More infuriating are people who, having the facts turn on them since they were lying about everything to begin with, start to make claims that places like Politifact and FactCheck are 'liberal' organizations out to get Republicans.
I don't understand why everyone's still getting worked up over this. For Romney to win, he has to carry Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and 3 minor swing states. If he can't get Florida, he has to carry all 8 others. It's not mathematically feasible.
More infuriating are people who, having the facts turn on them since they were lying about everything to begin with, start to make claims that places like Politifact and FactCheck are 'liberal' organizations out to get Republicans.
My favorite thing about FactCheck and Politifact is that they pretty much are hated by both hard core liberals and reactionary conservatives. The problem is that the entire GOP these days seems to be made up of the reactionary wing, at least at the national level, which is why their hatred seems to come out more readily than that of the hard core liberals.
As I stated before, FactCheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Who were the Annenbergs that donated the money to establish the APPC? Well, Walter Annenberg, the man who donated the money to establish the center, was a lifelong Republican who worked as far back as with the Eisenhower administration, was an ambassador to Court of St. James under Nixon, and was very good friends with Ronald Reagan (they used to celebrate New Year's together). His wife, Lenore, was the state department Chief of Protocol under Reagan as well. Yeah, sounds real liberal to me.
Lou, I have never heard of a Liberal say anything negative about Factcheck.org.. They may disagree with an articles spin on the issue but they don't disregard the whole organization like conservatives have.
As I stated before, FactCheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Who were the Annenbergs that donated the money to establish the APPC? Well, Walter Annenberg, the man who donated the money to establish the center, was a lifelong Republican who worked as far back as with the Eisenhower administration, was an ambassador to Court of St. James under Nixon, and was very good friends with Ronald Reagan (they used to celebrate New Year's together). His wife, Lenore, was the state department Chief of Protocol under Reagan as well. Yeah, sounds real liberal to me.
There you go again with your facts. You damn liberals think you're so smart.
Lou, I have never heard of a Liberal say anything negative about Factcheck.org.. They may disagree with an articles spin on the issue but they don't disregard the whole organization like conservatives have.
Well, only the ridiculously wacky left, the liberals who are so liberal that they make other liberals cringe with their nuttiness, tend to go off on FactCheck. For example:
BTW, I consider myself a moderate, not a liberal... although given how insano-far-right the GOP has gone and the fact that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, I suppose I am pretty liberal compared to the modern GOP. However, I could definitely see myself voting for the less extreme historical Republicans like Eisenhower.
BTW, I consider myself a moderate, not a liberal... although given how insano-far-right the GOP has gone and the fact that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, I suppose I am pretty liberal compared to the modern GOP. However, I could definitely see myself voting for the less extreme historical Republicans like Eisenhower.
Economic socialist, social libertarian (yes, even some of the crazy parts.)
I suppose it's my lacking education in political science, but for me Libertarianism is so economically focused that I'm not quite sure what a "social libertarian" could possibly be.
Economic socialist, social libertarian (yes, even some of the crazy parts.)
I suppose it's my lacking education in political science, but for me Libertarianism is so economically focused that I'm not quite sure what a "social libertarian" could possibly be.
Probably "the government has no place in regulating society." Basically anarchism but with a nicer ring to it.
I suppose it's my lacking education in political science, but for me Libertarianism is so economically focused that I'm not quite sure what a "social libertarian" could possibly be.
It basically just means hyper-liberal on social issues. For example, a social liberal might say "relax penalties for marijuana possession," but a social libertarian is more likely to say "legalize marijuana entirely."
Economic socialist, social libertarian (yes, even some of the crazy parts.)
I suppose it's my lacking education in political science, but for me Libertarianism is so economically focused that I'm not quite sure what a "social libertarian" could possibly be.
Probably "the government has no place in regulating society." Basically anarchism but with a nicer ring to it.
Not quite anarchy. Anarchy requires no regulation of business. Also, directly harming others gets you arrested and penalized to whatever degree is appropriate. Muppet, the reason you think this is because figures like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson over emphasize the Economic aspect, which is not why most libertarians identify as such.
EDUT: just saw trogdors comment. Yeah, I'm for legalization and regulation of all drugs but meth. It's not the substance abuse I find problematic, it's the gang violence caused by it.
I'm for the legalization of Marijuana, the tightly regulated legalization of LSD and perhaps even Cocaine in certain forms, and the decriminalization of the use of all other drugs.
I'm for the legalization of Marijuana, the tightly regulated legalization of LSD and perhaps even Cocaine in certain forms, and the decriminalization of the use of all other drugs.
Why meth? PCP is just as degenerative and just as dangerous to people other than the user. I'm sure I could find a few more if I looked into it.
Meth is made of breaker fluid and explodes if you don't make it right. I don't know about how PCP is made, so I might be against legalization of that too.
Meth also has a terrible area of effect during manufacture and has permanently poisoned homes, their residents, children in apartments neighboring labs, etc. If it's professionally manufactured, the risk I'd imagine both of explosion and incidental poisoning is reduced.
I know nothing about the manufacture of PCP, but I do know that a guy on PCP, strapped to a gurney, with hard restraints on his wrists and ankles and surgical clamps embedded in his chest wounds, can stand up (still strapped to the gurney) and charge an armed security guard, not stopping even with an entire clip from a 9mm having been fired into his center mass.
Meth also has a terrible area of effect during manufacture and has permanently poisoned homes, their residents, children in apartments neighboring labs, etc. If it's professionally manufactured, the risk I'd imagine both of explosion and incidental poisoning is reduced.
I know nothing about the manufacture of PCP, but I do know that a guy on PCP, strapped to a gurney, with hard restraints on his wrists and ankles and surgical clamps embedded in his chest wounds, can stand up (still strapped to the gurney) and charge an armed security guard, not stopping even with an entire clip from a 9mm having been fired into his center mass.
That's why I'm not for legalization of PCP.
Yeah, I am aware of how fucking insane people on PCP can be, but they aren't necessarily so it's something I go back and forth on. Regardless, none of this is in danger of happening any time soon (and I'm not in danger of having an impact on the law for another two years), so I don't feel a need to make up my mind.
PCP is not as dangerous to manufacture as meth, although low quality manufacturing can make it rather unsafe for the user, well on top of them having a general sense of numbness.
Keep in mind that legalization means that production of these drugs will take place in huge pharmaceutical company labs, and they will be available at technical purity and without adulterants. Say what you will about the effects of meth on the body, but if you're worried about labs, legalization is the way to go.
Also, I'm curious as to why Rym is okay with LSD, but not psilocybin mushrooms or any other hallucinogen.
Dude, it's a choice between people blowing up suburban homes and committing murders, or some old white men making money on people's addictions. I know what I pick.
Alright. You stay convinced that some businessmen getting rich off of vice is worse than people in Mexico getting mailed in pieces to their families inside of Coleman coolers.
Comments
As I stated before, FactCheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Who were the Annenbergs that donated the money to establish the APPC? Well, Walter Annenberg, the man who donated the money to establish the center, was a lifelong Republican who worked as far back as with the Eisenhower administration, was an ambassador to Court of St. James under Nixon, and was very good friends with Ronald Reagan (they used to celebrate New Year's together). His wife, Lenore, was the state department Chief of Protocol under Reagan as well. Yeah, sounds real liberal to me.
http://voices.yahoo.com/factcheck-run-conservative-philanthropist-annenberg-2018865.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=227087
http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2012/07/03/factcheck-org-meet-politifact-you-both-go-to-the-dead-pile/
EDUT: just saw trogdors comment. Yeah, I'm for legalization and regulation of all drugs but meth. It's not the substance abuse I find problematic, it's the gang violence caused by it.
I know nothing about the manufacture of PCP, but I do know that a guy on PCP, strapped to a gurney, with hard restraints on his wrists and ankles and surgical clamps embedded in his chest wounds, can stand up (still strapped to the gurney) and charge an armed security guard, not stopping even with an entire clip from a 9mm having been fired into his center mass.
That's why I'm not for legalization of PCP.
Also, I'm curious as to why Rym is okay with LSD, but not psilocybin mushrooms or any other hallucinogen.
Legalization needs to come with a general ban on patents for these drugs.