And you're saying most people were in high school in the summer of 84?DarkAudit said:Oh hush. I was in junior high and high school during the Reagan years. Every few weeks there was one bit of propaganda or another coming down the pipe. Especially in the summer of '84.
Come on, You're supposed to know this shit. Or are you losing your touch?
I wasn't talking about most people. I was talking about YOU. WTF does subjectivity have to do with knowing who was who?GasBandit said:And you're saying most people were in high school in the summer of 84?DarkAudit said:Oh hush. I was in junior high and high school during the Reagan years. Every few weeks there was one bit of propaganda or another coming down the pipe. Especially in the summer of '84.
Come on, You're supposed to know this poop. Or are you losing your touch?
Most people couldn't find moscow on a MAP.
Hey, when you're right, you're right.“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
Ah hahahahahahaha.Armadillo said:Hmmm...
Hey, when you're right, you're right.“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
It's fun to watch the lefties twist themselves into knots trying to attack Cheney for being on their side for once, and it's also funny to watch the righties do the same trying to defend his stance on an issue they're deeply opposed to.
This. I disagree with Cheney on almost every issue. But, if he says something I agree with, I have to admit it. To do so otherwise would be wrong.Hey, when you're right, you're right.
If you think it is unfounded, you haven't spoken to enough people here.Gruebeard said:GasBandit makes an unfounded assertion and then harps on someone else for countering with personal anecdotes. Old times. Old times.
You've asked a random sample of a thousand people to list Russian news sources, then?GasBandit said:If you think it is unfounded, you haven't spoken to enough people here.
Surely you'll give Cheney credit for THIS stance, right? Like I said earlier: when you're right, you're right.DarkAudit said:A PR hack on retainer issuing a "what Mr. Cheney *meant* to say..." statement in 3... 2... 1...
Yes, it has. Notice they don't even try to refute any of my points about WHY it's wrong...they just state it as fact. Way to argue, guys.Gruebeard said:Hasn't this already been refuted earlier in the thread?Armadillo said:^This is the major beef with Sotomayor . . . that she seems to think her racial and gender status somehow makes her special/better.
True, 60% of her cases that have reached the Supreme Court have been overturned. However, 75% of all appeals court decisions that are considered by the Supreme Court are overturned. Simply put, the SC only takes up cases that it's pretty damn likely to overturn. 3/5 doesn't sound good, but it's actually better than most. Of course, it's a tiny sample size - only 5 out of over 150 cases she's ruled on. Quite frankly, she seems to have extremely similar views to the liberal Justices - even this Ricci case is likely to have at least four votes for upholding her decision.And as for how many of her decisions that went to the supreme court were overturned, the figure is 60% according to newsweek. Yes, that's only 1.3% of her total decisions but it's not the cut and dry ones that get to the supreme court, now is it? As she's being put in the supreme court, it's worth looking at how many of her decisions that were brought before the court were upheld, and the answer is apparently two of five.
...what? I disagree with Dick Cheney on any number of issues. As I've stated many times in the past, he's a war criminal. Nonetheless, I agree with him on this issue. Good for him. It's not exactly hard to say that. In fact, the only liberals I've read that have commented on this quote were praising him for it. Care to provide any actual examples of "lefties twist(ing) temeselves into knots trying to attack Cheney"? Or for that matter, the righties trying to defend him on his stance, haven't read any of those either.Armadillo said:Hmmm...
Hey, when you're right, you're right.“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
It's fun to watch the lefties twist themselves into knots trying to attack Cheney for being on their side for once, and it's also funny to watch the righties do the same trying to defend his stance on an issue they're deeply opposed to.
Read the comments on that story I linked. "If his daughter wasn't gay, the jerk wouldn't be for gay marriage," "What an opportunist," and so on. I realize that these are just a couple of individual people, but they're attacking Cheney in a story where he comes out in favor of something they presumably agree with. Therefore, they are hypocrites and stupid as hell. If you're pro-gay marriage (as I am), and one of the chief Republicans of the last decade comes out in favor of gay marriage, wouldn't you say something like, "See, you Republican fools? Even DICK CHENEY is in favor of this!"Dieb said:...what? I disagree with * Cheney on any number of issues. As I've stated many times in the past, he's a war criminal. Nonetheless, I agree with him on this issue. Good for him. It's not exactly hard to say that. In fact, the only liberals I've read that have commented on this quote were praising him for it. Care to provide any actual examples of "lefties twist(ing) temeselves into knots trying to attack Cheney"? Or for that matter, the righties trying to defend him on his stance, haven't read any of those either.Armadillo said:Hmmm...
Hey, when you're right, you're right.“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
It's fun to watch the lefties twist themselves into knots trying to attack Cheney for being on their side for once, and it's also funny to watch the righties do the same trying to defend his stance on an issue they're deeply opposed to.
You're bringing up anonymous postings on a big website? Come on, 90% of the people who post on websites like ABC are trolls. I agree that anyone who actually said things like those comments are idiots and hypocrits, but there's a reason I never site comments from, say, Redstate. Or Daily Kos for that matter. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. And quite frankly, major media site commenters are way worse even than those from those two sites.Armadillo said:Read the comments on that story I linked. "If his daughter wasn't gay, the jerk wouldn't be for gay marriage," "What an opportunist," and so on. I realize that these are just a couple of individual people, but they're attacking Cheney in a story where he comes out in favor of something they presumably agree with. Therefore, they are hypocrites and stupid as *. If you're pro-gay marriage (as I am), and one of the chief Republicans of the last decade comes out in favor of gay marriage, wouldn't you say something like, "See, you Republican fools? Even * CHENEY is in favor of this!"
You're consistent, so obviously you're not the kind of person I'm referring to here.
I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.
This is indeed fascinating. Although the cynic in me can't help but believe that the only time a conservative of the Cheney style ever comes down on the left, it's because the issue affects him personally.Armadillo said:Hmmm...
Hey, when you're right, you're right.“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
It's fun to watch the lefties twist themselves into knots trying to attack Cheney for being on their side for once, and it's also funny to watch the righties do the same trying to defend his stance on an issue they're deeply opposed to.
That's actually pretty damn funny and somewhat ironic at the same time.GasBandit said:They don't want to film the bioshock movie on US soil for tax reasons, so it's on hold.
Ok, that made sense right up until the point they compared Obama to fucking Xerxes from 300 and called them both arrogant Metrosexuals tyrants. :eyeroll: That's when it went from thoughtful perspective on the current state of democracy to punditry.Why are Conservatives so Mean?
And doesn't explain why one damn bit.AshburnerX said:That's actually pretty damn funny and somewhat ironic at the same time.GasBandit said:They don't want to film the bioshock movie on US soil for tax reasons, so it's on hold.
Certain overseas locations, like the ones specified in the article, will grant tax exemptions for movies to be filmed in their backyards. This might be part of why "Rumble in the Bronx" was filmed in Vancouver.DarkAudit said:And doesn't explain why one damn bit.AshburnerX said:That's actually pretty damn funny and somewhat ironic at the same time.GasBandit said:They don't want to film the bioshock movie on US soil for tax reasons, so it's on hold.
You LIKE the idea of special tax exemptions for big business? Ok, you didn't actually say you liked it; nonetheless, there's a difference between "lower taxes for everyone" and "lower taxes for special people", and this would seem to be firmly in the latter.GasBandit said:Certain overseas locations, like the ones specified in the article, will grant tax exemptions for movies to be filmed in their backyards. This might be part of why "Rumble in the Bronx" was filmed in Vancouver.DarkAudit said:And doesn't explain why one damn bit.AshburnerX said:That's actually pretty damn funny and somewhat ironic at the same time.GasBandit said:They don't want to film the bioshock movie on US soil for tax reasons, so it's on hold.
This shouldn't affect you at all if Citi is your bank. If it ever goes under (unlikely at this point) you'll get your money back from the FDIC. The Dow is just an index; a compilation of important stocks. It has prestige, sure, but it doesn't affect the bank in any way, shape, or formGeneral Motors and Citigroup have been kicked out of the Dow Jones Industrial average. Aw man... Citi is my bank.. I think I need to make some calls
Hardly surprising. The man wrote, what, four books about Bush?Bob Woodward wants to write a book about Barack Obama ... and the White House is apparently pretty nervous about the idea.
The economy is better than expected (although it still shrank in the first quarter) because consumer spending is up. Why is consumer spending up? One of the reasons I, amoung others, argued for the stimulus is because it would increase optomism about the economy, which would increase consumer spending. Could it be that the pro-stimulus side was right? True, maybe this upswing in consumer spending is just a coincidence. But it's hardly evidence AGAINST the stimulus.The economy performed better than expected in the first quarter, and no it was not thanks to those government stimulus checks.
I actually don't think it was too boneheaded. He joked that President Obama should “make certain he doesn’t run around in East Harlem unidentified", referencing the recent shooting of a black police officer by a white police officer. Ok, he shouldn't have brought the President into this, as he admitted.. But the article suggests that "Mayor Bloomberg and others were furious that Rangel suggested race was an issue in the shooting". Oh come on. After all the history in New York with police shootings, including police-on-police, you'd have to be an idiot to NOT think race was an issue here.Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York gets the boneheaded politician comment of the day.
You're being much kinder than I would be. I just wanted to ask "What's your excuse for talking to me like I'm a child, asshole?"AshburnerX said:Ok, that made sense right up until the point they compared Obama to fucking Xerxes from 300 and called them both arrogant Metrosexuals tyrants. :eyeroll: That's when it went from thoughtful perspective on the current state of democracy to punditry.Why are Conservatives so Mean?
I meant it only as an illustration of the effects of tax policy upon the production of items we enjoy and the employment of americans. If we don't cut the tax breaks, other nations will, and thus the production will go overseas or perhaps not happen at all. Kotaku seems to have taken a big dump so I can't get in to pull a quote at the moment.Dieb said:You LIKE the idea of special tax exemptions for big business? Ok, you didn't actually say you liked it; nonetheless, there's a difference between "lower taxes for everyone" and "lower taxes for special people", and this would seem to be firmly in the latter.
This shouldn't affect you at all if Citi is your bank. If it ever goes under (unlikely at this point) you'll get your money back from the FDIC. The Dow is just an index; a compilation of important stocks. It has prestige, sure, but it doesn't affect the bank in any way, shape, or form. [/quote]It's not a cause, it's an indicator. And it's a lot easier to be nonchalant about citi when one doesn't have their savings in them.General Motors and Citigroup have been kicked out of the Dow Jones Industrial average. Aw man... Citi is my bank.. I think I need to make some calls
Hardly surprising. The man wrote, what, four books about Bush?[/quote:2wnpdn13]Plus there was that whole watergate thing.[quote:2wnpdn13]Bob Woodward wants to write a book about Barack Obama ... and the White House is apparently pretty nervous about the idea.
The economy is better than expected (although it still shrank in the first quarter) because consumer spending is up. Why is consumer spending up? One of the reasons I, amoung others, argued for the stimulus is because it would increase optomism about the economy, which would increase consumer spending. Could it be that the pro-stimulus side was right? True, maybe this upswing in consumer spending is just a coincidence. But it's hardly evidence AGAINST the stimulus.[/quote:2wnpdn13] There are ways to increase economic activity without mortgaging the grandkids.[quote:2wnpdn13]The economy performed better than expected in the first quarter, and no it was not thanks to those government stimulus checks.
I actually don't think it was too boneheaded. He joked that President Obama should “make certain he doesn’t run around in East Harlem unidentified", referencing the recent shooting of a black police officer by a white police officer. Ok, he shouldn't have brought the President into this, as he admitted.. But the article suggests that "Mayor Bloomberg and others were furious that Rangel suggested race was an issue in the shooting". Oh come on. After all the history in New York with police shootings, including police-on-police, you'd have to be an idiot to NOT think race was an issue here.[/quote:2wnpdn13]No, just someone who doesn't see race affecting every single thing in the world. But the implication was clearly a racist jest.[quote:2wnpdn13]Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York gets the boneheaded politician comment of the day.
Well, (A) the intended audience is college students, and (B), as illustrated by de Tocqueville, leftists are pretty much children developmentallyLamont said:You're being much kinder than I would be. I just wanted to ask "What's your excuse for talking to me like I'm a child, asshole?"AshburnerX said:Ok, that made sense right up until the point they compared Obama to fucking Xerxes from 300 and called them both arrogant Metrosexuals tyrants. :eyeroll: That's when it went from thoughtful perspective on the current state of democracy to punditry.Why are Conservatives so Mean?
Do you mean you have a savings account with them (in which case your money is as safe as houses - actually, a hell of a lot safer than houses are) or that you've invested money with them (given it to them to manage, in which case this wouldn't be a good indicator, but it'd hardly be the first bad indicator in the last few months) or have you invested money in them (own stock of theirs, in which case you've already lost nearly all your money). Big difference between all of those.GasBandit said:It's not a cause, it's an indicator. And it's a lot easier to be nonchalant about citi when one doesn't have their savings in them.
Which he somehow managed to do in less than four books. Having read a couple of the Bush books, he's gone sadly downhill. "All the President's Men" is one of my favorite non-fiction books of all time. Maybe it was Berstein all alongPlus there was that whole watergate thing.
Really? Racist jest? Implying that innoscent African Americans can be shot by the police isn't racist; it's a sad fact. Hell, here's an article that's just about the black police officers killed in NYC: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/nyreg ... rds&st=cse). Sure, if he had said that this particular white officer was motivated by racism, that would be wrong; but he didn't. Actually, at the same time he said his jest, he also said:No, just someone who doesn't see race affecting every single thing in the world. But the implication was clearly a racist jest.
College students in the US are mentally challenged?GasBandit said:Well, (A) the intended audience is college students, and (B), as illustrated by de Tocqueville, leftists are pretty much children developmentallyLamont said:You're being much kinder than I would be. I just wanted to ask "What's your excuse for talking to me like I'm a child, asshole?"
[schild:1azr1itd]THIS IS SPARTAA!!!!!![/schild:1azr1itd]GasBandit said:
Sometimes I wonder. Quite often people pop out with a degree (especially in the liberal arts, ta-dum-pssh) and absolutely no grasp of how the world works or what to do in it. The need to educate has been and is still being slowly subsumed by the desire to indoctrinate.Lamont said:College students in the US are mentally challenged?
I know that my savings are supposed to be backed up by the FDIC, but even they have asked for a bailout. I'm not as assured by that little "FDIC" in the bank's window as I used to be. Basically, the FDIC doesn't have any real money, all it has is accounting tricks to conjure money electronically.Dieb said:Do you mean you have a savings account with them (in which case your money is as safe as houses - actually, a hell of a lot safer than houses are) or that you've invested money with them (given it to them to manage, in which case this wouldn't be a good indicator, but it'd hardly be the first bad indicator in the last few months) or have you invested money in them (own stock of theirs, in which case you've already lost nearly all your money). Big difference between all of those.GasBandit said:It's not a cause, it's an indicator. And it's a lot easier to be nonchalant about citi when one doesn't have their savings in them.
Really? Racist jest? Implying that innoscent African Americans can be shot by the police isn't racist; it's a sad fact.[quote:2hjf40li]No, just someone who doesn't see race affecting every single thing in the world. But the implication was clearly a racist jest.