Redundancy in a system is not always a sign of waste. In fact, it can often be a sign of a well thought out system.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Democratic National Convention organizers are apologizing for a strange gaffe last week: During a carefully orchestrated tribute to veterans -- 50 were honored onstage -- the video onscreen behind them included an image of Soviet-era Russian warships.
The gaffe was "due to vendor error" -- but one Navy vet accused Dems of being out of touch with veterans: "Is the Democratic Party that far removed that they can't check up on a simple picture?"
[politico]
BananaHands
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
Before Romney’s presser, the reporters were all sitting together, discussing their questions and had determined that “no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.” The narrative about Mitt Romney and his response to the protests in the Middle East was going to be negative, no matter what he said.
GasBandit
Staff member
http://www.newshounds.us/it_s_not_just_bias_four_fox_news_contributors_work_for_romney_09122012
SHOCKED SHOCKED I TELLS YOU!
SHOCKED SHOCKED I TELLS YOU!
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I suppose it's only fair, since pretty much the entire staff of the other major networks volunteer for Obama.
GasBandit
Staff member
Really, I hold a dim view of the entire institution, especially the part where government gets involved. Marriage, as a concept, is an evolutionarily backwards idea whose purposes are archaic and obsolete.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's simply because we've chosen to attach those processes to marriage traditionally. There's no real reason they shouldn't be, if you'll pardon the terminology, divorced from it.
Then what standard do you suggest we use to replace it? Or do we simply stop offering hospital visitation rights to romantic partners entirely? Oh, I know! Let the hospitals decide. If you end up at a hospital with a racist administrator, you can forget about visiting your spouse if they're a different race. That's the libertarian solution! Caveat Emptor Uber Alles! Or if your a lesbian, you better hope that the partner who got pregnant via IVF doesn't die. Your homophobic in-laws will get the kids because you have absolutely no legal (in many states) or genetic relation to them!
GasBandit
Staff member
Not at all. A simple declaration, already on most forms (including hospital admission forms). Next of Kin. Power of Attorney.
But you're missing my actual point - it's not just government intrusion in marriage that I am saying is bad, it's the entire concept of marriage in and of itself. Societally and legally enforced monogamy. If you find that one certain someone, and choose to be monogamous with them, hey, great, go wild. Boy? Girl? Whatever? Great. But no reason to stop there. If it suits them, why must we prohibit someone from having two (for lack of a better word) spouses? Three? Five? With a mixture of genders?
The very concept of enforced monogamous marriage runs contrary to biology and logic. It encourages the narrow definitions which have excluded LGBT persons from enjoying the normal benefits of society, while simultaneously increasing the chances of inferiority to pass on genes. Take, for example, Tiger Woods. Suddenly a social pariah because he violated accepted but medieval rules about relationships. What harm did he really do? Did his kids from his marriage starve or go wanting because of his affairs? No! The man has the resources to provide for dozens of such family units in comfort, if not luxury! The outdated romantic notion that humans are naturally monogamous is as erroneous as the notion that they are naturally heterosexual. We've seen it in other societies as well, some within our own national borders. But be they humble mormon farmers or powerful caliphs, there was nothing wrong with their concept of love and family.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a method by which your loved one(s) can't get access to you when you're in the hospital, I'm saying that the definition of what constitutes an acceptable loved one is narrow and outdated.
This sounds familiar to an argument I saw a few years ago that argued that monogamy was misogynistic and that polygamy with one male and many females was feminist via the idea that if it wasn't for societally enforced monogamy, most females would see it as evolutionarily advantageous to attach themselves to an ultra-successful male, leaving the majority of males without mates. So great for that 1 guy, crappy for the 99 other guys, and better for those 100 women than each of them having their own mate, because the one guys is so spectacularly successful from an economic/provider perspective for any children (as well as the female themselves) in the relationship. Even take it down to the 1 and 4, and you get the women having the pick of the most successful men, with most men being screwed. Or rather not, as the case may be.
Here's one article. What I'm originally referencing was something in a peer-reviewed journal though, or somebody writing an article who had something resembling credentials. I couldn't find it with a quick search though.
Here's one article. What I'm originally referencing was something in a peer-reviewed journal though, or somebody writing an article who had something resembling credentials. I couldn't find it with a quick search though.
GasBandit
Staff member
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-middle-income-200k-250k-152818009.html
Guess the majority of American is the Lowest Class. No wonder Romney sees no problems helping out the -Middle Class-
What's even funnier is that he clarified and said it wasn't individual income, but household that he was referring to.
Guess the majority of American is the Lowest Class. No wonder Romney sees no problems helping out the -Middle Class-
What's even funnier is that he clarified and said it wasn't individual income, but household that he was referring to.
Wow... just... wow. My wife and I are well paid here in Canada and we wouldn't even be considered "Middle Class" by that definition.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, that's pretty boneheaded. Of course, no matter what number he'd pick, someone would cry foul. Be it 30k, 50k, 100k.
But the real punch line? From the very same article:
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
But the real punch line? From the very same article:
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
No, the punchline was well defined before. Also I don't agree with any number being called foul, but I really think if your household is pulling in over 100-150k and you have 2 kids or less then yeah, you're not exactly middle class anymore.
No problem GasBandit... I'm sure that there are tons and tons of people making $60/hour or more at cushy full time positions... 
(I work in the evil oil and gas sector and I haven't even attained that level yet)
(I work in the evil oil and gas sector and I haven't even attained that level yet)
GasBandit
Staff member
Ok, NOW the punch line is your double standard.
But yeah, it's out of touch. They're both out of touch.
Of course, we're also talking about a political system that considers people who have cable TV, a car, an X-Box, and air conditioning to be living in poverty.
Judge rules that Scott Walker's Anti-Union law is unconstitutional.
Pretty sure that it won't be overturned, but Walker is probably going to try and appeal.
Pretty sure that it won't be overturned, but Walker is probably going to try and appeal.
Goddamnit, I'm even poorer than I thought.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-middle-income-200k-250k-152818009.html
Guess the majority of American is the Lowest Class. No wonder Romney sees no problems helping out the -Middle Class-
What's even funnier is that he clarified and said it wasn't individual income, but household that he was referring to.
Good. At its heart this law restricted the ability to freely associate. Gee, wasn't that mentioned in that pesky constitution somewhere...?
Oh, and if you've ever accused a judge of being an "activist" because they dared to make a decision that you don't like, then go fuck yourself. Go fuck right off.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not explicitly, but it is implied and used as the basis for many court decisions.
GasBandit
Staff member
On this day, 153 years ago, the first Emperor of the United States was proclaimed, paving the way for the abolition of Congress and both major political parties, as well as the criminalization of the word "Frisco"[DOUBLEPOST=1347922402][/DOUBLEPOST]This week's Newsweek cover's stirring a little controversy.
He doesn't completely disregard them though. On gun rights, Obama's actually been pretty good, despite the constant claims that he would just start taking guns from people because he could.
