Re: the recent U.S. party conventions ...
Displaying poll results.19752 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8478 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7205 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any way to mod a poll as flamebait? This one is going to take off.
Re:Possible? (Score:3)
Is there any way to mod a poll as flamebait? This one is going to take off.
In all fairness the poll is simply about watching them. A flamebait poll would ask which had better speakers, etc.
Re:Possible? (Score:4, Insightful)
The context you're missing is that the US political system is a train wreck where even the decision to move Obama's speech to an indoor venue to avoid looming thunder storms is turned into a political cudgel by partisan hacks on the other side.
Re:Possible? (Score:5, Funny)
Obama's a loser, he should have delivered his speech in the rain, like President Harrison [wikipedia.org] in 1841. Hold on, I'm not sure that's such a good idea; if he dies from pneumonia, then we'd get Biden as President.
Re:Possible? (Score:4, Funny)
No! I pray every day for President Obama's health. To think we stand on the precipice of Biden as Chief Executive. He's only a heart beat away from the presidency. At least Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House so she's out of the line of succession. The horror.
Re:Possible? (Score:3)
There are those who consider Bush's picking Quayle as his VP to have been a carefully-calculated move to shield himself from assassination attempts -- "Off me, and look who you get as President."
Re:Possible? (Score:3)
And John McCain by picking Sarah Palin, and Obama, Biden.
A vice president's job these day is to try to stay sane and out of the way during the election campaign, and seem much worse than the president to all possible opponents once elected. When Biden makes gaffs, he is doing his job.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Possible? (Score:3)
Actually I kind of like President Obama. I disagree with most of his policies but he's intelligent and well spoken and seems to be a good guy. Every time Joe Biden opens his mouth idiocy comes out. Somehow President Obama is able to articulate his positions intelligently and I understand his position even though I generally disagree. What I hear from Joe Biden is incoherent insanity. He isn't as bad as Pelosi who is just straight bat shit crazy. There are many in the Democratic party I respect and respectfully disagree with. I even respect the heavily vilified Hillary Clinton. I don't like her but she is competent and intelligent and represents her side with class. Unfortunately all too many times it's the idiots like Pelosi that end up wielding way more influence than their limited abilities warrant.
Re:Possible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, 4 years from now, the country will be about the same, no matter which one gets elected.
Re:Possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, jmorris42, for that wonderful example of exactly what I was talking about.
Re:Possible? (Score:3)
That's because any time we use "American" in these discussions we get complaints from the people of "America's Hat". They think "American" refers to the continent.... And don't like being tossed in with us crazy USians.
Re:Possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
"you don't really need to watch the conventions to know if you're going to check the (D) or the (R)."
I'm sure that I'm NOT voting for 'D' or 'R'. Will probably vote 'L' with a bit of reluctance. Not a huge fan of Gary Johnson, but it's a way to be reasonably sure that my vote is counted and reported.
I'm part of the 96% (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:5, Interesting)
USA is run by Goldman-Sachs anyway. They have their people in top positions of both parties.
If you really want to know what policies that USA is going to have in the future, go find out what Goldman-Sachs is lobbying for.
The party conventions are mostly for show, to rally the troops before the election. Most of what is said at them is meaningless platter.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:2)
oh come on, there are bigger corporations than Goldman-Sachs with our government in their pockets. they are well connected, but not the most connected
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:4, Informative)
Top 5 contributors to Mitt Romney: (via OpenSecrets.org)
1 Goldman Sachs $676,080
2 JPMorgan Chase & Co $520,299
3 Morgan Stanley $513,647
4 Bank of America $510,728
5 Credit Suisse Group $427,560
Top 5 for Barack Obama:
1 University of California $491,868
2 Microsoft Corp $443,748
3 Google Inc $357,382
4 DLA Piper $331,715
5 Harvard University $317,516
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:5, Informative)
This figure refers to contributions made by employees of X Company. So it's the Big Bank's employees here, not the banks themselves, that back Romney. And it's the University and Tech employees, not the institutions themselves, that back Obama.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:4, Informative)
"Over Obama’s entire career, Goldman has been his second biggest contributor, according to OpenSecrets, giving him more than $1,051,000."
Check Goldman Sachs contributions to President Obama beyond this recent campaign.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:2)
If so Romney is in a far worse position than Obama.
Not only are his top-5 all banks (catering to all of them is relative easy: similar interests), his top-4 is each donating more than the highest donating sponsor of Obama. If Obama were to lose his nr 1 donor, that'd hurt about as much as Romney losing his nr 4 donor.
Also if Romney were to lose the support of the banks, would mean him lose his top-5 donors all in one go. A huge amount of money just there. This makes it so much more important for him to keep the support of the banking world, than it would be for Obama to keep the support of the universities.
That said, why are universities donating money to politicians? They receive a large part if not most of their income from the state, they have a public function (education), and are supposed to be politically neutral and independent.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:3)
Re:WTF? The University of California? (Score:4, Informative)
From opensecrets.org:
So it isn't University of California as the university donating the money, but the UoC employees, or one of their associated groups, doing so.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:3)
Thanks for the language lession. Yes, I am one of the 96%.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:2)
I am one of the 96%.
So am i, i'm pleased to say!
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:2)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:2)
Or, maybe, "plattitudes"?
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:2)
I'm also part of the other 96% but I have no clue what this poll is about. All politicians are utter crap in my country and I really don't want to touch politics with a 10-foot pole.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:3)
Democracy: the right to choose between a bunch of self serving bastards who don't give a fuck about you and a bunch of self serving bastards who pretend they do give a fuck about you.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:5, Funny)
The US population is about 4% of humanity
But just like cream, we rise to the top.
Because we're fat.
Re:It isn't because of people like you. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only people that shouldn't complain are those who vote to continually reelect the politicians they bitch about. So, my beef is with them, not the people they elect. Doing nothing is still an improvement over voting for a republican or democrat. That is the ultimate wasted vote. It's a sell out to the highest bidder.
Re:It isn't because of people like you. (Score:2)
taxes to the federal government aren't the source of your roads and utilities
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:3)
No, spoken as a realist. Too bad you can't see what is right in front of you. Instead you spout politically correct euphemisms. Good luck with the real world.
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm part of the 96% (Score:3)
You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with nationalism but rather realism. Check your paranoia at the door.
I watched selected clips (Score:3, Interesting)
And followed the news, posting some commentary and clips on my political blog [battleswarmblog.com]. I also followed along on Twitter [twitter.com].
However, at the same time, I was attending the World Science Fiction Convention [chicon.org] in Chicago, which I covered on my other blog [lawrenceperson.com]. And I took a lot of pictures I posted to my Facebook page.
It was a busy week.
If you vote for Obama Chuck will kick your ass! (Score:4, Funny)
If we fail to stop Obama, we will experience a thousand years of "darkness"! [youtube.com]
Re:If you vote for Obama Chuck will kick your ass! (Score:2)
Re:If you vote for Obama Chuck will kick your ass! (Score:2)
What do I care? (Score:5, Insightful)
And in this case, the media chose Romney a long time ago. Seeing Romney and Paul as the only choices on my primary ballot was comical (in a not so funny way). Now I know how all the liberals felt during Bush vs. Kerry. This November, I'm going from the poll straight to the bar to drink away my sorrow.
Re:What do I care? (Score:2)
You might consider going to the bar before the poll. It might make voting a bit more entertaining...
Re:What do I care? (Score:3)
It sounds like you have chosen a party which isn't interested in what you want and makes no attempts to put forth candidates who represent your political beliefs.
If a party failed to represent my interests, I would cease to be a member of that party. Your brand loyalty is commendable. Not everyone would put loyalty above their own politics and their own self-interest, sacrificing individual's desires to help achieve the collective's elite leaders' goals.
Re:What do I care? (Score:2)
I don't pay attention, except for a few laughs (Score:2)
Too busy watching the "man behind the curtain"... That's where the real action is.
No. Just no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Same everywhere (Score:4)
We have elections here in the Netherlands next week, so I follow the dances of both the Dutch and the American politicians. They both behave in the same way. They mainly tell you how stupid and backwards the other candidates are, and they promise the world to you without telling you how they will achieve that. Extremely boring and tedious. I think they are all amateurs so I had a hard time to choose the least bad one.
Re:Same everywhere (Score:2)
At least in the Netherlands you have more choices than two. And the differences between the parties are bigger (especially thanks to the presence of all those fringe parties).
Going to be a fun election and interesting time ahead. Let's see whether they can break Belgium's record of longest formation.
Libertarian? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't bother following any of the recent conventions, because my mind was already made up. Obama's treating the Bill of Rights as a list of things to demolish, and Romney would be even worse.
The Libertarian convention was months ago, and they picked Gary Johnson as their candidate. He comes across as a slightly more awkward, slightly more reasonable Ron Paul - although I disagree with many of his positions (going back to the gold standard, for instance), the things we disagree on he recognizes are mostly Libertarian ideals and that he will focus on the more immediate problems (he wants a balanced budget IMMEDIATELY).
It's a rather sad state of affairs when a self-described "small government socialist" finds the party that closest matches his ideals is the Libertarian Party, but that's America for you.
Re:Libertarian? (Score:2)
Re:Romney would not be worse (Score:2)
I would really like going to this planet you live on.
In my life time the fiscal difference between Republicans and Dems is this:
Dems tax and Spend
Republicans spend the same amount without taxing.
One of those is more reckless than the other.
Then when the Rs are out of power they find their 'fiscal conservative roots' and that lasts just long enough for them to be elected. Also to think that Republicans are going to weaken the TSA, DHS, FBI, NSA etc is not even remotely realistic. There s nothing libertarian about the social policies of the modern GOP. sorry maybe gun laws
Yes, but not now (Score:2)
Republicans spend the same amount without taxing.
That is very true and why I voted for Libertarians many times before.
However thanks to the Tea Party the Republicans are driven in a new direction. Some of the worst R offenders have been driven off, the remainder must toe the line. This time Republicans gaining power cannot simply spend more, and indeed will probably be forced to raise some taxes.
This time around the Republicans are much more realistic than the Democrats are as to what must happen.
Re:Yes, but not now (Score:3)
Re:Yes, but not now (Score:2)
They're about low taxes, full stop.
WRONG. Many are simply about fiscal responsibility, and all of them are ALSO about smaller government.
Smaller government necessarily means less spending, a huge start.
But you would be surprised at how many are also open to some reasonable taxes as long as there are real spending cuts - no reductions in a raise that was planned as is usually the case. The Tea Party is done with spending for expansion. Too many want extra taxes simply to pay for continued existence of wasteful programs or further expansion.
Re:Romney would not be worse (Score:3)
If I were you, you'd probably have better results voting Obama for president and R down the list for every other position house and senate. We could end up with the same mix that gave us the glory years that Clinton gets credit for. Although he was just the mediator of Republican plans. Face it Republicans have about 25% good ideas and 75% nutty crap while Democrats have 100% misguided feelgood but bad ideas. But you put a Democrat as the final filter on Republican plans it makes for a pretty good government.
Re:Romney would not be worse (Score:2)
While an interesting theory you need a point guy to say why we are cutting government so much in the coming years. Obama would try to backstab any real cutting plans as the president still has a powerful voice. We must really be committed to fiscal discipline and cannot afford Stater or Waldorf undermining those efforts from on high.
Romney can help explain reasonably why moving power and functions to the states makes sense.
P.S, would agree in other cases (Score:2)
If it were either Clinton running for president I would totally agree with you, as I prefer to have a balance of parties across roles in government normally. The Clintons are far more realistic and could get things done.
Obama is too petty to allow a Republican controlled house/senate fix anything.
Re:Romney would not be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say, we need a balanced budget NOW. Something like that is way more likely to happen if Republicans take control than Demcorats.
You think so? It seems to me that if the Republicans gain control of the government, one of either two things will happen:
(a) they will follow through on their promises and drastically cut government spending to balance the budget, while at the same time drastically cutting taxes for the rich. The resulting layoffs and chaos will result in their being thrown out of office again two years later, with the deficit larger than ever due to the decrease in tax revenue and the double-dip recession they caused.
or
(b) The Republicans are smart enough to realize that they need to avoid (a), and therefore they will cut taxes on the rich (as promised) but only make some minor spending cuts, leaving the deficit bigger than ever (but at least without a double-dip recession).
If I had to bet, I'd go with (b), but you never know. I think a better outcome would be obtained if Obama is re-elected, and uses the mandate (such as it is) of re-election to force the Republicans into a compromise plan that involves both spending cuts and increased taxes. That worked well in the '80s and '90s, I don't see why it wouldn't work again.
Re:Romney would not be worse (Score:3)
I recall a chart published some 15 years ago, about the US budget deficit over the previous 30, 40 years. Spanning various presidents.
Surprisingly, the budget deficit would decrease significantly and even end up in a budget surplus under democratic presidents, and increase quickly again under republican presidents.
Re:Romney would not be worse (Score:2)
States rights is also a huge reason I am voting for many Republicans this year. Just that alone would reduce so much corruption...
Missing Option (Score:5, Informative)
PARTY! (Score:5, Funny)
Wooooo! Yeah, bro, I'll totally be at the party! What's the party about, bro? It's... oh.
Re:PARTY! (Score:2)
Wooooo! Yeah, bro, I'll totally be at the party! What's the party about, bro? It's... oh.
The thing to do, if you are a delegate, is go party on other people's money and then show up for the vote. I figure most of them do this, in both parties, anyway.
Re:PARTY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Conventions have become an Anachronism (Score:2)
We already know all we need to, thanks to interwebs and instant reporting of primary results by news outlets trying to be the first with the breaking news. Further, the primaries are moving up to earlier in the year, so the next campaign starts the day after the election, effectively. Nobody is telling us anything we don't know at the conventions. They're like future reruns. Boring.
Missing option: (Score:2)
I made an active (but unsuccessful) effort to avoid hearing anything about them.
Somewhere between the first and second options. (Score:2)
I did watch a few minutes of Eastwood's speech, because Barry claimed that it was a good speech, so I thought it might be funny. It turned out, however, to just be incredibly boring, which I guess is not very surprising given that he probably wrote it himself, and I've never been a big Clint Eastwood fan.
You forgot the option... (Score:2)
"What are these "conventions" of which you speak?
Re:You forgot the option... (Score:3)
It's similar to Comic book conventions although the costumes are different. And comic book conventions have speeches based more in reality.
can't stand the republicans, only watched the dems (Score:5, Insightful)
After their long, drawn out primary full of corporate appeasers, I'm through listening to the Republican talking points. They never change their stances, it's always:
Republican Talking Points:
-Reduce taxes.
-Make unions, abortion, gay marriage (of any form), and anything else that might empower or reinforce the personal liberties of the citizenry illegal.
-Proclaim the Dems guilty of whatever the Repubs are responsible for creating/doing/passing. (The great depression we're currently swimming around/out of? That was Clinton's fault before it was Obama's fault.)
You must remember that it was a Republican, Joe Wilson, who interrupted a President during a Presidential Address to a joint session of the Congress on the State of the Union for the FIRST TIME IN US HISTORY. His "you lie" is a very appalling epitome of the numerous misconducts committed by the Republicans in the last 4 years. His example can not be forgotten. The entire Republican party is damned by the likes of Wilson and other elected Republican officials who are guilty of gross disrespect of the US Presidency.
So, I'm done listening to the Republicans and didn't bother to watch their convention. I have listened to them enough, already, to fully comprehend their positions and policies on anything and everything I'm interested in knowing.
But I did watch the Democratic convention. Unfortunately, they didn't go through a 2 year long primary so the media haven't spent 2 years discussing each and every Democratic platform policy. But I can tell you this:
President Obama has:
-Passed healthcare reform through the house, senate, *and* the judiciary. This reform mandates personal healthcare coverage. It also mandates insurance companies insure every part of a person's health, there are no pre-existing conditions anymore. There are other changes, but those are the two that the Republicans have pointed out most often.
-Killed Osama Bin Laden.
-Ended the war in Iraq and reduced the US presence in Afghanistan.
--Overseen ever increasing use of military "drones" to combat terrorists.
-Passed at least 2 major Keynesian-style stimulus bills.
-Shutdown the Yucca Mountain Project. (I don't agree with his doing this. But it was a 2008 campaign promise, and I respect his living up to his word so markedly.)
-Created at least one economic regulatory commission.
-Handled the worst oil spill in the history of the US (Deep Sea Horizon).
-Reinforced the rebels in Libya in their overthrow of a dictator via direct and international cooperation.
-All the other things I've forgotten.
Missing Option (Score:3)
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:2)
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:2)
+1 on the Empty Chair interview. I love how half the issues Eastwood brought up are opposite of the Republican Party's beliefs.
That's because the GOP is made up largely of people who they wouldn't have anything to do with about 30 years ago. It wasn't always a party of intolerent hypocrites who spend money and believe cutting taxes will generate more revenue (voodoo economics.) I met an elderly man named Frank Thomas in West Virginia several years ago, famously known as "Five Dollar Frank" - he would fly you over the New River Gorge in his private plane for $5. He said he and a few of his friends considered themselves the last vestiges of the true republicans, he considered the present GOP to be full of democrats.
I was lucky enough to buy his books, "It is this way with men who fly" and "State of Confusion: West Virginia", which are now pretty hard to find for a reasonable price.
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:3)
> Ronald Reagan would be considered "too far left" to get the party's blessing.
Too far left?? Did everyone forget that Reagan said ...
Reference:
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan [reason.com]
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:2)
Tax cuts by Obama ... some links (Score:5, Informative)
Screw the press - go read the actual source. The democrats did cut taxes. Ignoring the Bush tax cut extensions, the other three big tax cuts:
The stimulus bill is here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr1enr.pdf
Go through the whole of section B that talks about Tax cuts
The affordable care act is here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
Check Part E / Section 1 for details of the tax cuts
The HIRE act tax breaks are detailed better on the site than on the bill. Here:
http://hireact.org/
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:3)
... and believe cutting taxes will generate more revenue (voodoo economics.)...
It isn't a matter of voodoo economics, its a disagreement about what part of the Laffer Curve [wikipedia.org] we're on (and the shape thereof).
It is fact that there is a point beyond which raising taxes will decrease revenues longterm. The Republicans think we're above this point, the Democrats think we're below this point. And then it becomes highly political, almost nobody knowing what they're talking about.
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:4, Insightful)
... and believe cutting taxes will generate more revenue (voodoo economics.)...
It isn't a matter of voodoo economics, its a disagreement about what part of the Laffer Curve [wikipedia.org] we're on (and the shape thereof).
It is fact that there is a point beyond which raising taxes will decrease revenues longterm. The Republicans think we're above this point, the Democrats think we're below this point. And then it becomes highly political, almost nobody knowing what they're talking about.
And knowing nothing about what they are talking about is what politicians and talkshow hosts have perfected to a lucrative art.
I really enjoyed studying economics and the thing about Reagan's tax cuts which blew me away, was the belief it would result in more money circulating, faster, thus increasing revenue. Overlooked was the prospect of inflation, which defeats the whole purpose of trying to increase the rate of spending. Further it tends to create 'bubbles', which if not monitored closely, result in 2008 banking collapse scenarios.
If there is one thing to take away from taxation it is that changing tax rates on the uber rich does not result in changes in unimployment or the wages of the middle class. The rich in the US have it good, as tax rates for their brackets are far higher in most other developed countries.
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:2)
And taking advantage of the fact that the majority of the populous knows nothing about what they are talking about is what politicians and talkshow hosts have perfected to a lucrative art.
FTFY.
Re:any impact is probably the least-scripted bit. (Score:2)
And knowing nothing about what they are talking about is what politicians and talkshow hosts have perfected to a lucrative art.
Hear! Hear!
I really enjoyed studying economics and the thing about Reagan's tax cuts which blew me away, was the belief it would result in more money circulating, faster, thus increasing revenue. Overlooked was the prospect of inflation, which defeats the whole purpose of trying to increase the rate of spending.
It's worse than that. For decades we've had constant INTENTIONAL inflation. The theory being that inflation drives people to try to outrun it by investing, and thus driving up the economy. (And supposedly, it keeps us away from a deflationary spiral.) This is countered by ineptly low interest rates, discouraging sound investment in favor of risky investment. (I think this is somehow tied to lowering interest on the national debt, which is also aided by inflation.)
Further it tends to create 'bubbles', which if not monitored closely, result in 2008 banking collapse scenarios.
Yes, inflation does... but didn't in this case. It might have contributed, but it wasn't the driving factor. It was caused by lots of things. The short list includes:
SEC and other regulators were asleep at the switch;
Ratings agencies were asleep and rubber stamping things;
Big bank executives just assumed their officers knew what was in the derivatives they were trading;
Mortgage originators assumed big banks knew what they were doing;
Someone discovered how to make risky derivatives look less risky by making them complicated;
Nobody thought of systemic risk.
If there is one thing to take away from taxation it is that changing tax rates on the uber rich does not result in changes in unimployment...
unemployment
...or the wages of the middle class.
It does, but far, far less than they would have us believe.
The rich in the US have it good, as tax rates for their brackets are far higher in most other developed countries.
Most other developed countries are more socialist than we... and that philosophy is driving a dependency problem that is destroying Europe (starting with Greece). I know that seems like a non-sequiter. I just want to be clear that if you're taking from the rich to give to the poor, you need to be careful how it's done. Carelessness does destroy economies.
More of stuff that matters to geeks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and every geek I know cares about the funding of science, adherence to facts and logic, and simple budgetary arithmetic. The whole "Gee, who knows what's true or not?!? They're just fighting about things I'm too lazy and shallow to learn about, and isn't Snooki on TV?!?" thing is just about the opposite mentality of geekdom.
Re:More of stuff that matters to geeks... (Score:2)
Same here. I heard of Clint Eastwood's speech from a comedy site and read a few articles about it after that, and I'm vaguely aware that Bill Clinton spoke at the DNC, that's about it.
Re:More of stuff that matters to geeks... (Score:2)
Re:More of stuff that matters to geeks... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that British media often does a better job of covering American stories than American media. Not sure how it works in the other direction or for other country pairs.
Re:I'm aware, but didn't follow @ 45% (Score:3)
It's not that I don't care about politics. It's just that I don't particularly care about politics in another country than my own.
Re:I'm aware, but didn't follow @ 45% (Score:2)
I'm aware that it has the potential to have an indirect impact on me - after all Australia seems to get dragged along like a much younger brother on all of big brother USA's poorly considered escapades. However I have no say in how you decide the outcome of the race, so getting all worked up about it is of little benefit.
I'm deeply concerned by what I'm hearing come out of the extreme right, the hatred, ignorance and intolerance that is being reported in the press is setting the western world down an unpleasant and dangerous path.
Re:Nothing but what was in my Twitter feed. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm voting for Mickey Mouse this year...
For what? To extend copyright another hundred years?
Re:Nothing but what was in my Twitter feed. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm voting for Mickey Mouse this year...
For what? To extend copyright another hundred years?
Your post has mod points as funny, but it should have been modded insightful.
Re:Nothing but what was in my Twitter feed. (Score:5, Funny)
That's because there's no "+1 Depressing Truth" mod option.
Re:Nothing but what was in my Twitter feed. (Score:2)
Preach brother.
If you wanna see the Mouse's attitude, go look at a Disney DVD. Every other studio puts a (C) year on there, denoting the year of Copyright, with the implication someone might want to know the year to know if it has expired. Not the House of Mouse, they just say Copyright without a year because as far as they are concerned it ain't ever going into the public domain if they can help it.
Re:Eastwood (Score:4, Interesting)
I assume catching a couple of minutes of Clint Eastwood's rambling talk while channel surfing constitutes "I watched just a bit of one or both of them."
While they talk about it being a misstep, it's the one thing people will remember.
Since I've heard about it, I didn't bother to watch it, but suspect it did have its moments.
Re:Eastwood (Score:2)
Re:Missing option (Score:2)
Maybe. I always figured it was:
[x] Tell other people to think/behave like me.
[ ] Gi'me stuff
Re:Missing option? Or just lumped into the first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't watch them to hear what they say... Watch them to see how they think.
The things that they say are the things that they think will resonate. They reveal what politicians think of you. The things they don't say are either the things they think are politically dangerous, or inane. More often it's the latter.
Re:Missing option? Or just lumped into the first? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, one way or the other, it's irrelevant since I'm Canadian.
All I can do is watch the trainwreck, and see how badly it ends up fucking up the rest of the world.
Re:Vote for the Best (Score:2)
Re:For Sale - Political Convention Mad-Lib book, U (Score:2)
I haven't heard an original, meaningful and heartfelt speech from a Presidential candidate in 30+ years.
That likely means the election 32 years ago then, or you would probably have said 35+ years to exclude it. You thought either the jellybeans or peanuts candidate was meaningful and heartfelt? Good grief!
If you had gone back to FDR or Eisenhower, I might agree.
But Reagan was just circus. Heartfelt? He was an actor!