Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

User registration set back to admin approval because of spam. Email with your user name to be approved.
Current events
  • Codger said:

    Wait, wait, wait, the important question is when someone calls you a socialist. Does that mean they're calling you a Nazi?



    Specific to the US and recent times: this means that person is saying you have different social/political views than he/she, and that person doesn't know what socialism is.


    Ergo, anything resembling a welfare state is socialism.

    While I think it is helpful and constructive to question how benign social institutions reify structures of power, there is nothing near that in national dialogue.
  • So does that make Australia a socialist state? Since, you know universal public health care.
  • Codger, the first line for the wikipedia article on Nazism says this, "Nazism, the common short form name of National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

    Not all Socialism is National Socialism.
  • xenomouse said:

    Santorum doesn't quit, he simply suspends.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html



    That's what they all do anymore. Instead of a bunch of quitters, we now have a bunch of suspenders. That seems appropriate for Santorum, since his views and suspenders both saw their heyday during the Victorian age.
  • Because I'm a little unclear here: What's annoying is that someone would look at a Fox News report with no sources other than a telephone interview with someone in another state and say "yes, this is worth posting as though it's totally for real and on the level". This poster being one who would, if someone else had done that thing, rip them up one side and down the other.



    I agree that it's totally ridiculous to treat a Fox News report as something that's totally real and on the level. I think that's why I wasn't so surprised that their "Civil Rights" group turned out to be Nazis.

  • ^^^Except, when you think about it, he really is, until 2012, when his dark shadow shall stretch across the land once again. And who will be there to stop him then? If Romney loses now, as he almost certainly will, he's finished for good, and Santorum can make the argument that he (and the Republicans) lost because he wasn't conservative enough. And shucks, who better to fill that vacuum than good ol' Rick?
  • I think this begs the question of "How much stupidity can you fit into a vacuum?" I propose we test by launching people into space.
  • But wasn't Santorum, Romney's "closest" rival in terms of number of plegdes. I know Paul and Mr Crazy Gingrich wasn't even close or even triple digits.
  • Codger said:

    But wasn't Santorum, Romney's "closest" rival in terms of number of plegdes. I know Paul and Mr Crazy Gingrich wasn't even close or even triple digits.

    Yes, and Santorum's departure eliminates the possibility of a brokered convention in August, which was the Democrats' political wet dream.

  • Just a minor detail, Gingrich had triple digit delegates.

    Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates
  • Jason said:

    Codger said:

    But wasn't Santorum, Romney's "closest" rival in terms of number of plegdes. I know Paul and Mr Crazy Gingrich wasn't even close or even triple digits.

    Yes, and Santorum's departure eliminates the possibility of a brokered convention in August, which was the Democrats' political wet dream.



    I don't know about that. As bad as the field is for Republican candidates, it ain't exactly mission impossible to find a better one than Romney. One without the taint of appealing to right wing fanatics during the primary. The primaries essentially were the Democrat's political wetdream.

  • So, realistically can Obama lose this election or is the mainstream media doing it's overhyping thing?
  • If nothing significant happens between now and then, I am banking on incumbency. It would take a major blow to his administration to unseat him, I think.
  • He can definitely lose, but I would agree with Jon in that he is more likely to stay in office. The media is definitely hyping things for effect, but they are hyping real vulnerabilities for Obama. They are spending less time on how much the electorate is against the Republican side of many issues though, so the media landscape is slanted away from Obama (and Democrats in general) currently. Not that they've done much to give people reason to think otherwise.
  • Hey, they now have space launching capabilities. Not even the south can launch things into space, it's pretty significant.
  • They've been able to launch things into space for a while, but not very well. The objects they launch have a tendency to fall back to earth. The worry is if they can make things fall where they want them to.
  • Well they won't start a war, China won't let them and they would lose very badly. I guess the threat has always been the collateral damage.
  • I read something about that in the Dispatch today. I'm not surprised, ever since apple got in the ebook game, the prices have been super shitty.
  • Interesting to see how they square this with Leegin.
  • http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/18/the-legacy-of-leegin-price-fixing-the-comeback-kid-of-antitrust-law/

    So what does a year of experience teach us about the legacy of Leegin? On today’s front-page, the WSJ’s Joseph Pereira checks in on the state of things, and finds that manufacturers are embracing their newfound pricing power — sometimes to the chagrin of retailers, who claim that the minimum-pricing dictated by manufacturers makes it hard to compete. (Note that it’s still illegal for a group of manufacturers or retailers — or both — to band together and fix prices.)


    The collusion part is where they get in trouble.


  • I heard that this was coming a while ago, and their argument was pretty much - well even if we colluded, its only because amazon is the one with the monopoly. Also my antitrust is a little rusty but I dont see how Leegin is really relevant. Thats about vertical price restraints, this is about price fixing among competitors.
  • I'm sad; I never studied antitrust stuff at all. I know next to nothing about it.
  • It was surprisingly super interesting and kinda fun. Also largely unenforced now sooo not super relevant.
  • Also even if Leegin were on point they wouldnt have to square anything with it...all it appears to stand for is that vertical price fixing is no longer a per se violation.
  • I read the Leegin syllabus earlier, and that's how I took the case, too. I just don't have any other points to connect it to in my head.
  • The Talk: Nonblack Version - aka "Racism: Wheeeeee!"
  • Yeah, he got fired for that about twenty-nine hours after he posted it.

    RE: Leegin. Thanks for the discussion!
  • Every time I click on a link like that, I think of all the people monitoring my internet use who now think I'm some insane racist.
  • xenomouse said:

    The Talk: Nonblack Version - aka "Racism: Wheeeeee!"



    Fuck, does he think he isn't racist? He talks as though he thinks so. God damn, that was fucking trying to read through.

    But yea, definitely racist.
  • I read some of the comments on the first article and shit... those people are fucking crazy.

    The guy is married to an Asian woman, but can't seem to connect the dots. So the past ~600 years of negative propaganda about Asians is wrong and Asians are, in his estimation, white enough to "round up" to white, but all that negative shit about black people THAT IS DEFINITELY TRUE, NO DOUBT.

    It's crazy the lack of perspective people can have.
  • Second time I've seen that article today. The first was on facebook where people were rallying behind it... I think I might need to purge a few people before I get associated with them in public.
  • Holy shit page two... That guy is fucking disgusting. I know what those comments look like and I didn't even bother glancing. I'm not surprised, though I am a little surprised that you're at least mildly shocked. Every time I read comment threads or Facebook posts about, or around things like this, I always come up with a pretty good solution to the unemployment issue...then I realize I'm just being angry and violent.
  • As soon as I got to number (4) I just gave a good long "Ooooooooooooh shit" to myself when I realized where this is going. (8) just solidified my prediction. Honestly, the fact that this talk has so many goddamn talking points ought to have been a tip-off.
  • It's sad, because I've really enjoyed some of Derbyshire's writing. He's a witty individual. I've had enjoyable email conversations with him, even.
  • Wait, doesn't this asshole cite the book The Bell Curve, a book full of nonsense that many experts have already exploded, yet stealth racists continue to use to make it look like science is on their side?

    EDIT: Made the mistake of skimming the comments. Won't go down that rabbit hole again.
  • The only thing I clicked through to was some video of a dude getting knocked the fuck out and stripped, somewhere in Baltimore.
  • "(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot)."

    Jesus fucking Christ, you have got to be shitting me with this. If Dave hadn't mentioned the guy's responses in the comments I would have had to believe this is a parody; people cannot fucking think like this.

    EDIT: Having clicked through some articles on that site, apparently everyone who writes for it is a complete asshole.
  • I'm amazed he put the beach. Since I bet he thinks black people can't swim either.

    EDIT: Rbx5. Same. Holy shit. Every one of the top articles are incredibly offensive and cite The Bell Curve (Thanks!)
  • ^^God, it's like they concentrated the most offensively racist pseudo-conservatives on the internet in one place.
  • It's sad, because I've really enjoyed some of Derbyshire's writing. He's a witty individual. I've had enjoyable email conversations with him, even.



    Half-witty, at least.

    It takes someone genuinely dumb to look at that article and say, "...What? I don't see the problem." People often have imbalances in where they choose to apply reason and logic in their lives, certainly, but wow.

    Rbx5 said:

    If Dave hadn't mentioned the guy's responses in the comments I would have had to believe this is a parody; people cannot fucking think like this.



    I had a similar feeling, like the first time I read Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." Just sorta squinted and said, "Not sure if serious..."
  • Whatever flaws the US has, at least its protections for speech are better than that.
  • In case none of us felt dumb enough already, a four-year-old was admitted to Mensa: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17702463.

    And apparently a two-year-old was admitted a few years back. I'm starting to think Mensa isn't all that it's made out to be.
  • Show-off.
  • Sounds like a couple kids begging for a noogie.
  • Age has nothing to do with intelligence.