun should have been legal in the first place to get "justice" against the manufacturers, and while I understand the emotional and moral impetus for that, I also can't say that I think it's legally or ethically justified.
Click to expand...

PLCAA doesn't just protect the manufacturers though. It also targets dealers. I'm not saying that every single case should be litigated. I'm saying that if there is a case that has merit, a plaintiff should be able to let their case be heard. If they lose (which they probably would have even before this law) so be it. Let the facts be heard, and then go from there. That's the foundation of our legal system.

No one is saying that a legally sold gun that is used to commit a crime should result in a lawsuit against the manufacturer.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Most embarrassing campaign options:

Scott Walker: From frontrunner to <1% and millions in debt within two months after being suffocated by Trump. Advocated for a wall along the Canadian border and three different positions on the 14th amendment within 5 days. Compared the teacher's union to ISIS.

Bobby Jindal: From Republican star in 2008 to <1% throughout the campaign despite destroying Louisiana for a chance at the presidency. Called immigration without assimilation "invasion."

Lindsey Graham: Never broke 1% in polls, despite a massive amount of experience, and watched his party get taken over by Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

Rand Paul: One of Trump's main punching bags while Trump stole away all of his father's supporters despite Trump calling for an end to the first amendment. Campaign proved that libertarians don't exist in America and he soon abandoned his principles to try to win votes while getting fucked up by Cruz throughout the entire process.

Jeb Bush: The Trump punching bag, political career ended with Trump shitting on his entire family and then taking the Bush territory of South Carolina. Spent over $1.5k per vote. A big, fat mess.

Marco Rubio: Went through 12 revisions on the campaign trail until he settled on the Scrappy Doo persona. Political career concluded with him discussing the size and color of Donald Trump's penis.

Ben Carson: Campaign was a scam and he might not have been in on the scam.
Click to expand...

I think the most embarrassing in this whole thing is the state of Wisconsin for voting that joke Walker governor TWICE.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Macho Madness said:
Likely delegate count before Ohio and Florida:

2vldkUW.png


95btU70.png


XNTtWTe.png


Ohio and Florida are crucial if you're planning on a contested convention.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't winning Ohio. I can see Florida, though.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
B-Dubs said:
Dunno, but it pisses me off. Get that antiscience shit out of the party.
Click to expand...

What he said was in no way anti-science. In fact, it's pro-science, as it promotes the visibility of additional biological information regarding our food sources. If something is genetically modified, and you label it as such, it doesn't go against science do so.

Much ado about nothing.
 
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
I do think that labeling raises fears about GMO foods which are unsubstantiated by research, but other than that issue, I don't think that labeling is or should be an issue. If people want to avoid GMOs for no reason other than their own quirks, I don't really care.

I sometimes wonder if people project their understandable dislike of Monsanto, Tyson, ConAgra's business practices with the GMO foods that these companies grow and thus unfairly malign GMO foods. It might be easy to extend your discomfort with the patenting of GMO seeds by these companies into a mistrust of GMO foods overall.
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
Voysa Reezun said:
I do think that labeling raises fears about GMO foods which are unsubstantiated by research, but other than that issue, I don't think that labeling is or should be an issue. If people want to avoid GMOs for no reason other than their own quirks, I don't really care.
Click to expand...

It's too bad no food companies have been able to voluntarily label their non-GMO food to appeal to consumers who wish to make that choice and we have to require labeling of all foods...
/s

How did we get onto GMOs anyway? Crazy Bernie... but at least it's a change from banks and Wall Street, I guess.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
brainchild said:
What he said was in no way anti-science. In fact, it's pro-science, as it promotes the visibility of additional biological information regarding our food sources. If something is genetically modified, and you label it as such, it doesn't go against science do so.

Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

So should we should label all corn as GMO? Because corn was genetically engineered from Teosinte by Indigenous people.

CornProgression.jpg


That's a more fundamental change than any GMO protein expression modifications. The GMO label is not there for information, it's there so "organic" companies can make quick cash off FUD.
 
J

johnsmith

remember me
brainchild said:
What he said was in no way anti-science. In fact, it's pro-science, as it promotes the visibility of additional biological information regarding our food sources. If something is genetically modified, and you label it as such, it doesn't go against science do so.

Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It's just as anti-science as climate change denial. It serves no useful purpose other than to help the whole foods/organic produce lobby.

The World Health
Organization, the American Medical
Association, the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences, the British Royal
Society, and every other respected
organization that has examined the
evidence has come to the same
conclusion: consuming foods containing
ingredients derived from GM
crops is no riskier than consuming
the same foods containing ingredients
from crop plants modified by
conventional plant improvement
techniques.
Click to expand...

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
 
C

Cerium

Member
brainchild said:
What he said was in no way anti-science. In fact, it's pro-science, as it promotes the visibility of additional biological information regarding our food sources. If something is genetically modified, and you label it as such, it doesn't go against science do so.

Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

You should slap yourself for typing this shit with that avatar on.
 
U

User 406

Banned
F

FloydtheFathead

Member
Maengun1 said:
I'm voting for Clinton tomorrow in Michigan. And I'm a white male millennial :gasp:

It's okay though, I hate Ohio :)
Click to expand...
Did you lose a bet or did your parents hate you to have you be born in that hellhole.. either I apologize.

but you support Hillary, so you must be one of the good ones from that state. thumbs up to you sir.
 
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
So should we should label all corn as GMO? Because corn was genetically engineered from Teosinte by Indigenous people.

CornProgression.jpg


That's more fundamental than any GMO protein expression changes.
Click to expand...

You may well have read this already, but there's a book called An Edible History of Humanity by Tom Stoppage which covers this very thing. It's fascinating how creative the first farming communities were with their use of hybridization and other techniques to make edible, easy-to-eat, and easy-to-cook foods. Corn as it originally grew in the wild was often tough and inedible. The corn that we grow and eat now is fundamentally different.

Anyway, you may enjoy that book, and I encourage it to everyone who has even a small interest in the history of food growth and production.

OK, I'm off GMO foods now, sorry.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I support third trimester abortions possibilities because almost no one gets them and because of possibilities like Zika babies or a woman only getting away from her abusive boyfriend after 20 weeks.
Click to expand...

I'm conflicted on your second example. But abortions should be legal in any trimester with a Doctor's exemption.

I think the majority of the "choice" aspect goes out the window in the 3rd trimester.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Hillary's answers are so fucking good. So detailed and articulate. It's kind of incredible.

She's so prepared. Bernie sounds so hollow in comparison.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
brainchild said:
What he said was in no way anti-science. In fact, it's pro-science, as it promotes the visibility of additional biological information regarding our food sources. If something is genetically modified, and you label it as such, it doesn't go against science do so.

Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

This is no different than requiring a DNA label or a dihydrogen monoxide label on food. Literally the same thing.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Diablos said:
Hillary's answers are so fucking good. So detailed and articulate. It's kind of incredible.

She's so prepared. Bernie sounds so hollow in comparison.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to be more prepared than she is as a politician.
Other then some of her more moderate positions, it's the primary reason she is the far safer bet for the general election.
 
C

Cerium

Member
Hillary vs Cruz would be conventional warfare. Both are intelligent, calculating, well prepared, hardworking, and ruthless. I think Hillary would be very comfortable with that matchup and that playing field.

Hillary vs Trump is asymmetric warfare. You have a traditional juggernaut going up against a wild insurgency that adheres to no rules or laws. You might win that fight, but not without getting your shit fucked up.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Cerium said:
Hillary vs Cruz would be conventional warfare. Both are intelligent, calculating, well prepared, hardworking, and ruthless. I think Hillary would be very comfortable with that matchup and that playing field.

Hillary vs Trump is asymmetric warfare. You have a traditional juggernaut going up against a wild insurgency that adheres to no rules or laws. You might win that fight, but not without getting your shit fucked up.
Click to expand...

I honestly think against Cruz would be as easy as Trump but with less volatility. There is a significant unknown factor with Trump. Also, I seriously doubt Cruz would pivot to the center.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Suikoguy said:
It's difficult to be more prepared than she is as a politician.
Other then some of her more moderate positions, it's the primary reason she is the far safer bet for the general election.
Click to expand...
Yes but it's not just how prepared she is but how articulate her answers are. She's so good it's kind of scary.
 
E

Ecotic

Member
Here's a fun scenario. What if Rubio has another poor showing tomorrow and drops out Wednesday? Trump wins Florida but Kasich picks up most of Rubio's 5% in Ohio and squeaks out a win.

Could Cruz and Kasich hold Trump from getting a majority? After March 15th there's mostly a dead month until the end of April so I would expect a deluge of negative ads to be run against Trump.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
adam387 said:
PLCAA doesn't just protect the manufacturers though. It also targets dealers. I'm not saying that every single case should be litigated. I'm saying that if there is a case that has merit, a plaintiff should be able to let their case be heard. If they lose (which they probably would have even before this law) so be it. Let the facts be heard, and then go from there. That's the foundation of our legal system.

No one is saying that a legally sold gun that is used to commit a crime should result in a lawsuit against the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

From doing a little research, I don't see anything that suggests the law protects dealers who don't do their legally-required diligence. Rather, the law seems to protect lawfully-acting dealers and manufacturers from being held accountable to people's high emotions in the wake of accidental gun deaths, suicides, and massacres. This is a pretty reasonable restriction, unless there is something else I am missing.
 
B

benicillin

Banned
RastaMentality said:
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/707020344201256960

Why is he still going on about this?
Click to expand...

If you're wondering why he still goes on about it, it's mostly for the same reason that he has the stance on guns that he does - for most of his career he's represented the state of Vermont, and regardless of whether or not you think it's anti-science or something there's a big push in VT to have GMO stuff labeled. It's a hugely popular policy in the state which is why the law was passed and goes into effect later this year.

That's also his senator Twitter acct, which is separate from his presidential twitter account, so it has a tendency to post things that pertain more to policies from Vermont than nationally.
 
M

Mrs. Manky

Banned
Touchdown said:
zPnFrVw.png


i just...

tumblr_inline_ml2zel2JZ81qbsprj.gif
Click to expand...

Wait. Caitlyn Jenner thinks that the Republican Party will be better for transgender people? The Party that is trying to kick transgender people out of their proper bathrooms? Now /that/ is privilege.


(if I've used the term 'transgender' improperly, I'm sorry. I'm going by the wikipedia)
 
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
Mrs. Manky said:
Wait. Caitlyn Jenner thinks that the Republican Party will be better for transgender people? The Party that is trying to kick transgender people out of their proper bathrooms? Now /that/ is privilege.


(if I've used the term 'transgender' improperly, I'm sorry. I'm going by the wikipedia)
Click to expand...

No, but it's money over identity for her. She wants that Ted Cruz tax break.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Ecotic said:
Here's a fun scenario. What if Rubio has another poor showing tomorrow and drops out Wednesday? Trump wins Florida but Kasich picks up most of Rubio's 5% in Ohio and squeaks out a win.

Could Cruz and Kasich hold Trump from getting a majority? After March 15th there's mostly a dead month until the end of April so I would expect a deluge of negative ads to be run against Trump.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could hold Trump from getting a majority. They'd have a better chance of it without Rubio actually, Kasich and Cruz can hit from both sides and each have different geographical and demographic strengths that don't overlap all that much.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Mrs. Manky said:
Wait. Caitlyn Jenner thinks that the Republican Party will be better for transgender people? The Party that is trying to kick transgender people out of their proper bathrooms? Now /that/ is privilege.


(if I've used the term 'transgender' improperly, I'm sorry. I'm going by the wikipedia)
Click to expand...

She believes that Republicans are actually Libertarians who don't care about social issues.

Yes, she actually said this.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/caitlyn-jenner-defends-gop-to-transgender-friends-090339628.html
 
H

Holmes

Member
Mrs. Manky said:
Wait. Caitlyn Jenner thinks that the Republican Party will be better for transgender people? The Party that is trying to kick transgender people out of their proper bathrooms? Now /that/ is privilege.


(if I've used the term 'transgender' improperly, I'm sorry. I'm going by the wikipedia)
Click to expand...
She'll become an advisor for trans issues for President Cruz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2
74
5K
k789 replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
51K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
60K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
Top Bottom