Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 03, 2015, 07:21:47 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 340
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: Attorney General Paxton being investigated for securities fraud on: July 02, 2015, 11:43:35 pm
Good. Time to brutally go after opponents of gay marriage.

More proof that some "progressives" aren't just happy winning.  They need to punish their perceived enemies and stifle all debate.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2nd quarter fundraising megathread on: July 02, 2015, 01:18:01 am
I think the issue with the math is the 50,000 number.  What is your source for that?  Because this says:

http://www.krgv.com/campaign-clinton-raised-over-45-million/33902614

Quote
Clinton's campaign, by comparison, set a goal of 50,000 donations and in emails to supporters on Tuesday -- the last day of the fundraising quarter -- Clinton said they were 4,000 under their goal.

A Clinton spokesman later said that the 50,000 donations number they repeatedly quoted in fundraising pitches for the last few days was their goal from last Friday to the close of the quarter, not their three month goal.

That makes it sound like 50,000 was the target number of donations over a short interval of time, not the whole quarter.  She would have to have well north of 100,000 donors total for the other numbers to work.


1) 91% of donations isn't the same thing as 91% of donors.  A donor can make multiple donations. 
2) The 50,000 donations number seems a bit low for the first quarter run of the Democratic front-runner.  Especially if Sanders had 200,000.  It's probably 500,000 donations, not 50,000.  That figure could be of donors instead of donations, too.  Media reporting is often sloppy.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Raises $45 Million in 1st Quarter on: July 01, 2015, 11:54:00 pm
Roll Eyes

Because you need 100 Mio. $+ to compete for IA, NH, SC and NV ... lol.

All this money won't help Hilldog if she cannot win the hearts of people.

Trying to win these 4 small states with 100 Mio. $ is like trying to shoot a fly with a bazooka.

Most of New Hampshire is in the Boston TV market, which is expensive and inefficient to buy.  Plus, national campaigns cost money.  And if things drag on past the first 4 states, it gets a lot more expensive.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump top tier/front-runner? on: July 01, 2015, 08:28:53 pm
Trump will fizzle quickly.

Underestimate Trump at your own peril.  There is always room for someone from the nativist, protectionist Buchanan wing of the Republican Party in the primaries.  He'll probably end up doing better than many expect - though still fall far away from actually winning.
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: 2018 NY Gov on: June 30, 2015, 08:54:44 pm
Possibly DeBlasio if he wins in 2017. Dunno, I am not up on my NY Politics, just their scandals.

deBlasio would not win a statewide race.  He has middling approvals in the city and is hated by those in the suburbs and Upstate.  Upstaters are particularly unlikely to vote for a New York City mayor for anything statewide.
6  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Regional Governments / Re: Northeast Assembly Thread II on: June 29, 2015, 10:31:55 pm
Unfortunately, the proposed Amendment to the Constitution passed by the last Assembly wasn't put up for a vote in the June elections.  In order to make sure that we satisfy the Northeast Constitution, somebody probably needs to re-propose it and the Assembly needs to revote on it.  If this is done before July 10, the referendum should be put to the voters July 24-26, under my reading of the Northeast Constitution.  And it probably should have a better name this time - Assembly Inactivity Amendment or something like that, perhaps?

If the Governor or one of the Northeast Representatives doesn't place this into the queue, I will consider doing so by citizen initiative.

Thanks.
7  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: National Parks Act of 2015 on: June 29, 2015, 10:14:37 pm
Destroying dams and drawing down reservoirs is not good policy in the arid west.  People rely on water from Lake Powell.  The west needs more dams, not fewer.  If California had built more reservoirs, they wouldn't be in quite the pickle they are now.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: See things from the other's perspective on: June 29, 2015, 06:22:31 pm
"The progressive winners in this culture war want to punish their opponents. They donít want comity, they want revenge."

I would like to see a list of instances where this "revenge" thing has manifested itself. I think this meme is way overdone. I might add, that usually the revenge impulse is fueled by losing, not winning. So it really does not make much sense.

Who wants to take up the challenge, and give me a revenge list?

1) It is not enough for gay marriage to be legal.  You must force those who disagree with you to specifically perform for you, like by baking your gay wedding cake under penalty of law.  But of course, your gay marriage won't affect those who disagree in any way, right?
2) Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO, was pushed out of his job for the crime of donating to the "wrong" side of Prop 8.  And, as far as I know, hasn't found a job since.
3) You can't express your opinion against Mexican immigration.  If you do, Univision and NBC will pull your TV show for not expressing the politically correct view on the subject after agitation from the "progressive" mob.

Don't publicly oppose the "progressive" mob.  They are so vicious that you can lose you job.
9  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: SCOTUS opinion watch on: June 29, 2015, 02:01:27 pm
No, all the Democratic appointed justices are moderates.

The Republican faction just has a mix of conservative but sane Justices, Roberts and Kennedy, and arch-conservative justices, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Moderates would disagree with each other on various issues, not vote lock step 90% of the time.  At least three, if not all, of the four liberal justices are ultra-liberals whose votes on controversial cases are so preordained that no one even speculates how they will vote.  It is known beforehand.

Even Scalia, Alito and Thomas agree with each other less than 90% of the time, unlike the liberals on the court.

That makes no sense. 

Why does voting together mean you're far-left?

And, isn't it more necessary to vote together if you're in the minority and you're trying to pick up a Roberts or Kennedy?

And, couldn't conservatives disagreeing just mean that there's more of a range from center-right Kennedy to far-right Thomas than there is between moderates Kagan and Breyer?
 

Moderates would be expected to vote with the conservative side sometimes and the liberal side other times on controversial issues.  At least 3 of the liberal 4 justices don't do that very often.    And someone who votes for imposing gay marriage on the country, saving Obamacare, against the death penalty and against making sure costs are considered by the EPA when imposing policy isn't a moderate by any stretch.  A moderate would be expected to vote on the other side of at least one of those cases.
10  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: SCOTUS opinion watch on: June 29, 2015, 01:23:59 pm
No, all the Democratic appointed justices are moderates.

The Republican faction just has a mix of conservative but sane Justices, Roberts and Kennedy, and arch-conservative justices, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Moderates would disagree with each other on various issues, not vote lock step 90% of the time.  At least three, if not all, of the four liberal justices are ultra-liberals whose votes on controversial cases are so preordained that no one even speculates how they will vote.  It is known beforehand.

Even Scalia, Alito and Thomas agree with each other less than 90% of the time, unlike the liberals on the court.
11  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: SCOTUS opinion watch on: June 29, 2015, 11:57:44 am
I am going now, but one comment. When I heard Justice Kagan speak at the U of Michigan, in response to a question about whether the predictable block voting in high profile cases was a problem when it came to the credibility of the Court, she said, yes indeed it was. I most certainly agree with her. This term shows no abatement whatsoever in that syndrome. If I were in the Senate, at a confirmation hearing for a SCOTUS nominee, I would focus in on this issue like a laser beam. I would ask, is there any reason to believe that you would not be just another block voter? What can you say to give me some comfort that your votes will not be close to utterly predictable?

This term, according to SCOTUSBlog, the liberals on the court voted with each other over 90% of the time, while the supposed conservatives only block voted about 70% of the time.  Democratic Presidents have been far more successful in appointing one-note idealogues than Republican Presidents.  Liberals demand and get conformity far better than conservatives, which is as much an indictment on liberalism than anything else.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will some GOP stop voting because of confederate flag, gay marriage, immigration on: June 28, 2015, 01:59:40 pm
Yes.  Some conservatives are fed up with the establishment wing of the Republican party selling their interests down the river.  And elections these days are supposedly won by turning out your base.  That's why I think candidates who don't adequately reflect the conservative base, like Jeb Bush, will have a hard time winning the general election.
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status? on: June 28, 2015, 12:30:09 am
You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.

Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.    

And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do?  Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?  

The concern trolling is real.  

How is a baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage a hindrance to their Constitutional right to get married?  Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.

Hillary Clinton's spokesman is suppose to say what the candidate believes, not duck the question.  Believe it or not, a good portion of the population, including some Democrats, don't believe in "the cause".  Taking some time to allay their fears that their church will be compelled to participate in a ceremony they oppose is the least a fair candidate who wants to represent all people could do.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status? on: June 27, 2015, 11:42:43 pm
Its stupid because its a textbook example of a false dilemma.  LGBTs that try to get married in a Southern Baptist ceremony are just trolling.

Marriage exists simultaneously as religious and civil institution.  Any two people can participate in a ceremony and call themselves "married" as a function of their right to religious expression, but its a piece of paper signed in a courthouse that affords them all of the protections and benefits of state marriage.  To argue that their exists a "right" for gay couples to participate in a religious marriage ceremony is akin to saying that there exists a right to First Communion.

Because there have never been legal trolls before, trying to force Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes or Christian florists to provide flowers for gay weddings against their will.  Those people have prevailed there, so far.   Like I said, there also is a case where the tax exempt status of a Christian university was in jeopardy for failing to recognize interracial marriage or relationships.  The court ruled against the university.  And Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman refused to answer what you think is such an obvious, stupid question on Friday.

The piece of paper may be initially signed in a courthouse, but it is usually not binding until after the religious or civil ceremony, by the way.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status? on: June 27, 2015, 11:11:41 pm
This is such a stupid question.

It was raised during oral argument before the Supreme Court, with the Solicitor General, arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, admitting that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage if it were legalized by court fiat.  See Roberts' dissent.  So it is nowhere near a moot point or stupid question.  There is a precident involving a university that didn't recognize opposite race relationships, too.

I'm surpised more on this website aren't in favor of revoking tax-exempt status, though.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 26, 2015, 07:34:55 pm
Once again: should we allow open advocacy of slavery on the forum? After all, it does fall under biblical purview.

What does slavery have to do with same-sex marriage?  How often does it even come up on the forum?  And why should I care if someone openly advocates slavery on this forum, anyway?   I'd rather know who the pro-slavery folks are so that I know to question their judgement on other things than ban them for holding an unorthodox view.

Quote
And again, religious arguments have no place in the framing and the creation of laws for a secular society (hint, hint. that's what we are!). Funny thing about that first amendment that you mentioned: not only is a freedom to practice your religion (within certain boundaries), it also gives the population writ large protection from it as well. Your church doesn't have to officiate gay marriages, but it cannot deny society at large.

Religious arguments are just as valid as secular ones when crafting public policy.  Freedom of religion doesn't apply in some vacuum where you have to give up your religious beliefs in the public square.

What are your supposed boundaries on someone's ability to practice their religion?  Do churches that believe marriage is only between a man and a woman still have the right to preach that, or do they now have to give that up because it violates your "progressive" world view?

Quote
Moreover, you seem pretty quick to throw the "intolerant" label at the progressives on this forum. I wonder, is this a reaction from being called out intolerant views that you hold? And let me makes this abundantly clear before you activate your persecution complex again: this is not an attack on all of your views, or for rocking a blue avatar, but for situations where you advocate the denial of minority rights based on your personal religious views.


It is a reaction to "progressives" who are quick to throw out the "intolerant" label and attempt to ban those with whom they disagree for having the gaul to stray from the "progressive" line.  Their views are the only settled, appropriate views, and everyone else is an intolerant bigot who should not be able to hold their opinion.  And some "progressives" insist everyone must be tolerant of their beliefs but are anti-religious bigots who hate Christians.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 26, 2015, 06:50:48 pm


Pushing the edge might get your post deleted, so it will be lost in cyberspace, rather than stay for all to savor for posterity as it were (the death points being a side issue). You can make your point within the rules. Heck I just did, I think, positing that I think CCSF is probably lying based on the evidence.

Okay, that's it. I'll ask one final time, how can I prove to you that I am gay? my name? something from a long time ago that has me stating that I'm gay?  Just tell me now.

P.S. Don't serve on a jury.

It really doesn't matter whether you are lying or not, so that would be wasting "the court's" time to litigate that. If you are not lying, may God have mercy on your tortured soul, but I digress.

One other thing. Is it at all possible that there can be a thread discussing gay issues, that does not devolve into being all about you?  That is what really angers folks, and incentives them to find a way working their way through the evidence and rule book to get you banned. Think about it.

Look at how this all started.  CountryClassSF didn't make anything all about him.  He just expressed his opinion on the Supreme Court's decision.  One of the moderators attacked CountryClassSF and others piled on, making it about CountryClassSF.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status? on: June 26, 2015, 06:45:33 pm
Discuss.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 26, 2015, 06:37:31 pm
Should we allow an open advocate for the slavery of blacks on this forum? Forced child labor? Explicit advocacy for the repression of women?

No, because society evolves, and some views are abhorrent and have no place in the market place of ideas. But this probably doesn't even matter to you, because you're a troll.

Are you seriously advocating banning people who disagree with you on gay marriage? Why do "progressives" like you get to determine what has a place in the marketplace of ideas.  There is nothing "progressive" about censorship.

Society evolves, and denying rights, marginalizing, or repressing minorities is unacceptable; especially when these arguments evolve out of antiquated and misinterpreted religious texts from the Iron age, and many of its adherents have been conditioned not to question the dogma. Secular arguments against marriage as an institution (under which gay marriage falls under) in general are fine, as we are a secular society. Religious arguments have no place, and that is what this debate has always been about.

Fortunately, we still have a First Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion - at least for now.  Intolerant "progressives" like yourself, though, would like to get rid of that and force religions to tow the new bigoted, intolerant "secular" official state religion.  No thanks.

Straw man arguments don't do us blue avatars any good.

What straw man argument?  Nagas all but said that people who oppose gay marriage should be banned from expressing that view and specifically said "Religious arguments have no place".
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 26, 2015, 06:09:19 pm
Should we allow an open advocate for the slavery of blacks on this forum? Forced child labor? Explicit advocacy for the repression of women?

No, because society evolves, and some views are abhorrent and have no place in the market place of ideas. But this probably doesn't even matter to you, because you're a troll.

Are you seriously advocating banning people who disagree with you on gay marriage? Why do "progressives" like you get to determine what has a place in the marketplace of ideas.  There is nothing "progressive" about censorship.

Society evolves, and denying rights, marginalizing, or repressing minorities is unacceptable; especially when these arguments evolve out of antiquated and misinterpreted religious texts from the Iron age, and many of its adherents have been conditioned not to question the dogma. Secular arguments against marriage as an institution (under which gay marriage falls under) in general are fine, as we are a secular society. Religious arguments have no place, and that is what this debate has always been about.

Fortunately, we still have a First Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion - at least for now.  Intolerant "progressives" like yourself, though, would like to get rid of that and force religions to tow the new bigoted, intolerant "secular" official state religion.  No thanks.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 26, 2015, 06:03:37 pm
A ban is in order. Obvious trolling is unacceptable.

Let's start by banning "progressives" like you.

I wasn't even addressing you. Stop trying to start arguments.

Well, every time you and the rest of the intolerant "progressives" on this board suggest banning conservatives for daring to disagree with you, you ARE addressing me.  Because like many conservatives here, I fear that I am going to be next.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right on: June 26, 2015, 06:01:36 pm
Should we allow an open advocate for the slavery of blacks on this forum? Forced child labor? Explicit advocacy for the repression of women?

No, because society evolves, and some views are abhorrent and have no place in the market place of ideas. But this probably doesn't even matter to you, because you're a troll.

Are you seriously advocating banning people who disagree with you on gay marriage? Why do "progressives" like you get to determine what has a place in the marketplace of ideas.  There is nothing "progressive" about censorship.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Retailers moving to ditch Confederate flag merchandise on: June 26, 2015, 04:29:23 pm
Guess it was good business for everyone then. Those apps will sell a lot when they're reinstated, and Apple gets their cut too.

I don't have any faith in Apple reinstating games if they include the confederate flag, even in its proper historical context.  Once fascist PC "progressives" get their way, there is no going back lest you get labeled an evil hateful bigot.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Retailers moving to ditch Confederate flag merchandise on: June 26, 2015, 12:53:56 pm
Obviously apps with "legitimate" uses of the Confederate flag (like strategy games that don't glorify the Lost Cause) will be restored once this dies down. Apple's making a smart business decision here.

How is this a smart business decision?

Because now they won't get caught up in the controversy for having "Confederate flag apps"

Virtually no one is ever going to notice the Civil War apps were gone from the store, especially once they start reviewing and restoring the apps that aren't neo-Confederate.

Instead they'll get caught up in the controversy of overreacting and censoring content for no good reason.  I didn't even know there were Civil War apps until Apple decided to censor them.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Retailers moving to ditch Confederate flag merchandise on: June 25, 2015, 09:23:42 pm

Unfortunately, yes.

There's no reaction quite like an overreaction.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 340


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines