Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 10:17:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 218
1876  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which European country's politics is the previous poster best suited for? on: March 28, 2013, 11:06:17 am
Maybe Austria? Tongue
1877  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: POLITICO: No Judd on: March 28, 2013, 11:02:11 am
Why are Democrats relieved by this announcement?


Imagine if Steve King said he wasn't running for Senate tomorrow, while Tom Latham was looking into a run.


If I were Grimes, first thing I'd do is blast a so-called fiscal conservative for wasting millions of dollars on ads against an actress who isn't even running.

There is no Democratic equivalent to Steve King.
1878  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do Republicans pretend ministers will be forced to perform gay marriages? on: March 27, 2013, 11:32:52 pm
Much more than 58% ofr the public want to tax rich people more, raise the minimum wage, and institute stronger gun safety laws. And the GOP has no trouble saying no. I see no reason why they will change now on that basis alone. However, they've never really cared it and now it is no longer a useful tool.

Read Torie's post closer again. Those Republicans with "disproportionate influence" are more receptive to gay marriage than taxing rich people, raising the minimum wage, or instituting stronger gun safety laws. Tongue
1879  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Supreme Court takes another Affirmative Action case on: March 27, 2013, 11:27:33 pm
Quote
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday added a new affirmative action case to its docket. It is already considering a major challenge to the University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions program.

The new case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, concerns a voter initiative in Michigan that banned racial preferences in admissions to the state’s public universities. In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled that the initiative, which amended the State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/justices-take-new-case-on-affirmative-action.html?_r=0
1880  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Thanks to Alcon and Franzl. on: March 27, 2013, 11:12:46 pm
Appreciate the post, Miles. Smiley
1881  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do Republicans pretend ministers will be forced to perform gay marriages? on: March 27, 2013, 11:09:17 pm
Torie, are Americans really willing to punish politicians that don't support gay marriage, and gay rights in general? While the number of Americans who support gay marriage is growing, I just don't see nearly as many Americans who consider support for gay marriage a litmus test for politicians (the way, say, opposition to tax increases is for much of the Republican Party. Tongue ) Now, it may be a litmus test for the Democratic Party primaries very soon, but of course, the Democratic Party primary electorate =/= the nation as a whole.
1882  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: if the SCOTUS holds gay marriage to be a constitutional right on: March 27, 2013, 09:20:54 pm
Issues for black people in America obviously ended in November 2008 (and again in November 2012...)
1883  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Rank how ideologically similar the preceding poster is to you on: March 27, 2013, 09:15:46 pm
I'd guess 7.
1884  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Guess what the preceding map is of on: March 27, 2013, 07:14:15 pm
I'm stumped by SJoyce's map. Tongue
1885  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years on: March 27, 2013, 07:09:19 pm
I absolutely adore that Thomas Friedman op-ed generator.

lol, got me. Tongue
1886  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: POLITICO: No Judd on: March 27, 2013, 07:06:16 pm
Why are Democrats relieved by this announcement?
1887  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do Republicans pretend ministers will be forced to perform gay marriages? on: March 27, 2013, 06:58:14 pm
It plays into the persecution complex that many American Christians have.
1888  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years on: March 27, 2013, 06:57:14 pm
Go Big, Mr. Obama
by Thomas Friedman

An interesting thought occurred to me today—what if grassroots activists sat down with ordinary people like you and me and ironed out some real solutions to our same-sex marriage crisis?

With the election season over, maybe you’ve forgotten about same-sex marriage, but I certainly haven’t. It would be easy to forget that the problem even exists, when our headlines are constantly splashed with the violence in Guatemala, the authoritarian crackdown in Fiji and the still-unstable democratic transition in Tunisia. But the same-sex marriage problem is growing, and politicians are more divided than ever. Democrats seem to think that same-sex marriage can just be ignored. Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell, on the other hand, seem to think that unproductive rhetoric will substitute for a argument.

But the Republican party of Mitch McConnell is not the Republican party of Lincoln. Lincoln wouldn’t refuse to budge, he'd reach across the aisle because he'd understand that the fate of the country, and his own political career, depended on a lasting solution to the problem of same-sex marriage.

It's good to see the talks between the president and congress getting off to a solid start, but we know there will be plenty of partisan fireworks before any deal is cut. If I had fifteen minutes to pitch my idea to politicians, I'd tell them two things about same-sex marriage. First, there's no way around the issue unless we're prepared to spend more: and not just spend more, but spend smarter by investing in the kind of national infrastructure that makes countries succeed. That's going to require some tax increases as well, but as they say, "them's the breaks."

Second, I'd tell them to look at China, which all but solved its same-sex marriage crisis over the past decade. When I visited China in 2000, Bartho, the cabbie who drove me from the airport, couldn't stop telling me about how he had to take a second job because of the high cost of same-sex marriage. I caught up with Bartho in Shanghai last year. Thanks to China's reformed approach toward same-sex marriage, Bartho has enough money in his pocket to finally be able to afford winter coats for his kids.

That's all it takes. Don't expect to see any solutions as long as politicians insist on playing a high-stakes game of blackjack with one another. America has to become a first world country again.

Thomas Friedman is weighing in on this? Goddamnit.
1889  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: if the SCOTUS holds gay marriage to be a constitutional right on: March 27, 2013, 06:55:34 pm
can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

Who is "we" in this case?
1890  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Gender politics and liberalism on: March 27, 2013, 04:51:20 pm
I think you’re looking too closely into it. Men tend not to wear their hearts on their sleeves which is neither a good nor bad thing. On a thing like Facebook they are less likely to do the whole ‘share this link if you want to beat cancer’ stuff that a lot of my female friends tend to do.

This is what I originally thought too, until I noticed the guys went rather out of their way to criticize the practice.

There's a friend of mine who is very liberal but often finds himself at odds with feminism, particularly if it requires PC-ness. This is something he sent me that he mocked a lot over the past week:

http://i.imgur.com/gWe2umL.jpg

Maybe I'm just observing a subset of the population that is particularly grounded in the internet, and therefore a bit less sensitive towards social interactions than a lot of others.

i think there's a backlash amongst liberals against what i suppose you'd call new "new left" types, i.e. those with a focus on identity politics and social justice. i spend most of my time on tumblr and there's a culture of that there as opposed to sites like reddit where masculists and such run rampant.

This is basically the truth (I also lol @ the reddit/tumblr dichotomy as a user of both sites, it's pretty accurate tho).

There's definitely a trend among younger, mostly male, liberals to adopt a "colorblind"/genderblind (never heard that as a term, but I'm coining it because it works here) perspective on things, essentially a belief that "race, gender, etc were big things in the past, but they don't matter anymore" which leads to support of gay marriage but also a dislike or at best indifference towards feminism and other "social justicey" movements.

Which is unfortunate, yet understandable (in an insidious way). The ideology that "race doesn't matter" or "gender doesn't matter" is common among many "progressive" types who want to both keep their own social privilege and to deny that that privilege exists, or that they themselves have a role to play in perpetuating oppression. 
1891  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Income inequality rising and permanent over past two decades on: March 27, 2013, 11:56:49 am
Quote
Income inequality in the US has increased in recent decades, and this increase is of a permanent nature, according to a new paper presented today at the Spring 2013 Conference on the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA).

In “Rising Inequality: Transitory or Permanent: New Evidence from a Panel of U.S. Tax Returns” (PDF), Vasia Panousi and Ivan Vidangos of the Federal Reserve Board, Shanti Ramnath of the U.S. Treasury Department, Jason DeBacker of Middle Tennessee State and Bradley Heim of Indiana University use new data to closely examine inequality, finding an increase in “permanent inequality” -- the advantaged becoming permanently better-off, while the disadvantaged becoming permanently worse-off. The paper has important public policy implications because rising income inequality will lead to greater disparity in families’ well-being that is unlikely to reverse, whereas “transitory inequality” or year-to-year income variability would imply greater income mobility—those who fare worse today might be able to do better in later years. The authors are among the first to examine various measures of income in great detail, including earnings from work activities as well as broader measures of family resources such as total household income.

Although the increase in inequality over the last two decades has been extensively documented in the economics and policy literature, the authors find that this inequality largely constituted an increase in permanent inequality. Using a large panel of income data from U.S. federal tax returns for the period 1987-2009, the authors show that for men’s labor earnings, the increase in inequality was entirely permanent (100 percent), while for total household income, roughly three-quarters of the increase in inequality was permanent. They estimate that the permanent variance for men’s earnings roughly doubled in the 20 years between 1987 and 2009, while the permanent variance of total household income increased by about 50 percent over the same period.

Looking at the impact of tax policy on inequality, the paper finds that although the U.S. federal tax system is indeed progressive in that it has provided some help in mitigating the increase in income inequality over the sample period, it has, however, not significantly altered the broadly increasing inequality trend. All told, the results suggest that rising income inequality will likely lead to greater disparity in families’ well-being and reduce social welfare in the long-run.

http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousi
1892  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage on: March 27, 2013, 11:43:12 am
Don't know where else to put this so:

Quote
BREAKING: Supreme Court likely to strike down Defense of Marriage Act - @PeteWilliamsNBC. #DOMA

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/316949436779606017
1893  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Liberal National Committee (LOGO & SLOGAN PROPOSALS) on: March 26, 2013, 06:30:11 pm

Busy re-writing history.

I hear Oakvale publicly pissed everyone off in the forum IRC.

If by "everyone" you mean "a few people that deserved the criticism they got", then yeah maybe.
1894  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: I oppose Gay Marriage on: March 26, 2013, 06:03:17 pm
I oppose this thread.
1895  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why does Gay Marriage get so much attention (relatively) on: March 26, 2013, 02:39:18 pm
It's something that liberal Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Libertarians (who have bigger numbers on the Internets than in real life) all agree on.

In other words, it crosses ideological lines in ways that most other issues do not, especially on the disproportionately post-materialist white upper-middle class political forums.
1896  Forum Community / Forum Community / ...and now the bandwagon is in full motion on: March 26, 2013, 02:34:46 pm
Pretty soon, people will be opposing gay marriage ironically. Tongue
1897  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: ...and now Tester. on: March 26, 2013, 02:32:32 pm
Lol, that was fast. I mean, we identified him as the lowest-hanging fruit left in the Senate just minutes ago.

Tester's office has a direct line to this forum.

*shhh*
1898  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Gay Marriage Poll on: March 26, 2013, 02:18:31 pm
support but resent the activist energy it has sucked up over the past decade-plus.

That's fair.
1899  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Regarding Rick Santorum on: March 26, 2013, 12:30:27 pm
What was Santorum's line about kids going to college? Something unspeakable, right?

Something totally taken out of context. Per usual.

He said Obama was "a snob" for wanting everyone to go to college (even though Obama never said he wanted everyone to go to college).

And IIRC, Santorum has a BA, an MBA, and a JD, so.....

That right there is how his comments were taken ridiculously out of context. "Rick went to college! How could he say going to college is snobby?" Except he didn't say going to college is snobby. Either you people cannot follow simple arguments or you're totally disingenuous. I really can't tell these days.

Oh give me a break, Santorum built a dishonest strawman of "President Obama wants everyone to go to college!" and then said that something that Obama (didn't) say was snobby.  Excuse us for thinking that Santorum  isn't a credible  "anti-elitist,working-class hero" (which I know that he wants to be perceived as) when he himself has been a huge beneficiary of higher education (among other things).

And for the love of God, if you agree with Santorum, please elaborate on why you agree with him. Stop being so damn defensive and stop attacking people who don't like your candidate.
1900  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should the Republican nominee support SSM? on: March 26, 2013, 12:24:33 pm
Since when did the Republican Party do things that were supported by a majority of the public?
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 218


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines