This is obviously why you use a conch shell instead of a stick.

Yeah, both sides are pretty equally terrible. Which is the reason that Trump got elected in the first place, in my opinion.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 9:58

Timmah @ 22/2/2018 9:44 Yeah, both sides are pretty equally terrible. Which is the reason that Trump got elected in the first place, in my opinion. Again- that's a cop out. Was Hil bad? Yep. But to say both sides (liberal and conservative) or even Dem vs Rep are equally bad is again a cop out. Stop pretending that "They are all politicians taking money" and look at platforms.

Okay, on an individual by individual basis, you are correct, they are not ALL bad. In fact there are great people who are politicians on both sides of the aisle, who care about their constituents and doing the right things. However, those individuals cannot accomplish a lot when the entire system, on all sides, is biased towards things that are not what is best for the people as a whole.

We can look at platforms all we want. At the end of the day, those platforms often mean nothing at all other than being a way to get certain rhetoric into the public to win votes. Is that ALWAYS the case? Of course not, but all too often it is. Further, just because someone has a platform does not mean they can achieve the goals of that platform even if they wanted to, because the deck is stacked in favor of consolidating the power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The whole system is broken, in my opinion, and that's coming from probably the only conservative on this board.

I suppose I have a pretty jaded opinion of the country, hell the world as a whole, at this point. But, you know what they say about opinions: opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 10:00

Primate @ 22/2/2018 9:52 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:27 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:18 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:15 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:06 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 6:17 Sadly, this isn't faked: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197 It's also not uncommon in past presidents. Let's not pretend Trump invented being a manipulative, insincere shitbag. Actually, *this* level is pretty extreme. It's one thing to be coached beforehand, but you really need notes to remind you to say "We hear you." Really? I'm not an Obama fan, but he went to Sandy Hook and quietly spent hours talking with the parents and survivors, no press, etc. He didn't have talking points he needed to carry with him to be a basic human being listening to people. He was a better public speaker and better at recall. I guarantee you he was coached and prepped beforehand. The rest is just your bias. I actually don't think so in this case; Obama was a career activist instead of being a career politician, but even if you want to pretend it is all faked, Obama spent hours in Sandy Hook, while Trump spent minutes in the hospital on his way down to golfing in Mar-e-lago. I'm sorry but while I'm not a fan of the DNC, pretending that both sides are equally terrible is really just a cop out. Pretending that both sides aren't the problem instead of the solution is the cop-out. No, pretending that government is naturally terrible and we should live in a libertarian paradise is a cop-out, considering how such places tend to fair (from the scam that was Galt's Gulch in Chile to the wonderful lawlessness of Somalia).

That's quite a broad, sweeping, and over-reaching conclusion to draw from what he has said.

My initial contribution to this was that the system, on the whole, is broken. As evidence in support of my hypothesis, I offered up the fact that Trump was elected. I do not believe Trump can possibly be elected in a country in which even one of the two parties on the whole, is doing good work. That, however, is simply my opinion.

I don't even understand what you are arguing here, but it has nothing to do with my initial hypothesis. I suppose you are arguing that saying the parties are equally bad is wrong because you believe the Democratic Party's Platform is superior to the Republican Party's Platform? That's all fine and dandy, though it is also just an opinion.

Your argument also fails to consider that Trump took the Republican Party by force, instituting a platform that isn't necessarily what the platform would've typically been. Again, I believe he was able to do this because most conservatives view the Republican Party as being broken. The parties' platforms also evolve from year to year to encompass issues that the party leaders believe will assist in getting their candidates elected, so that the platforms become sort of a hodgepodge of hot topic issues spread out over the demographics of the particular party.

On a grand scale, sure, the Republican Platform is theoretically geared towards what conservatives want, while the Democratic Platform is theoretically geared towards what liberals want. And both typically trend closer to the middle than a lot of either party would like. But, that brings me back to the question of your point about "looking at platforms". Everyone's viewpoint of the platforms will be different depending on their personal beliefs and what they view as important.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 10:27

Again- the parties are "just as bad" except for the multitude of places they aren't.

Again, that's simply in your opinion. Other people surely have different opinions, even on that specific topic. I'm not arguing whether you are right are wrong, simply that an argument based on "looking at the platforms" is inherently flawed because there is no black and white, right or wrong, answer. There are simply different viewpoints on either side of that argument. Suggesting otherwise is to suggest that one set of viewpoints are inherently superior to another set of viewpoints.

I really didn't mean to get caught up in this argument this morning, though I do enjoy healthy debates from all viewpoints. It certainly helps me better understand the world through the lenses of my own viewpoint.

If I had any answers, I'd be running for office somewhere. I'd suggest that we start with term limits for Congress, and see what happens when people aren't more worried about re-election than what's possibly more important. But, perhaps my opinion on that is easily refutable. Baby steps, though, I guess.

Ahoda thought you said 'anal'gram and got excited.

Spin @ 22/2/2018 13:56

Your gun won't protect you if your house is broken into (if you have it safely stored). Your gun won't protect you from the government if they really want what you have. All they are is expensive toys that make you feel more powerful. They make pills for that now.

Oh, yeah? Well what about the zombie apocalypse?!

Dadd @ 22/2/2018 15:09

Spin @ 22/2/2018 15:07 Herm @ 22/2/2018 13:42 I like the idea of arming schools with bodyguards/grown ups with military training/background. I don't know how far down the rabbit hole your country's gone, but seeing as any gun legislation talk leads nowhere, how about giving the other end of extreme a try? Seems like doing nothing is making things worse. Thoughts? Putting more guns into the schools won't help. It just adds more bullets to the fray when shit gets crazy. Plus, most school bodyguards are there for a reason: either they need to be employed by the district to coach a sport, or they weren't good enough (or retired due to old age from) for the police force. With what they pay teachers, I shudder to think of who they would employ as bodyguards ...

Isn't there an issue involving unemployed military vets? Or did I just make that up? I might have made it up, but if not we could solve two problems in one swoop!

Primate @ 17/8/2018 8:04

Is Igor a witch?

Does he float?

vladykins @ 26/9/2018 16:07

Primate @ 26/9/2018 14:40 Sounds like this guy should be before the bench not behind it. Interestingly, it appears Maryland has no statute of limitations of rape. If they can get enough evidence, it just might happen: https://www.williamrhall.com/Blog/2013/December/No-Statute-of-Limitations-for-Rape-in-Maryland.aspx

She didn't actually accuse Kavanaugh of rape in that statement. She also doesn't say enough in the Affidavit to actually subject herself to perjury if it is untrue. I am not saying that she is lying or that Kavanaugh did or did not do any of the things he is being accused of, or that he should or shouldn't be confirmed as a SC Justice. I am simply saying that just because there is a sworn Affidavit is not confirmation of truth or lie. Attorneys draft Affidavits. Very carefully.

Spin @ 26/9/2018 13:14

Mads @ 26/9/2018 12:58 Mike @ 26/9/2018 13:51 Kevin Spacey and Congrats America are merging into one. So, this Kavanaugh thing...nobody even slightly skeptical of the accusations? Looks like the Democrats taking advantage of MeToo to me. But hey, maybe I haven't seen all the evidence. Nah, Neil Gorsuch went through with no real drama and he and Kavanaugh went to the same high school about the same time. Plus Dr. Ford’s accusations don’t at all seem overly embellished or anything. Any women reading them would find them pretty believable, and reading the account it’s even easy to see how Kavanaugh might not even remember the incident or may not have thought much of it at the time. I think the GOP’s biggest mistake is not pulling the plug on this ages ago and moving forward with another nominee. If they pulled the plug now, chances are high the next old white guy wouldn't get through the process before the mid-term elections. If the GOP wants to make sure 'their guy' gets on, it's Kavanaugh or bust, basically.

It'll probably be "their gal" in all likelihood.

vladykins @ 28/9/2018 8:25

Timmah @ 27/9/2018 12:34 vladykins @ 26/9/2018 16:07 Primate @ 26/9/2018 14:40 Sounds like this guy should be before the bench not behind it. Interestingly, it appears Maryland has no statute of limitations of rape. If they can get enough evidence, it just might happen: https://www.williamrhall.com/Blog/2013/December/No-Statute-of-Limitations-for-Rape-in-Maryland.aspx She didn't actually accuse Kavanaugh of rape in that statement. She also doesn't say enough in the Affidavit to actually subject herself to perjury if it is untrue. I am not saying that she is lying or that Kavanaugh did or did not do any of the things he is being accused of, or that he should or shouldn't be confirmed as a SC Justice. I am simply saying that just because there is a sworn Affidavit is not confirmation of truth or lie. Attorneys draft Affidavits. Very carefully. She said Kavanaugh and Judge were both partakers in date raping chicks and stated she was raped in one of these instances. While she doesn't say Kavanaugh raped her, the affidavit is pretty clear in saying that he took part in date raping multiple times. See, here is the issue. You are looking for her to say "Kavanaugh raped me" in the affidavit, which, as you note, it is carefully worded to not say. While looking for that, you ignored the actual accusation. It's pretty cut and dry. That's why folks like Graham are so busy saying "Well, if she knew girls were getting raped at these parties, why didn't she report them?" totally ignoring high school and college dynamics, especially for young women. Oh sure- go tell on the "cool party" run by the rich prep school assholes- it's not like any of them will make your life miserable forever after or anything until they drive you to commit suicide. Never happened before. Ever.

The affidavit dances around the idea that he gang raped women, but never states that he actually did it. I didn't miss anything because I was looking for something specific. I draft these things myself all of the time. It is not cut and dry at all. The affidavit certainly implies that he took part in gang rapes, but does not go so far as to state it as a fact. And it was drafted that way carefully so that she isn't committing perjury if it turns out that he never took part in any gang rapes.

I am not trying to convince you that he is not guilty of raping women, but you are doing exactly what you say that I am doing: In looking for what you want to see, you ignore what it actually says. That is why these sort of things are so effective in the court of public opinion, but never amount to anything in an actual court of law where it is subject to cross-exam.

Because it is the United States of America, not the United States of California and New York.