Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 04:08:05 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

 on: Today at 01:04:52 am 
Started by dead0man - Last post by asexual trans victimologist
I've always been under the impression Cowboy Bebop is considered anime for people who don't like anime. Not that anime fans hate it, but there's ones they'll find far better, and its crossover appeal means it's not really a good measure of the genre. There's certain far more obscure works that one can use as a benchmark to identify an anime fan, but someone saying "I like Cowboy Bebop" doesn't identify one as such flat out. Kind of like someone claiming to be a fan of Hayao Miyazaki, although to be fair the distinction here is more between simply liking Miyazaki's work (which plenty of people not fond of anime otherwise do) and absolutely LOVING it (like the die hard anime fans do.)

That's more or less accurate. People who are Into anime almost invariably do consider it very good indeed but might also say that, from 1999 alone, Great Teacher Onizuka or Now and Then, Here and There is a better series (I wouldn't agree with that but I've heard it said; I've never however heard the same person claim that both are superior to Cowboy Bebop), and they'd probably cite some combination of Sailor Moon, Neon Genesis Evangelion (although that's more polarizing than it used to be and its vast influence is considered pernicious almost as often as it's considered laudable), Shoujo Kakumei Utena, and Serial Experiments Lain for the nineties as a whole. Personally, I think Utena is the best anime and one of the best television series ever made--even what would have been flaws in other shows, like overuse of stock footage and bizarre and sudden shifts in tone and modality, it makes part of its charm--but that's just me.

 on: Today at 01:03:22 am 
Started by Joe Republic - Last post by Joe Republic
Eh, what the hell? Cheesy

1 on South Dakota
8 on Kansas

Attack Kansas to Oklahoma. Can I wait to see how it goes before I decide how many troops to send over?


Of the 9 available reinforcements, 1 has been deployed in South Dakota, where there are now 4 in total; and 8 have been deployed in Kansas, where there are now 13 in total.


Kansas invades Oklahoma (Tyrion) with 12 battalions available to attack, while 2 battalions will defend.

HagridOfTheDeep [12] rolls 3 dice:   [6] [3] [3]
Tyrion [2] rolls 2 dice:   [3] [1]
Tyrion loses 2 battalions

HagridOfTheDeep has conquered Oklahoma and may deploy between 3 and 12 battalions there, while leaving at least 1 behind in Kansas.


Awaiting further instructions

Provisional map

 on: Today at 01:02:23 am 
Started by Passing Through a Screen Door - Last post by Badger
The best version of Whole Lotta Love is from Dread Zeppelin's debut album, Un-Led-ed, circa 1990.  No doubt about it.

Dread Zeppelin was awesome.  Elvis impersonator doing Zeppelin songs to a reggae beat.  Genius.  Brick House (of the Holy) and Black Dog were my favorites.

Your Time is Gonna Come was also transcendent.

 on: Today at 01:02:14 am 
Started by Passing Through a Screen Door - Last post by Senator Goldwater

 on: Today at 01:00:29 am 
Started by sg0508 - Last post by Clarko95
To this day, it's not Reagan's policies that folks have problems with.  It's Bush 41 and Bush 43's policies that have cost them their jobs to the "global economy".
Actually, Reagan had a lot to do with this as well.

 It didn't just begin in 1989-1993, but rather as early as the 1950s when electronics moved overseas to Japan. The shifting manufacturing landscape didn't become a problem until the early 1980s, which was when more manufacturing jobs were being outsourced than jobs in other sectors (steel, autos, consumer appliances, furniture, textiles, etc.) were being created, and then those latter sectors started going abroad. Reagan's massive deficits cause investors to borrow against the dollar, increasing its value, and helping make foreign imports even cheaper. There was some manufacturing employment growth 1983-1989, but it was all wiped out by the 1990 recession (which also had to deal with a real estate bubble that raged from 1984-1989, hence the S&L Crisis peaking in 1989 and requiring bailouts). NAFTA also originated in 1986 under Reagan, Bush and Clinton then re-signed it in 1992 and 1993 as the treaty required after an election.

I don't mean to detract from the rest of your post (which was on point), but under Reagan the manufacturing sector was not at all healthy.

Back to OP: It doesn't really matter all that much, as the crap economy would've sunk the GOP either way in 1992. It would be like Obama dumping Biden in 2012: viewed as an act of desperation (the difference in these elections is that the 1990 recession originated under Reagan & HW Bush, while the 2008 recession originated entirely under Bush II, not Obama). Quayle wasn't even that controversial (like Palin), he was more like Biden in that he said some dumb stuff that could be chalked up to his awkward personality rather than sheer stupidity or outright lying.

In the end, those superficial details did not and would not matter, as the election was still about George Bush vs. Bill Clinton vs. Ross Perot and the economy.

 on: Today at 12:59:45 am 
Started by Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC - Last post by Governor Riley Keaton
Mideast Healthcare Exchange Act
1. A regional healthcare exchange shall be established.

2. Any private insurance provider authorized to sell insurance anywhere in the Republic of Atlasia
    shall be eligible for entrance in the exchange.

3. Health benefits for public employees ages 55 years or younger are hereby repealed.

4. Public employees 55 years or younger shall be entitled to a regional subsidy equivalent to 20%
    of the federal subsidy for the purchase of health insurance.

5. Private insurance providers established in the next 6 months shall pay no taxes or government
    fees for the year following their established.

6. A health exchange director shall be appointed to administer a licensing process to approve
    health insurance providers originating in the Mideast for exchange access.

7. The healthcare exchange shall receive $350 million to promote enrollment in the exchange.

8. Enrollment in the exchange is ended 6 months following the establishment of the exchange.

9. The healthcare exchange director is responsible for establishing a process for procuring
    insurance on the healthcare exchange after open enrollment closes.

10. All emotional distress lawsuit damages against healthcare providers are capped at $200,000.

12. Medical malpratice insurance for certified medical professionals is hereby tax deductible.

13. Any regional regulation costing more than $100 million a year shall be presented to the
      Mideast Assembly and voted upon for enactment.

 on: Today at 12:54:25 am 
Started by A.G. Snowstalker - Last post by Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato
This entire thread.

 on: Today at 12:53:05 am 
Started by Simfan34 - Last post by WillipsBrighton
I don't think that's an honest assessment of the unity government. Fatah is not in THAT strong of a position. Hamas still regularly out polls them.

 on: Today at 12:50:22 am 
Started by Tender Branson - Last post by The Mikado
Thanks Obama.

Quite right.  If this man didn't have health insurance he never would have entered the hospital and this would have never happened.

 on: Today at 12:47:52 am 
Started by Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC - Last post by Badger
A question for both parties:

First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.

Second, a question for the Plaintiff (which I'll allow the Defense to subsequently respond to if it wishes, as I will for later questions to the Defense): To what degree did the issue of voter intent (or lack thereof) apply in the Badger holding?

For the Defense (with Plaintiff right of rebuttal): Are you conceding that the specific holding on ballot interpretation in Badger cannot be reconciled with the election results you ask this Court to uphold?

To your first question directed to both of us, the defense would argue that invalidating the voters' first preferences would have no effect but to deny the non-candidate the votes. The votes in question would automatically be included for Franzl in the first count.

To the second question, the one posed directly to me, I would say that the reasoning in Badger can be applied, just not to reach the conclusion suggested by the plaintiff that the entire ballots are to be invalidated.

It is important to note that preferences had a different meaning in the previous electoral system than under PR-STV. In reality, one was casting 3 (or 5) votes of differing value. Votes did not transfer and there was an important distinction between a first and a second preference. Invalidating the first preference for a non-candidate made sense, as invalidation would not effect any of the other votes cast.

Indeed, Badger states: "That George Orwell cannot accept votes means that he cannot win, not that the vote is invisible on the ballot paper or in counting terms."

Ignoring Al in the count should have no other effect than to deny him the votes as a non-candidate. This interpretation fits the spirit of the cited case more accurately than the plaintiff's interpretation.

Badger goes on to state that "highest preference" can be regarded as functionally equivalent to "first preference". If this is the case, then one can only conclude that, logically, this goes both ways. If a first preference is highest, then vice versa, the highest preference must be seen as equivalent to a first preference.

A.R. 5 states: "3. A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive."

Surely this means that the most highly preferenced VALID candidate is to be included in the first count. In other words, as previously argued, this is not a vote transfer as the plaintiff suggests, but rather a necessary part of the first count. It is the only logical application in PR-STV, where only the order of preferencing is relevant, not the numerical preferences themselves, as under the previous electoral system.

Should the Court, however, rule differently and feel that the defense has not made a convincing case, the defense would lastly like to draw attention to the fact that Badger specifically affirms that the election administrator is within his rights to go against precedent if he feels that doing so is more in line with the law. If nothing else, his certification, as it stands, is a reasonable application of this electoral system in a way that is most in mine with voter intent.

I would like the Plaintiff's reaponse to this last paragraph. Isn't thee a presumptuon (albeit not irrebuttable) in favor of the election administrator's discretion?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines