As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

First 100 Days: Day 19 - Legal Conference. Without blackjack nor hookers.

1235747

Posts

  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Couldn't Obama just hire some dude to convert a random open-source message board program into something awesome, and then use that?
    You could. Just remember it would take some time to fire up.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if they just decided to scrap it after the change.gov open questions thing.

    this bill doesnt make weed legal!!!

    What are you saying that marijuana legalization isn't really the #1 issue in America?

    I'd say decriminalization of it should be a huge bullet point under the "war on crime" section of the agenda, within the top 5. Not something we need to worry about now, but it's a legitimate problem in America.

    Also it would pay for stuff! Like we could double (at least, possibly quadruple) the mass transit funding in the stimulus bill and be revenue neutral.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if they just decided to scrap it after the change.gov open questions thing.

    this bill doesnt make weed legal!!!

    What are you saying that marijuana legalization isn't really the #1 issue in America?

    I'd say decriminalization of it should be a huge bullet point under the "war on crime" section of the agenda, within the top 5. Not something we need to worry about now, but it's a legitimate problem in America.

    Also it would pay for stuff! Like we could double (at least, possibly quadruple) the mass transit funding in the stimulus bill and be revenue neutral.

    But all the trains would be late because the conductors are getting high.

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    agoaj wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if they just decided to scrap it after the change.gov open questions thing.

    this bill doesnt make weed legal!!!

    What are you saying that marijuana legalization isn't really the #1 issue in America?

    I'd say decriminalization of it should be a huge bullet point under the "war on crime" section of the agenda, within the top 5. Not something we need to worry about now, but it's a legitimate problem in America.

    Also it would pay for stuff! Like we could double (at least, possibly quadruple) the mass transit funding in the stimulus bill and be revenue neutral.

    But all the trains would be late because the conductors are getting high.

    The trains are already late. Possibly because the conductors are getting high.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    If weed was legal everybody would be so high they wouldn't give a fuck when the trains got there.

    Duffel on
  • Options
    RoundBoyRoundBoy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I would think anyone in charge of moderating said message board would contemplate suicide daily.

    think youtube video comments mating with IMDB comments x eleventy

    RoundBoy on
    sig_civwar.jpg
    Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
  • Options
    TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    If weed was legal everybody would be so high they wouldn't give a fuck when the trains got there.
    What if they were totally jonesing for some burgers but couldn't get any because the train was late?

    Tofystedeth on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    RoundBoy wrote: »
    I would think anyone in charge of moderating said message board would contemplate suicide daily.

    think youtube video comments mating with IMDB comments x eleventy

    I doubt it would be moderated as that would get so many first amendment!!!!11!1! censorship!!!!1!!!11! crap. They'd just send interns into the breach to pluck sanity from the depths.

    moniker on
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So apparently the thing going on that causes McCain's cheeks to bulge is Limbaugh's nuts?

    Irony. Wait- irony or hipocracy? I'm not sure.

    Tach on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    The reduced efficiency would be harmful but right now free trade is fucking Americans pretty bad. .

    No it really isn't. It's fucking some Americans; America as a whole has benefited and continues to benefit from free trade.

    The beleaguered manufacturing sector is a prime example of where America is losing out though free trade.

    How much of that is due to trade and how much is due to robots gaining a hold over mankind?

    And how much of that is the fact that (in the case of NAFTA) you're looking at the comparative advantage in trade between a pair of developed countries (US & Canada) and a quaisi-developing country (Mexico)? It's no surprise that the areas in which Mexico excels from an economics trade standpoint would result in positives for them (larger manufacturing sectors, growth in wages) while the two DCs see their wages fall. That's why in a free trade model you don't focus on the areas that you don't have any comparative advantage in, since that would be silly.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Well... this was definitely the wrong thread for that.

    carry on.

    lonelyahava on
  • Options
    CommunistCowCommunistCow Abstract Metal ThingyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    If weed was legal everybody would be so high they wouldn't give a fuck when the trains got there.

    On a serious note:
    If we were anything like Amsterdam then consumption would go down once it is legalized, but knowing the US we would come up with a way to break the convention and fuck shit up.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if they just decided to scrap it after the change.gov open questions thing.
    Thing is, once you're actually President, there's this rule against some forms of what is essentially product placement, for the same reason Presidential investments have to go into a blind trust.

    Open For Questions used a program called Google Moderator, and change.gov said as much.

    Can't do that once you're sworn in.

    I'm assuming Obama's running into the same basic problem with this- there are a lot of message board programs out there, but how many usable ones aren't made by publicly-traded companies?

    Any open source project management system with minor alteration would do.

    MKR on
  • Options
    HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    CNN just had a big thing on Limbaugh's fat fist on the Republican party's neck

    So who is this Steele guy? What's Limbaugh's take on him? Apoplectic?

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    CNN just had a big thing on Limbaugh's fat fist on the Republican party's neck

    So who is this Steele guy? What's Limbaugh's take on him? Apoplectic?

    Knowing Limbaugh, it is probably something like this:

    "Steele is the worst pick possible, if he's chosen he will destroy the Republican party!"
    *Steele is elected*
    "Steele is the best possible person for this job, he will make the Democrats cower in fear and will regain every single office, including the presidency, by 2010!"

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Guys, it may be time to consider that McCain really did believe the shit he was spouting during the campaign. More than a few people warned us that McMaverick was just a front.

    Noooooo....

    Crimsondude on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
  • Options
    oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The harnessing of the internet by this administration is just fantastic, and I'm hopeful they can keep it up.

    oldmanken on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It's taking the fireside chat into the 21st century. The effectiveness of the radio address basically died when TV took over, aside from MTVCDM who here listened to them/the podcast for Bush or Clinton?, but now long form has a chance to take back its rightful place.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I love the chuckle when he says "the last vice president"

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    Willy-Bob GracchusWilly-Bob Gracchus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Willy-Bob Gracchus on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Making things easier on the middle class will tend to make the middle class more accessible to those people.

    MKR on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    The piece of cardboard over their broken screen.

    moniker on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Almost nobody considers themselves lower class.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    It's taking the fireside chat into the 21st century. The effectiveness of the radio address basically died when TV took over, aside from MTVCDM who here listened to them/the podcast for Bush or Clinton?, but now long form has a chance to take back its rightful place.

    I listened to Bush's weekly addresses and the Democratic responses on the radio. They were pretty boring, though, and didn't have much content to them.

    Sarksus on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    It's taking the fireside chat into the 21st century. The effectiveness of the radio address basically died when TV took over, aside from MTVCDM who here listened to them/the podcast for Bush or Clinton?, but now long form has a chance to take back its rightful place.
    Man, I didn't even listen to the radio addresses.

    EDIT: And apparently I missed nothing.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Almost nobody considers themselves lower class.

    In political speak "middle class" means anyone who THINKS they are middle class.

    Which means anyone not either on welfare or on a yaught.

    shryke on
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Almost nobody considers themselves lower class.

    And, more to the point, pretty much everything that's being tossed around to help the middle class could just as accurately say "anyone middle class and below."

    It's not like when people talk about growing the middle class they plan on pulling people down from the minuscule upper class, it's all about pulling people up from the bottom of the pay scale. And all the middle class tax cuts are going to be aimed at everyone making $X and below gets a straight across cut. And so on.

    There's very little, to the point that I can't think of anything off the top of my head, that is ever aimed at the middle class in mainstream politics that won't also help the worse off.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    shryke wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Almost nobody considers themselves lower class.

    In political speak "middle class" means anyone who THINKS they are middle class.

    Which means anyone not either on welfare or on a yaught.

    The former are on hard times, but they will be back on their feet sometime soon. The latter just happen to own a yacht, but they really aren't middle class because they could theoretically become hobos if they spent all of their leisure time snorting blow off of hookers' backs.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    It's taking the fireside chat into the 21st century. The effectiveness of the radio address basically died when TV took over, aside from MTVCDM who here listened to them/the podcast for Bush or Clinton?, but now long form has a chance to take back its rightful place.
    Man, I didn't even listen to the radio addresses.

    EDIT: And apparently I missed nothing.

    As best as I can remember they were always just recycled content from the last week. If you paid any attention to what was going on in the news you probably wouldn't hear anything interesting or new. Nothing thought-provoking, certainly, or inspiring.

    Sarksus on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    shryke wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Oh fuck the middle classes. How about the lower/working/welfare/under-classes? Where's their website?

    Almost nobody considers themselves lower class.

    In political speak "middle class" means anyone who THINKS they are middle class.

    Which means anyone not either on welfare or on a yaught.
    Even then you're getting too narrowly defined. There are people clearly, painfully obviously in the lower or upper class that will refuse to define themselves as such. The guys on welfare are really middle class, they're just on welfare 'for a little while until I get back on my feet'. The guys on yachts see people still richer than them and use them as fronts in case the French Revolution kicks up again--

    'Well, it's really just a small yacht. I'm not Carnival Cruise Lines.'
    'Well, that guy owns a hotel to go with it.'
    'Yeah, but the hotel's just in Cincinnati. Nowhere major like Naples.'
    'It's just the one Naples hotel. Not like it's a global chain or anything. And I have to spend the whole winter here because my other houses are in Vancouver and Boston.'
    'Yeah, well, I can't afford to gold-leaf everything like I'd want to. Fucking Trump.'

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yea, during the primaries and the whole "what exactly is rich" debate, there was an article or study linked that basically said that, as long as there is one thing that a rich person wants and can't afford, or if they've surrounded themselves with richer people (they have 10 million, neighborhood average is 250 million), they will not consider themselves rich.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Scooter wrote: »
    Yea, during the primaries and the whole "what exactly is rich" debate, there was an article or study linked that basically said that, as long as there is one thing that a rich person wants and can't afford, or if they've surrounded themselves with richer people (they have 10 million, neighborhood average is 250 million), they will not consider themselves rich.

    Well, the perception of wealth is relative.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    We should rate richness in terms of how many 20" TV's you can buy until you're bankrupt.

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    Yea, during the primaries and the whole "what exactly is rich" debate, there was an article or study linked that basically said that, as long as there is one thing that a rich person wants and can't afford, or if they've surrounded themselves with richer people (they have 10 million, neighborhood average is 250 million), they will not consider themselves rich.

    Well, the perception of wealth is relative.

    Well yea. If you pull back far enough to include the entire world pretty much everybody reading this thread is "Rich".

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So. Obama's second address is still depressing.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    Yea, during the primaries and the whole "what exactly is rich" debate, there was an article or study linked that basically said that, as long as there is one thing that a rich person wants and can't afford, or if they've surrounded themselves with richer people (they have 10 million, neighborhood average is 250 million), they will not consider themselves rich.

    Well, the perception of wealth is relative.

    The perception of wealth can be either relative or absolute. The fact that some people view their wealth in terms of relative gains is more an ideological view.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    Yea, during the primaries and the whole "what exactly is rich" debate, there was an article or study linked that basically said that, as long as there is one thing that a rich person wants and can't afford, or if they've surrounded themselves with richer people (they have 10 million, neighborhood average is 250 million), they will not consider themselves rich.

    Well, the perception of wealth is relative.

    The perception of wealth can be either relative or absolute. The fact that some people view their wealth in terms of relative gains is more an ideological view.

    This is a psychological finding, which explains why we can still have poor when everybody lives better than the alpha male of yestermillennium.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    CNN just had a big thing on Limbaugh's fat fist on the Republican party's neck

    So who is this Steele guy? What's Limbaugh's take on him? Apoplectic?

    Knowing Limbaugh, it is probably something like this:

    "Steele is the worst pick possible, if he's chosen he will destroy the Republican party!"
    *Steele is elected*
    "Steele is the best possible person for this job, he will make the Democrats cower in fear and will regain every single office, including the presidency, by 2010!"

    It's good to see the MSM is taking notice of this crap

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
This discussion has been closed.