http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-investigate-scientific-fraud-global-warming-report/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-investigate-scientific-fraud-global-warming-report/)
QuoteFresh off a dramatic victory in which it retook the House leadership, the Republican Party intends to hold major hearings probing the supposed "scientific fraud" behind global warming.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder related the news in a little-noticed article Wednesday morning.
The effort is a likely attempt to out-step the White House on energy policy moving forward. Legislation on energy and climate change reform, one of President Barack Obama campaign promises, has yet to materialize, though Obama's EPA recently classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Holding hearings would please the Republicans' conservative base, which increasingly doubts the scientific basis for global warming -- especially human-induced global warming -- and provide a reflection of the new GOP's tenor.
AMERICA WANTED IT
AMERICA'S GETTING IT
They're also trying to make Gerrymandering a federal thing.
Saves all the trouble of getting elected over and over again, I guess.
:horrormirth: It begins already.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:48:58 AM
They're also trying to make Gerrymandering a federal thing.
Saves all the trouble of getting elected over and over again, I guess.
How? I haven't heard this one.
Quote from: Vartox on November 04, 2010, 02:52:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:48:58 AM
They're also trying to make Gerrymandering a federal thing.
Saves all the trouble of getting elected over and over again, I guess.
How? I haven't heard this one.
http://www.capitolgrilling.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=596802&page=1&gonew=1#UNREAD
Done at state level, organized at the federal level, illegal as hell.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:59:17 AM
Quote from: Vartox on November 04, 2010, 02:52:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:48:58 AM
They're also trying to make Gerrymandering a federal thing.
Saves all the trouble of getting elected over and over again, I guess.
How? I haven't heard this one.
http://www.capitolgrilling.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=596802&page=1&gonew=1#UNREAD
Done at state level, organized at the federal level, illegal as hell.
ETA: Rumors only at the moment.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 04, 2010, 02:51:33 AM
:horrormirth: It begins already.
Seems like there was only a small lull between democrat incompetence and the high fiber powered bowel-movement machine that is the republican party. Frankly I'm glad democrats can take the thumbs out of their asses and do what they do best, groan loudly for sympathy votes while republicans eat us alive.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:59:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:59:17 AM
Quote from: Vartox on November 04, 2010, 02:52:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 02:48:58 AM
They're also trying to make Gerrymandering a federal thing.
Saves all the trouble of getting elected over and over again, I guess.
How? I haven't heard this one.
http://www.capitolgrilling.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=596802&page=1&gonew=1#UNREAD
Done at state level, organized at the federal level, illegal as hell.
ETA: Rumors only at the moment.
redrawing the districts here in FL was on the ballot.
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:48:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
fair enough.
every state is vastly under represented in congress based on population growth.
[EDIT]
well.. not EVERY state.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:50:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:48:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
fair enough.
every state is vastly under represented in congress based on population growth.
[EDIT]
well.. not EVERY state.
Gerrymandering isn't moving district lines to add representatives.
It's moving district lines to influence elections.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:56:10 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:50:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:48:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
fair enough.
every state is vastly under represented in congress based on population growth.
[EDIT]
well.. not EVERY state.
Gerrymandering isn't moving district lines to add representatives.
It's moving district lines to influence elections.
and it works both ways.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:58:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:56:10 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:50:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:48:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
fair enough.
every state is vastly under represented in congress based on population growth.
[EDIT]
well.. not EVERY state.
Gerrymandering isn't moving district lines to add representatives.
It's moving district lines to influence elections.
and it works both ways.
Oh, well, that makes everything okay. So when you have a major, nation-wide shift in politics, it's okay for the victor to change districts across the board to keep the other party from ever having a fair chance of being elected again?
Nice.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 04:00:36 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:58:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:56:10 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:50:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:48:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
fair enough.
every state is vastly under represented in congress based on population growth.
[EDIT]
well.. not EVERY state.
Gerrymandering isn't moving district lines to add representatives.
It's moving district lines to influence elections.
and it works both ways.
Oh, well, that makes everything okay. So when you have a major, nation-wide shift in politics, it's okay for the victor to change districts across the board to keep the other party from ever having a fair chance of being elected again?
Nice.
once again, way to shove words down my mouth.
In my state, this sort of thing has to be on the ballot as a separate amendment, so your milage may vary..
redrawing districts to reflect reality has been a contention here in NF for some 15 years so we may be talking about different oranges, or apples.. or kiwis...
I think Pickle was commenting on the proper reason for redistricting rather than what it is usually used for.
If I recall, the first election I voted involved a redistricting (as a ballot question), but since no one really had any objection to it, it passed easily, and I think that's what he's thinking of.
Anyway, moving back to the OP...it looks like we're back to 2004 again. I've been waiting for something similar in the UK, as the Tory Right (in particular, those who note down their verbal burping in the online rag The Telegraph) are also, by and large, very anti-global warming. It's not a big electoral thing here in the UK (and probably isn't in the States either), but it does mean two UNSC nations now have people who don't believe in man-made global warming or global warming at all in charge of legislation. And I don't know where France stands, but China sure as hell isn't going to let a little thing like environmental damage stand in the way of it's economic growth, and Russia doesn't care excessively either, beyond making sure it's old, ex-Soviet stockpiles don't leak over someone important.
So that's 4/5 of the most influential nations for international agreements who may now consider there to be no problem to worry about, or wont enforce existing agreements and treaties. And when the big players start to defect from a system, you can sure as hell bet smaller players will follow if they gain from it...
Cain, have you brought up us waffling on the cluster munitions treaties? I think I saw that here. Maybe elsewhere.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53437
I haven't, but I've followed it, on and off. That most of NATO already signed onto the Treaty means the US is just hurting itself by being obstinate about their use.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44630.html
Oklahoma bans Sharia law for some reason.
Thank god this country is finally headed in the right direction.
Next step: banning Phoenician Law. No Human Sacrifice for Moloch in our Tennessee!
Oh man, that so needs to be a real campaign.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 04:00:36 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:58:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:56:10 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:50:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:48:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:44:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:42:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
How is redrawing the districts to reflect the real demographics a problem?
Wait.
You want to redraw districts based on what? Income? Race? What?
all of the above is baiting.
the people who actually live there. is that too difficult to understand?
Yes. What's wrong with leaving the districts the way they are, if you're not actually adding any representatives?
fair enough.
every state is vastly under represented in congress based on population growth.
[EDIT]
well.. not EVERY state.
Gerrymandering isn't moving district lines to add representatives.
It's moving district lines to influence elections.
and it works both ways.
Oh, well, that makes everything okay. So when you have a major, nation-wide shift in politics, it's okay for the victor to change districts across the board to keep the other party from ever having a fair chance of being elected again?
Nice.
Yeah, it made me kinda ill when some of the 'get out the vote' arguments on the Dem side was 'If we're in power, we'll get to redraw the districts to favor us!!'
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 04, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44630.html
Oklahoma bans Sharia law for some reason.
Thank god this country is finally headed in the right direction.
apparently, fear really IS the mind-killer.
There's been some stupid shit done over the last decade. This is the most useless stupid shit in recent memory.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 04, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44630.html
Oklahoma bans Sharia law for some reason.
Thank god this country is finally headed in the right direction.
What the fuck?
:facepalm:
I'm with Cain. We should get them to ban all sorts of stupid shit.
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 04, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44630.html
Oklahoma bans Sharia law for some reason.
Thank god this country is finally headed in the right direction.
What the fuck?
:facepalm:
I'm with Cain. We should get them to ban all sorts of stupid shit.
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
we should ban Murphy's Law (damn law gets me all the fucking TIME!)
and the second law of thermodynamics, so I can finally build my perpetual motion machine.
Ban Babylonian Law: no more hewing off lips in Marduk's name.
Banning the Laws of Physics.... hmmm.....
Perhaps it could be phrased in such a way that would give it credibility or at least not raise too many eyebrows, like ban scientific bias in the patent office which prevents innovations in the area of energy efficiency, engineering and space propulsion technology. Devil can be in the details and we can infiltrate a bunch of science crank websites to get them to support it in the name of science.
There is precedent.
In 1897, Indiana attempted to define Pi as 3.2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)
I'm pretty sure you can talk them into banning laws of physics as creationist/climate denier measures, without even bothering to make it make sense.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 04, 2010, 03:12:00 PM
There is precedent.
In 1897, Indiana attempted to define Pi as 3.2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)
I thought that was a myth. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 04, 2010, 03:12:39 PM
I'm pretty sure you can talk them into banning laws of physics as creationist/climate denier measures, without even bothering to make it make sense.
Have them ban the teaching of gravitation since Stephen Hawking has declared it to be the God of the atheists what made the universe. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Quote from: Durivan on November 04, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Yes, I do realize that. So do the courts.
ETA: I would assume that people in general are aware the the courts believe in separation of church and state, and would prevent Shariah law from having any legal weight. As far as the Tea Baggers, they don't have to do anything about that until they get the take over they think they can achieve, at which point Shariah law wouldn't happen anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Durivan on November 04, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Yes, I do realize that. So do the courts.
ETA: I would assume that people in general are aware the the courts believe in separation of church and state, and would prevent Shariah law from having any legal weight. As far as the Tea Baggers, they don't have to do anything about that until they get the take over they think they can achieve, at which point Shariah law wouldn't happen anyway.
This. The yahoos think that their day has come, and a great deal of them honestly believe - I had one tell me this just last week - that it's "freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion".
The Founders are rolling over in their graves, I'm sure
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 04:28:55 PM
The Founders are rolling over in their graves, I'm sure
Why would they worry about a lesser strain like this?
Patrick Henry would walk away laughing, if you were to take him to WalMart.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 04:28:55 PM
The Founders are rolling over in their graves, I'm sure
Why would they worry about a lesser strain like this?
Patrick Henry would walk away laughing, if you were to take him to WalMart.
True, I'm thinking more of the facepalm/fucking noobs sort of rolling over in the grave.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Durivan on November 04, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Yes, I do realize that. So do the courts.
ETA: I would assume that people in general are aware the the courts believe in separation of church and state, and would prevent Shariah law from having any legal weight. As far as the Tea Baggers, they don't have to do anything about that until they get the take over they think they can achieve, at which point Shariah law wouldn't happen anyway.
Not for much longer. NPR is reporting that the Obama administration is currently arguing in court that while the first ammendment does provide for separation of church and state, that people should not be allowed to sue the government for violating the establishment clause.
Change!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 04:05:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 04:00:36 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 04, 2010, 03:58:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 03:56:10 AM
Gerrymandering isn't moving district lines to add representatives.
It's moving district lines to influence elections.
and it works both ways.
Oh, well, that makes everything okay. So when you have a major, nation-wide shift in politics, it's okay for the victor to change districts across the board to keep the other party from ever having a fair chance of being elected again?
Nice.
once again, way to shove words down my mouth.
In my state, this sort of thing has to be on the ballot as a separate amendment, so your milage may vary..
redrawing districts to reflect reality has been a contention here in NF for some 15 years so we may be talking about different oranges, or apples.. or kiwis...
Redrawing districts is one thing
Gerrymandering is the practice of identifying where people of a certain demographic trait (race, income, etc) live, and determining whether or not they're the kind of people you want having a political voice. If not, then you redraw district lines such that this group of undesirables (read: group of people who are likely going to vote against you) has no chance of achieving a majority vote in any given district.
Divide and
conquer SURPRISE BUTTSECKS.
Not sure HOW precisely they get away with this; I think it's because no one in a position of sufficient power to stop it either notices, or cares, and the typical person is oblivious to it happening. I sure as shit don't know what's up with districts in my state.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 04, 2010, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Durivan on November 04, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Yes, I do realize that. So do the courts.
ETA: I would assume that people in general are aware the the courts believe in separation of church and state, and would prevent Shariah law from having any legal weight. As far as the Tea Baggers, they don't have to do anything about that until they get the take over they think they can achieve, at which point Shariah law wouldn't happen anyway.
Not for much longer. NPR is reporting that the Obama administration is currently arguing in court that while the first ammendment does provide for separation of church and state, that people should not be allowed to sue the government for violating the establishment clause.
Change!
But is it "Change We Can Believe In"?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 04, 2010, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Durivan on November 04, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Yes, I do realize that. So do the courts.
ETA: I would assume that people in general are aware the the courts believe in separation of church and state, and would prevent Shariah law from having any legal weight. As far as the Tea Baggers, they don't have to do anything about that until they get the take over they think they can achieve, at which point Shariah law wouldn't happen anyway.
Not for much longer. NPR is reporting that the Obama administration is currently arguing in court that while the first ammendment does provide for separation of church and state, that people should not be allowed to sue the government for violating the establishment clause.
Change!
Naturally, while the Tea Party will love this, it's further evidence of him being a Muslim trying to enforce Shariah
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 04, 2010, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: Durivan on November 04, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
Banning Shariah Law.... FFS the Constitution already fucking does that...
You do realize the the Teabaggers don't believe in separation of church and state. They just think it bans a national religion, they think they you can enforce all the religious laws you want to and are okay with that as long as the religion in question is fundamentalist christianity.
Yes, I do realize that. So do the courts.
ETA: I would assume that people in general are aware the the courts believe in separation of church and state, and would prevent Shariah law from having any legal weight. As far as the Tea Baggers, they don't have to do anything about that until they get the take over they think they can achieve, at which point Shariah law wouldn't happen anyway.
Not for much longer. NPR is reporting that the Obama administration is currently arguing in court that while the first ammendment does provide for separation of church and state, that people should not be allowed to sue the government for violating the establishment clause.
Change!
Naturally, while the Tea Party will love this, it's further evidence of him being a Muslim trying to enforce Shariah
IIRC, this is the lawsuit that taxpayers brought against the Arizona system of tax write offs for sending your kid to a private school. Basically, every dime you spend on a private school is taken off your tax bill. The argument is this is indirectly government paying religious institutions. The White House is arguing that the Taxpayers have no standing to challenge the government on this. The State is arguing that the government isn't sponsoring religion, because they aren't paying money to the schools... they're just giving the parents a 100% break on that money for their taxes.
I can actually see both sides of the argument (Taxpayers and State)... but the White Houses position is insane.
Its not for parents sending their kids to private schools, its for donations to scholarship funds that discriminate based on religion.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 04:54:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 04, 2010, 04:28:55 PM
The Founders are rolling over in their graves, I'm sure
Why would they worry about a lesser strain like this?
Patrick Henry would walk away laughing, if you were to take him to WalMart.
True, I'm thinking more of the facepalm/fucking noobs sort of rolling over in the grave.
Probably. Patrick Henry invented "Or Kill Me", and he was fucking
serious about having a good time. He'd facepalm, quit politics, and learn to play electric guitar if he were alive today.
What's killing me is that I'm listening to NPR, and everyone is asking if Obama will "pull a Clinton" and "move towards the center", and no one is yelling, "HE WAS ALREADY THERE, FUCKOS! IT'S CALLED THE 'OVERTON WINDOW'! THE MAN IS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN REAGAN WAS! WHAT THE FUCK!"
He's going to cave on the tax cuts for the wealthy, just wait.
Also, it appears that the GOP has once again declared a "mandate"...
...Even though polls show that people don't want what they think they want. (http://www.slate.com/id/2273694/)
I am back in my proper element.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 04, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44630.html
Oklahoma bans Sharia law for some reason.
Thank god this country is finally headed in the right direction.
So... the government can't regulate alcohol and gambling in Oklahoma now?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 07:25:26 PM
I am back in my proper element.
Thought the Twenty-Tens were gonna be less funny than the 2000s for a moment there, did ya? :lol:
I went through my adolescence during the Bush years; I expect nothing less than the purest form of Horrormirth from my country's government. I trust that it will provide.
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2010, 03:01:44 PM
Ban Babylonian Law: no more hewing off lips in Marduk's name.
Hey now.
Quote from: Cainad on November 04, 2010, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2010, 07:25:26 PM
I am back in my proper element.
Thought the Twenty-Tens were gonna be less funny than the 2000s for a moment there, did ya? :lol:
I went through my adolescence during the Bush years; I expect nothing less than the purest form of Horrormirth from my country's government. I trust that it will provide.
Ho ho ho!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 04, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
He's going to cave on the tax cuts for the wealthy, just wait.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40011202/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
At least he doesn't make you wait for long! :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2010, 02:16:37 PM
Next step: banning Phoenician Law. No Human Sacrifice for Moloch in our Tennessee!
Oh man, that so needs to be a real campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Arena :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 04, 2010, 09:39:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 04, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
He's going to cave on the tax cuts for the wealthy, just wait.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40011202/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
At least he doesn't make you wait for long! :lulz:
Well, I guess this is the next two years then.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 05, 2010, 12:21:28 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2010, 02:16:37 PM
Next step: banning Phoenician Law. No Human Sacrifice for Moloch in our Tennessee!
Oh man, that so needs to be a real campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Arena :lulz:
Creeping Egyptianization. Next step: interring Presidents in giant buildings when they are dead, and claiming they are Gods when they are alive.
Oh, wait...
I'm wondering if the teabaggers will still have rallies now that they've won.
I'm guessing yes, and that they'll be bigger and more elaborate.
Lots of teabaggers in more or less straight lines, saluting the "don't tread on me" flag, as they slowly move down the road in their motorized scooters.
Quote from: Subetai on November 22, 2010, 05:18:58 PM
Lots of teabaggers in more or less straight lines, saluting the "don't tread on me" flag, as they slowly move down the road in their government funded motorized scooters.
You forget certain important details.
Quote from: Subetai on November 22, 2010, 05:18:58 PM
Lots of teabaggers in more or less straight lines, saluting the "don't tread on me" flag, as they slowly move down the road in their motorized scooters.
I, for one, am furious that they're ruining the Gadsden flag.
I have one but don't want people assuming I'm a teabagger.
I'm sure Hindus were pissed off at how Nazis ruined the swastika, too.
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 08:01:41 AM
I'm sure Hindus were pissed off at how Nazis ruined the swastika, too.
Well IMO, that IS a real shame. It's a beautiful symbol, pretty much the most basic representation of a four-fold rotational symmetry.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 03:13:53 PM
Well IMO, that IS a real shame. It's a beautiful symbol, pretty much the most basic representation of a four-fold rotational symmetry.
It was also symbolic for Native Americans. I was weirded out when I visited the Pennsylvania Historical Society and saw an amateur publication that used swastikas as a border on the wrapper. Then I noticed the pamphlet was pre-1920. I'm hardly the first to say it, but a few decades can make a
lot of difference in the meaning of things.
Quote from: leln on November 24, 2010, 12:06:13 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 03:13:53 PM
Well IMO, that IS a real shame. It's a beautiful symbol, pretty much the most basic representation of a four-fold rotational symmetry.
It was also symbolic for Native Americans. I was weirded out when I visited the Pennsylvania Historical Society and saw an amateur publication that used swastikas as a border on the wrapper. Then I noticed the pamphlet was pre-1920. I'm hardly the first to say it, but a few decades can make a lot of difference in the meaning of things.
I remember reading some books on Celtic mythology where they kept using the word Aryan. It was copyrighted in 1905.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 12:03:21 AM
Quote from: leln on November 24, 2010, 12:06:13 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 03:13:53 PM
Well IMO, that IS a real shame. It's a beautiful symbol, pretty much the most basic representation of a four-fold rotational symmetry.
It was also symbolic for Native Americans. I was weirded out when I visited the Pennsylvania Historical Society and saw an amateur publication that used swastikas as a border on the wrapper. Then I noticed the pamphlet was pre-1920. I'm hardly the first to say it, but a few decades can make a lot of difference in the meaning of things.
I remember reading some books on Celtic mythology where they kept using the word Aryan. It was copyrighted in 1905.
it historically referred to persians.
funny, that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 02, 2010, 12:09:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 12:03:21 AM
Quote from: leln on November 24, 2010, 12:06:13 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 03:13:53 PM
Well IMO, that IS a real shame. It's a beautiful symbol, pretty much the most basic representation of a four-fold rotational symmetry.
It was also symbolic for Native Americans. I was weirded out when I visited the Pennsylvania Historical Society and saw an amateur publication that used swastikas as a border on the wrapper. Then I noticed the pamphlet was pre-1920. I'm hardly the first to say it, but a few decades can make a lot of difference in the meaning of things.
I remember reading some books on Celtic mythology where they kept using the word Aryan. It was copyrighted in 1905.
it historically referred to persians.
funny, that.
I know. They were using it as a catch-all for Europeans.
:lol: @ the scientific fraud of Global Warming.
The Republicans really do not want to come to terms with it existing, as does their voter base. In an ideal world they will eventually realize the folly of their actions. Reminds me of an interesting paper I did last year....shame my hard drive fried.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 09:52:38 AM
:lol: @ the scientific fraud of Global Warming.
The Republicans really do not want to come to terms with it existing, as does their voter base. In an ideal world they will eventually realize the folly of their actions. Reminds me of an interesting paper I did last year....shame my hard drive fried.
It's not just the GOP. All American politicians are in Big Daddy Oil's pocket.
Bush tax cuts extended "temporarily". Because of course the Democrats will win big in 2012 and 14, allowing them to undo it, and release the power of Really Real Progressivism (for Realness).
Anyone else remember, when in the campaign, Obama said he was a Reaganite? Anyone else thinking he might have been 100% sincere on that point?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 08, 2010, 09:56:12 AM
It's not just the GOP. All American politicians are in Big Daddy Oil's pocket.
It's sick and needs to stop. Unfortunately enough Americans don't give a crap and feel it's all SEP. Something disastrous needs to occur to make the public wake up and GET MAD! Nothing in America changes without fear and anger.
Quote from: Cain on November 23, 2010, 08:01:41 AM
I'm sure Hindus were pissed off at how Nazis ruined the swastika, too.
How do you think my mother's church felt? Built in the early 1900's, swastikas adorn the floor every other tile. Awkward place to have your wedding, first communion, and every other religious ceremony if you consider Nazis.
As stated in Clerks "Let's take it back!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks)
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2010, 10:04:05 AM
Bush tax cuts extended "temporarily". Because of course the Democrats will win big in 2012 and 14, allowing them to undo it, and release the power of Really Real Progressivism (for Realness).
Anyone else remember, when in the campaign, Obama said he was a Reaganite? Anyone else thinking he might have been 100% sincere on that point?
I didn't think it was possible, but I have become even more upset, disappointed, jaded and cynical than before.
Hey, Obama: you're probably gonna be a one-termer, so start acting like a one-termer and
do the unpopular thing.For fuck's sake.
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2010, 10:04:05 AM
Bush tax cuts extended "temporarily". Because of course the Democrats will win big in 2012 and 14, allowing them to undo it, and release the power of Really Real Progressivism (for Realness).
Anyone else remember, when in the campaign, Obama said he was a Reaganite? Anyone else thinking he might have been 100% sincere on that point?
Yes and Yes.
Which of course makes it ludicrous when people go on about how he is The Most Liberal President Ever. He really didn't campaign on any liberal ideas. He also pretty much telegraphed how he was going to handle DADT. On more than one occassion he or his staff mentioned that Obama, because of his religious beliefs, does not agree with homosexuality and gay marriage. Progressives should pretty much give up on him. I can see voting for him in 2012 as a defensive measure, especially if Palin or Gingrich end up being the nominee. But I don't see voting for him in 2012 with any kind of expectations of him doing anything progressive. It's just not going to happen.
I'm mostly angry at myself for being suckered in by marketing. Meet the new boss, ad infinitum.
Same. The Reagan stuff bothered me, but, I thought perhaps he would at least seize upon what looked like a pretty clear mandate from the people to fix some of the crap that got us into trouble. And I wouldn't have suspected that he could so easily be de-railed by idiots like Palin and Grassley making crap up like "death panels".
So, been thinking this through, reading analysis, listening to NPR, and I haz question.
If Obama had fought, would Republicans really have let unemployment run out? And if they did, what would be the result of that?
I'm trying to think of realpolitik results, rather than overly optimistic/pessimistic/apocalyptic answers.
Of course the Repubs would. Letting poor people starve practically gives them wood.
The result of that would've been an increase in the crime rate. Which would then allow the Repubs to hammer the Dems for being soft on crime, while denying them the funds to deal with it either through policing or, you know, letting unemployed people eat.
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2010, 03:11:08 PM
Of course the Repubs would. Letting poor people starve practically gives them wood.
The result of that would've been an increase in the crime rate. Which would then allow the Repubs to hammer the Dems for being soft on crime, while denying them the funds to deal with it either through policing or, you know, letting unemployed people eat.
This. Citizens are little more than pawns in a large game. Your vote is the only thing that concerns the politicians and they care a little less about that every year.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 08, 2010, 03:06:27 PM
So, been thinking this through, reading analysis, listening to NPR, and I haz question.
If Obama had fought, would Republicans really have let unemployment run out? And if they did, what would be the result of that?
I'm trying to think of realpolitik results, rather than overly optimistic/pessimistic/apocalyptic answers.
Yes it would have run out and people without jobs would have been screwed. However, the GOP would have proudly pointed out that they fought against a tax-hike AND didn't spend money that we don't have... and the baggers would have eaten it up ... in between their home foreclosures and setting up their new digs at the homeless shelter.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 08, 2010, 09:56:12 AM
It's not just the GOP. All American politicians are in Big Daddy Oil's pocket.
It's sick and needs to stop. Unfortunately enough Americans don't give a crap and feel it's all SEP. Something disastrous needs to occur to make the public wake up and GET MAD! Nothing in America changes without fear and anger.
:lol:
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 08, 2010, 09:56:12 AM
It's not just the GOP. All American politicians are in Big Daddy Oil's pocket.
It's sick and needs to stop. Unfortunately enough Americans don't give a crap and feel it's all SEP. Something disastrous needs to occur to make the public wake up and GET MAD! Nothing in America changes without fear and anger.
:lol:
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Holy Crap! When did that happen? I would have thought they would cover it in the news or something.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 08, 2010, 09:56:12 AM
It's not just the GOP. All American politicians are in Big Daddy Oil's pocket.
It's sick and needs to stop. Unfortunately enough Americans don't give a crap and feel it's all SEP. Something disastrous needs to occur to make the public wake up and GET MAD! Nothing in America changes without fear and anger.
:lol:
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Also, for all their hollering about needing a smaller government, Americans have been letting DHS, etc, piss down their throats and tell them it's champaign.
America has lost the capacity to lose their shit.
Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
Will Rogers
Some truths never change.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Something disastrous in a location other than the Gulf of Mexico; we have learned from Hurricane Katrina that few Americans actually care about what happens in the Gulf. Remember Bush's delayed response time?
If a similar even were to somehow happen in the Northeast you can bet action would have been taken.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Something disastrous in a location other than the Gulf of Mexico; we have learned from Hurricane Katrina that few Americans actually care about what happens in the Gulf. Remember Bush's delayed response time?
If a similar even were to somehow happen in the Northeast you can bet action would have been taken.
Ask Richter and Suu about flooding in Providence, RI.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Something disastrous in a location other than the Gulf of Mexico; we have learned from Hurricane Katrina that few Americans actually care about what happens in the Gulf. Remember Bush's delayed response time?
If a similar even were to somehow happen in the Northeast you can bet action would have been taken.
bush responded. he sent in Blackwater to hold down martial law and confiscate guns from law abiding citizen's homes.
:horrormirth:
[edit] exaggeration, as marshall law was never declared. guns were taken though.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 08, 2010, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Something disastrous in a location other than the Gulf of Mexico; we have learned from Hurricane Katrina that few Americans actually care about what happens in the Gulf. Remember Bush's delayed response time?
If a similar even were to somehow happen in the Northeast you can bet action would have been taken.
bush responded. he sent in Blackwater to hold down marshall law and confiscate guns from law abiding citizen's homes.
:horrormirth:
[edit] exaggeration, as marshall law was never declared. guns were taken though.
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings of key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.
Marshall Law was an Australian television series, which aired for one season in 2002, starring Lisa McCune and Alison Whyte as lawyers and sisters.
Ugh, yeah, the murdering by cops that went on during the aftermath of Katrina is only now this past year being made more or less public nationwide. It turns my stomach.
Quote from: Jenne on December 08, 2010, 08:34:18 PM
Ugh, yeah, the murdering by cops that went on during the aftermath of Katrina is only now this past year being made more or less public nationwide. It turns my stomach.
This is why I worry about Verthaine.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 08, 2010, 08:27:33 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 08, 2010, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 08, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
You mean something disastrous like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? America has already forgotten about it.
Something disastrous in a location other than the Gulf of Mexico; we have learned from Hurricane Katrina that few Americans actually care about what happens in the Gulf. Remember Bush's delayed response time?
If a similar even were to somehow happen in the Northeast you can bet action would have been taken.
bush responded. he sent in Blackwater to hold down marshall law and confiscate guns from law abiding citizen's homes.
:horrormirth:
[edit] exaggeration, as marshall law was never declared. guns were taken though.
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings of key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.
Marshall Law was an Australian television series, which aired for one season in 2002, starring Lisa McCune and Alison Whyte as lawyers and sisters.
I know what martial law is. I really fucked the spelling up on that first post though. a state of emergency was declared which gives some similar authority to the state government.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 08, 2010, 09:56:12 AM
It's not just the GOP. All American politicians are in Big Daddy Oil's pocket.
It's sick and needs to stop. Unfortunately enough Americans don't give a crap and feel it's all SEP. Something disastrous needs to occur to make the public wake up and GET MAD! Nothing in America changes without fear and anger.
That just feeds the machine, to change the gears one must charge their sigils :fnord: