Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Primary 2012: Romney Wins Debate By Saying Nothing, Having Nice Hair

15354555658

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.

    Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.

    I have never heard of a good way to overcome the "race to the bottom" problem that comes with state level programs.

    Why would someone who never expects to use social programs move to Vermont when they could go to Texas.

    Have the federal government dispense the cash annually for designated purposes, and then the state administers and customizes the program. States do not therefore have the differing tax rates that cause race-to-the-bottom, but there is still competition between states (in service delivery) and an amount of local government.

    But that is already how a lot of federal shit is done.

    Edit: God bless insane anti-science Republicans.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-draws-early-fire-from-conservatives-over-views-on-climate-change/2011/06/08/AGkUTaMH_print.html
    So far, Romney’s reviews from the right are not positive. His views about climate change in particular put him at odds with many in his party’s base.

    “Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”

    Then came the Club for Growth, which issued a white paper criticizing Romney. “Governor Romney’s regulatory record as governor contains some flaws,” the report said, “including a significant one — his support of ‘global warming’ policies.”

    And Conservatives4Palin.com, a blog run by some of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s more active supporters, posted an item charging that Romney is “simpatico” with President Obama after he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”

    A Romney spokeswoman declined to comment about the criticism but did provide excerpts from Romney’s 2009 book, “No Apology ,” in which the candidate articulates the same environmental positions.

    The episode suggests that Romney and his team, trying to market the candidate as authentic, see more of a benefit in sticking with his position and taking heat than in shifting to win over a crucial segment of the conservative base.

    “The fact that he doesn’t change his position . . . that’s the upside for us,” said one Romney adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign. “He’s not going to change his mind on these issues to put his finger in the wind for what scores points with these parts of the party.”

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Newt is basically this primary's Thompson. He saw a horrible field and said ""me too!" but doesn't really care. Like Thompson he'll prolly start dozing off during debates soon.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.

    Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.

    I have never heard of a good way to overcome the "race to the bottom" problem that comes with state level programs.

    Why would someone who never expects to use social programs move to Vermont when they could go to Texas.

    Have the federal government dispense the cash annually for designated purposes, and then the state administers and customizes the program. States do not therefore have the differing tax rates that cause race-to-the-bottom, but there is still competition between states (in service delivery) and an amount of local government.

    But that is already how a lot of federal shit is done.

    Edit: God bless insane anti-science Republicans.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-draws-early-fire-from-conservatives-over-views-on-climate-change/2011/06/08/AGkUTaMH_print.html
    So far, Romney’s reviews from the right are not positive. His views about climate change in particular put him at odds with many in his party’s base.

    “Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”

    Then came the Club for Growth, which issued a white paper criticizing Romney. “Governor Romney’s regulatory record as governor contains some flaws,” the report said, “including a significant one — his support of ‘global warming’ policies.”

    And Conservatives4Palin.com, a blog run by some of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s more active supporters, posted an item charging that Romney is “simpatico” with President Obama after he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”

    A Romney spokeswoman declined to comment about the criticism but did provide excerpts from Romney’s 2009 book, “No Apology ,” in which the candidate articulates the same environmental positions.

    The episode suggests that Romney and his team, trying to market the candidate as authentic, see more of a benefit in sticking with his position and taking heat than in shifting to win over a crucial segment of the conservative base.

    “The fact that he doesn’t change his position . . . that’s the upside for us,” said one Romney adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign. “He’s not going to change his mind on these issues to put his finger in the wind for what scores points with these parts of the party.”
    God. He's sticking with his position, because people would prefer him to stick with a position than to change it yet again.

    It's, like, meta-weaseling.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.
    The Heritage Foundation said so.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.
    Short answer: Snow.

    Slightly longer answer: Lots of snow.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.

    Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.

    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.

    I'd put money on the whole "those emails totally prove that it was all fake, because I don't want to understand the explanation and proof that it's just me misreading them out of context"

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.
    Short answer: Snow.

    Slightly longer answer: Lots of snow.
    Ah. I see. Because global warming mean that any increase in snow, anywhere, can't happen. QED, liberal bitches!

    I'm honestly a little dissapointed. That almost makes some kind of sense, in a 'logic skills of a second grader' kind of way. I was hoping for flat out fucking nutball crazypants here.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.
    Short answer: Snow.

    Slightly longer answer: Lots of snow.
    Ah. I see. Because global warming mean that any increase in snow, anywhere, can't happen. QED, liberal bitches!

    I'm honestly a little dissapointed. That almost makes some kind of sense, in a 'logic skills of a second grader' kind of way. I was hoping for flat out fucking nutball crazypants here.

    k

    He doesn't believe it was a hoax at all. Limbaugh is, however, a part of the conspiracy to discredit the notion of man-made climate change, because he is also an agent of the reptilian master race living inside the Earth. Driven below ground after the Cretaceous extinction event, they have been slowly manipulating us into the creatures of industry that we are today. Their goal is simple: return the planet to Pre-Cretaceous temperature levels so they can return to the surface and claim what's theirs; what has always been theirs.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I've always loved the "Global Warming Is A Massive Hoax" theory just because I can't honestly figure out who they think is benefiting from this hoax

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Humans

    Filthy, unscaled, warm bloods are benefiting.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ringo wrote: »
    I've always loved the "Global Warming Is A Massive Hoax" theory just because I can't honestly figure out who they think is benefiting from this hoax

    From what I've seen, it's assumed that liberals want to kill corporations, and are using the hoax of global warming to ... tank their own economies or something? I mean, it just falls apart after "liberals are...", but so do most conspiracy theories.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    kildy wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    I've always loved the "Global Warming Is A Massive Hoax" theory just because I can't honestly figure out who they think is benefiting from this hoax

    From what I've seen, it's assumed that liberals want to kill corporations, and are using the hoax of global warming to ... tank their own economies or something? I mean, it just falls apart after "liberals are...", but so do most conspiracy theories.

    I suspect that they think the core motivation is derived from some hippie ideal where the economy is based largely around the hemp/soy that we all grow ourselves; and that we don't need industry.

    This is the most logical defense I can muster; that they think the GW crowd are being fooled into supporting these misguided idealists.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I'm almost curious what bunk Limbaugh thinks has 'proved' global warming is a hoax over the past year. Almost.
    Short answer: Snow.

    Slightly longer answer: Lots of snow.
    Ah. I see. Because global warming mean that any increase in snow, anywhere, can't happen. QED, liberal bitches!

    I'm honestly a little dissapointed. That almost makes some kind of sense, in a 'logic skills of a second grader' kind of way. I was hoping for flat out fucking nutball crazypants here.

    I'm disappointed because they're trying to establish Romney as a reasonable candidate that doesn't take orders from Limbaugh. It's like Mitt understands the metaplot and knows that Limbaugh's disapproval is actually a positive with sane people. Republican primaries don't result in as many crazypants as we like to think... the winners in the last 15 years have been: Dole (fairly honorable, if sleepy), George W. Bush (the guy you want to have a beer with), and McCain (war hero, hailed for bipartisanship & good relationship with the media).

    I think they're crowning Mitt already, trying to insulate him for the general.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level. Off the top of my head:

    SEC - Downloading tons of porn instead of regulating the financial industry. Refused to investigate people like Bernie Madoff and John Mack. Contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008.

    MMS - Lack of oversight which could have prevented the spill in the Gulf Coast. Is currently being overhauled by Obama?

    FDA - A top exec at Monsato submitted a paper on the use of BGH, then joins the FDA and approves the very paper she wrote. I believe BGH is banned in many European countries as researched has linked it to cancer in cows and humans.

    DHS - The former head of DHS pushed for the implementation of full-body scanners at airports, and now runs a security consulting group that is a large manufacturer of such scanners.

    I think it would do a lot to combat corruption if we moved things more to the model used by the DOT, where states do all of the planning and the majority of the supervision (FHWA oversight is required on projects above a certain size), but roughly 90% of the funding comes from the fed.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-16-2011/well--that-was-fast---comcast-nbc-merger

    FCC chairwoman helps Comcast become even more giganticer, abandons FCC to work for Comcast.

    Corruption? I don't know, but that sort of shit definitely raises some eyebrows.

    Perhaps corruption is more prevailent at lower levels, but the ability to do some particularly heinous crap/abuse power probably rests most heavily at the top.

    Celebrities and Politicians are prime examples of how regularly and tragically humanity fails the "with great power comes great responsibility" test. Sure, we pass it plenty too, but a mix of cash and power really seems to wreck a good portion of those given a taste of either/both.

    sigthree.png
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level.

    Those words make an important distinction from what I believe he is saying. Federal fuckups have more reach, and are likely to broader implications by their nature. Since they are also the only sort that apply to everyone, they are also the fuckups you're most likely to actually hear about.

    When a county commission conspires to buy an expensive piece of property with the intent of selling it to one of their developer friends for a song; you won't hear about that. They'll even get re-elected. Do that at the federal level and people will actually notice, and this will increase the likelihood that someone will care.

    Thus, while not more damaging, corruption at the lower levels is more flagrant; and possibly more widespread.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Sure corruption is more "damaging" at the federal level, but it is more pervasive and easier to escape scrutiny at the local level.

    http://i.imgur.com/SVLUjAW.png
    Vanguard wrote: »
    ...poetry is actually the worst
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So what you're saying is we're all a bunch of chumps for not being involved in local politics

    where is my money

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGQrPLndeck&feature=player_embedded

    The democrat response to the presidential debate. Bullseye.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    It's the joy of the Republican message:

    1) Campaign on failure of government during bad times
    2) Appoint massive shit heels to key positions
    3) Have massive shit heels be hilariously corrupt
    4) Point to massive shit heels as evidence that government is a failure
    5) Get elected again
    6) Appoint more shit heels!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Rolling Stone gives the debate win to Bachmann:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/bachmann-won-and-other-thoughts-on-the-gop-debate-20110614
    The clear winner was Michele Bachmann, who kept her insanity bottled up very effectively, only lied once or twice, and made the rest of the group look like vacillating stooges. More on her in Rolling Stone next week.

    • The 30-second answer format was asinine (they really had to rush these people that much in a debate that long?) and John King, who is normally one of the nicer guys on the campaign trail, was in the incredibly awkward position having to interrupt everyone like six seconds into their answers. I thought it was a microphone malfunction, but it turned out he really was grunting over all the candidates’ answers seemingly every few seconds. It was surreal.

    • The last time I saw Mitt Romney up close, four years ago, he looked like one of the Nexus Six replicants from Blade Runner, and he always seemed quick, interested, and alert in debates. But he seemed mentally and physically fatigued last night. He and Ron Paul have both aged visibly since the last campaign (a reader emailed me during the debate: “Separated at Birth: Ron Paul… and Grandpa from Texas Chainsaw Massacre?”) and the former Massachusetts governor’s trademark eager-beaver act was missing. I wonder if this is intentional – maybe his strategy is to play the four-corners offense right from the start, let the wing-nuts run each other ragged in the early part of the campaign, and then trump the field in the end with a McCain-style above-the-fray, at-least-I’m-not-completely-crazy, wizened veteran pose. Romney to me is the biggest threat to Obama. People right now are focusing on all the negatives he brings to a Republican primary race, on his non-Christianism and his history of unpopular (to Tea Partiers) positions on choice and health care, but if he gets to the general election those same qualities will be positives to independent voters, and it’s not like there aren’t fiscally conservative independents looking for an excuse to dump the president.

    • Man, I had forgotten in four short years how little there is in the way of actual ideas in presidential politics. Every single candidate last night was saying one version or another of the same thing: that the private sector rocks, the government sucks, we need to drill everywhere, reduce taxes and end regulation. The only area where they differed was in their choice of antigovernment metaphors. In that regard Cain’s “Obama’s putting all the money in the caboose” and Bachmann’s “three legged stool of Republicanism” made me pretty excited for the later stages of the campaign, when the imagery inevitably will get more and more tortured as the desperation to find new ways to say the same old thing gets more pronounced. I think Cain has real potential in this area and hope he hangs in there for a while.

    • Hilarious watching Ron Paul sound off at length about the ins and outs of monetary policy while at least four or five of the other candidates stared nervously off in other directions, having absolutely no idea what the hell he was talking about.

    • Newt isn’t going to make it to the New Hampshire primary, which is too bad, because watching his hyper-macho intellectual ego be battered by the reality of losing to Michele Bachmann is going to be extremely entertaining while it lasts.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level.

    Those words make an important distinction from what I believe he is saying. Federal fuckups have more reach, and are likely to broader implications by their nature. Since they are also the only sort that apply to everyone, they are also the fuckups you're most likely to actually hear about.

    When a county commission conspires to buy an expensive piece of property with the intent of selling it to one of their developer friends for a song; you won't hear about that. They'll even get re-elected. Do that at the federal level and people will actually notice, and this will increase the likelihood that someone will care.

    Thus, while not more damaging, corruption at the lower levels is more flagrant; and possibly more widespread.

    Another way to think of this is "Borg Queen."

    First Contact made the Borg less scary, by introducing the Borg queen. But it was also somewhat necessary to give the story a clear antagonist for everyone to unite around. Obviously, the Borg queen is far more dangerous than a standard Borg. But everyone on the Enterprise also knows that they can focus all their attention on her, and when the Borg queen is dead, the story is over.

    The Gravemind from Halo is another example. If there was no Gravemind, you would have serious doubts on whether or not you managed to stop the flood. But again, the Gravemind gives you a clear goal.

    Now look at the standard zombie movie. You can kill all the zombies around you, but you still can't sleep at night, because you have no idea how many more zombies are out there.

    What federal level government gives you is the power to frame the debate. It gives you narrative for your movement.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The real issue is that the only people who have the technical skills to regulate a given industry in any meaningful way built those skills, along with their professional contacts, within the field. And considering that they can make orders of magnitude more money working in the private sector than regulating it anyone capable of even doing the regulator's job has a massive conflict of interest with their own future career prospects.

    It has nothing to do with state vs. federal in this specific case. Federal regulatory corruption is not the same as your local sherrif not sending anyone out on a DV call because it's his drinking buddy's house, or your local county commissioner re-zoning some property to make it easier for a campaign donor to build a new industrial park over the objections of the neighbors. That doesn't mean they aren't both corruption.

    Also, have you interacted with your local city or county elected officials? If you live in a rural area, you'll have a hard time finding slower or more small minded people to deal with. They're only there in the first place because they lack the skills to get the better analagous jobs at the state or federal level. They may not be corrupt, but in my experience they're often incompetent and/or cronyish to almost comical levels.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    grunting over all the candidates’ answers seemingly every few seconds.
    lol

    the hell was up wit that anyway

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    The real issue is that the only people who have the technical skills to regulate a given industry in any meaningful way built those skills, along with their professional contacts, within the field. And considering that they can make orders of magnitude more money working in the private sector than regulating it anyone capable of even doing the regulator's job has a massive conflict of interest with their own future career prospects. It has nothing to do with state vs. federal in this specific case.

    They should hire trolls and cynics to be regulators. There would be nothing greater than telling some asshole that makes 10 times the amount you do that what they are doing is illegal and shutting them down.

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level. Off the top of my head:

    SEC - Downloading tons of porn instead of regulating the financial industry. Refused to investigate people like Bernie Madoff and John Mack. Contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008.

    MMS - Lack of oversight which could have prevented the spill in the Gulf Coast. Is currently being overhauled by Obama?

    FDA - A top exec at Monsato submitted a paper on the use of BGH, then joins the FDA and approves the very paper she wrote. I believe BGH is banned in many European countries as researched has linked it to cancer in cows and humans.

    DHS - The former head of DHS pushed for the implementation of full-body scanners at airports, and now runs a security consulting group that is a large manufacturer of such scanners.

    I think it would do a lot to combat corruption if we moved things more to the model used by the DOT, where states do all of the planning and the majority of the supervision (FHWA oversight is required on projects above a certain size), but roughly 90% of the funding comes from the fed.

    Not to rain on your parade but weren't most of those people installed by Republicans? That's kind of their thing, make government not work -> claim government doesn't work

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level. Off the top of my head:

    SEC - Downloading tons of porn instead of regulating the financial industry. Refused to investigate people like Bernie Madoff and John Mack. Contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008.

    MMS - Lack of oversight which could have prevented the spill in the Gulf Coast. Is currently being overhauled by Obama?

    FDA - A top exec at Monsato submitted a paper on the use of BGH, then joins the FDA and approves the very paper she wrote. I believe BGH is banned in many European countries as researched has linked it to cancer in cows and humans.

    DHS - The former head of DHS pushed for the implementation of full-body scanners at airports, and now runs a security consulting group that is a large manufacturer of such scanners.

    I think it would do a lot to combat corruption if we moved things more to the model used by the DOT, where states do all of the planning and the majority of the supervision (FHWA oversight is required on projects above a certain size), but roughly 90% of the funding comes from the fed.

    Not to rain on your parade but weren't most of those people installed by Republicans? That's kind of their thing, make government not work -> claim government doesn't work

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vey7GKNpl4Q

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level. Off the top of my head:

    SEC - Downloading tons of porn instead of regulating the financial industry. Refused to investigate people like Bernie Madoff and John Mack. Contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008.

    MMS - Lack of oversight which could have prevented the spill in the Gulf Coast. Is currently being overhauled by Obama?

    FDA - A top exec at Monsato submitted a paper on the use of BGH, then joins the FDA and approves the very paper she wrote. I believe BGH is banned in many European countries as researched has linked it to cancer in cows and humans.

    DHS - The former head of DHS pushed for the implementation of full-body scanners at airports, and now runs a security consulting group that is a large manufacturer of such scanners.

    I think it would do a lot to combat corruption if we moved things more to the model used by the DOT, where states do all of the planning and the majority of the supervision (FHWA oversight is required on projects above a certain size), but roughly 90% of the funding comes from the fed.

    Not to rain on your parade but weren't most of those people installed by Republicans? That's kind of their thing, make government not work -> claim government doesn't work

    You can pick a handful of people currently in Obama's cabinet that are through and through corporate men. Geithner being the biggest and most reprehensible.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Malkor wrote: »
    grunting over all the candidates’ answers seemingly every few seconds.
    lol

    the hell was up wit that anyway

    I like to think he was trying to get them to actually answer the questions they were asked or keep to the time limit or he was just trying to keep himself from interjecting.

    It seemed more like he needed a lozenge.

  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Being socially left means more than wanting to legalize weed. For instance, do you think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against minorities? The problem is that it's hard to reconcile the socially left side with the fiscally conservative side, since protecting social rights usually requires some form of regulations and taxes.

    This is where you'll have different libertarian schools of thought react differently. Left libertarians (libertarian democrats also) believe that the government has a place to play in protecting people from corporations. Does discrimination of minorities come in to play regarding fiscal or tax policy for how those corporations are treated? Not really. It can still be compatible from a left libertarian view point. It would just be seen as one of the intrinsic services necessary for the government to do. There are a lot more socially left issues than drugs though. Gay marriage, free speech, homeland security, voter access, freedom of association (unions as well,) abortion, and equal protection under the law by the government are all issues I fall firmly in the left side. Most libertarians I know that aren't paleoconservatives (like Ron Paul,) tend to do the same.

    But here's the real problem. Libertarian think tanks can't survive in the free market. Most of them are non-profit organizations that can't make enough money off of readership and ads, so instead, they make their money by appealing to wealthy donors. And do you think those wealthy donors are telling them to focus their content on social issues? No. Do you think those wealthy donors are telling them how they can use the free market to address corporate abuse? No. The wealthy donors are paying them off to be mouth pieces to the corporations.

    So while individual libertarians may not be corporate shills, the people at the center certainly are.

    I wrote a whole reaction to this, but I feel like I should know which think tanks, specifically, you're talking about, and who, exactly, is paying them off, and how you know they're being paid off to angle their content?

    Also, the center of what? Libertarianism? As a libertarian, I have no idea what the center of libertarianism is. I know there are various libertarian groups that are interested in various things. You'll see a vastly different point of view from Lew Rockwell than you will from Brink Lindsey. Brink Lindsey said all libertarians should vote democrat after all, and he was Vice President with the Cato Institute. I mean, they did a whole policy study on the marriage amendment.

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I'm trying to think of any think tank that isn't

    A. Non profit
    B. Supported by endowments

    Let's take this one step further. How is a think tank based on government policy and action supposed to profit? Support government policy that gives more money to think tanks?

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I'm trying to think of any think tank that isn't

    A. Non profit
    B. Supported by endowments

    Let's take this one step further. How is a think tank based on government policy and action supposed to profit? Support government policy that gives more money to think tanks?

    By selling publications and ad space.

    You know, free market.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I'm trying to think of any think tank that isn't

    A. Non profit
    B. Supported by endowments

    Let's take this one step further. How is a think tank based on government policy and action supposed to profit? Support government policy that gives more money to think tanks?

    By selling publications and ad space.

    You know, free market.

    This applies to all think tanks. I mean, unless you're saying newspapers are now think tanks, blogs are think tanks, etc etc. in which case I think that's pretty ridiculous semantics.

    Also, you don't think that procurement of donations is a market in itself? The way you use free market is kind of haphazard.

    Is this like some kind of obtuse way of trying to say that libertarian non-profits are a paradox within libertarian ideology? I'm pretty sure that freely giving your money to whoever you want and not giving your money to people you don't want is pretty much the most ideal state of libertarianism.

  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as conservatives yammer about it I've found the lower level of government you go to the worse the corruption is. The type of sit that's acceptable at the state level is so much worse that what goes on that the federal level.

    I disagree. I think the most damaging sources of corruption we've seen in recent history have all been at the federal level. Off the top of my head:

    SEC - Downloading tons of porn instead of regulating the financial industry. Refused to investigate people like Bernie Madoff and John Mack. Contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008.

    MMS - Lack of oversight which could have prevented the spill in the Gulf Coast. Is currently being overhauled by Obama?

    FDA - A top exec at Monsato submitted a paper on the use of BGH, then joins the FDA and approves the very paper she wrote. I believe BGH is banned in many European countries as researched has linked it to cancer in cows and humans.

    DHS - The former head of DHS pushed for the implementation of full-body scanners at airports, and now runs a security consulting group that is a large manufacturer of such scanners.

    I think it would do a lot to combat corruption if we moved things more to the model used by the DOT, where states do all of the planning and the majority of the supervision (FHWA oversight is required on projects above a certain size), but roughly 90% of the funding comes from the fed.

    Not to rain on your parade but weren't most of those people installed by Republicans? That's kind of their thing, make government not work -> claim government doesn't work

    I really don't think this is a partisan issue. Sure many of those people were installed by Republicans, but let's see what Obama's done about it.

    SEC - I'm not aware of any major staffing changes.

    MMS - Renamed BOEMRE. The new guy in charge is a Senator who has voted against tax breaks for oil companies and voted for offshore drilling (source Wikipedia). More from Wikipedia:

    "After the Deepwater accident occurred, Salazar said he would delay granting any further drilling permits, but barely three weeks later, he had issued at least five more permits."

    FDA - Margaret Miller (the woman who approved her own BGH paper) still has her job at the FDA.

    DHS - The implementation of body scanners by the TSA happened just this past year. I think it's fair to pin this one on Obama.

    My point is, I don't think the solution to corruptioin at the federal level is to vote in a Democrat, because it really doesn't appear to be working. Hell, remember all the outrage over GE not paying any taxes (and sending jobs overseas by moving money overseas)? Obama's response was to appoint the GE CEO to run his new jobs focused panel.

    Like I outlined before, I think a more state-focused distribution of power similar to the model employed by the DOT/FHWA would be best. Leave the money at the federal level and put the oversight/accountability at the local level. It's hard to find empirical evidence of my next statement, but I believe that local officials are held to a higher standard of accountability because their constituents are more directly impacted by their actions, they don't have a large war chest to buy public opinion and they don't tend to have friends in high places to protect them from investigation.

    And to the poster that made the sweeping generalization that rural people are slow and small-minded, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011

    They used South Park's "Let's see you dance, sucka" for their song

    amazing

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    shryke wrote: »

    What the ... jesus, wtf?1!!?!?

    Yeeeah, I'm not sure what that was going for.

This discussion has been closed.