26
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / How much more does KS have to spend on education?
« on: March 02, 2017, 10:39:11 AM »
Our lifetime appointment super legislators will tell us today at 11:00! 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
27
Essentially Flyertalk / The Oscars (and more specifically, Best Picture)
« on: February 24, 2017, 02:59:57 PM »
I've undertaken an important project this afternoon to determine which movies should have won Best Picture based on "pop culture impact." That's not super easy to define, but I took into account things like box office receipts, polling on top 50 most viewed movies, etc. I also limited to bw 2000 and 1970 because it gets harder to judge the staying power of more recent movies, and I just didn't care to go earlier than 1970. So here is my list submitted for your consideration....
So according to this list, the Academy goes about 1 for 3 picking movies that audiences actually appreciate and have staying power (which actually is better than I expected).
I will take corrections under advisement.
| Year | Winner | Should'a Won |
| 2000 | Gladiator | Gladiator |
| 1999 | American Beauty | The Matrix (Sixth Sense Runner Up) |
| 1998 | Shakespeare in Love | Saving Private Ryan |
| 1997 | Titanic | Titanic |
| 1996 | The English Patient | Jerry Macguire (ID4 Runner Up) |
| 1995 | Braveheart | Braveheart |
| 1994 | Forrest Gump | Forrest Gump (Shawshank and Pulp Fiction Runners Up) |
| 1993 | Schindler's List | Jurassic Park |
| 1992 | Unforgiven | A Few Good Men |
| 1991 | Silence of the Lambs | Silence of the Lambs |
| 1990 | Dances with Wolves | Ghost |
| 1989 | Driving Miss Daisy | Field of Dreams |
| 1988 | Rain Man | Die Hard (sorry Rain Man, but Die Hard) |
| 1987 | Last Emperor | Dirty Dancing (yes) |
| 1986 | Platoon | Top Gun |
| 1985 | Out of Africa | Back to the Future |
| 1984 | Amadeus | Ghostbusters |
| 1983 | Terms of Endearment | A Christmas Story |
| 1982 | Ghandi | E.T. |
| 1981 | Chariots of Fire | Raiders of the Lost Ark |
| 1980 | Ordinary People | Star Wars: Episode V |
| 1979 | Kramer v Kramer | Alien |
| 1978 | The Deer Hunter | Grease |
| 1977 | Annie Hall | Star Wars: Episode IV |
| 1976 | Rocky | Rocky |
| 1975 | One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest | Jaws |
| 1974 | The Godfather II | The Godfather II |
| 1973 | The Sting | The Exorcist |
| 1972 | The Godfather | The Godfather |
| 1971 | The French Connection | A Clockwork Orange |
| 1970 | Patton | Patton |
So according to this list, the Academy goes about 1 for 3 picking movies that audiences actually appreciate and have staying power (which actually is better than I expected).
I will take corrections under advisement.
29
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / gorSuch a Great Choice
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:58:03 PM »
Great choice. Truly fantastic. ITT we talk about all the reasons why. I'll start.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6
Amen. These picks wouldn't be so political if justices would simply interpret the law as written without regard to achieving a particular result.
Or, as he said tonight, "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6
Quote
Who do you think said this: “Reliance on constitutional lawsuits to achieve policy goals has become a wasting addiction among American progressives…. Whatever you feel about the rights that have been gained through the courts, it is easy to see that dependence on judges has damaged the progressive movement and its causes”? Rush Limbaugh? Laura Ingraham? George Bush? The author is David von Drehle, a Washington Post columnist. This admission, by a self-identified liberal, is refreshing stuff. It is a healthy sign for the country and those rethinking the direction of the Democratic party in the wake of November’s election results. Let’s hope this sort of thinking spreads.
There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-right victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.
This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide
At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has–its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.
Amen. These picks wouldn't be so political if justices would simply interpret the law as written without regard to achieving a particular result.
Or, as he said tonight, "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."
30
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / The Science is Settled: We're Better Looking
« on: January 11, 2017, 10:02:22 PM »
Science confirms that conservative politicians are better looking than liberal politicians.
This can be extrapolated to the general population as any Facebook meme will prove. The study says our superior sexiness may be attributed to the fact that pretty people tend to earn more than uglies (though I would say that beauty and earning power are just good genes).
Chin(s) up liberals. You can still claim inner beauty. (Well, actually, conservatives are way more charitable, too).
This can be extrapolated to the general population as any Facebook meme will prove. The study says our superior sexiness may be attributed to the fact that pretty people tend to earn more than uglies (though I would say that beauty and earning power are just good genes).
Chin(s) up liberals. You can still claim inner beauty. (Well, actually, conservatives are way more charitable, too).
31
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Middle East Peace - let's figure this out.
« on: December 28, 2016, 02:02:09 PM »
So in light of the recent UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal, which the US allowed to pass by abstaining from the vote, it got me thinking about the whole conflict. I realized I know almost nothing about it, so I started reading. Pretty much everything I've found is written from a clearly pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian POV, so it's tough to separate fact from opinion.
Here's what I've got so far - please correct me and/or fill in the blanks.
1. The area is the ancestral homeland for the Jews, going back thousands of years. It's also the ancestral homeland for at least some of the Arab Palestinians. (I'm a little hazy on all the race/ethnicity/religion distinctions).
2. The region, including Israel, disputed lands, and pieces of surrounding countries have been the subject of one conquest after another for thousands of years.
3. After the Ottoman Empire was defeated in WWI, the League of Nations gave Great Britain a Mandate to govern the Palestine territory.
4. This continued until 1947, when the newly formed UN passed Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Some Jews relocated to the Jewish state, but a lot had already been living there continuously for thousands of years.
5. the Jews accepted the plan - the Arabs didn't. The Jewish state declared their independence when the British Mandate expired in 1947, and the surrounding Arab countries immediately invaded. The Jews kicked their collective asses - to the point that many Arabs refer to this war as "the Catastrophe."
6. So as a result of that war, the Jews expanded the territory they held, and this was sort of formalized by "Armistice lines" - in armistice agreements between Israel and surrounding countries, though nobody except I think Lebanon agreed that these armistice lines constituted final international borders.
7. So at this point, the Jews are controlling the area originally partitioned for them by the UN, plus some additional land that had been offered to the Arab state, and Jordan is controlling all the West Bank (apparently it was referred to as "Transjordan" at the time, which is kinda
)
8. Next, we've got "The Six Day War" in 1967. I guess enough time had passed since The Catastrophe for the Arab nations to forget why they called it that. They gave it another try, and Israel kicked their asses again. This time the Jews took Gaza, Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, and West Bank and East Jerusalem. But the Jews gave most of that back in exchange for peace treaties over the next 10 years or so. Big exceptions were Gaza, which they withdrew from more recently (but still blockading it and raiding it because of rocket attacks), and the West Bank and Jerusalem, which they continue to occupy to this day. But now at least there are definite international borders between Israel and Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. The only question marks are Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Everything I said accurate so far?
Ok, now here I start getting a little hazy. At some point "Transjordan" decides to just be "Jordan" (still a gender neutral name) and just lets Yasser Arrafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization be in charge of the West Bank. (Seems like this was not a good decision, but I don't know, maybe it was from Jordan's POV). These people aren't Transjordanian anymore - in fact, Jordan revoked their citizenship, so now they're stuck in the West Bank and they're just referred to as Palestinians.
Gaza strip is also this little pocket that Egypt doesn't want anything to do with, and they're separated from the West Bank by Israel, but the Arabs in both spots are referred to as Palestinians, which kind of seems like a more polite description for "Arabs that Israel hasn't conquered yet and no other Arab country wants to annex so they're just kinda stuck." Fair?
Meanwhile, the Palestinians can't really decide who their government should be. Gaza is controlled by a military junta called Hamas. The West Bank is sort of governed by a part called Fatah, but seems like Hamas has some influence there, too.
There have been a number of attempts at creating a "Two State Solution" and peace between Israel and a country called "Palestine," but they can't come to an agreement on borders. Apparently Israel would be ok with giving up some of it's occupied territory, but it cannot agree to the withdrawing to the "1967 borders" because they say they are hard to defend militarily. On the Palestinian side, they don't seem interested in Israel existing, period.
In the meantime, Israel continues to "settle" areas of the West Bank, mostly spots that they are already occupying militarily but some other areas that they don't. Israeli has actually deemed some of these settlements illegal and torn some of them down, but Jews continue settling outside the occupied areas, saying it is their ancestral right to the land.
Do I have this right?
Here's what I've got so far - please correct me and/or fill in the blanks.
1. The area is the ancestral homeland for the Jews, going back thousands of years. It's also the ancestral homeland for at least some of the Arab Palestinians. (I'm a little hazy on all the race/ethnicity/religion distinctions).
2. The region, including Israel, disputed lands, and pieces of surrounding countries have been the subject of one conquest after another for thousands of years.
3. After the Ottoman Empire was defeated in WWI, the League of Nations gave Great Britain a Mandate to govern the Palestine territory.
4. This continued until 1947, when the newly formed UN passed Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Some Jews relocated to the Jewish state, but a lot had already been living there continuously for thousands of years.
5. the Jews accepted the plan - the Arabs didn't. The Jewish state declared their independence when the British Mandate expired in 1947, and the surrounding Arab countries immediately invaded. The Jews kicked their collective asses - to the point that many Arabs refer to this war as "the Catastrophe."
6. So as a result of that war, the Jews expanded the territory they held, and this was sort of formalized by "Armistice lines" - in armistice agreements between Israel and surrounding countries, though nobody except I think Lebanon agreed that these armistice lines constituted final international borders.
7. So at this point, the Jews are controlling the area originally partitioned for them by the UN, plus some additional land that had been offered to the Arab state, and Jordan is controlling all the West Bank (apparently it was referred to as "Transjordan" at the time, which is kinda
)8. Next, we've got "The Six Day War" in 1967. I guess enough time had passed since The Catastrophe for the Arab nations to forget why they called it that. They gave it another try, and Israel kicked their asses again. This time the Jews took Gaza, Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, and West Bank and East Jerusalem. But the Jews gave most of that back in exchange for peace treaties over the next 10 years or so. Big exceptions were Gaza, which they withdrew from more recently (but still blockading it and raiding it because of rocket attacks), and the West Bank and Jerusalem, which they continue to occupy to this day. But now at least there are definite international borders between Israel and Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. The only question marks are Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Everything I said accurate so far?
Ok, now here I start getting a little hazy. At some point "Transjordan" decides to just be "Jordan" (still a gender neutral name) and just lets Yasser Arrafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization be in charge of the West Bank. (Seems like this was not a good decision, but I don't know, maybe it was from Jordan's POV). These people aren't Transjordanian anymore - in fact, Jordan revoked their citizenship, so now they're stuck in the West Bank and they're just referred to as Palestinians.
Gaza strip is also this little pocket that Egypt doesn't want anything to do with, and they're separated from the West Bank by Israel, but the Arabs in both spots are referred to as Palestinians, which kind of seems like a more polite description for "Arabs that Israel hasn't conquered yet and no other Arab country wants to annex so they're just kinda stuck." Fair?
Meanwhile, the Palestinians can't really decide who their government should be. Gaza is controlled by a military junta called Hamas. The West Bank is sort of governed by a part called Fatah, but seems like Hamas has some influence there, too.
There have been a number of attempts at creating a "Two State Solution" and peace between Israel and a country called "Palestine," but they can't come to an agreement on borders. Apparently Israel would be ok with giving up some of it's occupied territory, but it cannot agree to the withdrawing to the "1967 borders" because they say they are hard to defend militarily. On the Palestinian side, they don't seem interested in Israel existing, period.
In the meantime, Israel continues to "settle" areas of the West Bank, mostly spots that they are already occupying militarily but some other areas that they don't. Israeli has actually deemed some of these settlements illegal and torn some of them down, but Jews continue settling outside the occupied areas, saying it is their ancestral right to the land.
Do I have this right?
32
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / ITT We Adore Sec Def Mad Dog Mattis
« on: December 03, 2016, 03:15:49 PM »
Guys Trump just picked Patton to lead the DoD. Favorite quotes...
Quote
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.No truer words. Polite but practical.
Quote
There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great.You haven't lived until you've literally dodged a bullet.
Quote
The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some a**holes in the world that just need to be shot.
Quote
There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don’t think you do. It’s just business.Trump relates.
33
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Carrier: The President vs The President-Elect
« on: December 01, 2016, 08:20:30 PM »
When Carrier announced it was closing its operations in Indiana and relocating over 1000 jobs to Mexico, Donald Trump promised it would not happen if he were elected.
President Obama, cementing his legacy as both a massive weakling and condescending prick, openly mocked Trump for this promise.
Turns out Trump did have an answer.
President Obama, cementing his legacy as both a massive weakling and condescending prick, openly mocked Trump for this promise.
Quote
When somebody says, like the person you just mentioned who I’m not going to advertise for, that he’s going to bring all these jobs back, well how exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do? There’s — there’s no answer to it. He just says, “Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.” Well, how — what — how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually, the answer is he doesn’t have an answer.
Turns out Trump did have an answer.
34
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Talking Points for TG with your bigot family
« on: November 23, 2016, 04:24:58 PM »
Are you dreading breaking bread with your ignorant, racist, misogynist relatives for Thanksgiving? The Dems have prepared talking points for you!
I
that the Dems do this stuff for their Bubble-head lemmings. That's So Democrat!
I
that the Dems do this stuff for their Bubble-head lemmings. That's So Democrat!
35
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Talking Points for TG with your bigot family
« on: November 23, 2016, 04:15:19 PM »
Are you dreading breaking bread with your racist, misogynist relatives for Thanksgiving? The Dems have prepared talking points for you!
I that the Dems do this stuff. That's So Democrat!
I
that the Dems do this stuff. That's So Democrat!
36
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Sorry liberals, your new country sucks
« on: November 17, 2016, 11:50:33 AM »37
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / ITT We Post Stories of Libs Losing Their F'ing Minds Over Trump
« on: November 10, 2016, 06:27:35 PM »
I'll start. http://cornellsun.com/2016/11/09/devastated-cornellians-mourn-election-of-donald-trump-at-cry-in/
It'll be ok, my special little snowflakes. It really will.
Quote
Over 50 Cornellians gathered on Ho Plaza this afternoon for a cry in to “mourn” in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s shocking presidential victory.
Braving the cold, wind and occasional rain, Cornellians sat in a circle to share stories and console each other, organizers encouraging attendees to gather closer together and “include each other.”
Willard Straight Hall Resource Center employees gave out blankets, tissues and hot chocolate to keep participants warm, while students signed posters with words of encouragement and protest
It'll be ok, my special little snowflakes. It really will.
38
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / For liberal pit'rs: The Silver Linings
« on: November 09, 2016, 08:55:40 AM »
When you get invested in politics, losing elections sucks. Liberals, after suffering through Obama's cult of personality wins in 2008 and 2012, I feel your pain - or vice versa. Herewith I'd like to suggest a few silver linings to this morning's outcome:
1. Trump's mandate is smaller than his thumbs. It is essentially this: (1) Rid Washington of corruption; (2) pursue more aggressively pro-American trade deals; (3) stricter immigration enforcement; and (4) fix Obamacare. That's about it. I'm not saying he will succeed on any of these points, but even liberals should agree with some of them.
2. The corporate candidate lost. For all the liberal moaning about Citizens United, it was Hillary that was the corporate candidate. She had the overwhelming support of the Wall Street financiers, and she outspent Trump 2-1. She still lost. Proof that money alone can't buy the presidency.
3. The Clintons are the very definition of corruption, and it is healthy for America and the rule of law that they have not returned to the WH. As I said in the other thread, this is the woman who set up a private server in her basement and later a bathroom closet to handle all manner of classified information, just to illegally dodge FOIA requests. These are the people who set up the Clinton Foundation as a SuperPAC to accept illegal pay-to-play contributions from foreign entities in exchange for State Department access. This is the woman who conspired to rig the nominating process against Bernie Sanders. This is the woman who started the Kenya narrative against Obama in 2008. This is the woman who stood on the tarmac and told the family members of Benghazi victims that it was due to a YouTube video, while privately telling her daughter it was terrorism. This is the woman who took the hatchet to Bill's numerous sexual assault victims while claiming to be a champion for women's rights.
4. Hillary's loss is a win for the rule of law, and that is important. The rule of law - that laws mean what they say and they are applied impartially - is the cornerstone of our society. In the short term, unraveling the rule of law has been helpful to liberal objectives (see, e.g., Obamacare rulings and executive actions, amnesty by executive action), but in the long term the rule of law is good for everyone.
5. Obamacare is a disaster. It needs to be fixed, but it is going to be really hard to do so. The GOP now gets to take all the blame for the hard choices that have to be made.
6. The media went full tank for Hillary, much as they did for Obama. The COLUSION between the Clinton campaign and media exposed by Wikileaks is appalling. Unlike with Hillary, the media will serve as a check against Trump, and perhaps restore some credibility in the process.
7. Donald is not going to start WWIII, and I think you know it. (Hillary wouldn't have either, btw).
8. Think about it: Donald Trump is the next president. As horrific as that may be to you, it is also going to be pretty funny.
1. Trump's mandate is smaller than his thumbs. It is essentially this: (1) Rid Washington of corruption; (2) pursue more aggressively pro-American trade deals; (3) stricter immigration enforcement; and (4) fix Obamacare. That's about it. I'm not saying he will succeed on any of these points, but even liberals should agree with some of them.
2. The corporate candidate lost. For all the liberal moaning about Citizens United, it was Hillary that was the corporate candidate. She had the overwhelming support of the Wall Street financiers, and she outspent Trump 2-1. She still lost. Proof that money alone can't buy the presidency.
3. The Clintons are the very definition of corruption, and it is healthy for America and the rule of law that they have not returned to the WH. As I said in the other thread, this is the woman who set up a private server in her basement and later a bathroom closet to handle all manner of classified information, just to illegally dodge FOIA requests. These are the people who set up the Clinton Foundation as a SuperPAC to accept illegal pay-to-play contributions from foreign entities in exchange for State Department access. This is the woman who conspired to rig the nominating process against Bernie Sanders. This is the woman who started the Kenya narrative against Obama in 2008. This is the woman who stood on the tarmac and told the family members of Benghazi victims that it was due to a YouTube video, while privately telling her daughter it was terrorism. This is the woman who took the hatchet to Bill's numerous sexual assault victims while claiming to be a champion for women's rights.
4. Hillary's loss is a win for the rule of law, and that is important. The rule of law - that laws mean what they say and they are applied impartially - is the cornerstone of our society. In the short term, unraveling the rule of law has been helpful to liberal objectives (see, e.g., Obamacare rulings and executive actions, amnesty by executive action), but in the long term the rule of law is good for everyone.
5. Obamacare is a disaster. It needs to be fixed, but it is going to be really hard to do so. The GOP now gets to take all the blame for the hard choices that have to be made.
6. The media went full tank for Hillary, much as they did for Obama. The COLUSION between the Clinton campaign and media exposed by Wikileaks is appalling. Unlike with Hillary, the media will serve as a check against Trump, and perhaps restore some credibility in the process.
7. Donald is not going to start WWIII, and I think you know it. (Hillary wouldn't have either, btw).
8. Think about it: Donald Trump is the next president. As horrific as that may be to you, it is also going to be pretty funny.
39
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Is it racist?
« on: August 22, 2016, 03:28:39 PM »
Quick question for the MIR and other experts on racism and race-related issues...
I was talking on the phone the other day to a customer service representative. This was an issue I'd called about previously, but they had no record of my prior call. I then said "well, I can't remember the name of the person I spoke to, but it was a black woman" on such and such date.
At which point the rep paused and then said [imagine snottiest tone possible] "well how do you know she was black?" I answered "uh, she had a black voice?"
So admittedly, "black voice" probably wasn't the best phraseology - I was pretty taken aback by the rep getting so offended.
So is it racist to identify someone as black/white based solely on their voice?
(Also, this would probably be a helpful master thread for similar inquiries).
I was talking on the phone the other day to a customer service representative. This was an issue I'd called about previously, but they had no record of my prior call. I then said "well, I can't remember the name of the person I spoke to, but it was a black woman" on such and such date.
At which point the rep paused and then said [imagine snottiest tone possible] "well how do you know she was black?" I answered "uh, she had a black voice?"
So admittedly, "black voice" probably wasn't the best phraseology - I was pretty taken aback by the rep getting so offended.
So is it racist to identify someone as black/white based solely on their voice?
(Also, this would probably be a helpful master thread for similar inquiries).
40
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Bizarre Things That Actually Exist In Nature
« on: July 01, 2016, 08:38:11 PM »
I'm in Florida, and there's one of these in my back yard. This is where mangos come from. It's like a tree Dr. Seuss would draw, but actually exists.
41
Essentially Flyertalk / Things that make you feel old
« on: June 22, 2016, 12:25:22 AM »
Was reading about the ID4 sequel coming out this summer, and realized the original was 20 years ago. What in the hell?
42
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Cuba!
« on: March 22, 2016, 11:25:09 AM »
I'm so proud of our first socialist president "normalizing" relations with Cuba. His recent trip made for some marvelous photo-ops.
And in one picture, I give you Obama's foreign policy...
And in one picture, I give you Obama's foreign policy...
43
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Media Whores
« on: February 09, 2016, 04:18:48 PM »
This one deserves its own thread. FOIA request catches "journalist" red-handed shilling for Clinton.
http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058
http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058
44
Kansas State Football / Congrats Aqib Talib
« on: February 07, 2016, 06:32:44 PM »
You are Super Bowl 50's Biggest Dirtbag. 3 flags in 20mins
45
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Live Free Or Die!!!!
« on: February 06, 2016, 07:10:51 PM »
Better start a new debate thread. But I can't watch yet so please tell whenever Trump says something moronic. Thanks.
46
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / The dithering weakling
« on: January 13, 2016, 08:44:14 AM »
The dithering weakling is breathing a big sigh of relief. rough ridin' Iranians almost derailed his historic deal that's gonna stop Iran from building nukes (just like NK).
Also, props to the comparison of a broke down vessel straying a mile into Iranian waters as like marching soldiers into Moscow.
Also, props to the comparison of a broke down vessel straying a mile into Iranian waters as like marching soldiers into Moscow.
47
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Politifact and Other Liberal Media "Fact Checkers"
« on: January 06, 2016, 11:48:22 AM »
It's a presidential election year, which means the various "fact check" groups will be ramping into overdrive. But most of these groups are just liberal journalists spreading their propaganda under the auspices of "fact checking."
Take, for example, PolitiFact's recent assessment of this gun control howler from Barack Obama:
Of course, this isn't remotely true - a violent felon can't legally buy a gun, over the internet or otherwise. But PolitiFact rated the remark as "Mostly True" based on the following rationale:
Everybody get that? Because Obama said "can" instead of "may," he was obviously talking about how felons can break the law in purchasing over the internet.
But if you adopt PolitiFact's interpretation - that Obama was simply referring to felons breaking the law - then his comment is completely irrelevant. Of course a felon "can" violate existing law, the same way the felon "can" violate any new rules imposed under Obama's newlaw executive action. He'll simply use a straw purchaser, or find an illegal seller. So to get to "mostly true," PolitiFact chose to interpret Obama's remark in a way that makes it completely irrelevant.
Now try to imagine PolitiFact engaging in such Orwellian drivel in support of a Republican claim.
Take, for example, PolitiFact's recent assessment of this gun control howler from Barack Obama:
Quote
A violent felon can buy (a gun) over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.
Of course, this isn't remotely true - a violent felon can't legally buy a gun, over the internet or otherwise. But PolitiFact rated the remark as "Mostly True" based on the following rationale:
Quote
Quite a few readers flagged Obama’s claim that a violent felon can buy a gun online without a background check, so we decided to fact-check it.
Some readers seemed to think Obama was suggesting such transactions were legal. We don’t see that in Obama’s comments. (The grammarians at PolitiFact would note that Obama said "can," not "may.") To be clear, such a transaction would be illegal. What Obama said is that such transactions are possible. That is accurate, but it’s also a little more complicated than Obama’s comment suggests.
Everybody get that? Because Obama said "can" instead of "may," he was obviously talking about how felons can break the law in purchasing over the internet.
But if you adopt PolitiFact's interpretation - that Obama was simply referring to felons breaking the law - then his comment is completely irrelevant. Of course a felon "can" violate existing law, the same way the felon "can" violate any new rules imposed under Obama's new
Now try to imagine PolitiFact engaging in such Orwellian drivel in support of a Republican claim.
48
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Official Black Lives Matter Thread
« on: December 24, 2015, 10:50:38 AM »
I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Missouri football thread or any of the dozens of others on racial issues, so I thought it might be best to finally give the BL Movement an official thread.
Black Lives Matter recently succeeded in convincing people that Black Lives Matter by temporarily shutting down the Minneapolis airport. That, or they just pissed a bunch of people off.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_KILLINGS_BY_POLICE_MINNEAPOLIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-24-02-32-59
He thinks it was really effective, guys.
Black Lives Matter recently succeeded in convincing people that Black Lives Matter by temporarily shutting down the Minneapolis airport. That, or they just pissed a bunch of people off.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_KILLINGS_BY_POLICE_MINNEAPOLIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-24-02-32-59
Quote
"The mall was a decoy," said Black Lives Matter organizer Miski Noor, who protested at the airport. "I think it was really effective."
He thinks it was really effective, guys.
49
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / CNNzzzzzzz Debate Thread
« on: December 15, 2015, 08:15:07 PM »
Ok let's do this. Nothing much happening so far. Rubio Cruz and Christie doing best.
50
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Sensible Gun Measures
« on: December 11, 2015, 09:42:21 AM »
In this thread, we talk about sensible gun measures. I'll start with this very interesting article, about three bipartisan gun/ammo measures recently signed into law by President Barack Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/10/president-obama-signs-three-constructive-gun-measures/
I had no idea there was actually a movement afoot to ban ammunition using the EPA's power to regulate lead. Fortunately, our President and Congress worked together to put this silliness to rest.
Ok, so we now have a law that says our soldiers can carry guns while on base. I'm surprised we need a law for that, but ok. Thank you Mr. President and Congress!
Makes perfect sense. Why spend money to warehouse old military weapons when we can sell them to the public?
So there you have it - three sensible gun measures recently signed into law by Barack Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/10/president-obama-signs-three-constructive-gun-measures/
Quote
1. Prohibiting an administrative ban on lead ammunition
The first measure, in Section 315 of the NDAA, prohibits an administrative ban on lead ammunition. The Toxic Substances Control Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency administrator broad authority to outlaw almost any “chemical substance.”
I had no idea there was actually a movement afoot to ban ammunition using the EPA's power to regulate lead.
Fortunately, our President and Congress worked together to put this silliness to rest.Quote
2. Allowing military personnel to protect themselves
This summer, a jihadist attacked military recruiting stations in Chattanooga, Tenn. In 2009, a jihadist attacked the Fort Hood military base in Texas. He murdered 13 unarmed victims and wounded 30. The military personnel there were defenseless, so the criminal was not stopped until military police arrived. Section 526 of the NDAA takes a first step toward remedying the dangerous disarmament of our armed forces.
Ok, so we now have a law that says our soldiers can carry guns while on base. I'm surprised we need a law for that, but ok. Thank you Mr. President and Congress!
Quote
3. Sale of surplus handguns to the public
Since 1905, the federal Civilian Marksmanship Program has provided for the sale of some (non-automatic) military surplus firearms to the public. In 1996, the program was mostly privatized, but the Defense Department was required to continue to provide certain surplus arms to the program. 36 U.S. Code sect. 40728. Citizens may receive the arms only after going through the same procedures as are required for any other retail firearms purchase, including extensive paperwork and background checks. NDAA Section 1087 sets up a procedure allowing the transfer of up to 10,000 surplus handguns to the CMP. These handguns are .45-caliber model “1911” pistols (named for their year of invention). For the military, these pistols have been replaced by the 9mm Beretta. The 1911 pistols are now collectors items, being warehoused at a cost of $200,000 per year. Selling them via the CMP will reduce this expense and raise revenue.
Makes perfect sense. Why spend money to warehouse old military weapons when we can sell them to the public?
So there you have it - three sensible gun measures recently signed into law by Barack Obama.