I've never heard him talk before, but he's really fucking eloquent. Like, sheesh.
Let's get a Bernie Sanders/Biden ticket going. That'd be impressive.
I watched that, and I'm not sure how to feel about it.
The whole 'fairweather income equality' dig on Hillary is warranted, imo, because it's definitely noticeable. She didn't start talking about it until EVERYONE started talking about it, including Republicans. But I disagree with his assessment that Bernie has 'sufficiently come around' on gun control. He's still got a long way to go. You can tell Obama WANTS strong gun control, but he knows he can't get it, so he does what he can because anything is better than nothing. If we get a President who is indifferent, like Bernie is, we could easily see Congress taking advantage and try to run back the ball on any progress Obama may make with the recent EO.
Is that Ammon Bundy occupation still going on? I haven't heard anything about it on NPR (my only news source these days.
Yes, but nothing is happening, which is a good thing. They've taken to destroying property (cutting down barbed wire fences) to try and illicit a response, but the feds haven't really done anything about it yet. Admittedly, these people WANT a response, so doing nothing until people really lose interest may be for the best.
at this point i'm loath to call that sort of thing news
speaking of which, does anyone have any news sources here on the net they respect? most of the ones I was reading have faded away, i'm looking for some new ones.
Al Jazeera America is really, really good. Unrivaled international coverage, critical and incisive national coverage, and it's the literal-only mainstream outlet whose indigenous coverage is worth a damn.
+11
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
at this point i'm loath to call that sort of thing news
speaking of which, does anyone have any news sources here on the net they respect? most of the ones I was reading have faded away, i'm looking for some new ones.
Al Jazeera America is really, really good. Unrivaled international coverage, critical and incisive national coverage, and it's the literal-only mainstream outlet whose indigenous coverage is worth a damn.
Which is a really tough pill to swallow considering they're state owned by a country that practices slavery and their executives have a terrible history of creating racist and sexist work environments.
Is that Ammon Bundy occupation still going on? I haven't heard anything about it on NPR (my only news source these days.
Yes, but nothing is happening, which is a good thing. They've taken to destroying property (cutting down barbed wire fences) to try and illicit a response, but the feds haven't really done anything about it yet. Admittedly, these people WANT a response, so doing nothing until people really lose interest may be for the best.
I saw articles where they ordered pizza and now some "peacekeepers" are coming in from around the country with guns to impartially moderate at the periphery
So that's fun
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
at this point i'm loath to call that sort of thing news
speaking of which, does anyone have any news sources here on the net they respect? most of the ones I was reading have faded away, i'm looking for some new ones.
Al Jazeera America is really, really good. Unrivaled international coverage, critical and incisive national coverage, and it's the literal-only mainstream outlet whose indigenous coverage is worth a damn.
Which is a really tough pill to swallow considering they're state owned by a country that practices slavery and their executives have a terrible history of creating racist and sexist work environments.
It's operated and managed completely independently of Al Jazeera, but yeah, it's still gross that it has to live in that shadow. If there were any better alternatives, believe me, I'd take them.
But like, this story is one of the absolute best pieces of indigenous journalism I read last year. It's heartbreaking, incredible work, the kind no other (mainstream) outlet is anywhere close to doing. It's the kind of work I've never seen outside Indian Country Today. I've gotta give it up to them, even though their parent company is fucked up.
Saw on the news last night that the Oregon occupiers are cleaning and organizing the stuff in the building and doing maintenance work and shit.
Which like, good on them for that, at least. At least they're total pricks.
Also I think Bernie being indifferent on gun control is very much a result of his state politics. Lots of hunting and such up in Vermont, and if he's liable to his state constituents, well, that's a thing. But I also think that if he were to be at the federal level we would definitely see some change in his attitude. Bernie and Biden are both populists. Will of the people and all that.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
at this point i'm loath to call that sort of thing news
speaking of which, does anyone have any news sources here on the net they respect? most of the ones I was reading have faded away, i'm looking for some new ones.
Al Jazeera America is really, really good. Unrivaled international coverage, critical and incisive national coverage, and it's the literal-only mainstream outlet whose indigenous coverage is worth a damn.
Which is a really tough pill to swallow considering they're state owned by a country that practices slavery and their executives have a terrible history of creating racist and sexist work environments.
It's operated and managed completely independently of Al Jazeera, but yeah, it's still gross that it has to live in that shadow. If there were any better alternatives, believe me, I'd take them.
But like, this story is one of the absolute best pieces of indigenous journalism I read last year. It's heartbreaking, incredible work, the kind no other (mainstream) outlet is anywhere close to doing. It's the kind of work I've never seen outside Indian Country Today. I've gotta give it up to them, even though their parent company is fucked up.
The AJAM management has been accused of shit too not just the parent company
at this point i'm loath to call that sort of thing news
speaking of which, does anyone have any news sources here on the net they respect? most of the ones I was reading have faded away, i'm looking for some new ones.
Al Jazeera America is really, really good. Unrivaled international coverage, critical and incisive national coverage, and it's the literal-only mainstream outlet whose indigenous coverage is worth a damn.
Which is a really tough pill to swallow considering they're state owned by a country that practices slavery and their executives have a terrible history of creating racist and sexist work environments.
It's operated and managed completely independently of Al Jazeera, but yeah, it's still gross that it has to live in that shadow. If there were any better alternatives, believe me, I'd take them.
But like, this story is one of the absolute best pieces of indigenous journalism I read last year. It's heartbreaking, incredible work, the kind no other (mainstream) outlet is anywhere close to doing. It's the kind of work I've never seen outside Indian Country Today. I've gotta give it up to them, even though their parent company is fucked up.
The AJAM management has been accused of shit too not just the parent company
Al jazeera english has had some significant editorial bias in the past. I remember a story in Egypt's "arab spring" stuff about many reporters for aljazeera quitting, because the network would not publish the stories coming out that were critical of the recently in power muslim brotherhood. Something to do with the politics of their financial backers. I don't know how connected to AJAM they are, but editorial censorship like that can be hard to spot so I'm not inclined to trust them too much. The individual articles can be good from what I remember, but that's not the whole story.
Also, the things in that jezebel story are vile.
The guardian is okay to me. I don't really like checking them too frequently, because so much of their coverage is gasping liberal bullshit. I happen to agree with a lot of the stances they take, but I find the tone is often toxic to thinking. They do actually have news though, and I learn things from checking them, at least sometimes.
NPR's not bad, if a bit too conventional in their philosophies for me sometimes. But, their spread is pretty thin. Some big stories I see elsewhere just don't show up there.
Obama took my paintball gun to go play with his friends over the weekend and never gave it back, I think Biden broke it
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What do those wackadoos in Oregon hope to accomplish, anyways? Like, what was their goal when they went up there, what is their goal now? I'm honestly quite perplexed.
What do those wackadoos in Oregon hope to accomplish, anyways? Like, what was their goal when they went up there, what is their goal now? I'm honestly quite perplexed.
Their unstated goal is to coax a negative response from the federal government, to advance their narrative that the government is a boogie-man who will knock you down at the mere mention of civil disobedience. They really want to increase the perception that there's a massive chasm between 'the government' and 'the people', and weren't really get anywhere by themselves, so they're seeking to emulate other compound/standoff situations (though without them dying) since those tend to be moments of catastrophic PR for the feds.
EDIT: As far as their stated goal, it's so vague as to be non-existant. They want "land" (unspecified what land) to be given back to the "people" (unspecified which people). Since it's ranchers, they probably just want more land without having to pay for it, or the rights to use it.
What do those wackadoos in Oregon hope to accomplish, anyways? Like, what was their goal when they went up there, what is their goal now? I'm honestly quite perplexed.
Their unstated goal is to coax a negative response from the federal government, to advance their narrative that the government is a boogie-man who will knock you down at the mere mention of civil disobedience. They really want to increase the perception that there's a massive chasm between 'the government' and 'the people', and weren't really get anywhere by themselves, so they're seeking to emulate other compound/standoff situations (though without them dying) since those tend to be moments of catastrophic PR for the feds.
And for once, the feds, god bless 'em, seem to be on the same page and don't seem interested in playing along.
A local judge in Oregon has raised the prospect of making the armed militia occupying a federal wildlife refuge pay as much as $75,000 a day for the toll the standoff is costing the rural county.
Harney County judge Steve Grasty, a vocal critic of the militia, estimates that the armed occupation led by cattle rancher Ammon Bundy cost the community roughly $60,000 to $75,000 each day of the first week of the occupation.
They want a farmer who was arrested for arson on federal land released, and they want the park opened to loggers and farmers for commercial use
The federal land they want available for grazing is available for grazing they just have to actually fucking pay for it. Their ranching stance is fucking nonsense. They claim they own the land they illegally graze on because supposedly their ancestors grazed there before the USBLM existed which for some reason to them means they shouldn't have to recognize its authority. But even if that made sense (which it sure as hell doesn't) their claim of ownership doesn't hold any water because they don't maintain the land they were grazing on the Fed does. To make things even more ridiculous, the Fed only charges 7% of current market value because the regulations of what they can charge hasn't been updated in forever. A vast majority of the funding that goes to maintaining that land is from tax dollars which essentially means these "limited government patriots" are completely dependent on government assistance.
If the US government decided to somehow recognize ownership of the land these idiots claim they want their cost of ranching would skyrocket because they'd have to actually maintain the land themselves. But they don't actually want that. They just want to graze or farm at no cost to them. There's a word for that: WELFARE
They want a farmer who was arrested for arson on federal land released, and they want the park opened to loggers and farmers for commercial use
The federal land they want available for grazing is available for grazing they just have to actually fucking pay for it. Their ranching stance is fucking nonsense. They claim they own the land they illegally graze on because supposedly their ancestors grazed there before the USBLM existed which for some reason to them means they shouldn't have to recognize its authority. But even if that made sense (which it sure as hell doesn't) their claim of ownership doesn't hold any water because they don't maintain the land they were grazing on the Fed does. To make things even more ridiculous, the Fed only charges 7% of current market value because the regulations of what they can charge hasn't been updated in forever. A vast majority of the funding that goes to maintaining that land is from tax dollars which essentially means these "limited government patriots" are completely dependent on government assistance.
If the US government decided to somehow recognize ownership of the land these idiots claim they want they're cost of ranching would skyrocket because they'd have to actually maintain the land themselves. But they don't actually want that. They just want to graze or farm at no cost to them. There's a word for that: WELFARE
Plenty of people's ancestors used to own land that the government owns now. Eminent domain, yo.
And worse, a local judge publicly stating what the punishment should be before charges have been brought, much less a trial, may have just blown a huge hole in the ability to convict them of anything
EDIT: Except now that I think of it, it would be federal charges, right? They've taken a federally owned building...
Posts
I watched that, and I'm not sure how to feel about it.
The whole 'fairweather income equality' dig on Hillary is warranted, imo, because it's definitely noticeable. She didn't start talking about it until EVERYONE started talking about it, including Republicans. But I disagree with his assessment that Bernie has 'sufficiently come around' on gun control. He's still got a long way to go. You can tell Obama WANTS strong gun control, but he knows he can't get it, so he does what he can because anything is better than nothing. If we get a President who is indifferent, like Bernie is, we could easily see Congress taking advantage and try to run back the ball on any progress Obama may make with the recent EO.
Yes, but nothing is happening, which is a good thing. They've taken to destroying property (cutting down barbed wire fences) to try and illicit a response, but the feds haven't really done anything about it yet. Admittedly, these people WANT a response, so doing nothing until people really lose interest may be for the best.
Al Jazeera America is really, really good. Unrivaled international coverage, critical and incisive national coverage, and it's the literal-only mainstream outlet whose indigenous coverage is worth a damn.
Which is a really tough pill to swallow considering they're state owned by a country that practices slavery and their executives have a terrible history of creating racist and sexist work environments.
I saw articles where they ordered pizza and now some "peacekeepers" are coming in from around the country with guns to impartially moderate at the periphery
So that's fun
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
10,000 BC - the invention of language.
It's operated and managed completely independently of Al Jazeera, but yeah, it's still gross that it has to live in that shadow. If there were any better alternatives, believe me, I'd take them.
But like, this story is one of the absolute best pieces of indigenous journalism I read last year. It's heartbreaking, incredible work, the kind no other (mainstream) outlet is anywhere close to doing. It's the kind of work I've never seen outside Indian Country Today. I've gotta give it up to them, even though their parent company is fucked up.
Which like, good on them for that, at least. At least they're total pricks.
Also I think Bernie being indifferent on gun control is very much a result of his state politics. Lots of hunting and such up in Vermont, and if he's liable to his state constituents, well, that's a thing. But I also think that if he were to be at the federal level we would definitely see some change in his attitude. Bernie and Biden are both populists. Will of the people and all that.
The AJAM management has been accused of shit too not just the parent company
http://jezebel.com/how-al-jazeera-america-went-from-a-home-for-idealists-t-1703931763
personally
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I just checked and I'm reporting : not at this time
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Gross.
I really wish there was a major news organization that hadn't pulled some sexist shit.
I blame the fact that I don't go to the gym on Obama, does that count?
Same here, but I expect to hear ... ummm .... thug-booted jacks any minute now.
Wait, no, it's liberal fascetionists, tight?
No?
Wait, I got this: libel fashionistas led by Connie O'Bummers!
Goons, sir. Hired goons.
Also, the things in that jezebel story are vile.
The guardian is okay to me. I don't really like checking them too frequently, because so much of their coverage is gasping liberal bullshit. I happen to agree with a lot of the stances they take, but I find the tone is often toxic to thinking. They do actually have news though, and I learn things from checking them, at least sometimes.
NPR's not bad, if a bit too conventional in their philosophies for me sometimes. But, their spread is pretty thin. Some big stories I see elsewhere just don't show up there.
And to think I trusted them and their guileless faces.
Obama prefers that personal touch.
Well they don't work for free.
well I don't own a gun, so I assume the answer is yes
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Their unstated goal is to coax a negative response from the federal government, to advance their narrative that the government is a boogie-man who will knock you down at the mere mention of civil disobedience. They really want to increase the perception that there's a massive chasm between 'the government' and 'the people', and weren't really get anywhere by themselves, so they're seeking to emulate other compound/standoff situations (though without them dying) since those tend to be moments of catastrophic PR for the feds.
EDIT: As far as their stated goal, it's so vague as to be non-existant. They want "land" (unspecified what land) to be given back to the "people" (unspecified which people). Since it's ranchers, they probably just want more land without having to pay for it, or the rights to use it.
So, they're going to forget the whole thing in a week's time and then the rest of us will forget the next day, basically? Cool, cool.
And for once, the feds, god bless 'em, seem to be on the same page and don't seem interested in playing along.
They mentioned the farmer, until he and his son said that they're idiots and are going to surrender, so they don't care about that anymore.
The federal land they want available for grazing is available for grazing they just have to actually fucking pay for it. Their ranching stance is fucking nonsense. They claim they own the land they illegally graze on because supposedly their ancestors grazed there before the USBLM existed which for some reason to them means they shouldn't have to recognize its authority. But even if that made sense (which it sure as hell doesn't) their claim of ownership doesn't hold any water because they don't maintain the land they were grazing on the Fed does. To make things even more ridiculous, the Fed only charges 7% of current market value because the regulations of what they can charge hasn't been updated in forever. A vast majority of the funding that goes to maintaining that land is from tax dollars which essentially means these "limited government patriots" are completely dependent on government assistance.
If the US government decided to somehow recognize ownership of the land these idiots claim they want their cost of ranching would skyrocket because they'd have to actually maintain the land themselves. But they don't actually want that. They just want to graze or farm at no cost to them. There's a word for that: WELFARE
Plenty of people's ancestors used to own land that the government owns now. Eminent domain, yo.
And worse, a local judge publicly stating what the punishment should be before charges have been brought, much less a trial, may have just blown a huge hole in the ability to convict them of anything
EDIT: Except now that I think of it, it would be federal charges, right? They've taken a federally owned building...
Basically just like: well, this is how much we're fining you, so when you do come out of there it's how much you'll owe have fun.