So I will ask him instead: Please name several Republican policies the party has championed in the past two decades that you consider beneficial to society in the short, mid, and long terms.
So I will ask him instead: Please name several Republican policies the party has championed in the past two decades that you consider beneficial to society in the short, mid, and long terms.
Nope. The Amber Alert system's effectiveness has repeated been challenged due to false alarms, the backwards thinking behind the system, and increased offender awareness of dragnets. Several studies have been performed.
Probably because he claims to not really respect either the republican way, or the democratic way of running the government. I remember somewhere in this forum him saying that Republicans are just as bad, or at least something to that effect. Whether or not you actually believe that is up to you though.
If I came out and said, "yo this new law on animal fat and contraceptives is fucking dope!" Then I would be expected to defend that statement.
If you want me to defend something I've recently said I'll defend it. If you want me to defend something the voices in your head are telling you I said... well... that shit ain't gonna fly.
Justin, you're thinking of kilarney. Steve is definitely republican although he tries to hide it when he's called out. Just look through his old posts. He was a big supporter of the invasion of Iraq. He's one of those people who were saying "we shouldn't cut and run" and that sort of thing.
If you want me to defend something I've recently said I'll defend it. If you want me to defend something the voices in your head are telling you I said... well... that shit ain't gonna fly.
Okay, here's something you said recently:
There is also the issue of long vs. mid vs. short term "best interest". What may be in someones best interest in the long term may be extremely bad for them in the short or mid term. When someone is on solid footing suffering a short term loss for a long term gain is an easy sell. When someone is on a shaky footing they don't want to hear about how it's going to continue to be bad until some mythical point in the future where it gets better.
Remember, just because YOU think something is in every one's best interest does not mean everyone else agrees with you.
This was in response to people saying that people voting republican often are voting against their own best interests.
Now parse through what you say. You say things like suffering a short term loss for a mid term or long term gain is good, and you say that just because we think something is not in someone's best interest, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with us that those things may be against people's best interest.
Your meaning is fairly read from the actual words you wrote: Those things we think the republicans do that are against common people's best interests may, in fact, actually be in their best interests in the mid or long term, and that what we think might be against common people's best interest might, in fact be a tremendous boon to their best interest.
You took a position when you said that. Your position is that, for instance, while we may think that denying an extension of unemployment benefits to Johnny Worker and making it harder for johnny Worker to declare bankruptcy might seem like they work against his best interests in the short term, in the mid or long term, those things might work out just fine for johnny.
I then challenged you to show how various republican policies could be in any common person's best interest in any term, short, mid, or long.
This is a fair challenge based on the actual words you used.
You have failed spectacularly to defend your position. Once again, your credibility has been shown to be worse than useless.
Justin, you're thinking of kilarney. Steve is definitely republican although he tries to hide it when he's called out. Just look through his old posts. He was a big supporter of the invasion of Iraq. He's one of those people who were saying "we shouldn't cut and run" and that sort of thing.
In all fairness, people can change, opinions change over time. I certainly do note a certain...mellowness to him, compared to the Steve of old.
Justin, you're thinking of kilarney. Steve is definitely republican although he tries to hide it when he's called out. Just look through his old posts. He was a big supporter of the invasion of Iraq. He's one of those people who were saying "we shouldn't cut and run" and that sort of thing.
In all fairness, people can change, opinions change over time. I certainly do note a certain...mellowness to him, compared to the Steve of old.
Unless he's taken some time off in a monastery in Tibet, I remain very suspicious. Also, he said very recently that he thinks the republicans have put up a winning team that will produce a candidate who will defeat Obama. You don't get that kind of crazy thinking without taking some republican propaganda messages straight to heart. Finally, he's still talking about Alinsky. People like Limbaugh and Hannity were accusing Obama of using Alinsky from day one.
Unless he's taken some time off in a monastery in Tibet, I remain very suspicious.
Entirely fair, I'm not saying he has undergone any major changes, just that it's far from impossible. Telling you what you already know to be sure, but we all need to be reminded from time to time.
Man, this shit is so supremely awesome and universally true that some idiot is bound to misinterpret it...
blah blah blah...
I hope I don't live to regret this but I'm going to take the risk and respond to the person I ignore. This took some time because I never read anything this guy writes nor do I respond to anything he has written. There is the added problem of his posts reading like verbal diarrhea. All I can see in my minds eye when I read his shit is some middle aged, slightly overweight lawyer running around with fists full of papers over his hears screaming at the moon.
1) The poster in question is assuming I am responding to his lack of understanding as to why some people vote Republican when he is the only person stating his confusion over the matter. I didn't even know he wrote that crap and I certainly was not responding to him.
2) The poster in question, after making a faulty assumption, then goes on and on like an old farmer with too much straw on his hands to create an argument that I did not make.
3) The statement I made was general in nature and holds true. If you read my follow up response you will quickly ascertain that I was speaking in a general manner and not specifically about a particular piece of legislation, policy idea or political party. The simple fact is that people like results now. If they have to wait for results they don't want the added indignity of having to endure pain while waiting.
4) Frankly I find it very sad that someone who can show such a keen grasp of subject matter in other areas (science, math, etc...) can be so knee-jerk ALL DEMOCRATS ARE AWESOME / ALL REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL in another area. Dude, I'm weeping for you over here...
I just love the line: "You've got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change."
Personally, I'd love for Obama to openly debate Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. It would be endlessly amusing, although he might simply be stunned to silence by some of the stupid things coming out of their mouths.
Well, Perry is pretty much a running example of things not to do when being in charge of a state. One of the worst teen pregnancy rates in the country? More abstinence only education! How to make public education better? Put people in charge of it who hate public education and want to abolish it! One of the states with the greatest danger of droughts and bush fires? Cut firefighter and water supply spending! So now we are in the worst droughts ever and we have bushfires all the time? Everybody, raindance! Innocent people on death row? Kill all, god will know his own! I face shortage in my budget which become problematic for unemployment benefits and the like? Refuse stimulus! Now I actually have a budget problem? Beg federal government for money! I threatened to secede from the Union? Make me your president!
Well, Perry is pretty much a running example of things not to do when being in charge of a state. One of the worst teen pregnancy rates in the country? More abstinence only education! How to make public education better? Put people in charge of it who hate public education and want to abolish it! One of the states with the greatest danger of droughts and bush fires? Cut firefighter and water supply spending! So now we are in the worst droughts ever and we have bushfires all the time? Everybody, raindance! Innocent people on death row? Kill all, god will know his own! I face shortage in my budget which become problematic for unemployment benefits and the like? Refuse stimulus! Now I actually have a budget problem? Beg federal government for money! I threatened to secede from the Union? Make me your president!
Honestly, I could sit and read about people making fun of Perry all goddamn day. It's seriously one of the most amusing things in politics currently. It seems like when he is faced with actually having to make a decision he goes out of his way to make the worst possible decision... and people somehow still vote for him? Does anyone know why? I'm starting to suspect some sort of deal with the devil.
Honestly, I could sit and read about people making fun of Perry all goddamn day. It's seriously one of the most amusing things in politics currently. It seems like when he is faced with actually having to make a decision he goes out of his way to make the worst possible decision... and people somehow still vote for him? Does anyone know why? I'm starting to suspect some sort of deal with the devil.
Well, I would find it funny, if he hadn't actually done this shit. I think I posted this before, but it's still good:
That would also be incredible. Of course, for someone like Kirk Campbell I don't think we'd need a Hawking to debate him. Someone more like Christopher Hitchens, who would just get pissed off at him and possibly take the Buzz Aldrin style of debate.
Okay, so someone please explain the Murdoch phone-hacking thing to me please. I haven't had time to follow it as closely as I'd like. I kind of thought it might bring down FOX and reform some of our media, but it looks like people are just going to kind of let it drain down the memory hole.
Am I right about this? That pretty much nothing is going to come of it?
Okay, so someone please explain the Murdoch phone-hacking thing to me please. I haven't had time to follow it as closely as I'd like. I kind of thought it might bring down FOX and reform some of our media, but it looks like people are just going to kind of let it drain down the memory hole.
Am I right about this? That pretty much nothing is going to come of it?
I believe it was mostly centered in the UK. The news network that was primarily blamed wasn't American, so not much happened on the American side of things.
Okay, so someone please explain the Murdoch phone-hacking thing to me please. I haven't had time to follow it as closely as I'd like. I kind of thought it might bring down FOX and reform some of our media, but it looks like people are just going to kind of let it drain down the memory hole.
Am I right about this? That pretty much nothing is going to come of it?
I believe it was mostly centered in the UK. The news network that was primarily blamed wasn't American, so not much happened on the American side of things.
It's not totally American...yet. There have been some investigations stirring, but they have not had any outcome yet. I think some of the UK prosecution is attempting to have some of the trial in the US as well, since the Brits (despite their appetite for scandal rags) seem to have a similar dislike for Murdoch and his empire of propaganda.
The basic gist of it is that one of Murdoch's scandal rags in the UK called News of the World was hacking into the phones of various celebrities and politicians, as well as crime victims and perpetrators. Two people from NoTW were jailed after an investigation in 2005. Then in 2009, another investigation was opened, but the police "found nothing", except that after protest from other newspapers and people victimized by the hacking, an independent commission found that hacking had indeed taken place, and the News of the World was in fact bribing police investigators in order not to find anything. After tons of advertisers jumped off, the News of the World shut down.
Recently, there have been some investigations if the phone hacking hasn't also been employed by other subsidiaries of Newscorp.
Comments
Got one!
Got another one!
Need I say, "Le Fail"?
If I came out and said, "yo this new law on animal fat and contraceptives is fucking dope!" Then I would be expected to defend that statement.
If you want me to defend something I've recently said I'll defend it. If you want me to defend something the voices in your head are telling you I said... well... that shit ain't gonna fly.
Now parse through what you say. You say things like suffering a short term loss for a mid term or long term gain is good, and you say that just because we think something is not in someone's best interest, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with us that those things may be against people's best interest.
Your meaning is fairly read from the actual words you wrote: Those things we think the republicans do that are against common people's best interests may, in fact, actually be in their best interests in the mid or long term, and that what we think might be against common people's best interest might, in fact be a tremendous boon to their best interest.
You took a position when you said that. Your position is that, for instance, while we may think that denying an extension of unemployment benefits to Johnny Worker and making it harder for johnny Worker to declare bankruptcy might seem like they work against his best interests in the short term, in the mid or long term, those things might work out just fine for johnny.
I then challenged you to show how various republican policies could be in any common person's best interest in any term, short, mid, or long.
This is a fair challenge based on the actual words you used.
You have failed spectacularly to defend your position. Once again, your credibility has been shown to be worse than useless.
He hasn't changed one bit.
1) The poster in question is assuming I am responding to his lack of understanding as to why some people vote Republican when he is the only person stating his confusion over the matter. I didn't even know he wrote that crap and I certainly was not responding to him.
2) The poster in question, after making a faulty assumption, then goes on and on like an old farmer with too much straw on his hands to create an argument that I did not make.
3) The statement I made was general in nature and holds true. If you read my follow up response you will quickly ascertain that I was speaking in a general manner and not specifically about a particular piece of legislation, policy idea or political party. The simple fact is that people like results now. If they have to wait for results they don't want the added indignity of having to endure pain while waiting.
4) Frankly I find it very sad that someone who can show such a keen grasp of subject matter in other areas (science, math, etc...) can be so knee-jerk ALL DEMOCRATS ARE AWESOME / ALL REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL in another area. Dude, I'm weeping for you over here...
I just love the line: "You've got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change."
Personally, I'd love for Obama to openly debate Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. It would be endlessly amusing, although he might simply be stunned to silence by some of the stupid things coming out of their mouths.
One of the worst teen pregnancy rates in the country? More abstinence only education!
How to make public education better? Put people in charge of it who hate public education and want to abolish it!
One of the states with the greatest danger of droughts and bush fires? Cut firefighter and water supply spending!
So now we are in the worst droughts ever and we have bushfires all the time? Everybody, raindance!
Innocent people on death row? Kill all, god will know his own!
I face shortage in my budget which become problematic for unemployment benefits and the like? Refuse stimulus!
Now I actually have a budget problem? Beg federal government for money!
I threatened to secede from the Union? Make me your president!
I think I posted this before, but it's still good:
Am I right about this? That pretty much nothing is going to come of it?
Recently, there have been some investigations if the phone hacking hasn't also been employed by other subsidiaries of Newscorp.