Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
cc: wizards

cc: wizards

I enjoy dunking on libertarians, but these are legitimately funny:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XMIIahxK5Jk" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I enjoy dunking on libertarians, but these are legitimately funny:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Are you an oppressive capitalist economy? Because I want to seize your means of production. <a href="https://t.co/O3jktZ78aj">https://t.co/O3jktZ78aj</a></p>— neontaster 🚟 (@neontaster) <a href="https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/976432529002594307?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,266
Congress Gives Itself a Bonus in Omnibus

The House and Senate increased their own budgets in the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package.

The Senate increased its total salaries of officers and employees by $12.6 million in the 2,232-page bill that lawmakers had fewer than 48 hours to read and vote on. The bill avoids a government shutdown that would take place at midnight on Friday.

Aside from giving their own institutions a bonus, the omnibus also gives away millions to prevent "elderly falls," promote breastfeeding, and fight "excessive alcohol use."

The legislation increases the Senate budget to $919.9 million, up $48.8 million from fiscal year 2017, according to the congressional summary of the bill.

"The increase provides funding necessary for critical modernization and upgrades of the Senate financial management system and investments in IT security," the summary states.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives increased its budget to $1.2 billion, which is $10.9 million above 2017 levels.

Salaries of staffers in the Senate are also set for an increase. Division I of the legislation breaks down the total salaries of officers and employees, which are being raised from $182 million in 2017 to $194.8 million in the final bill, an increase of $12.58 million.

The Senate also increased its expense account, as expense allowances are going from $177,000 to $192,000, an increase of $15,000.

The House, however, kept its budget for salaries the same at $22.3 million and lowered expenses by $4.4 million.

Committee offices got an increase of $22.9 million in salaries, from $181.5 million in 2017 to $204.4 million in the final bill.

The omnibus also boosts funding for health research, including a $3 billion increase to the ever-growing budget of the National Institutes of Health.

Health care spending in the omnibus includes $4 million to combat "excessive alcohol use" through a CDC prevention and health promotion program.

Another $15 million goes to study "high obesity counties" and an increase of $5 million for the CDC program that seeks to "address obesity in counties" by leveraging "the community extension services provided by land grant universities who are mandated to translate science into practical action and promote healthy lifestyles."

The bill also spends $2.05 million to prevent "elderly falls" and $8 million in the form of "breastfeeding grants."

The legislation also mandates the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau to improve "wine label accuracy."

The House passed the spending package Friday, and the Senate is expected to follow.

Well deserved.

Aside from giving their own institutions a bonus, the omnibus also gives away millions to prevent "elderly falls," promote breastfeeding, and fight "excessive alcohol use."
No doubt Boener's retirement lightens the load for tax payers here.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,939
Reaction score
6,161
She still just doesn't get it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...lection-to-shut-up/ar-AAvglRD?ocid=spartanntp

During an event at Rutgers today she complained that nobody ever told a male who lost a US presidential election to "shut up and go away." Well, maybe that's because none of them spent the next 16 months making ridiculous excuses and blaming everyone but themselves for their loss. Hillary would be well-served to just say, "I made mistakes in my campaign and said some dumb stuff and it cost me the election. Nobody to blame but myself."

Her whole, "It was ignorant, unsophisticated rubes who didn't realize how wonderful I am and wanted to take us backwards and are just hateful, racist, misogynists" approach isn't working. It's what cost her the election. It didn't play well then and isn't playing well now.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,010
I like how she mentions Al Gore dedicating himself to climate change, John Kerry and John McCain going back to the Senate, and Mitt running for Senate 6 years after losing....sure sounds like those guys (minus Mitt) buried themselves back into their passion and/or work...they didn't have to be told to shut up. They went back to work.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
LOL I wonder if Hillary even understands how unpopular she was. It's like she doesn't understand that she was the second least popular candidate in history.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,010
LOL I wonder if Hillary even understands how unpopular she was. It's like she doesn't understand that she was the second least popular candidate in history.

She reminds me on Conrad in house of cards. Except he had a reason to lose his mind. He LITERALLY got it stolen from him. She just....well....Hillary'd.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,939
Reaction score
6,161
LOL I wonder if Hillary even understands how unpopular she was. It's like she doesn't understand that she was the second least popular candidate in history.

We joke about this to some extent here, but I genuinely don't think she does. I think she was so totally convinced that it was "her turn" and that she was going to a coronation instead of in a political dogfight of an election that she really doesn't get it. Which is surprising given that Bill, whose political instincts and ability to read an audience are outstanding, has surely at least tried to enlighten her. He must've just about had a stroke when she made her deplorables comment. As soon as she said it, he probably thought, "She just lost the election." To a great extent, I think she's spent so much time surrounded by sycophants and worshippers and felt like she was The Chosen One that the reality of the situation eludes her... and there aren't many around her who can be brutally honest and clue her in.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How America's largest local TV owner turned its news anchors into soldiers in Trump's war on the media: <a href="https://t.co/iLVtKRQycL">https://t.co/iLVtKRQycL</a> <a href="https://t.co/dMdSGellH3">pic.twitter.com/dMdSGellH3</a></p>— Deadspin (@Deadspin) <a href="https://twitter.com/Deadspin/status/980175772206993409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Orwellian. We need publicly funded elections and serious media reform.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How America's largest local TV owner turned its news anchors into soldiers in Trump's war on the media: <a href="https://t.co/iLVtKRQycL">https://t.co/iLVtKRQycL</a> <a href="https://t.co/dMdSGellH3">pic.twitter.com/dMdSGellH3</a></p>— Deadspin (@Deadspin) <a href="https://twitter.com/Deadspin/status/980175772206993409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Orwellian. We need publicly funded elections and serious media reform.

Media reform... how does one do that without infringing on the 1st?
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
An article in Time magazine,
The Koch Brothers Plan to Spend a Record-Setting $400 Million

The influential network of policy and political groups backed by billionaires Charles and David Koch plan to grow tenfold in coming years, Charles Koch said Saturday as he welcomed 550 of his likeminded pals assembled in California for a donor summit.

All told, the eye on policy and politics will be as much as $400 million, their biggest bucket for a midterm cycle in the groups’ histories. That is on top of cash the influential brothers and their allies funnel every year to projects working in schools, prisons and non-profit groups.

“The capabilities that we have now can take us to a whole new level. So my challenge to all of this is to increase the scale and effectiveness of this network by an order of magnitude, by another tenfold on top of all the growth and progress we’ve already made,” the the sixth-richest man in the world, with an estimated worth of $52 billion, said. “If we can do that, I’m convinced we can change the trajectory of this country.”


At the bottom of the article,
(Disclosure: Time Inc., TIME’s parent company, has agreed to be acquired by Meredith Corp. in a deal partially financed by Koch Equity Development, a subsidiary of Koch Industries Inc.)
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Media reform... how does one do that without infringing on the 1st?

Because you need a license to broadcast on the public airways, and the first amendment doesn't mean jack in an anti-trust case.

The concentration of media ownership is a far easier path to tyranny than regulation. It's not something a bunch of guys in an agrarian society could have predicted.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Someone help me out on the whole Kevin D. Williamson thing. Every "conservative" I can find claims to hold the following three positions simultaneously:

1. The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murder.

2. Abortion is murder.

3. Kevin D. Williamson is out of line to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for abortion.

I can't figure out how someone can hold those three positions at the same time. It even appears to be the official position of the Catholic Church. It's cowardice that tells me that the pro-life movement is more about tribal grandstanding than an actual belief that life begins at conception. If a mother hired a hitman to dismember and chop up her kindergartner, you wouldn't hear anybody saying that all the woman needs is "support and comfort." Yet even people who claim to be pro-life go through some kind of mental gymnastics where murdering the unborn is, for some reason, less severe than murdering the born.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Official position of the Catholic Church? I was under the impression that since Second Vatican the Church was opposed to capital punishment.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
If someone thinks a first-trimester abortion is equal to chopping up a kindergartener, they're wrong. Pretty simple and it's outrageous to compare them IMO.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,010
If someone thinks a first-trimester abortion is equal to chopping up a kindergartener, they're wrong. Pretty simple and it's outrageous to compare them IMO.

I'd consider both of them to be on a level playing field. Both are heinous.

Still don't support the death penalty.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Official position of the Catholic Church? I was under the impression that since Second Vatican the Church was opposed to capital punishment.
The Church has not prohibited capital punishment per se. It's against capital punishment on pragmatic grounds, such as the risk of false convictions and the potential for abuse by a tyrannical government.

If someone thinks a first-trimester abortion is equal to chopping up a kindergartener, they're wrong. Pretty simple and it's outrageous to compare them IMO.
I disagree, but your position is at least logically coherent. If abortion is different than murder, then of course they should have different punishments (or no punishment if you're okay with abortion). My complaint in this context is for those people who claim to believe that abortion itself is murder, there's no coherent basis I can come up with for advocating different punishments.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I'd consider both of them to be on a level playing field. Both are heinous.

It's hard for me to agree with that view point. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester, a period when when a woman in her 20s is about 9-17% likely to miscarry and 40% likely to miscarry at 35.

It's why I don't get the religious motivations, the way the all powerful guy set it up results in miscarriages every day. Pregnancies ending in the first trimester are not uncommon, statistically.

If first-trimester abortions are heinous, god is heinous too.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
It's hard for me to agree with that view point. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester, a period when when a woman in her 20s is about 9-17% likely to miscarry and 40% likely to miscarry at 35.

It's why I don't get the religious motivations, the way the all powerful guy set it up results in miscarriages every day. Pregnancies ending in the first trimester are not uncommon, statistically.

If first-trimester abortions are heinous, god is heinous too.

Original sin, bruh. Humanity and all of nature exists in a fallen state because of us. God would have been a pretty shitty craftsman otherwise. "Behold! The world, in all its glory! But I, uh, couldn't work out all the bugs. So look out for cancer, miscarriage, etc."
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
It's hard for me to agree with that view point. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester, a period when when a woman in her 20s is about 9-17% likely to miscarry and 40% likely to miscarry at 35.

It's why I don't get the religious motivations, the way the all powerful guy set it up results in miscarriages every day. Pregnancies ending in the first trimester are not uncommon, statistically.

If first-trimester abortions are heinous, god is heinous too.

When the elderly break a hip in a fall, over 20% die within 1 year. Probably best to give the family the option to go old Yeller style out back if they think it will be too much of a burden. After all, chances are not all of them would survive anyway.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
It's hard for me to agree with that view point. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester, a period when when a woman in her 20s is about 9-17% likely to miscarry and 40% likely to miscarry at 35.

It's why I don't get the religious motivations, the way the all powerful guy set it up results in miscarriages every day. Pregnancies ending in the first trimester are not uncommon, statistically.

If first-trimester abortions are heinous, god is heinous too.
That's like saying you should be able to shoot old people in the face because old people die all the time.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
16,117
Someone help me out on the whole Kevin D. Williamson thing. Every "conservative" I can find claims to hold the following three positions simultaneously:

1. The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murder.

2. Abortion is murder.

3. Kevin D. Williamson is out of line to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for abortion.

I can't figure out how someone can hold those three positions at the same time. It even appears to be the official position of the Catholic Church. It's cowardice that tells me that the pro-life movement is more about tribal grandstanding than an actual belief that life begins at conception. If a mother hired a hitman to dismember and chop up her kindergartner, you wouldn't hear anybody saying that all the woman needs is "support and comfort." Yet even people who claim to be pro-life go through some kind of mental gymnastics where murdering the unborn is, for some reason, less severe than murdering the born.

Real talk, no troll. The language I'm about to use is purposefully extreme but that's only because I'm attempting to push this logic to it's limits like you did above. It's not meant to attack you or belittle your beliefs, but are actual questions I'm interested in since you are so settled on this issue:

If you really truly believe that abortion and murder are equivalent, why don't you bomb an abortion clinic after hours? If abortions are the exact same as murder then it is extremely likely that you have a building where children are being literally murdered every day within a drive of you. How can you morally do nothing about this? Are you a coward who enjoys his life too much to face those sort of consequences? You live in a country that is killing children with genocidal efficiency. How is anything but violent revolt justified? It appears that you're essentially the same as a German who went on with life during the holocaust. How do you work for and support a corporation that donates to the murder of children?
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Abortion is a woman's choice confirmed by SCOTUS on constitutional grounds. Ethically, you can consider it murder. But don't advocate committing mass murder in a clinic. Would someone actually advocate murdering the woman who makes that choice? Would someone spare the expectant mother since they would be taking the life of the unborn similar to an abortionist? I understand some clinics have escorts past verbally violent protesters, physicians who carry handguns for self-defense, safe rooms for their personnel, and disaster drills since they are relatively soft targets.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,010
It's hard for me to agree with that view point. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester, a period when when a woman in her 20s is about 9-17% likely to miscarry and 40% likely to miscarry at 35.

It's why I don't get the religious motivations, the way the all powerful guy set it up results in miscarriages every day. Pregnancies ending in the first trimester are not uncommon, statistically.

If first-trimester abortions are heinous, god is heinous too.

Good Lord.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,611
Reaction score
20,093
It's hard for me to agree with that view point. 91% of abortions are in the first trimester, a period when when a woman in her 20s is about 9-17% likely to miscarry and 40% likely to miscarry at 35.

It's why I don't get the religious motivations, the way the all powerful guy set it up results in miscarriages every day. Pregnancies ending in the first trimester are not uncommon, statistically.

If first-trimester abortions are heinous, god is heinous too.

hAeI0Ep.gif
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Real talk, no troll. The language I'm about to use is purposefully extreme but that's only because I'm attempting to push this logic to it's limits like you did above. It's not meant to attack you or belittle your beliefs, but are actual questions I'm interested in since you are so settled on this issue:

If you really truly believe that abortion and murder are equivalent, why don't you bomb an abortion clinic after hours? If abortions are the exact same as murder then it is extremely likely that you have a building where children are being literally murdered every day within a drive of you. How can you morally do nothing about this?
There are appropriate channels for the dispensation of justice. Vigilantism is not one of them.

Are you a coward who enjoys his life too much to face those sort of consequences?
Yes, that's probably true.

You live in a country that is killing children with genocidal efficiency. How is anything but violent revolt justified? It appears that you're essentially the same as a German who went on with life during the holocaust.
Violent revolt against whom? There's no coherent target. It's not the federal government that's executing babies, its thousands of unrelated people and entities spread all over the place.

How do you work for and support a corporation that donates to the murder of children?
I don't even think that's true. Regardless, organizations are neither good nor evil, with very few exceptions. Most of them are amoral and made of up individuals with the capacity of doing good or evil in the organization's name. Your question is akin to the argument that everyone should abandon the Catholic Church because of the actions of several evil priests.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
16,117
There are appropriate channels for the dispensation of justice. Vigilantism is not one of them.

I feel like the whole "law and justice must prevail over the impassioned whims of the mob" thing kind of falls by the wayside when you are talking about the literal murder of literal children being done in a building that is built solely for that purpose.

Yes, that's probably true.

No sarcasm, thanks for being honest and upfront. I feel like a lot of people would've dodged that one.


Violent revolt against whom? There's no coherent target. It's not the federal government that's executing babies, its thousands of unrelated people and entities spread all over the place.

That's a good point. Let's start with individual businesses like above.

I don't even think that's true.

It probably isn't. I just did a quick google and saw one website that said that they funded planned parenthood. I just thought I'd add it to the pile since it's more of a logic exercise than a debate about Disney.

Regardless, organizations are neither good nor evil, with very few exceptions. Most of them are amoral and made of up individuals with the capacity of doing good or evil in the organization's name. Your question is akin to the argument that everyone should abandon the Catholic Church because of the actions of several evil priests.

I don't like that analogy. The priests weren't doing that with the permission of the Church, they were secretly doing criminal activity that the church (ostensibly) was unaware of. This hypothetical is about funding, which I think is a big difference. As to the other point of corporations being neither good/evil, I think again that when you're talking about a corporation that funds the murder of babies I don't think excusing making by saying "Well its because their current CEO is kind of a liberal" really cuts it.

It's one of the reasons I think this is so interesting because when you say that abortion = murder, it's immediately such an extreme statement from a human-life perspective that any attempt at equivalency for other political standings or typical social principals becomes very difficult to justify.

(Extreme above meaning "sensational". Not saying you're an extremist.)
 
Top