prev <-> next
[2012-08-01 14:52:10] - http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/tethering-apps-must-be-allowed-fcc-tells-verizon/ fcc tells verizon that they must allow tethering apps in the android store - aaron
[2012-08-01 13:58:52] - aaron: yum! ~g
[2012-08-01 09:20:05] - http://i.imgur.com/ba0zd.jpg i want to make some of these right now - aaron
[2012-07-31 12:06:52] - Or how they taste. http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jul/27/anderson-man-arrested-in-connection-with-child/ -- Xpovos
[2012-07-31 11:50:37] - i'm sorry, i'm thinking about the children again. i think about how many don't have a home and how i should have them. i think about how cute they are. and how their ears and the whiskers and the nose. ~a
[2012-07-31 10:00:56] - paul: but if governent only spends the same amount that it spent before it's only $3.6 trillion! How can the government surive on such a paltry sum? WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE CHILDREN? - mig
[2012-07-30 17:32:59] - a: I know, I wasn't expecting a real serious answer.
-Paul[2012-07-30 17:29:02] - hey, it was your question! ~a
[2012-07-30 17:28:01] - a: And, of course, it's completely ignoring probably the biggest issue... entitlement spending. -Paul
[2012-07-30 17:27:04] - a: But that's also assuming government spending doesn't go up at all during those 20 years, which I don't know if it has ever happened. In fact, I think I read somewhere that we could theoretically get rid of the debt in a reasonable amount of time if we just kept spending constant and didn't increase it (thanks to GDP growth). -Paul
[2012-07-30 17:15:22] - paul: "so how many years would it take, at that rate, to bring the national debt to zero?" deficit0 = 1000, debt = 10000, change = 70, interest=.02, deficit =~ deficit0 + debt * interest - change*years. deficit = 0 when years =~ 17. it'll probably be closer to 20 if you take into account my lazy approximation. ~a
[2012-07-30 16:26:48] - Daniel: Having said that (and I can't believe I am saying this after GWB), but I think the Republicans might actually be slightly better (but still horrible) right now. Romney and Obama is probably a wash, but I think there are a few more Republican congressmen who might actually be serious about addressing the deficit than Democrats. -Paul
[2012-07-30 16:24:32] - Daniel: "Household budget != national budget" I guess I agree, but can you explain why that matters for my analogy? My original point was only that I didn't think Obama was serious about fixing the deficit (not that I don't have an opinion on who is less bad). -Paul
[2012-07-30 16:21:19] - Daniel: "If the world is going through such lengths to see Greece not default what lengths would they go through to avoid US default?" What CAN the world do? I think of it more like, "If a tiny country like Greece can screw things up this bad, what happens when the reserve currency of the world goes Greece?" -Paul
[2012-07-30 16:11:23] - I hope so, because if we can't, cuts will be made for us. -- XPovos
[2012-07-30 16:11:01] - Daniel: And if the economy never doesn't stink again? It's not at all impluasible that, probably partially because of some of these BS governmental decisions, we will never see better than 3.5% GDP growth again. Unemployment may never go under 6%. At least not for a generation or two. Can we cut then? -- Xpovos
[2012-07-30 16:08:42] - Paul: Household budget != national budget. So because neither party is "serious" in your opinion both are equally bad with no opinion on who is less bad? -Daniel
[2012-07-30 16:07:58] - Paul: And think if we can get healthcare under control and get on a glide path back down instead of up thats fully acceptable. I also agree with bho&co that I'm not sure that when the econ stinks is the best time to start making big chops. -Daniel
[2012-07-30 16:06:30] - Paul: Not that that should be used as an excuse to not do anything of course, just that I don't see any immediate danger to the US because of our debt. -Daniel
[2012-07-30 16:05:59] - Paul: I'm not sure I agree. In fact I kind of see it as the opposite. If the world is going through such lengths to see Greece not default what lengths would they go through to avoid US default? -Daniel
[2012-07-30 16:02:15] - Daniel: Yeah, but I think we're seeing how quickly things can change by watching Europe. I think people are just putting money into US treasuries because they look better than Europe does (for now). -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:59:55] - Daniel: I'm just making up those numbers to illustrate my point: Trying to do one thing that will help a tiny bit doesn't make up for doing a bunch of stuff that dwarfs that one good thing (which he hasn't succeeded in doing yet). -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:58:30] - Daniel: I'm not saying don't do it (I'm all for cutting foreign aid and NPR), but I'm saying I don't consider it a serious attempt. If I was spending $100k last year while making $50k, and this year I made $51k but spent $120k... does that really show that I am serious about getting my finances in order? -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:57:04] - Also from a different perspective while I think we all in general agree that the debt is something that we need to deal with but Treasury Bills are still considered one of the safest investment vehicles in the world so I think I'm in the camp that I'm ok with not freaking out about it while the economy isn't so great. -Daniel
[2012-07-30 15:54:34] - Drops in the bucket are important. They add up. I get that you want bigger change but I'm not sure thats a reason to disparage little ones. I think that spending could have gone down if R's had been willing to compromise on taxes some. Removing subsidies being deemed a tax increase was dumb I think. -Daniel
[2012-07-30 15:41:52] - a: Well, that's usually what people mean, but it could refer to a monthly or weekly deficit. I guess it's a little redundant, but I wanted to stress how insignificant an amount it was. -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:40:20] - a: So how many years would it take, at that rate, to bring the national debt to zero? I'm guessing it probably wouldn't even happen since interest would dwarf that difference. -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:38:24] - "the deficit for even one year" isn't that a little redundant? the typical deficit timeframe is one year, right? ~a
[2012-07-30 15:38:04] - mig: Yeah, I was going to mention the same thing. To me, letting the bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy seems similar to cutting foreign aid or public broadcasting. Technically it would make a difference, but it's a drop in the bucket. -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:37:19] - mig: 70b/1000b is 7%. it's hard to say 7% is nothing. i'd love to get to 7% of my goal of owning a robot factory run by robots. ~a
[2012-07-30 15:36:57] - mig: I can't remember the exact number, but I remember hearing that even if we taxed 100% of the income of the wealthy, it wouldn't cover the deficit for even one year. -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:36:43] - I don't find it much different than Republicans going apeshit zealous over tiny budget items like NPR and then on then ignoring farm subisidies or the Department of Energy's silly loan program. - mig
[2012-07-30 15:33:32] - letting all the tax cuts expire was projected to raise revenues by $3.2 trillion over 10 years. I'd disagree still with that proposition, but I would have at least think that stance would have some weight on actually addressing the deficit problem. - mig
[2012-07-30 15:30:43] - a: more specifically, he wanted the tax cuts to expire for only those making over $250k/year. The amount of revenue raised that I keep hearing is $700b over 10 years (basically, $70b/year). With the current deficit well over $1 trilllion, I'm having a hard time not seeing this as anything other than a symbolic gesture for populist pandering. - mig
[2012-07-30 15:22:12] - a: And if we're still comparing BHO to his opponents, I think most of the Republicans' intentions (whether honest or not) would've done more to help out the deficits. I don't think letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the "rich" will actually bring in much money (comparatively). -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:19:14] - a: Depending on your perspective, he either tried to let tax cuts expire or raise taxes (or, if you are the Supreme Court, then succeeded in raising taxes through Obamacare). Either way, while he might've tried to do something to reduce the deficit, he also successfully did a lot more to increase it. -Paul
[2012-07-30 15:06:19] - paul: bho tried to allow tax cuts to expire, right? whether you agree with this method plan or not, allowing tax cuts to expire will reduce the deficit in measurable ways. ~a
[2012-07-30 14:51:41] - http://home.southernct.edu/~pasqualonia1/ca/report.html someone made a random number generator based loosely on conway's game of life, and it is pretty fast and statistically random... this seemed like a weird way to solve a weird problem
- aaron[2012-07-30 12:45:12] - And given what actually happened, if he won election (instead of re-election) I could easily see him complaining about the exact same mess he'd inherited as the one he's leaving/maintaining. It's all politics. -- Xpovos
[2012-07-30 12:44:07] - I was anon, I copied it from a humorous plug I saw, and didn't want to steal attribution. That said, I think if this were McCain's first term, Obama'd be out stumping about what a terrible job McCain had done with his continuation of Bush-era policies and for failing to lower the unemployment rate enough, etc. -- Xpovos
[2012-07-30 12:04:43] - Daniel: I guess I'm kind of with you there, in that I don't think Boehner was too serious about big spending cuts, except I also don't think Obama was that serious either. He was the one warning about all the dire consequences if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, after all. -Paul
[2012-07-30 11:59:40] - Daniel: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/world/africa/kony-tracked-by-us-forces-in-central-africa.html?pagewanted=all And we're in Africa looking for Kony too. -Paul
[2012-07-30 11:58:57] - Daniel: Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan. I don't know if we're still involved in Libya or not. -Paul
[2012-07-30 11:57:18] - Daniel: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/us-special-operations-forces-75-countries "America's elite troops are working in about 70 countries, and that its country total by year's end would be around 120". -Paul
[2012-07-30 11:53:50] - Paul: Also I guess its hard to say for sure with politicians but I think Obama was sincere in trying to get the big deal on deficit stuff done with boehner when they were arguing over the debt ceiling and it was boehner who walked out. -Daniel
[2012-07-30 11:53:01] - Paul: I'm not sure what you are referring to when it comes to the wars subject. Where else are we currently engaging in "kinetic military action"? -Daniel
[2012-07-30 10:41:21] - a: if the sequestration cuts actually do happen in full (though I don't think congress will let it come to that), I think he will deserve credit for being a little serious about fixing the problem. - mig
[2012-07-30 10:38:39] - a: I mean, his actions on the deficit are even worse than George W Bush, who was easily one of the worst presidents on the deficit we've ever had. -Paul
[2012-07-30 10:34:49] - a: "he's trying to fix the deficit in a more serious way than his opponents" I've heard that from a few people, but I'm not sure I completely agree. Are you just comparing him to Romney? Because I guess I would agree there, but that's such a low bar... -Paul
[2012-07-30 10:33:24] - a: And don't we have more troops in Afghanistan now than we did when his administration started? -Paul
[2012-07-30 10:32:53] - a: Oh, I didn't know we were talking about things that had gotten worse over the past 4-ish years. It depends on your definition of "war", I suppose, but aren't we engage in "kinetic military action" (or whatever Obama called it) in more countries than we were before? -Paul
[2012-07-30 10:32:16] - though in obama's defense, he's trying to fix the deficit in a more serious way than his opponents. ~a
[2012-07-30 10:30:47] - but regarding the deficit, i'm in agreement with you. as they stand, the deficit numbers are beyond horrible. ~a
[2012-07-30 10:19:33] - i guess i probably should have linked to oef-a. ~a
[2012-07-30 10:11:25] - wtf? hasn't the number of wars we're actually seriously gone down?! assuming we're speaking in real terms, afghanistan is seriously and dramatically drawing down and the war in iraq is effectively over. oif, oef. ~a
[2012-07-30 09:59:36] - a: Ah, ok. Well, you also forgot the number of wars we're in and the deficit. -Paul
[2012-07-30 09:56:30] - paul: no, i was not anon. ~a
[2012-07-30 09:12:50] - a: Did you just have a conversation with yourself? -Paul
[2012-07-29 21:20:19] - unenemployment rate, dja, evolution, porn. ~a
[2012-07-29 21:02:47] - mess? ~a
[2012-07-27 22:51:39] - Poor President Obama. If he wins re-election, look at the mess he's going to inherit.
[2012-07-27 15:51:48] - mig: ssh tunnel. ~a
[2012-07-26 18:24:48] - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5592-Fish-FEZ-And-Supporting-Art-Over-Artists this video seems to be somewhat relevant to the discussion. do not try to view at work, i'm pretty sure the escapist is blocked at just about every workplace filter. - mig
[2012-07-26 18:07:47] - if the government takes actions against you for your political donations or your political opinions, is that not censorship? - mig
[2012-07-26 18:00:14] - mig: so i'm vocally against interracial-marriage and i donate tons of money to organizations that are anti-interracial-marriage. does that mean governments can't discriminate on this viewpoint just because they're only words and not actions? ~a
[2012-07-26 17:08:26] - mig: I just really wish the majority of people would hold the government to just half the level of the standards they seem to hold private businesses to.
-Paul[2012-07-26 17:05:13] - mig: Yeah, and I guess I should be clear that I completely support the right of anybody to boycott if they want. I just think it seems a little silly (and probably hypocritical in a lot of cases), unless, of course, there is more information that I don't know about. -Paul
[2012-07-26 17:01:08] - mig: Heh, sorry. I just get worked up sometimes about stuff like this because I can just imagine that most of the people outraged by this probably voted for a person who (at the time) had the exact same position, and was a lot more able to influence the laws about it as well. -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:54:00] - paul: " Well, I'm not saying the CEO was smart or doing a good job of marketing." And that's really I guess my own main point. If bad marketing or unsound political advocacy causes enough people to be angry at you that it causes your company to go out of business or to lose a chunk of your business. Well all I can really say is vive laisse faire. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:44:57] - paul: as i said before that's up for the individual to decide. As for you point on putting thought into that decision, I will definitely agree. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:42:24] - mig: Is throwing away all that charity that (I assume we can all agree on) goes to good causes worth punishing the CEO for speaking out against gay marriage? I don't think so, but others might disagree. I just hope those same principled people consider taking similar stands with organizations which are similar or worse. -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:40:54] - mig: Well, I'm not saying the CEO was smart or doing a good job of marketing. I'm just saying that if people really want to do stuff like boycotting organizations that do stuff they disapprove of, I hope they do a little research of their own instead of going by what the media tells them. -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:40:45] - paul: i'll still drink, just for another reason. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:39:27] - Some religions have inconsistencies. More people have inconsistencies in how they attempt to apply their religion, but most religions are at least trying to build a rational whole. They're just starting from different first premises. -- Xpovos
[2012-07-26 16:39:16] - mig: "if Chick Fil-A goes bankrupt tomorrow because no one patronizes them anymore, I will have a drink to celebrate that fate" Yeah, but I know you like to drink, so I was sorry to disappoint you.
-Paul[2012-07-26 16:38:35] - mig: Those two actions go hand-in-hand, though. They promote and enact philanthropy because of the exact same philosophy that causes them to believe that the institutionalization of homosexual marriage is a real threat to society. You can't attack one platform of a religion while embracing another unless you are saying the points are inconsistent. -- Xpovos
[2012-07-26 16:35:04] - paul: dissapoint me? I understand those who want to boycot, but I won't condemn those who don't. It's a personal decision. I don't equate buying a product from somebody as the equivalent of you advocating those views, but I understand those who want to take that stand. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:31:22] - holy fuck my typing competency has fallen to the wayside today. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:30:34] - paul: well i don't think that's a fair statement to throw out there. If the CEO wants people to consider Chick Fil-A's philantrophy, maybe they should be highlighting that instead of holding political advocacy promotions that highlight a political viewpoint that more and more people are starting to cinsdier stupid and vile. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:30:14] - I hope the poor kids in Niger get some better schooling, and I also hope state governments legalize gay marriage. -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:29:36] - mig: Fair enough, but how many people do you really think that are worked up about this Chick-Fil-A thing are at least equally worked up about the things I listed which are more outrageous? Also, sorry to disappoint you, but I had Chick-Fil-A for lunch today. The drive-thru line was long and the food was delicious. -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:23:19] - or that Chick-Fil-A just will decide to cut off that charity funding? I guess the people boycotting Chick-Fil-A hate the poor people of Niger? -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:23:18] - paul: on that I won't necessarily agree. Just because you think boycotting Chick Fil-A is important doesn't you care less or work less towards other political outcomes one would consider important. And if Chick Fil-A goes bankrupt tomorrow because no one patronizes them anymore, I will have a drink to celebrate that fate. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:22:34] - mig: I know, I just get so angry that this is what people get worked up about and how black and white people try to make it. I saw that Chick-Fil-A spent $47k on building schools in Niger. What is a boycott more likely to accomplish? Causing gay marriage to magically be legal in all the states (which, coincidentally, is purely the government discriminating)... -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:15:31] - a: Do I wish the CEO supported gay marriage? Sure. But can't we try to fix this seemingly victimless crime of one man having an opinion until after we fix the problem of having 25% of the world's prison population, or the problem of there being a suicide among active duty US troops at a rate of one a day? -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:14:52] - paul: Well for one thing, its easier to portest businesses who advocate things you don't like rather than government doing things you don't like. It's a lot easier to organize "don't buy from this guy" campaigns than to protest the government. Much less risk of bodily harm or legal retaliation. - mig
[2012-07-26 16:11:37] - And yet even on it's worst day, nothing that I've even heard rumored that Chick-Fil-A has done (such as outright discrimination) compares to what our government does on it's best day (they don't outright discriminate against gays anymore, but how many funerals got drone-striked today? How many interrogations in Guantanamo?). -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:09:54] - some controversial comments, suddenly it's some evil company that should be banned everywhere and boycotted. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater... -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:09:30] - a: I guess what frustrates me is this double standard that I see from so many people where it seems like all they ever see is evil from businesses and all they ever see is good from government. From what I can tell, Chick-Fil-A has been donating a bunch of money to non-controversial charities for a long time and now, since their CEO has made... -Paul
[2012-07-26 16:04:19] - paul: i'm boycotting chick-fil-a because their CEO is vocally against gay marriage, yes. this is something i can do easily. my company did not turn down government work when it's CEO was against gay marriage. this is not something i can do easily without reformatting my and like ten other peoples lives. baby out with the bathwater and whatnot. ~a
[2012-07-26 16:00:39] - and in the end you may not care or even agree with the premise, but can you at least understand why people might be a little worried about politicians thretening legal actions against businesses for no other reason that they don't like the political viewpoitns of the people who run that business? - mig
[2012-07-26 15:56:20] - a: I would say viewpoint discrimination is discriminating against people because of viewpoints that they hold. You don't think such a thing exists? -Paul
[2012-07-26 15:54:36] - a: what you're describing is tangible discrimination. As far as I know (and if you have contrary evidence, please do share), there has been no issues with actual discrimination in either serving customers or in hiring practices. This whole thing has mainly been about (mostly) one man's opinion and how he advocates and supports that opinion. - mig
[2012-07-26 15:53:04] - a: You're boycotting Chick-Fil-A because their CEO is against gay marriage? Did your company turn down government work when it's CEO (Barrack Obama) was against gay marriage and actively discriminated against gays in the military? -Paul
[2012-07-26 15:52:11] - a: No, I think some people were protesting those things. However, I also think those things are magnitudes worse than anything I've heard Chick-Fil-A do, and yet the backlash doesn't appear to nearly as strong. -Paul
[2012-07-26 15:48:57] - mig: textbook discretion. if i was the mayor of a town that had a segregated school district, i would use my discretion when deciding how i could legally desegregate the schools. ~a
[2012-07-26 15:43:48] - a: you really don't see the first amendment implications of using the legal system to retaliate against a business when you're only objection is the founder of the business political views? - mig
[2012-07-26 15:41:59] - pro-slavery and anti-slavery: if i discriminate on one of those viewpoints, i've committed viewpoint discrimination! ~a
[2012-07-26 15:41:46] - "if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage" like somehow the anti-human-equality and pro-human-equality are just two viewpoints on a topic, neither right and neither wrong. ~a
[2012-07-26 15:40:10] - "viewpoint discrimination" wtf is viewpoint discrimination? that's not a thing. i finally disagree with the ACLU on something. ~a
[2012-07-26 15:37:36] - "different standards" what different standards? you think people weren't protesting about dadt and same-sex-marriage? ~a
[2012-07-26 15:13:29] - "“But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”" The link is from FoxNews, but I figure the ACLU should carry some weight with people here. -Paul
[2012-07-26 15:12:28] - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/ "The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage." -Paul
[2012-07-26 15:10:14] - not allowing gay marriage. -Paul
[2012-07-26 15:10:04] - Huh, ok. I guess I am constantly amazed by the different standards some people have for businesses and the government. I wonder how many people boycotting Chick-Fil-A were doing something (like turning down government contracts) while the federal government pretty much had an outright ban on gays serving in the military or protesting their states for... -Paul
[2012-07-26 14:50:36] - paul: what daniel said is basically the crux of it. When you tie the political beliefs of the founder with the promotion of the business (like they are doing with their aug 1 "family values day" type thing they're doing), that's going to generate a lot of criticism. - mig
[2012-07-26 14:45:38] - Paul: They are more active politically on a social issue than I'm aware of other companies being. Thats the only thing I know of. And they are more open about it maybe? I had no idea about the Dominios thing til today. -Daniel
[2012-07-26 14:32:54] - I just want to be clear, though: What is the worst thing that Chick-Fil-A has done? I've heard some allusions to discrimination, but nobody has outright said that they've done that. I've heard they fund groups that have some sort of gay to straight transformation camps, but is anybody forcing people to go to these? -Paul
[2012-07-26 13:35:00] - ummm, replace that second would with would not. - mig
[2012-07-26 12:59:29] - paul: Virginia's weird. The southern regions are *definitely* southern. I would call where we live southern though. - mig
[2012-07-26 12:56:28] - mig: Do you consider Virginia a southern state?
-Paul[2012-07-26 12:54:01] - a: so if southern states decided to expel every business that supported liberal causes through completely legal means (and zoing and licensing laws are vague enough that it's certainly possible, the legal efforts to block mosque constructions in various places make that clear), you'd have no issue with that? - mig
[2012-07-26 12:38:39] - a: Also, I'm a little confused about your stance on "fulfilling their mayoral oath". What does that mean? Are you saying you have no problems with anything a mayor does as long as it's legal? -Paul
[2012-07-26 12:37:30] - a: Why did you think they were lame before? -Paul
[2012-07-26 12:21:08] - ok cool, this hasn't changed my mind on walmart because i think walmart is pretty lame anyways. ~a
[2012-07-26 12:15:29] - a: http://news.change.org/stories/nyc-gay-rights-group-walmart-is-homophobic -Paul
[2012-07-26 12:10:19] - mig: as long as they're fulfilling their mayoral oath? nope. ~a
[2012-07-26 12:08:57] - paul: i don't shop at walmart anyways. but i actually don't know; what's the deal with walmart? ~a
[2012-07-26 12:00:22] - want to set up shop in some city in Texas. Let's say the local politicians, emboldened by the actions of the Boston mayor, decide because they don't like the founders political views, use the legal system to block that company from setting up shop in that city. I have to ask again, do you not see the problem here? - mig
[2012-07-26 12:00:02] - a: Let's try this again, this time with a hypothetical. Let's assume for the moment that the Boston mayor gets his way and is able to use the legal system to block Chick Fil-A from opening there. What if there's some company whose founder is openly in favor of supporting same sex marriage and donates moneys to political groups who advocate the same, and they ...
[2012-07-26 11:42:21] - a: http://www2.nbc26.tv/news/2012/jul/25/besides-chick-fil-which-other-companies-are-faith--ar-4205485/ Here are some more companies you might want to consider boycotting too. -Paul
[2012-07-26 11:39:36] - a: How far are you planning on taking it? No more shopping at Wal-Mart? -Paul
[2012-07-26 11:38:48] - a: the ... indicated my thoughts weren't finished, keep reading. - mig
[2012-07-26 11:36:03] - yep. ~a
[2012-07-26 11:34:54] - a: Did you decide to stop eating there because of how they use your chicken money? -Paul
[2012-07-26 11:33:11] - mig: menino has broken no laws either. what's your point? ~a
[2012-07-26 11:31:14] - Even if the law allowed the mayor to do as he wished, do you at least not see why it might be prolematic for local politicians to use the force of law against businesses over a matter which from everything I can gather, is simply a disagreement over a political issue. - mig
[2012-07-26 11:30:10] - i've decided to stop eating there recently, yes. in the last few days. yes, i knew they were socially conservative. no, i didn't know they were socially conservative to the point that they were using my chicken-money to fund anti-gay-rights groups. ~a
[2012-07-26 11:29:39] - a: as far as I can tell, Chick Fil-A has broken no laws, and it's only crime in the eyes of Boston's mayor is that the founder of the company holds some repulsive political views (and I'm 100% in agreement that those views are repulsive) and he gives his money to political groups who share in those views ...
[2012-07-26 11:28:12] - I guess I am a little surprised by the outrage, because right now I'm not hearing anything that I didn't think was already somewhat common knowledge-ish (that Chick-Fil-A was socially conservative in the groups they support). -Paul
[2012-07-26 11:24:33] - Daniel: Are you thinking of boycotting? -Paul
[2012-07-26 11:24:23] - a: So, you decided top stop eating there? How come? -Paul
[2012-07-26 11:23:05] - ah. hmm. the mayor is allowed to do whatever he wants in the confines of the law. i'm not sure if what he did was legal or not. ~a
[2012-07-26 11:13:15] - a: Using the words "in the eyes of the public" is evading the question. My question is not about public opinion or public outrage. That is a separate issue. My question is about the legalities of blocking businesses from establishing themsevles using the force of law. - mig
[2012-07-26 11:13:11] - It's rumored he was heavily involved in the recent efforts to turn around their shitty pizza image. -- Xpovos
[2012-07-26 11:12:55] - a: Less shitty now, at least in theory. They're a popular boycott target because prior to being sold to Bain capital (yes, Romney's group) they were owned by an extremely anti-abortion Catholic. He used money he made from the business to found a lot of projects too, and may or may not be involved with them again now that Bain spun them back into the public arena.
[2012-07-26 11:09:27] - make shitty pizza? ~a
[2012-07-26 11:08:40] - what did they do? ~a
[2012-07-26 11:06:43] - a: Do you also reject Domino's pizza? -- Xpovos
[2012-07-26 11:06:39] - mig: i did answer your question in a round-about way. i said "no" to a different question (the one about raytheon and the catholic church). but, no, i don't think they should be held to the same standard in the eyes of the public. ~a
[2012-07-26 11:06:05] - mig: Well, there is some controversial precedence. Remember the mosque at Ground Zero hullabalou? -- Xpovos
[2012-07-26 11:05:20] - daniel: i have this problem too. i've only recently decided i'm going to stop eating there. i actually eat there quite often. ~a
[2012-07-26 11:00:13] - Also you are not answering my question. I asked you if you think it's ok for the mayor to use legal force to block Chick Fil-A from opening, is it then ok for that same legal force to be used to block a muslim mosque. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:58:04] - Or instance of a restaurant refusing service to a openly gay person or couple without any sort of reprimand from above. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:57:06] - a: is there any documented instance of chick fil-a actually discriminating in their hiring policies? I'm afraid I'll have to go all out pierce on you and ask for citations. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:53:33] - My only problem with all of this is that Chick Fil A is soooo tasty. Its sad. -Daniel
[2012-07-26 10:51:46] - mig: do i think (say) raytheon and (say) the catholic church should be held to the same standards (in the eyes of the public) when it comes to hiring gays and funding of anti-human-equality groups? hmmm. no. i guess not. so i don't feel bad mocking (and boycotting) chick-fil-a for this. ~a
[2012-07-26 10:51:28] - reading online I didnt see any reference to donating to groups to cure gays. I saw that the Pres & COO of Chik Fil A basically voiced his support for same sex marriage. The quote I saw on Baptist Press (apparently this guy Cathy is Baptist not Mormon) didnt mention gays or anything. ~g
[2012-07-26 10:41:46] - looking online it sounds like Chicago's alderman is saying that he can work with the law to prevent Chik-Fil-A from entering... ~g
[2012-07-26 10:41:24] - daniel: http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061147182&position=0 “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned." that sounds like a legal threat to me. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:37:34] - http://perezhilton.com/2012-07-26-facebook-fast-food-chains-speak-out-on-same#.UBFV1vWfijc ~g
[2012-07-26 10:30:53] - a: do you have the same stance when I replace the words "Chick Fil-A Restaurant" with "Muslim Mosque"? - mig
[2012-07-26 10:27:28] - daniel: i dunno it's kind of implied that the Boston mayor wouldn't have a problem using legal force to keep Chick Fil-A out. He can hate on them all he wants, that's his perogative, and I have no issues with that. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:22:01] - Daniel: I agree with you on some level, but I'm also not a fan of a politican threatening to do something that wasn't legally binding. I'm not sure if many companies are going to risk the money establishing a location like that if a powerful politician (who might have the power to kick them out) has told them they aren't wanted. -Paul
[2012-07-26 10:19:26] - a: Are there discrimination charges against Chick-Fil-A? I thought that was illegal. -Paul
[2012-07-26 10:19:15] - mig: If the mayor said "You are not allowed and if you show up the police will kick you out" would be bad. -Daniel
[2012-07-26 10:18:52] - mig: Did the Boston Mayor actually prevent ChickFilA from being in Boston or did he just send them a letter saying "We don't want you here" which wouldn't be legally binding if ChickFilA said F you! and showed up anyways. I think sending a letter saying You Suck! seems 'ok' for a politician since they can get voted out if people disagree. -Daniel
[2012-07-26 10:17:06] - mig: well i'm for state/local rights. if a mayor or governor wants to ban a company known for discrimination, good for them. ~a
[2012-07-26 10:15:20] - paul: yeah that's where I think the line gets crossed where I don't get comfortable with it. Property rights and all that jazz. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:13:04] - paul: i dunno, i was just told this in conversation i didn't ask for a source or anything. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:13:03] - mig: Well, I'm fine with people boycotting companies or whatever (especially when it's issues I agree with
), but I've also heard about mayors banning Chick-Fil-A from their cities and whatnot. -Paul[2012-07-26 10:11:55] - a: Is this some previous conversation that we had? Because I have no idea what you're talking about.
-Paul[2012-07-26 10:09:52] - and his quote sounds pretty bad taken out of context (back to our previous conversation). "guilty as charged" answering a different question sounds pretty bad. hating on gays? guilty as charged. oppressive hiring practices? guilty as charged. killing kittens? guilty as charged! you didn't build that. ~a
[2012-07-26 10:08:57] - Essentially, if a company is going to have a big ass promo that is political in nature, expect politic opponents to crticize it. - mig
[2012-07-26 10:08:50] - mig: Do you know how the re-education centers work? Do people voluntarily go there? Or can people send their kids there? -Paul
[2012-07-26 10:07:57] - yeah anti-human-equality organizations. ~a
[2012-07-26 10:02:34] - There's also that big promo their having by inviting people to support "family values" (or hate on gays, depending on your persepctive) by going to Chick Fil-A, so people are responding to that. - mig
[2012-07-26 09:53:20] - At least that is how it was described to me. - mig
[2012-07-26 09:51:38] - paul: something about giving money to groups who specialize in "reeducation centers" for "curing" gay people. - mig
[2012-07-26 09:44:34] - Can somebody who is following the Chick-Fil-A dust-up explain to me what the worst thing that they have done is? I know they have funded groups that are against gay marriage, but I thought that was old news. -Paul
[2012-07-25 16:16:16] - mig: I just looked it up and you were right Batman didn't kill Joker in that comic we were talking about the other day. Joker does end up dead in it though which is why I think i got it confused. -Daniel
[2012-07-25 14:51:20] - Daniel: I've heard the same thing. Content providers used to sell them access cheaply because they saw it as free extra revenue. Now that DVD sales are dropping, they realize it will soon have to be more than extra revenue, so they are charging more and being more stingy. -Paul
[2012-07-25 14:49:04] - a: Luckily, I bought well after the high point. In fact, I bought after a few similar drops. I'm still a big believer in their long term prospects, but I acknowledge there are a lot of things that could trip them up. -Paul
[2012-07-25 14:37:51] - a: I think most people like their service that use it. I think the content producers are charging them more money because they are popular though. Thats what I've read/heard not 100% on it though. -Daniel
[2012-07-25 14:28:55] - i'm glad i didn't buy in 2011 when they were at 300. i'm very surprised by their new price, i still love their service and i'm surprised they aren't pulling in money hand over fist. ~a
[2012-07-25 14:26:47] - as the wife of a netflix stock owner: OUCH! ~g
[2012-07-25 12:59:09] - as a netflix stock owner: OUCH! -Paul
[2012-07-25 12:56:55] - a: But what does concern me is the underlying mindset behind those comments, where he seems to be trying to take away from the accomplishments of private enterprises. Does Apple use roads? Sure, but they also use food. I don't see any farmers trying to take any credit for Apple's success, though. -Paul
[2012-07-25 12:46:24] - a: I don't have a big issue with the "you didn't build that" quote or the "private sector is doing fine" quotes. Candidates make tons of speeches and are going to say things they regret or say things that sound bad taken out of context. -Paul
[2012-07-25 12:13:30] - a: aren't roads traditionally funded by gasoline taxes? I don't know of any local R's crusading for lowering gas taxes, and as far as I know, those "cuts" have been mostly due to people driving more gas efficient vehicles than anything else. - mig
[2012-07-25 11:51:00] - hmmm. halo 3 was released on 9/25 also. so weird. ~a
[2012-07-25 11:48:44] - mig: local R's typically want to cut infrastructure including roads. ~a
[2012-07-25 10:25:33] - daniel: MoP release 9/25/12. - mig
[2012-07-25 10:23:22] - What you want us to to stop cutting $500 million welfare checks to companies that go bankrupt? WHY DO YOU HATE ROADS AND POLICE!!!!! - mig
[2012-07-25 10:20:01] - I did find a lot of that speech annoying though. Honestly I'm getting tired of people trying to conflate the essential things government (the police, the firefighers) with the rest of the trillions of dollars of nonsense it does. - mig
[2012-07-25 10:14:10] - a: Well, yeah, it's taken out of context. But if he or his speechwriter didn't understand how cirtics wouldn't pounce on that statement ... well I don't know what to say. - mig
[2012-07-25 08:55:32] - mig: "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that." wow, that's not just out of context. that's a travesty. he was talking about roads. the "that" that you didn't build was roads? no, no you didn't build that! no. wow. just wow. ~a
[2012-07-24 18:09:11] - On a slightly related topic, I'm curious if people here have been following the presidential campaigns much. Particularly, I'm wondering what Obama supporters think of how he is conducting his campaign right now. -Paul
[2012-07-24 17:35:07] - g:
~a[2012-07-24 17:30:52] - g: Sure, but then can you agree that a vote for a third party isn't wasted (any more than a vote for a major party) by the same logic? -Paul
[2012-07-24 17:29:11] - Paul: per my statement more of an impact not necessarily a difference. Although I completely agree with Daniel that while one persons vote probably doesnt make a difference, the mindset of thinking your vote doesnt matter makes a difference. ~g
[2012-07-24 17:15:22] - g: I guess that seems more reasonable, although I would still wonder if your sister thinks that her vote is going to make a difference, even in a swing state like VA. -Paul
[2012-07-24 17:14:13] - a: I would go back to the arguments I made before, basically. I assume calling a vote dumb is similar to calling it wasted? -Paul
[2012-07-24 17:13:43] - I know my sister used to want to be registered in a swing state so she felt her vote had more of an impact. ~g
[2012-07-24 17:13:18] - http://notalwaysright.com/a-devil-may-hair-attitude/21916 ~g
[2012-07-24 17:12:54] - Paul: I think its more that VA is a swing state whereas MD is considered a foregone conclusion. ~g
[2012-07-24 17:06:40] - so here's an argument since we're on the topic . . . what if i argued that voting for a third party is dumb because they won't get the (say) 7% they need for people to actually care about the results. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:57:19] - mig: It was a little disappointing to me to, but I am ok with it. I actually heard that those funds come from voluntarily contributed money (the check box on the tax forms you submit in April). -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:55:32] - Daniel: I thought it was kind of silly that they were basically saying that the only way they felt like their vote counted is if the person they voted for won, but then I realized that's actually not too far away from how a lot of people feel about their vote. The better the chance that their candidate has to win, the less they feel like it is wasted. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:54:24] - down. Still it's dissapointing to me. - mig
[2012-07-24 16:54:02] - Daniel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote I remember somebody I knew who was Republican and moving from Maryland to Virginia talking about how they were happy that their vote would count now (presumably since MD kept on electing Democrats while VA was electing Republicans). -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:53:59] - a: actually that is one dissappointment I have in Johnson. I feel he should not have accepted those funds (Harry Browne was eligible for them as the LP candidate in 1996 and 2000 and turned them down both times). I don't think taxpayer money should go to any campaign. At the same time, fundraising laws really hamper 3rd parties, so the extra money is hard to turn
[2012-07-24 16:52:01] - a: Yeah, sorry, I was pretty much just making up numbers with 1% to 2%. Still, I think there is a stronger argument to be made that your vote has a better chance to make a real difference if you vote for a third party than if you vote for one of the two major parties. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:50:02] - hmmm . . . it also links to this so i dunno. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:47:23] - paul: Matching funds says 5%. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:47:03] - Daniel: If everybody just realized that all votes are basically equally wasted, then maybe we see 20% of Obama supporters stay at home, but we also might see Stein get 20% in the polls. It's the same rationale, I feel like. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:45:59] - Daniel: Right, and I guess that's my point. Basically all votes are wasted. I completely understand your point about the idea spreading and causing 10% of people to switch votes and then it's not wasted, but I think that leads right into the whole thing about people only not voting for third parties because they think they can't win. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:43:06] - \
[2012-07-24 16:42:34] - a: (2) Whether the Ds or Rs win by 1% or 2% doesn't make a big difference (GWB, who had the smallest of winning margins, governed as if he had a sweeping mandate, after all). (3) The difference between a third party getting 1% of the vote or 2% of the vote, though, could be absolutely huge in terms of exposure, automatic ballot access, matching funds, etc. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:41:11] - a: And that has always been the follow up message for me. I would argue a vote for a third party is actually LESS wasted than a vote for one of the two major parties because (1) Like I already said, your single vote isn't going to make a difference between who wins between Ds and Rs... -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:40:28] - Paul: I'm trying to think of the answer to that question. I'm not sure yet. Maybe its like a weird quantum thing where you can't know if its wasted or not until after the fact and you observe the results but then its collapsed into a set state and you can't change it anymore. If that makes sense. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:39:13] - paul: i don't think you should vote for a third party because you think they might win . . . you should vote for the third party because if they get N% of the vote, that might change minds about what messages we see. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:38:40] - a: I can't figure out which one of those is keeping you, then.
Is it #3? -Paul[2012-07-24 16:37:06] - i would consider voting for a third party if 1. i'm convinced my vote won't allow the R's to win. 2. i'm convinced my vote won't give the R's some sort of "referendum" or bullshit like that. 3. D is letting me down. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:37:01] - Daniel: Right, what is your definition of a wasted vote? What if you voted for Obama and he lost by 10k votes? Would you consider your vote wasted? -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:36:42] - yes
~a[2012-07-24 16:36:21] - a: You're just trying to tell me to give up my crazy ideas of a third party winning and being more of a pragmatist?
-Paul[2012-07-24 16:36:02] - Paul: I guess this depends on how you view wasted. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:34:42] - Daniel: I'm not really trying to convince you that you shouldn't vote for Obama or shouldn't vote or anything like that. I'm just trying to tell you that your vote (let's assume for Obama and he wins Virginia) is just as "wasted" as my vote (let's say for Gary Johnson and he gets 1 vote in Virginia). -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:34:12] - Paul: If you don't care about Obama/Romney then no its not wasted. Then it makes total sense to vote 3rd party and try and get them national attention to help them in future elections. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:34:08] - i'm not arguing your vote is wasted if you vote for a third party. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:33:09] - Daniel: But isn't that exactly what you believe (and that Adrian is trying to convince me of now)? That if I vote for somebody who isn't Obama or Romney, my vote is wasted? -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:32:46] - Paul: Unless you are out there actively trying to convince other people of the same thing! -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:31:37] - Daniel: I will bet you $100 that if you stay home from voting or vote for Mickey Mouse or anybody but Obama, it's not going to cause some seismic shift in voting patterns where 10% of Obama supporters in Virginia vote for Mickey Mouse.
-Paul[2012-07-24 16:30:48] - "ultimately third parties CAN win if Americans chose to vote for them" agreed. but the likelihood of them overcoming this is like super majorly unlikely. you need to be more of a pragmatist or else you'll die from old-age before you see any of your goals met. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:30:43] - Paul: And I'm saying if you convinced enough people of that it would be bad so I don't want to be part of it. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:30:16] - But the IDEA that your vote **doesn't** matter does matter - important typo. you probably read it correctly anyways
[2012-07-24 16:29:27] - Daniel: Right, you did say that, but I'm not asking you and 10% of voters to switch from Obama to Stein. I'm saying that your single vote doesn't make a difference. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:29:16] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
[2012-07-24 16:28:52] - you cannot kill an idea, cannot touch it or hold it. ideas do not bleed, ideas can change an election. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:28:15] - a: I don't think it's the only reason, but it definitely contributes to the problem third parties have. - mig
[2012-07-24 16:28:06] - a: I totally agree the two parties stack the deck (and something like instant runoff voting or approval voting or... pretty much any other method would be better), but ultimately third parties CAN win if Americans chose to vote for them. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:28:06] - If we had proportial representation or something different rather than winner take all pluarity wins then it would make way more sense to vote who you actually wanted to. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:27:18] - Paul: I thought I addressed that. Any one vote doesn't matter. But the IDEA that your vote does matter does matter because the IDEA can affect way more than 1 vote. If that IDEA shifts 10% of the voters away from one candidate then while any one of those isn't important the IDEA that moved them surely was. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:25:47] - I'm not sure its a logical fallacy. Its self perpetuating in our current system. But it seems logical to me that if 10% of the nation voted green party that would be pretty silly since they would never win and would help R's win in 48/380/10 splits all the time. Though I may not have the best definition of logical fallacy in my head. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:24:51] - an interesting view that i'm stealing from audrey . . . third parties cannot win because of our voting system. really it's not the american people that force the two parties, it's our voting system. and that really not that many countries use our voting system. we're like an exception or something. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:24:17] - Daniel: There is basically zero chance that your vote is ever going to make any sort of difference in a presidential election (or even state or local election). So why does it matter if your vote that doesn't make a difference went to the winner or not? -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:22:37] - Daniel: Well, the whole "wasted vote" concept is just a pet peeve of mine, because I feel like we should all be able to agree that it's just pretty much almost a logical fallacy like sunk money or whatever. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:20:53] - mig: Also like Adrian while I'm not 100% in line with Obama I'm closer to him than Romney. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:20:08] - mig: Yay politics! In my opinion R's are in general more dumb than D's and in my small tiny way of trying to push things towards being less dumb I'd rather a D win and an R lose so that R's have to change and be less dumb. IMO -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:19:53] - mig: it's not just about obama losing, it's about romney winning. i know obama doesn't really care about me and my views, but we at least overlap on some of the issues. ~a
[2012-07-24 16:18:34] - Paul: I'm not sure its true that she would win even if she got all the votes she would if everyone voted "truly" (not sure what to call that concept). I'm all for changing our system to give 3rd parties better viability but until then I will vote accordingly for someone I think can win. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:16:44] - daniel: I guess I have to ask, why does it matter to you if Obama loses. - mig
[2012-07-24 16:15:13] - Daniel: Or, perhaps a better way of phrasing it is that you can use that same rationale to say that is why voting for a third party candidate is absolutely not a wasted vote, because even though your single vote won't get them elected, if everybody else who supports them votes for them, they could win. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:12:03] - Daniel: Except that's the exact rationale (one vote doesn't matter, but if everybody thinks that way, it could make a difference) which is used to claim that third party candidates like Stein can't win. -Paul
[2012-07-24 16:09:31] - 2% being a completely made up random number. I don't think any one vote is generally important. But the idea that your vote doesn't matter can certainly affect way more than one person and then certainly does matter. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 16:08:30] - Paul: I think Virginia could be close enough that if a large portion of people think your way and vote for Stein it could cost Obama the state which I think is worse than Stein not getting 2% of the vote. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 15:58:06] - Daniel: But isn't your vote wasted anyway? Or do you really think Virginia is going to come down to one vote and the entire election will hinge on Virginia? -Paul
[2012-07-24 15:54:34] - Paul: Cause she won't get elected? Two party system and all that american politcal dysfunction, wasted voted and what not. -Daniel
[2012-07-24 15:47:38] - Daniel: How come? -Paul
prev <-> next