Messages

101

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe

« on: March 14, 2021, 02:27:31 PM »

The magic words for me are, "Are we forcing a sapient human being into a parasitical relationship against their will?"

I agree that these are magic words, in that you have conjured them up using your own powers. I understand the argument completely, but am routinely astounded at how someone with this view cannot also see the possibility that the 'parasite' may be entitled to human rights. It's fine to acknowledge both sides and choose - perhaps on aesthetic grounds - to prefer the rights of the mother. But the re-definition of human into parasite is a complete dodge of the (potential) issue.

Yeah, it's really not. A human being is chained into a nine month relationship where another human is draining them of nutrients, altering their body, and putting their life at risk. The closest analogue to that in history is slavery and even that term falls short. I'm going with the term parasite because it covers most of the bases.

Call them human, call them fetuses, call them god's will.

Doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that no human should ever be enslaved to another in that way against their will. If the fetus can be removed, given life support, and live? All power to them. Let's fund that. Otherwise? Tough sh*t.

Edit - In other words, Fenring, can you please detail the human right that is being violated when one human being tells another that they have no right to attach themselves and endanger lives?

102

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe

« on: March 13, 2021, 06:24:39 PM »

I'm not trying to address the personhood question here, because frankly that is boiling down in America to little more than faith vs faith. In one case, faith in one kind of common sense (i.e. that a person has to look like a bona fide person to count as a person) versus another kind of common sense (i.e. that we should not judge a person by his/her level of development, and that personhood is not a privilege granted as an anniversary present). Ironically both sides also argue that science is 'on their side', even though of course it does not take sides because science is not a person with an opinion. Anyone can create moving goalposts and say that personhood requires brain waves, science says that brainwaves start at X age, therefore science is ok with early term abortion. But the error of this type of argument should be painfully evident. Likewise arguments about heartbeat, human-like appearance, birth itself, or even technical minutiae such as the timing of implantation; each of these are arbitrary sign posts that due to a person's ego he has decided this criterion makes the most sense, therefore becomes some kind of formal definition of personhood, and will hang their hat on that even though in principle lives may be at stake.

But here we go again, at 20 weeks a fetus would look like a human baby(albeit a very small one) if delivered. It also has a chance of surviving into (somewhat) normal infancy, albeit a very poor chance. Once you get to 24 weeks, the chances of surviving without long term health consequences increase considerably.

That is part of my issue with a number of the pro-abortion activists. If that fetus had been delivered under any condition except an abortion procedure, that infant becomes a human being entitled to a list of rights, and charges of murder or malpractice if deliberately killed.

But by some magic handwaving, they can terminate that same fetus by any number of means because of where it is, or more importantly, where it isn't.

If these people are being consistent, either killing that delivered infant should be legal as "a post-birth abortion" option, or killing a fetus after achieving that level of development is infanticide, and an act of murder.

No.

If a baby is alive after an abortion procedure I'm okay with every effort being taken to keep it alive. I accept there are radical pro choice elements out there that don't accept that, but that's where I draw the line.

The magic words for me are, "Are we forcing a sapient human being into a parasitical relationship against their will?" That's it. That's my line. I kind of feel it's pretty clear cut.

103

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe

« on: March 12, 2021, 07:29:44 PM »

I'm not as hopeful as you, but I would be overjoyed if Roe and Casey were overturned.  They are both horrible rulings contrary to reason, contrary to the natural law, and without any basis in the Constitution. The child is a child. We cannot kill children because we find them inconvenient or a burden.  Abortion is the modern political equivalent to slavery: somehow there are two sides and somehow both sides have influence over people's minds, when the "pro-choice" side (much like the pro-slavery side) is completely wrong and abhorrent in their beliefs. History will eventually (and rightly) look back at our age and say "how were they so barbaric". You are on the wrong side of this issue, and it stains your hands with blood.

A faithless wretch, ladies and gentlemen. Guided completely by logic.

Honestly the only thing worse then some religious wacko shutting you down by declaring, "I have faith it's true, I don't need evidence," is someone else pretending like they're better then that by declaring how logical they are, while putting forth the same arguments.

104

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe

« on: March 12, 2021, 07:23:58 PM »

I actually don't think my opinion is too complicated.

If the fetus is developed enough to have a reasonable chance of living as something besides a dangerous parasitical lifeform, by all means scoop them out (so long as it isn't too dangerous to the person the parasite is attached to,) and give them their shot. If pro life fervor is genuine I'm sure the funding for that will go right through.

If the fetus isn't developed enough then oh well, thems the breaks, the god I reference and infer all the time but who I totally don't believe in because I'm just a faithless wretch should probably do something about that. Anything else and what you're really saying is that by having sex a woman should be chained to a life threatening parasite for nine months without any recourse. Screw that.

105

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe

« on: March 12, 2021, 07:07:14 PM »

Sex in the grander evolutionary view is about procreation. Granted.

It's not all it is. Our closest living relatives, bonobos, use sexual contact and stimulation as tools in intraspecific bonding and conflict-resolution techniques.

Sometimes people have sex because they want to procreate.  Cool. Most of the time it's not and it never, ever was like that. At any time in any culture in any religion. People like banging. Hell, they like it so much that whatever genetic aspect to homosexuality exists has managed to survive to the present day despite not producing offspring.

Namedropping Aristotle isn't going to change any of that, and it's not going to change the fact that pregnancy is unpleasant and dangerous for a woman but at least you can stand on high and lecture women without the risk of getting pregnant, right Joshua?

106

General Comments / Roe might be in woe

« on: March 10, 2021, 02:04:25 PM »

Looks like Arkansas has won the right to be the test for whether our new Supreme Court will rule on whether women should be forced to incubate a dangerous parasitical human for nine months before expelling them in a manner that is dangerous to the both of them. Well done on winning *that* particularly disgusting point of American history!

Bonus points for adding in that rape and incest don't amount to sh*t, people are trying to play it off as "It's just to put it to the courts," but yeah buddy if they're confident and looking just to overturn precedent it's either they thought it wouldn't work or they thought that sh*t would go through. Either way if you win that law is law and then what're you gonna do? *Defend* it?


Me? I think Barrett is the lynchpin. Call me whatever names but somehow I am not seeing a lifelong Catholic with her amount of kids, her connections, and her jurisdicial writings and history coming along and turning heel on the antichoice crowd. Roe and Casey are done, at least until some more Conservative members of the court stroke out.

https://apnews.com/article/us-news-arkansas-legislation-courts-asa-hutchinson-24ca79cb9b416f81d9152f54881c7a74

107

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 08, 2021, 02:15:18 PM »

Yeah, not surprised.

The technology and knowhow is right there. Various states have shown that given just a little bit of funding they'll set up something the private companies can't match. Of course, if you do that, the private companies get annoyed and complain to Daddy.

108

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 08, 2021, 05:17:38 AM »

There are victories out there and, spoiler alert, they don't revolve around corrupt government spending being directed whereever.

There is some state which set up and maintained a socialist network that threw everything else into the tank. It was so much better. Want to say Kentucky but I might be wrong.

Kentucky, Kenmaybe, blah blah. Why aren't people looking on them for how to be successful?

109

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 08, 2021, 03:23:42 AM »

That was a valid talking point right up until the companies received massive amounts of government funds to put infrastructure in for those rural communities and then they didn't.

You're shocked by this? Government graft and corruption never went away, and the Democrats, who funded most of that, are some of the worst offenders. Rural areas are slowly getting brought up to speed, but it isn't the major telecoms doing it. It's local small/regional operations(at the stat level, not national) that are making it happen. And government regulations and subsidies on the matter complicate things nearly as much as they help at this point.

I'm calling BS here.

Yes, there was corruption and graft. It wasn't in the government.

Companies were given billions to expand rural infrastructure and they didn't. Oh, it was due to corruption, sorry, we'll try harder next time? F*ck that. The companies took the money and played it on the insurance company game and they came up short. I don't really care about the details.

The extended distance between communities was identified, it was analyzed, and then an answer was given in "socialist" money given to private companies to address the deficit.

They didn't deliver. They straight up robbed the every day taxpayer. They got away with it and now they have everyday friendly people like you defending them.

110

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 08, 2021, 02:56:25 AM »

I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?

Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.

You also live in a place where more people live within 200 miles of you than do within 200 miles of any arbitrary point in the US which isn't also within 150 miles of a port capable of handling either barges or ships.

That was a valid talking point right up until the companies received massive amounts of government funds to put infrastructure in for those rural communities and then they didn't.

111

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 08, 2021, 02:52:29 AM »

I will say though I'm wondering why someone would say they're paying 66 percent higher and shrug it off with a quip about how it ain't so bad.

The US, with all of its varied advantages in just about everything, *should,* by the metrics, be giving it's citizens a top notch service. Better then anywhere else.

It doesn't, and it won't, because the country holds corporations as being more important than people.

112

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 08, 2021, 02:46:35 AM »

I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?

Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.

You also live in a place where more people live within 200 miles of you than do within 200 miles of any arbitrary point in the US which isn't also within 150 miles of a port capable of handling either barges or ships.

That might be a good reason for why people in remote Montana have expensive internet, but not people in Austin Texas. That said, most urban areas have multiple choices and competion. They are all roughly $50/month, which isn't really some kind of terror.

Hey, fair enough, if prices have improved since I moved that's a good thing.

Did they ever get rid of that bug in the system where Comcast or whoever was the only man in town, and therefore they didn't have to give a sh*t? Honest question.

Well, obviously they did in Austin. My memories of Phoenix and Cox Communications aren't so positive.

Just asking because living in socialist hell under our system everyone has cheap access to service and are able to not just switch supplier, but to play them off against each other. 

113

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: March 08, 2021, 02:39:23 AM »

That is why I am surprised that Republicans do not support more immigration from Latin countries.  They would seem to be a very good fit for what they stand for.  Family, hard work, religion.

I would say if the Repubs were not following the racist part of the party by being against anyone brown entering the country, they would win 75% of the Latin vote.

Totally.

You can see it now with the expatriate Cuban vote in Florida.

At some point the R's had their core values - which you mentioned above - and then they saw an opportunity for extra votes so they went all in on anti-immigrant fervor.

Unfortunately for them the streams have crossed and dogs and cats playing together did not, in fact, turn out to be good thing. (Ghostbusters.)

114

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: March 07, 2021, 04:57:23 PM »

The answer there is that we should make it easier for the people playing by the rules to get in.

It's not a matter of space, it's a matter of intent.

An astonishingly high amount of empty property is held by the government. There is room.

But what about the public facilities being overwhelmed?

Dude, any person willing to walk across untold miles of jungle or desert, I'm totally willing to let them in. They have a vision and a purpose in life, and they're willing to put forth effort to achieve it. Why wouldn't we want those types of people?

Take those people and train them to make up the difference in facilities. Easy.

115

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past

« on: March 07, 2021, 04:39:03 PM »

There is a vision of representative democracy that asks and encourages and enables as many people possible to just go on and vote.

Then there's the other side.

116

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past

« on: March 07, 2021, 01:00:12 PM »

If we allow Jerry Redneck his vote, we should also allow Tyler McWeedsmell to leave college long enough to cast his.

Or maybe we should restrict voting to certain educational achievements? Either way, the R's lose.

That's the issue here. If we make it super easy and encourage people to vote, R's lose. If we go back to olden values and say only "educated" people should vote, R's lose. I was going to say at least they hadn't yet gone the "Under emergency powers Chancellor declares himself Emperor," route and then I remembered January 6th.

It's gerrymandering in electoral participation form. Under sane rules R's can't win, so they will twist them until the laws make it just a little too hard for the people who would vote against them to bother.

117

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past

« on: March 07, 2021, 05:32:42 AM »

Several edits should have been tucked in there via context alone. If they're not obvious ask I guess.

118

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: March 07, 2021, 05:12:58 AM »

> Wayward Son

"You're afraid that some illegal immigrant might give you the virus?"

I mean I've explained it before so the problem is encouraging these mass migrations right now the way Biden is doing is the exact opposite of what the scientists and healthcare professionals say we need to do to combat the virus. I thought those were the people we were supposed to be listening to but apparently we just ignore them when their advice is politically incorrect just like the BLM protests. Now of course I'm opposed to illegal immigration anyway, and abuse of the asylum claims system as well, and I don't deny that, but the point is that this is a particularly bad time to resume encouraging it.

And this isn't just about it being brought here either, although of course there is that. But it's also about it being carried from one end of the Americas to the other and spread everywhere in between. If a dangerous variant happens to arise in someone but they are not traveling around so much then there's a much better chance of it dying out, but with everyone going all over the place and meeting thousands of people along the way those variants are allowed to spread. And not just the more dangerous and transmissible variants but the regular old virus itself.  And who is to say that encouraging all of this migration right now is even the best thing for people who are suffering? It may well be that while traveling across two continents and spreading the virus to various people who are also struggling, we end up taking in a hundred thousand people while getting another hundred thousand or more across Latin America killed by the virus who otherwise might have dodged it long enough for them to get vaccinated in a few more months or protected by others who are vaccinated. Remember how this all started? Travelers. And it doesn't matter if you're going to a conference, a ski resort, taking a cruise vacation, or you are traveling because of gang violence or lack of jobs or even lack of food. It matters to us of course but it doesn't matter at all to the virus.

I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Just like the masks are pretty easy to understand too.

But people often just don't want to admit the obvious when it conflicts with their emotions.

It's not about making it personal like you're afraid some illegal is going to personally infect you or is going to personally take your job away. It's about policy and the big picture. It's about should we have limits based on our needs and safety and how many people we can handle coming in at a time or do those not matter and the only limit is based on how much poverty and hardship there is in the world because if that's the limit then for all practical purposes there is no limit and the kicker is when our kind-hearted policies end up doing more harm than good.

I'm not saying that in some ways, you might not be right.

However.

Everything you write around here makes you sound wildly xenophobic. Probably not the right phobia, but for whatever reason you always, always, zero right in on how bad the migrants are. Covid has given you a talking point but you've been talking the same spiel since they made you switch your name from LibDisembowler.

I'm the first person to stick up for a poor American worker but honest to God your obvious fixation makes it so very easy to dismiss whatever valid viewpoints you're looking to share. Have you ever considered that?

119

General Comments / Re: Free Elections are a thing of the past

« on: March 07, 2021, 04:56:21 AM »

It's kind of hilarious how brazen the R's are.

They're *setting up places where poor people could easily hand off a valid ballot!*

"Yeah boss we'll call it vote harvesting." Might hurt the R's otherwise. God forbid ya'll bring along either an acute, "Here's why we're all sh*theels, we're sorry, but it really will disadvantage you all in the end."

Or something like, "You're only poor because the Dems have sabotaged you, we'll help you do better."

Intead it's just beaurcratic BS lined up to make it more difficult for the people who are suffering the most.

People on this topic on this board have definitely given off vibes of, "They're just too young to understand." or "Do we really need college kids deciding our future?"

You want to trumpet democracy and I'm cool with it, but I'll tell you now, until ya'll systematically try to remove the votes of the young, poor, and disenfranchised I won't be quiet.


Every single person on this board knows that the conservatives are out voted by the liberals. They've not tried to make a compromise.

120

General Comments / Re: How's that free market working out in Texas?

« on: March 07, 2021, 04:35:47 AM »

It's like there might be some people hoping to cash in on the broadband racket.

You know, where the company itself is undeniably sh*t but sadly there are no competitors.

I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?

Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.

121

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: March 03, 2021, 09:47:26 AM »

I mean, what is a mask.

"Oh, sounds like they're going to ask me to wear a mask to go to my doctor. Guess I need to oil my guns."

I mean, really?

122

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: March 03, 2021, 09:38:36 AM »

Way too early.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/03/02/abbott-hints-at-exciting-news-tuesday-that-could-include-rollback-of-texas-covid-19-restrictions/

We should wait at least until after everyone who wants a vaccine can get one and it has time to go into effect especially with the mask mandate.

Do you mean we need to stop giving handjobs out amongst ourselves with this great victory, or do you mean like, "Oh shot homeboi popped off before we were ready?"

Shutting down masks, right now, even if it's just the government call is BS and it needs to be called out.

Christ. It's a thin layer of fabric or *even* paper laid between the nose and mouth of people. Why, given the *scientifically proven* facts on this virus and how it is would any conservative say, "ya man f* the masks."

Ya'll are embarrassing yourselves here.

123

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 07:10:08 PM »

Jesus, why do you keep giving the orange man toad more power then he really has?

"She had an audience?!?"

Who gives a *censored* who that little toad wants to talk to these days. He is *done.*

After Jan 6th even the majority of his own party want absolutely nothing to do with him. Impeachment aside, and I truly do get the idea of telling someone, "No, really, you need to go *censored* yourself," but these are people just like us who need to answer to their constituents. If the will isn't there we don't need to be blaming them, we need to blame the people they answer to.

He's a 75 year old fat man. I don't expect GRRM to give us an answer to AGOIAF, I never have, and I'm just fed up with the rest of you giving this one guy power he doesn't have. Not anymore.

2024!

Christ. Have a little I don't know, something or other in yourself. He's going to stroke out or heart attack.

124

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 02:33:55 PM »

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.

Course they can!

We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold? Course not! They're a piece of *censored*!  Find some other way to remove him, not interested.

125

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 01, 2021, 02:25:51 PM »

You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

Not really sure what any of this means. Many businesses that do involve a high degree of people close to each other (like standing behind a cash in a store) obviously could not social distance while maintaining the same work methods. It is possible to make concerted efforts to modify or renovate these practices, and I doubt that most types of business cannot avoid close social contact. Whether it requires special training from management to find a way to do it is another story.

Oh. Thankful to hear you're unable to control close social distancing. I suppose we need to look at the severity of the disease now. Huh. Look's kinda bad!

I have an idea, how about we all stay away from each other. I know the very idea must be difficult but your own anti-vaxxers(jk cousins) must have enough people to keep you entertained

126

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:58:27 PM »

Social distancing and masks are complementary. There are absolutely times where it's impossible to social distance even for short periods of time: for example, in the case where someone needs to work in the presence of others. It's not either/or, and neglecting mask use at this point in time will significantly aggravate the current situation.

What do you mean "needs" to work in the presence of others? There are a few situations where it is unavoidable to be within 6 feet: for instance movers lifting a heavy object together. But in most cases I doubt there is any need at all to be within 6 feet. In most cases I suspect that breaking social distance is a result of not feeling like going through the often arduous step of establishing how to do things without coming near each other. Schools involving young children are an exception to what I'm saying because obviously they just don't understand.

Cool.

You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

127

General Comments / Re: Unprecedented Attacks on Capitol Hill

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:45:22 PM »

Americans. Entertaining the rest of the world since 1776.

Gotta refer to your hated enemy as "The Honorable Gentleman from such and such," in chambers, otherwise they're planting bombs.

Or just beating you senseless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

The Caning of Charles Sumner, or the Brooks–Sumner Affair, occurred on May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate chamber, when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely criticized slaveholders, including a relative of Brooks. The beating nearly killed Sumner and it contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery. It has been considered symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse" and the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War.

Nah my friend one of the reasons I end up respecting the American system.

I mean, in that case we needed better security but if you're going to run your mouth watch your back. Basic gangland procedure.

128

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:35:21 PM »

Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

I'm of the opinion that the House Committee on Education and Labor is basically the basement in terms of committee membership.  Take a look at some of the names?  Ever heard of any of them?  When is the last time they've been in the news?  Never.  She was sent to the basement and not given a second membership. 

Could House Republicans do more?  Sure.  But they havn't.  If the Democrats want to get rid of her they can open up expulsion proceedings but will need 2/3s of the House.  Since 1861, only House members who have been convicted of crimes have been expelled.  That's not just a Republican thing.  Want her expelled?  Have a DA charge her with a crime and convict her.

Totes, my man.

Have her quietly taken out back and shot in the head. Metaphorically speaking of course.

That was what we could have done before but they've spread her poison and allowed it to become a replacement for Trumpism. She'd just be a martyr now.

129

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:32:07 PM »

I think the brouhaha over the Education committee is that she has said that school shootings are false flag operations and/or did not happen and that the families are actors.

Eh.

That sounds a lot like stuff that doesn't matter. At least, to the kids learning.

What are we teaching kids in HS?  Are they learning logic? Basic civics?

A fundamental aspect of the Constitution and how it works? How it works for *us?*. If not, it's all BS anyway and we are *all* wasting our time because we're all screwed.

130

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:08:18 PM »

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

Fair enough.  All I'm asking is how she got treated as compared to her fellows.

Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

131

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 12:50:23 PM »

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

132

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 09:05:20 AM »

Nope.

Political parties are something entirely different from business corporations, that difference being a lot of people with different motivations come together in a political party for ultimate negotiated gains, and we call the a political party  and a lot of people with similar motivations came together in a corporation to be ridiculous. We call it socialism. Eh. Guess we'll find out.

133

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 08:33:44 AM »

"#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official"

Could just me being real ignorant right about now, but I'm not seeing the gulf.

Yeah, she's elected. To you, that means she has unimaginable cosmic power, to others it means she has been chosen in a free and fair election to represent her constituency. You gonna remove their voice in the Congress because she said some crazy stuff? Seems a bold move to me, Cotton. Let's see how it works.

Maybe her constituency consists mostly of *censored*bags. Eh, it happens. As mentioned, she's one out of hundreds. Her term is two years. She'll be gone sooner rather then later and if it wasn't for the media amplifying her bull*censored* beyond any reasonable standard she'd barely be known and she'd have no power.

Only the Georgian crazies supported her before. Well done! She's a national figure now! Now she can get *all* the crazies!

134

General Comments / Re: Unprecedented Attacks on Capitol Hill

« on: January 30, 2021, 09:57:31 PM »

Americans. Entertaining the rest of the world since 1776.

Gotta refer to your hated enemy as "The Honorable Gentleman from such and such," in chambers, otherwise they're planting bombs.

135

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 09:39:37 PM »

You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate?   I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.

Of course I don't. That's why I made it clear I was joking.

My friend, you and I agree on almost everything. Taylor Green is an offensive human being, thankfully her term is two years and she'll be booted via primary or general election if the Reps are stupid enough to give her continued support.

I'm a European socialist who spent twenty years growing up in the States. I've sèen the best and the worst of both systems. And I really do agree with you on things.

All I was objecting to was that stupid comment. It was something I'd expect Lambert or Cherry to say talking about us. We need to be better then that.

136

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 02:08:25 PM »

Yeah, how about they don't.
How about they just let people vote for what they believe in, even if that *censored* is certifiably insane.

***Joking*** You Canadians trying to interfere with our election is just like the Russians.

137

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:50:49 PM »

Look out everyone!

Four hundred and thirty five voting members of the House, *one* of them is certifiably insane, guess it's time for all of us to lose our *censored*.  The world is ending! Canada says our legislature is insane!

Lol.

138

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:36:00 PM »

Christ. This isn't about the sacred congresspeople and their gold-enshrouded farts. This is how we talk to one another, and you decided to attack everyone else with a stupid claim.

Also is it you or TheDrake who's the Canadian? I think it's you but can't quite remember. Those D names.

*censored* if it is you you're pretty mouthy on American politics, I'm a dual citizen and I usually tend to shut up on stuff lol.

139

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:14:25 PM »

And on the subject of health care it's not that the right wing doesn't believe that poor people shouldn't have it, it's that they believe a free market will provide it.

Yeah, yeah, insane on the face of it to most of us but that's what they truly believe. We're gonna have to change hearts and minds here.

140

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 12:44:04 PM »

Nope. Not buying it.

When you say things like what you said you're attempting to smear the entire opposition with what their outliers said. You might as well have Cherry saying all liberals believe white people need to work as janitors for two generations to make things right.

"Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, "

You wrote that. It's BS on the face of it and don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend it.

I wouldn't put up with that from him and I certainly won't be silent whilst one of my own attempts the same.

141

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 11:25:49 AM »

Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, will the party of personal responsibility be looking to charge members of the GW Bush administration for ware crimes for their involvement in commanding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

No.

Come on, man. They've got their crazies, we've got ours. They're a pain in the ass all around.

That they have a crazy who said on Facebook a few years back 9/11 was an inside job, that's unfortunate but we do *not* get to label the entire opposition based upon one nutjob. This isn't Facebook and I'm not quite sure where you get off trying to label a whole political party with something as brutal as "They all believe 9/11 was a hoax," but I doubt it's going to work here.

142

General Comments / Re: Semantic validity in 2021

« on: January 29, 2021, 07:30:24 PM »

If nothing else this whole thing will result in people being more aware of just how the Wall Street parasites continue to leech us.

Honestly how many of you had heard the term short squeeze before but didn't actually know what it meant?

143

General Comments / Re: Semantic validity in 2021

« on: January 29, 2021, 11:42:43 AM »

Eh.

It's wallstreetbets. Google it. It's reddit so it'll be unfamiliar to some of you but it's not that bad.

What you'll find over the past few days is some people selling their shares in order to pay for medical treat mentioned for their family member or dog. They were high fived and encouraged.

The rest of it? They're encouraging not to sell til the bitter end. It's a meme at this point. The idea of pissing off billionaires is so attractive to these people that they'll throw out...you're reading this now. Think about it.

144

General Comments / Re: Semantic validity in 2021

« on: January 29, 2021, 10:05:20 AM »

I'm sorry my friend, but you're wrong.

This was not about a belief or even a meme.  Hedge funds have been using these tactics to crush companies into the ground whilst they made bIllions for decades.

They made a bet on GME to fold. They put their normal enterprises behind it to guarantee it. What they didn't expect was Reddit to come up and punch them in the face. I'm not sure how much you all are understanding this right now, but the big billionaire boys are absolutely *censored*ting their pants at what is going on. They've been caught out.

Google fee-free apps, which were advertised as being on the side of the "little people," they were curtailed yesterday so people could only sell the stock, not buy. In other words, the only move people using that platform could make would be to help the hedgefunders.

145

General Comments / Re: Semantic validity in 2021

« on: January 29, 2021, 09:12:22 AM »

Who knew that Biden's unity would come about from a bunch of Redditors deciding to screw over some hedge funds. Politicians on both sides coming together to target the blatant and illegal means the people in charge are using to try and curtail this.

And I've been trying to educate myself on what exactly is going on. This could easily get much crazier before it's over. It's called a short squeeze because the people who bet on stocks lowering in price aren't exactly forced to buy the stock back, but they do have to pay interest on what they borrowed originally and said interest is based on the current price of the stock. So they'll at some point be forced to buy at whatever price. Except the Redditors are declaring they're not going to sell. Which will force prices higher and higher...

Honestly, this *censored*show couldn't have happened to better people. The sociopaths behind Wall Street tactics are being bent over a barrel and I couldn't be happier.

146

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

« on: January 29, 2021, 08:58:54 AM »

This paranoia about innovation replacing jobs with robots only exists in a mindset that declares that people must work.

As technology advances we'll get closer and closer to the point of Star Trek post scarcity. If robots can actually do almost everything, there'll be no reason for anyone to work except in areas they're passionate about. Art. Community involvement. Continued innovation.

If technology advances and more and more jobs become replaced, the base economic model itself will have to change. The only other option will be a world with the .001 percent robot owners facing down the billions of starving and jobless people.

Universal base income. It's the future.

147

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon

« on: January 28, 2021, 07:09:25 AM »

If you're interested in the statues and don't have time for the whole clip, he gets into it around 12.30.

148

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon

« on: January 28, 2021, 06:59:24 AM »

On the subject of Confederates, here's a link.

https://youtu.be/J5b_-TZwQ0I

Now, John Oliver has his biases and all but his team actually spends between two and three weeks researching every long drop segment they do. And they're good at it.

I can understand that the idea of the Confederacy can be attractive. However it's what they were fighting for that is disgusting. State's rights were an excuse, an excuse needed to allow them to continue to enslave human beings.

Anyone who spent a modicum of time examining history beyond the admittedly weak American standards understands this. And this is why I'm genuinely confused as to how anyone, at least on this site, could possibly try to excuse people invading our Capitol building whilst waving Confederate flags.

State's rights are one thing, but the Confederate flag being waved shows that these people have an attachment to a mindset where if the State declares it, people can be enslaved. In other words, two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

149

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

« on: January 28, 2021, 04:25:27 AM »

Just noting that diseases tend to be most deadly when they first appear, becoming less so as time goes on. The new mutations seem to spread easier, but I've not heard that they're any deadlier. Any strain that allows people to be on their feet and spreading it further for longer is going to have a competitive advantage.

150

General Comments / Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment

« on: January 20, 2021, 03:45:19 PM »

If I had to guess I'd think that they'd go with the precedent that impeachment trials in the Senate are overseen by the Chief Justice. There's enough wiggle room in the wording to perhaps have a court make a decision if pushed, I just don't know who would file that suit with the court.