prev <-> next
[2013-10-29 14:38:38] - a: the latest I keep hearing is that there will be a pc version probably but R* is not going to do a next-gen release of gtav. - mig
[2013-10-29 14:26:02] - mig: do you think gta5 will release a ps4 version? ~a
[2013-10-29 14:24:45] - OH, i almost forgot. The controllers will actually work with the PS3. so it's not totally useless to ship them early, i suppose. -mig
[2013-10-29 14:24:30] - despite all the high profile texas changes, my good old map is still up to date? i guess maybe. ~a
[2013-10-29 14:23:59] - I guess this is common for system releases, maybe? The games are still listed as arriving on the tuesday before release (11/12), so I dunno. - mig
[2013-10-29 14:23:20] - a: you are correct. The system won't be arriving until 11/15. I don't know why they are shipping the controller now unless .... amazon just felt like sending it to me. - mig
[2013-10-29 14:22:28] - ummm, i didn't think the ps4 was out? why would you get a controller and no console? ~a
[2013-10-29 14:20:28] - my ps4 controller is apparently arriving ... tomorrow! oh joy! - mig
[2013-10-29 14:00:06] - mig: You've largely stated my position. I have no problem with either half of the new Texas restrictions, but I'm opposed to the T/V ultrasound requirement that got a lot of flack in Virginia. I'm also marginally opposed to ultrasound requirements in general... I don't think guilt is an effective tool in the pro-life arsenal. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 13:47:16] - aaron: there's one caveat I would place on the whole being a pro-life libertarian. A libertarian (imo, anyways) shouldn't be for things like the mandatory ultrasounds or the laborous and unnecessary regulations on hopstals that do abortions. The focus should be on making the moral argument and hope that convinces others. - mig
[2013-10-29 12:29:14] - aaron: yeah, bitcoin's infancy was extremely volatile. and yes, i think we're still in bitcoin infancy. ~a
[2013-10-29 12:20:50] - mig: Yeah, it's a shame how all of the movies have treated Cyclops (even before X3). -Paul
[2013-10-29 12:17:50] - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/29/bitcoin-forgotten-currency-norway-oslo-home man buys $27 worth of bitcoin in 2009, forgets about them, they're now worth $886k - aaron
[2013-10-29 12:17:23] - Honestly, it might have been simpler to just say, "hey let's pretend X3 never happened like we did with the Ang Lee Hulk movie." - mig
[2013-10-29 12:15:55] - Wow, how'd I throw a "y" in there? Stupid haste to post over lunch. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 12:15:54] - paul: yeah that makes sense to me - aaron
[2013-10-29 12:15:48] - paul: so it's going to be super weird seeing Havok in this movie and not Cyclops. - mig
[2013-10-29 12:14:44] - mig: yeah, and i guess "making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion" is open-ended enough it could even imply things like -- defunding planned parenthood or bulldozing all hospitals, or something weird like that. i guess intuitively i just think "making it more difficult" means increased government involvement/legislation/funding - aaron
[2013-10-29 12:13:37] - That's from yesterday's Cuccinelly as a libertarian article. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 12:13:32] - Aaron: Yeah, what Miguel said. Most libertarians agree with laws against murder, and if you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. -Paul
[2013-10-29 12:13:23] - aaron: "Libertarians, as a rule, support gay marriage, and most libertarians are pro-choice. But pro-life views fit within the libertarian framework: If you believe an in utero baby is a person, and if you believe the government has a legitimate role in protecting the innocent from violence, it’s logical to restrict abortion." -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 12:12:07] - http://www.eonline.com/news/475186/x-men-days-of-future-past-trailer-is-here-in-the-present Not the most awesome trailer ever, but how can you NOT get excited to see the two casts interacting? -Paul
[2013-10-29 12:12:00] - xpovos: that's the "forcible sodomy law", this is virginia's sodomy law: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361 i'm not sure which of the two (or both?) cuccinelli's trying to defend - aaron
[2013-10-29 12:11:48] - aaron: it's very easy to reconcile with being a libertarian if you geniunely believe that life truly begins at conception. - mig
[2013-10-29 12:11:10] - "nearly 60 percent of libertarians [favor] making it [more or the same amount of] [easy] for a woman to get an abortion" ~a
[2013-10-29 12:09:37] - i think your interpretation of the quote is backwards. ~a
[2013-10-29 12:07:26] - oh wait, i think i get it now, they're just comparing two weird numbers. poorly written. but honestly i'm just surprised the numbers are that close. 40% of liberarians are in favor of government restrictions on abortion? i wonder how they reconcile that, or if they're mistakenly self-identifying as liberarian because they think it means something else - aaron
[2013-10-29 12:05:04] - "nearly 60 percent of libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, while 58 percent of Republicans and those affiliated with the Tea Party favor such restrictions"... is this article trying to contrast these two numbers? i mean i think i get what they're trying to do... but.... - aaron
[2013-10-29 12:00:14] - a: Sure. What do I hate too much (or too little)? -Paul
[2013-10-29 11:45:11] - lol. ok. i'll try to be more proportional in my hate. you too, ok? ~a
[2013-10-29 11:44:32] - a: No, my point is that I think the Barilla CEO's opinion on gays was about as non-harmful as possible and your hate of him seemed to be pretty intense.
-Paul[2013-10-29 11:35:08] - paul: is your point that harm is hard to quantify? because i'll agree, but, hate is hard to quantify, too, right? ~a
[2013-10-29 11:34:41] - And relevant to the Cuccinelli debate, the current version of the law: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-67.1 -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 11:32:26] - Just another clarification on VA mandatory sentencing rules: http://famm.org/Repository/Files/VCSC%20Virginia%20Mandatory%20Minimum%20Laws.doc.pdf -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 11:32:14] - a: So how much harm did the Barilla CEO inflict on people? -Paul
[2013-10-29 11:29:24] - a: That's just to correct a fact. Your point is dead on, IMO. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 11:28:28] - a: You may be sentenced to a year in jail, but in many cases the jail time is suspended, even on felony convictions. Unless the felony carries a mandatory minimum sentence, which is rare. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 11:24:52] - paul: sure, ok. but my hate is proportional to the harm. a felony grants you not less than one year imprisonment (when your sentence is determined by a judge). i imagine one year in prison would (by some accounts) ruin my life. ~a
[2013-10-29 11:20:59] - a: Fair enough. I just hope you're consistent with the hate towards people who have connections to laws that have harmed gays (intentionally or not). Pretty sure we're talking about the vast majority of politicians here. -Paul
[2013-10-29 11:04:28] - Hmm... today I get to run a background check on a William J. Clinton. Poor guy. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:58:34] - paul: well he can choke on his ignorance. and i'm sure as fuck not voting for him to affect my laws. ~a
[2013-10-29 10:56:15] - I definitely rember it being a big topic as the pop was approaching 6T but I haven't heard many people worrying about it since we hit that mark. I guess we should thank Norman Borlaug for that. - mig
[2013-10-29 10:55:33] - a: who does harm through ignorance than those who do it intentionally. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:55:20] - a: Sure, and I completely agree that it's a mistake because of the possible unintended (or maybe intended) consequences. I just think there's appreciable difference between somebody who intentionally wants to target consenting adults and somebody who accidentally does so. Sure, the end result is the same, but I'm more sympathetic to the guy... -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:53:49] - a: I worry about peak oil, too! So you're not alone. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:53:30] - Paul: That's partly because you don't really intend to have seven children. It's often hard to see discrimination against a class from outside the class. That said, some of the comments are innocuous, sure. Others are indicative of closed-mindedness without being offensive. But there are offensive ones. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:51:10] - though i also worry about peak oil, so maybe i should be discounted. ~a
[2013-10-29 10:49:09] - mig: me. ~a
[2013-10-29 10:49:03] - the reason i use the exclamation mark, is because i see people who passed the patriot act are now worried that it was being misused! morons. ~a
[2013-10-29 10:48:23] - aimed? the law is aimed at consenting adults because the law doesn't preclude consenting adults. if you pass a law (or in this case reinstate a law) that makes an act illegal, then . . . well you've made that act illegal whether you were aiming at it or not! the act text (graphic) ~a
[2013-10-29 10:47:43] - Is anyone still talking about overpopulation as a serious problem nowadays? or did it go the way of peak oil in things we freaked out about in the 90s but found other things to freak out about? - mig
[2013-10-29 10:43:36] - Xpovos: And I guess that's why I don't really buy into the premise of the article much. I didn't even really see how most of those comments were that discriminatory. If I had 7 kids and somebody told me I was crazy, I would probably laugh it off and agree rather than be insulted in any way. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:42:07] - a: Ok, but is there any evidence in those articles that it's in any way aimed at consenting adults? I'm not saying that anti-sodomy laws are ok if just aimed at child sex offenders, but I think it's a lot more understandable than those claiming he wants to try to target consenting adults. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:33:20] - Some of the perceived discrimination could just be backlash against what is viewed as an inappropriate or unfair subsidy. Rivers' 7 kids are an impressive tax write-off. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:32:34] - Paul: No, and that's a fair point. I'm definitely not trying to equate any discrimination here, if it exists, with racial discrimination. Those examples I used were examples BECAUSE they were obvious, and you're right, this isn't. In fact there are many society-granted advantages to large families. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:30:52] - paul: oh, there's truth to them. http://goo.gl/jHD4L9 http://goo.gl/7J5LO http://goo.gl/s0fyU9 http://goo.gl/x7OXPC ~a
[2013-10-29 10:30:42] - I'll have to admit the thing about Cucinelli being against harsh criminal sentancing surprised me a lot. I honestly thought Rand Paul was essentially an outlier amongst republicans in that respect. - mig
[2013-10-29 10:28:31] - Xpovos: Maybe I missed it, but is there any evidence provided by that person that people with large families are discriminated against in any way other than people making comments? -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:20:25] - a: Sure, the stuff I hear about sodomy laws and whatnot doesn't sound good, but I honestly haven't done a ton of research into whether or not there is any truth to them because I already know who I'm voting for. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:19:18] - a: Basically, I kinda assumed I would like a decent amount of his fiscal positions, but hate his social ones. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he might (and I stress MIGHT) actually be halfway decent on some criminal justice stuff. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:13:18] - gotcha. ~a
[2013-10-29 10:11:59] - a: I think it goes back to when you asked what positives I saw in Cuccinelli. I mentioned that court case as an example (among many others). I singled that out because I expected to dislike all of his stances on criminal justice based on my pre-conceived notions about him. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:09:48] - a: Thanks, I was trying to find that link again. I like that image better. Even the "Low" graph indicates 8B by about 2035, it's just the precipitous drop-off after that makes many people miss that point. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:07:45] - paul: most recent reply to your article: "This is a man who wants sodomy laws; I'll believe his views on prison - well, when there's proof." ~a
[2013-10-29 10:07:43] - Telling us what we already knew: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/most-u-libertarians-not-identify-tea-party-survey-040352318.html -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 10:06:55] - paul: why would you complement him on how he dealt with one law-enforcement issue and fail to condemn him on how he dealt with this other law-enforcement issue? it sounds like cuccinelli is trying to reinstate the va sodomy law? aaron, do you have a link? ~a
[2013-10-29 10:06:43] - Aaron: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/19/why-conservatives-keep-coming-out-against-harsher-prison-sentences/ Although here is some evidence that Cuccinelli might be in favor of some of the other issues we talked about. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:04:45] - "is this becoming a discussion regarding whether or not we have to worry about overpopulation?" no, but we can if you'd like. we can discuss whether or not we have to worry about underpopulation, too, if you'd like. i'm game for anything! woo. ~a
[2013-10-29 10:04:21] - Aaron: Which had more to do with freeing an innocent man instead of the other issues. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:03:54] - Aaron: I don't know how Cuccinelli stands on those things, necessarily (I'm guessing not on the same side I do), but I was impressed by how he handled that one specific Haynesworth case. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:02:29] - aaron: Sorry, I think you're (understandably) confusing two different discussions Adrian and I were having. The mandatory minimums and unfair sentences for sex offenders were examples I gave of libertarian stances on criminal justice reform. -Paul
[2013-10-29 10:00:52] - paul/xpovos: depends on which UN study. (based on previous conversations) i assume you guys would go with "UN Low", which would put us at 8b way after 2028. ~a
[2013-10-29 09:56:56] - paul: was that he was trying to reinstate the virginia sodomy law, allegedly so that he could tack on longer sentences onto child predators... i believe that's how cuccinelli actually described it himself, in response to people arguing that he was trying to legislate what consenting adults do in their own home - aaron
[2013-10-29 09:55:13] - paul: i don't understand, i'm coming in the middle of a few different conversations but it sounds like you're impressed that ken cuccinelli is trying to reign in mandatory minimum sentences/unfair sentences for sex offenders? which is something that would impress me too, but the last thing i heard about cuccinelli on that topic - aaron
[2013-10-29 09:40:27] - Etc. Not arguments I really want to have, and hopefully sufficiently indicated as not worthwhile, or germane. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 09:39:47] - All of which is unrelated to whether or not large families face discrimination, though it might provide the rationale for why the discriminators do discriminate--if they do. Is it still discrimination if there's a logical reason to do so? Is it discrimination to lock my doors when the black man walks past because black men are convicted of more crimes than white men.
[2013-10-29 09:38:08] - Since there's nothing that'll affect the trend that near-in except cataclysm or major wars, it's pretty safe. The question is which way the longer term trend goes. I tend to think between the low and mid (closer to low), but even if it's at or just above the mid trend it has interesting implications. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 09:35:41] - Paul: UN study: The study projected the world population in 2030 to be 8.321 billion.[13] So a's prediction is well within targets and he probably has a safe comfort zone for certain random events that cause mass-death. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 09:29:56] - a: Is that what our current trajectory takes us to? Is this becoming a discussion regarding whether or not we have to worry about overpopulation? -Paul
[2013-10-29 09:12:25] - a: I won't take the other side of that bet, even though I think it's probably only 60/40. The real question is when do we hit 10B? Though, again, this is a different (if related) subject than the one being discussed in the article. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-29 08:52:53] - my long bet: the earth will hit 8 billion people in 15 years (by 2028). ~a
[2013-10-28 23:19:03] - a: Differing standards? They are (allegedly, I haven't heard/read the interview referred to in the article) attacking Philip rivers for having 7 with one woman under the same guise of not being able to provide adequate parenting. Is the difference that each woman in that scenario only has 1.28 children apiece? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-28 18:03:08] - "NFL players Antonio Cromartie and Travis Henry have between them fathered 23 children with eighteen different [mothers], and ESPN has not seen fit to interrogate them about the adequacy of their parenting." should espn be interrogating them then? because they have their children via different mothers? ~a
[2013-10-28 18:02:28] - "Planned Parenthood supporters who smear mothers of large families as 'breeders' and 'baby factories.'" who is doing this? ~a
[2013-10-28 17:55:40] - Xpovos: Just seems like everybody's looking to be a victim. I know there are people on Facebook who seem to feel victimized in some way because so many of their friends are posting pictures of their kids while they are single and/or childless. -Paul
[2013-10-28 17:54:35] - Xpovos: and (2) I don't think the people who truly look down on large families (for environmental or whatever reasons) are too numerous, although maybe that's just anecdotal evidence by me. -Paul
[2013-10-28 17:53:20] - Xpovos: I think I understand the point of the article, but (1) I consider some of those comments pretty harmless. If I saw somebody alone in a grocery store with 5 rambunctious kids, I would probably jokingly say they're crazy too... -Paul
[2013-10-28 17:50:50] - you're right, sorry. i'll try to stay focused
"Its moral and spiritual dimensions are overlooked" i guess i don't understand. what's the moral/immoral thing to do? ~a[2013-10-28 17:47:44] - a: Yes, but barely. And somewhat missing the main point of the article. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-28 17:44:53] - declining birth rates? still positive though, right? ~a
[2013-10-28 17:28:47] - Changing subjects again, I found this an interesting read, and figured a few of you would as well, if not for the same reasons. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/fecundaphobia-on-the-fear-of-large-families -- Xpovos
[2013-10-28 17:10:47] - a: Right, which just adds to why I was impressed by Cuccinelli there. I think he has the reputation as a law-and-order type of AG, but not only did he not stand in the way of that case but he seemed to actively work to get him freed. -Paul
[2013-10-28 17:05:13] - mandatory minimums, the death penalty, sexual offender registry lists, these are necessary to win the war on drugs/crime! (barf) ~a
[2013-10-28 17:02:53] - yah, wow, it's weird that the republican in this case would be arguing for being "softer on crime". to be clear, i agree with you and the libertarians here, but most republicans disagree: that doing the things you're saying isn't being hard enough on crime. ~a
[2013-10-28 17:02:19] - a: http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/14/perverted-justice This is a pretty long article, but I found it pretty interesting. It talks a lot about how the zeal to protect children from sex offenders has caused sex offender registries to perhaps go too far. -Paul
[2013-10-28 16:59:07] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye Or stuff like the Cory Maye case, which doesn't really fall into any of those categories. It basically boils down to trying to stand up for the individual against government abuse. -Paul
[2013-10-28 16:54:43] - a: Um, well, it depends. There's a lot of different specific things like being against the death penalty and mandatory minimums and problems with sexual offender registries. -Paul
[2013-10-28 16:38:50] - criminal justice reform? what's the libertarian viewpoint of criminal justice reform? ~a
[2013-10-28 16:14:10] - a: Bringing it back to Sarvis, though, he doesn't seem quite as strong in terms of rhetoric (which is really all we have to go on since he's never held office) on those kinds of issues. He has (understandably, considering limited media exposure and the major party candidates) focused more on gay marriage and crony capitalism. -Paul
[2013-10-28 16:12:24] - a: And I think issues like those are the ones that libertarians often aren't known for, but are just as important as things like lower spending and taxes and gay marriage and ending the war on drugs. -Paul
[2013-10-28 16:10:53] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Haynesworth#Push_for_writs_of_innocence_in_the_Court_of_Appeals I know I mentioned it before, but I really was impressed reading about how he handled the Haynesworth case. -Paul
[2013-10-28 16:08:41] - a: Well, I should preface by saying it's a bit hard to compare since Sarvis hasn't held office so it's a little difficult to tell what specific things he would do, but Cuccinelli seems pretty "strong" (in terms of being libertarian-ish) on taxation, the fight against Obama-care and criminal justice reform. -Paul
[2013-10-28 15:59:33] - which issues? ~a
[2013-10-28 14:54:08] - Xpovos: Yeah, there's no doubt that on some issues, Cuccinelli seems to be more libertarian than Sarvis, which is very bizarre. -Paul
[2013-10-28 14:21:59] - On the topic, I received an e-mail today describing why Sarvis wasn't all that "libertarian" after all and voters like me should vote for Cuccinelli. Notably tax issues, and allegedly in favor of the expansion of Medicaid through PPACA. Strange stuff in this election cycle, no doubt. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-28 13:45:32] - hmmm. ok. maybe my opinion on you is based on something else, or maybe it's just wrong. ~a
[2013-10-28 13:24:29] - a: McCain was way too hawkish militarily and didn't even pay lip service to small government during his campaign. Romney was the architect of Romneycare and so couldn't articulate a good reason to trust he would dismantle Obamacare. -Paul
[2013-10-28 13:22:13] - a: But every election since that one I've seen no compelling reason to favor the Republican. I had learned my lesson about Bush in 2004 and certainly didn't prefer him then. -Paul
[2013-10-28 13:20:37] - a: In retrospect, that appears to have been a horrible, horrible mistake, but at the time, he seemed to be saying more of the "right" things about small government and humble foreign policies than Gore was. I still wouldn't have voted for him, but he seemed to be a genuine lesser of two evils. -Paul
[2013-10-28 13:19:04] - a: Right, so I was thinking back and out of all the presidential elections I've voted in, there was only one where I felt (at the time) that the Republican was a little better than the Democrat was GWB over Gore. -Paul
[2013-10-28 13:07:06] - "I've never voted for a Republican for president" . . . no, it's if you had to pick R or D. take the pres election for example, if you had to pick, obviously not knowing what you know now about bush, who would you have picked in the 2000 election (bush or gore), 2004 election (bush or kerry), 2008 election (obama or mccain), 2012 election (obama or romney). ~a
[2013-10-28 13:06:31] - "I've never voted for a Republican for president" . . . ok, i offered to let the point drop
~a[2013-10-28 12:57:03] - a: For what it's worth, I've never voted for a Republican for president and I'm not even sure I've even voted for one for governor or congress. I might've voted for a few for the Virginia House or Senate, but I can't be sure. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:56:12] - a: Most of the time it's "none of the above", but I think I've written in Ron Paul once or twice. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:55:32] - a: It's ok. You don't have to let the point drop. I'm just wondering if I can ever convince you that I'm not some closet Democrat. Just because I think the Democrats are as full of crap as the Republicans doesn't mean I'm on the other side. It's not a zero sum game. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:54:40] - what's your standard write-in? ~a
[2013-10-28 12:54:29] - a: I think right now Rand Paul is probably right above the line in terms of how much I have to agree with their issues in order to support them. Any less probably wouldn't get my vote. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:54:14] - meh, i doubt it's every election cycle, but i'll let that point drop . . . i apologize. ~a
[2013-10-28 12:53:47] - a: I don't think so. If Sarvis wasn't in the race, I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Cuccinelli because he has enough negatives (like you mentioned). I likely would just go with my standard write-in. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:52:32] - a: Yes. Every election cycle I usually maintain that both major party candidates are just as bad as each other and I see no reason to prefer one to the other and you always tell me that I actually always prefer the Republican. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:52:21] - "if Sarvis can't win, I'm rooting for Cuccinelli next" i'm not sure the implication of "rooting". does this mean you'll vote for cuccinelli in some scenario? for some context, i haven't decided if i'll be voting for sarvis or mcauliffe. ~a
[2013-10-28 12:51:41] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Haynesworth As I mentioned before, he also seems to be pretty good on criminal justice reform and this case is particularly heartening compared to a lot of Attorney Generals who tend to consider people guilty even if proven innocent. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:50:33] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Cuccinelli#Political_views Libertarians are probably fond of his stances on taxation, gun control, eminent domain and his fight against Obamacare. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:48:07] - finally? have we discussed this before? ~a
[2013-10-28 12:46:04] - a: Also, to save myself the effort, is there any way to finally convince you that I would "almost always would pick the R if you had to pick R or D)" for presidential elections? -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:45:40] - after reading Ken Cuccinelli#Attorney General of Virginia, i'm pretty sure i hate the guy. his immigration stance is shitty, his equal rights stance is shitty, his environmental stance is shitty. why should a libertarian like this guy? ~a
[2013-10-28 12:44:35] - a: McAuliffe is bad almost across the board. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any way he's better than the other candidates except I guess he's more for gay marriage than Cuccinelli (although still not for gay marriage). -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:43:22] - a: Because he has some genuine positives to him (see the article I posted). He's also better than McAuliffe in a lot of way, including surprising ones like criminal justice reform and the drug war and death penalty. -Paul
[2013-10-28 12:40:12] - paul: why do you like cuccinelli? (though i doubt this is contrary to the presidential elections. you almost always would pick the R if you had to pick R or D). ~a
[2013-10-28 12:39:26] - xpovos: i didn't know that about euthanasia. though, there's probably a lot about euthanasia i don't know. ~a
[2013-10-28 11:57:28] - Xpovos: And I won't deny that (contrary to things like the presidential election where I really didn't have a preference at all and wanted both candidates to lose) if Sarvis can't win, I'm rooting for Cuccinelli next. -Paul
[2013-10-28 11:54:32] - Xpovos: http://washingtonexaminer.com/ken-cuccinellis-policies-show-a-strong-libertarian-streak/article/2537877?utm_source=Tim%20Carney%20Reoccurring%20-%2010/27/2013&u An article supporting what you were talking about how Cuccinelli is more libertarian than most people think. -Paul
[2013-10-28 11:49:45] - a: As for the unarguably human bit, I know that science is controversial and everything, but it's pretty conclusive. Fetuses are a biologically distinct same-species individual. You might want to argue they're not people, but they're definitely a separate human. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-28 11:48:31] - a: Euthanasia has a huge link to poverty--a large portion of the elderly population live in poverty, relieved at best by social security and Medicare. If they're dead they're no longer living in poverty, nor are they acting as a continual drain on those resources, allowing more to be spent on the more youthful elderly, thereby reducing their poverty situation further
[2013-10-28 10:59:45] - a: Well, TJ's class of 94 has had 5 more years to win at life so far. Maybe we'll have some comparably impressive alumni 5 years from now. -Paul
[2013-10-28 10:33:25] - to be honest, i haven't thought much about euthanasia. a difference (and an obvious point of contention) is that euthanasia applicants are unarguably human, whereas not everybody agrees that fetuses are (a separate) human. euthanasia doesn't have a (even suggested) link to crime or poverty or anything. (IMO) it's just totally a different situation. ~a
[2013-10-26 23:15:34] - a: Not right now. Nor is it something that we see happening with euthanasia... except in science fiction movies. I'm not denying there's a significant jump. I sort of elipsed my way into a slippery slope there; probably shouldn't have, it leads us down the wrong path for discussion. I just couldn't help it. So, ignore the required part. And repeat? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-26 17:14:43] - going from "subsidized" to "required"? that's a pretty big jump. if i subsidize a colonoscopy, that's quite different from requiring a colonoscopy. if i subsidize contraception, that's quite different from requiring contraception. nobody (we've discussed this already) is requiring sterilization (eugenics) . . . or abortions. ~a
[2013-10-26 13:32:08] - a lot of the same arguments pro abortion in that game can also apply to euthanasia as a state sponsored/promoted/subsidised... required(?) thing. Analysis or refutation? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-26 13:29:32] - a: I have a hard time providing a financial argument against abortion that doesn't immediately turn into a different debate about something like overpopulation, entitlement vs baby boom math, cultural issues, etc. but sure how far down the rabbit hole we want to go here... -- Xpovos
[2013-10-26 11:47:00] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePqDNePGFfg among other things, Ron Paul mentions bitcoin on stossels show. ~a
[2013-10-25 17:36:11] - dude, tj's '94 class wins at life. polling 13% for virginia governor, the two authors of The Rule of Four, olympic gold winner in soccer, and a fucking broadway actor. why is '99 so lame? we have a cancer-cell killer guy and that's it?! we suck. i guess it could be worse . . . we could have the macaca guy. ~a
[2013-10-25 14:37:45] - paul: well right now, they're refusing to answer if even SHE knew of the potential problems, so yeah it's getting really bad. - mig
[2013-10-25 14:31:36] - https://www.facebook.com/events/445366502240169/?ref=22 Also, for those who missed him in Reston, Sarvis will be in Arlington (with Gary Johnson) on Saturday if you want to snub Gurkie and I and our party. -Paul
[2013-10-25 14:29:07] - mig: Well, in this case it wouldn't just be symbolic, right? Her job was to implement Obama's crowning achievement and so far as failed miserably. Also, if we are to believe her, she didn't even let the president know about the looming disaster. -Paul
[2013-10-25 13:04:28] - I mean, honestly, this whole thing has made the adminstration look rather buffoonish and disconnected from something that was to be their crowning achievement. - mig
[2013-10-25 12:06:00] - so, the "should sebellius be fired" topic seems to be all the rage over the last few days. I'm usually not a fan of the symoblic firing (because it's not really going to "fix" anything), but after seeing her craptastic interviews on the daily show and CNN, i'm inclined to lean towards, yes can her. - mig
[2013-10-25 11:21:23] - Libertarians polling in the double digits. Neocons endorsing libertarians. Libertarians endorsing Republicans over Libertarians. Newspapers endorsing none of the above. Xpovos' mind-bending logic in terms of who he is voting for...What a crazy gubernatorial election for Virginia this is shaping up to be. -Paul
[2013-10-25 11:19:03] - On the flip side: I can understand why Rand Paul would feel compelled to endorse and campaign for Cuccinelli, but I'm really disappointed that Ron Paul did as well. I know McAuliffe is horrible and Cuccinelli has one or two positives, but he's also got way too many negatives. -Paul
[2013-10-25 11:17:14] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/10/25/the-case-for-sarvis/?algtrack=mixedrec-1&tid=btm_rex_1 Shocked that Jennifer Rubin (who usually hates Libertarian types with a fiery passion) has written a second article supportive of Sarvis. -Paul
[2013-10-25 11:02:52] - a: Interesting analogy...
-Paul[2013-10-25 10:43:20] - it was enlightening talking to my grandfather, when he was alive, about eugenics. he wasn't out of touch with our culture, so obviously he was vehemently against it, but he reminded me about context: back when eugenics was all the rage (the 30s?), it was touted as solid science. scientists considered it "law", much like climate-change is considered "law" now. ~a
[2013-10-25 09:27:44] - a: I would say I'm generally against eugenics, yes. -Paul
[2013-10-24 18:30:39] - paul: it sounds like you're coming down against eugenics. ~a
[2013-10-24 18:28:53] - i've never had to do it (and i'm not sure if i ever will). i imagine how hard it would be would be entirely dependent on the situation. wait, i take that back, most situations i can think of seem pretty hard to deal with (on either side really). ~a
[2013-10-24 18:17:59] - xpovos:
i don't know how i'd deal with that. that sounds really stressful. i'm sorry - aaron[2013-10-24 18:02:33] - a: Well, I guess I'm just making sure because some of the arguments being made (probably unfairly) reminded me of eugenics. I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is drawn (for you) between the rights of the individual and the public good. -Paul
[2013-10-24 17:40:01] - paul: "the parents want to have the baby" obviously there's no conversation here, you don't think i'm suggesting forced abortions?
~a[2013-10-24 15:10:09] - Xpovos: Better than being on the other end, I would guess. -Paul
[2013-10-24 15:00:10] - Ugh, I hate firing people. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-24 12:34:54] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/24/federal-agencies-warn-americans-not-to-j not really posting for the subject, but more for the fact that rule 63 can even apply to Dhalsim. - mig
[2013-10-24 11:42:28] - g: I'm not so sure that's the case. There are a lot of variables, but a lifetime of paying taxes vs some relatively moderate one time bills early in life? It really boils down to whether or not the child ends up as part of the 46% (or whatever the percent is) that doesn't pay taxes or if they end up on the other side. -Paul
[2013-10-24 11:05:52] - I said most cases cause yes there are people who pull themselves out of squallor and do well financially and would pay in taxes back some of that initial cost, but I would guess from a financial perspective its cheaper to pay for the elective abortions. ~g
[2013-10-24 11:05:23] - first let me say I dont really know where I fall on this but for the sake or arguing from the govt's perspective paying for an elective abortion is in most cases going to be cheaper than putting that child on medicaid after birth for who knows how long. ~g
[2013-10-24 09:58:11] - a: The public good would seem to suggest aborting the baby (presumably the government is going to be paying for it's medical procedures and whatnot) and it's hard to argue the baby is going to have a great life... -Paul
[2013-10-24 09:57:18] - a: What about a child being born into a loving, but bad situation? Like maybe the parents are dirt poor and the kid is going to have chronic medical issues but the parents want to have the baby and would love it? -Paul
[2013-10-24 09:53:03] - a: Gonna be a hard discussion when were so far apart on basic assumptions, but at least we have the terms correct. Let me ponder how I can best argue the point in those terms for a few. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-24 09:39:00] - xpovos: yes. paul: uhhh, one plays off of the other . . . so both about the same? ~a
[2013-10-24 09:24:42] - a: This is probably rephrasing Xpovos' question, but is it more because it's better for society as a whole or because it's better for the child to not have been born into an unloving situation? -Paul
[2013-10-24 08:17:34] - a: Because it provides a public good, and the public good outweighs not just the financial cost, but the calculus of the unusual level of displeasure among opposition forces in the political scheme? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 22:37:07] - oh yes, i think the parents should fund it. in the situation that they can't afford it, then sure, charities would be a wonderful way to get money for this tragic cause. assuming no charities come to bat, government should help pay for this. ~a
[2013-10-23 20:26:33] - a: Even positing that as true, why should the government be the party funding it, rather than the parents (assuming that abortion is "safe, legal and affordable"; which I know is not a given) or charities. If the position is true, then anti-poverty and anti-crime charities would love to give money to the cause. Why gov't? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 19:48:06] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/23/the-obama-administration-never-ran-a-com the hits just keep on coming. Even for government work, this is pretty appalling. - mig
[2013-10-23 17:47:19] - in a short answer, yes. in a longer answer: kids to parents that would have preferred abortion are going to have a fucked life. not every child is born to a family that is going to love them. i know the Donohue and Levitt study has been discredited, but i'm still a proponent of the hypothesis until we get some more studies that prove/disprove the hypothesis. ~a
[2013-10-23 17:08:02] - a: Why do you think the government should spend money on elective abortions? Because it's preferable to dealing with an unwanted baby? -Paul
[2013-10-23 16:34:42] - this may be the only thing where i've moved AWAY from you guys on my beliefs, but i'm starting to sway towards: elective abortions are something the government should spend money on. ~a
[2013-10-23 16:32:26] - "must not" seems so hard lined. how about "should not"? or we could let the market (the market of countries of course!) dictate which things the government should spend money on. ~a
[2013-10-23 16:23:01] - Xpovos: Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I think there are a lot of people out there who probably don't think there is anything the government "must not" spend money on. -Paul
[2013-10-23 16:09:26] - If anything fits, though, I'd have to think it'd be something as controversial and final as abortion. So... I guess I'd like to meet someone who thinks the gov't should fund elective abortions (in more than a few isolated cases) and ask him what he thinks gov't MUST NOT spend money on. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 16:07:18] - g: It does. I'm biased, on multiple fronts, but I think it's pretty clear that there are things the government must spend money on (defense and police) and things the government must not spend money on. The first gets broader based on various political schools of thought, but the second is even harder to define. [...]
[2013-10-23 14:52:53] - a: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx Also, frankly, considering how much trouble Obamacare has already caused (forcing thousands of people to lose insurance and/or converting full-time jobs to part-time ones), I don't think I would ever call it flawless. -Paul
[2013-10-23 14:19:15] - xpovos: it was more the argument that pro-choice people should also object based on the hyde rule that I objected to... I tend to think that even if Hyde was a hard and fast law people will be okay with the govt breaking their own rules if it goes along with what they thinks should be happening. If that makes sense. ~g
[2013-10-23 14:15:48] - *shouldn't be covered by tax monies? ~a
[2013-10-23 14:12:09] - g: I could be wrong on the specifics. But it's just a point of law, there. The question of whether or not I'm OK with it has nothing to do with the Hyde amendment. It's just, I hoped, an example indicating I'm not outside the mainstream here in deciding that abortions should be covered by tax monies. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 13:55:49] - xpovos: it looks to me that IF ACA allows users to buy a plan that covers elective abortions and get a tax credit for it, then it will not break the hyde rule. However I fully admit I didnt know what Hyde Rule was when you first mentioned it. ~g
[2013-10-23 13:54:35] - xpovos: from wiki hyde allows for medicaid to cover abortion for Rape and Incest. Additionally it states that a. hyde rule isnt an actual law more a rider that has been passed each year and b. that it prohibits the use of specific funds I am guessing a tax break isnt going to qualify as the funds prohibited. ~g
[2013-10-23 13:50:54] - g: Yes, that's a fair enough definition. Principle of double effect is complicated, and that's probably the simplest reinterpretation without being completel wrong. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 13:48:43] - a: True, but I think saying the law is flawless is a much higher standard than saying a law is flawed enough to need repeal. Me scratching my head was meant to indicate that I would have to admit that it appears to have worked. -Paul
[2013-10-23 13:45:32] - xpovos: elective means in any case other than deemed medically necessary for the life of the mother? ~g
[2013-10-23 13:39:25] - mig: I'm not going to fight contraception coverage, for certain definitions of contraception. Plan B can't be covered, but if there's an insistence on condoms and COCPs that's a deal I can live with. I'm not opposed to selling my soul; I've just got to get a good price. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 13:35:50] - g: There's also the (to me, specifically) more important converse: if the government fines or otherwise imposes punishment on employers who refuse to provide such services in their employer-sponsored plan, then I'm also not OK with the law. That's less clearly a violation of the Hyde rule, but still a major problem. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 13:34:15] - g: If any of the health insurance plans that are eligible for selection by any person who will receive any form of tax credit to pay for said coverage covers elective abortions, then no, I am no OK with the law. Nor should any one else, even if they're pro-choice, as it's a clear violation of the Hyde rule. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 13:30:43] - g: that perhaps, but I'm also assuming he's talking about mandatory contraception coverage as well. - mig
[2013-10-23 13:28:54] - xpovos: does 3 mean that if any of the health insurance plans cover abortions then you are not okay with it? ~g
[2013-10-23 12:59:41] - Since it's batting pretty much 0.000 on 1-3, I'm OK with 4 being fairly nebulous and claimed as an automatic victory. It has eliminated the possibility that existed where pre-existing conditions caused health insurance problems. It's not clear that has actually improved opportunities/outcomes, but it has shifted costs, so, win? Fine by me. 2&3 are all fail. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 12:57:27] - I'll set my own bar/go on record. The PPACA will be a success IF: 1) I can obtain reasonable health care for myself and family for 2) a price at or lower than my March, 2010 premiums (adjusted for inflation) which 3) does not require me to fund objectionable medical procedures and 4) otherwise improves the opportunities and costs of healthcare for others. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 12:48:13] - paul: "i would be scratching my head" == "the law isn't flawed" ? it's un-harmonious of you to ask people to go on the record, but be unwilling to go on the record yourself. ~a
[2013-10-23 11:55:43] - I tried, and it didn't even try to differentiate on age at all. As a result the plans quoted are scarily high. But every page has a disclaimer that in most cases the costs would be lower because of tax credits! Not because of inaccurate information, but tax credits. *sigh*. At least I got the information I was looking for three weeks ago. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 11:54:43] - So, the healthcare website now has a feature that lets you browse some plans without registering. This has drawbacks, of course. Because it requires very little information it portrays potentially wildly inaccurate costs. I read a news article where there were complaints because it lumped individuals into either and under 50 or 50+ category. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 10:58:57] - a: The problem is (and I know how big of a problem this is), it's really hard to tell how long it takes for problems to crop up. How long did the housing bubble last before it popped? The federal reserve was around for like 50 years before the US went fully off the gold standard... -Paul
[2013-10-23 10:56:59] - a: But if, 5-10 years down the line, the percentage of un-insured people has gone down, along with the cost of medical care (including government spending on it) AND wait times haven't gone up... then I would be scratching my head. -Paul
[2013-10-23 10:54:21] - a: Well, for starters, we would have to look many years down the line because Obamacare doesn't even fully go into full affect for many years. Also, I'm guessing any big increases in entitlement spending won't show up for a while. -Paul
[2013-10-23 10:54:07] - a: i need to see dataz. stuff like average premiums, accessibility to care (will doctors get overloaded by the expansion of coverage, will people overuse medical services now that it's "free"?), will the "invincibles" really get insurance (which is necessary for the system not to collapse), among some other things. - mig
[2013-10-23 10:46:02] - paul: you first. what has to happen for you to admit that the law isn't flawed and that we're getting better healthcare/$ than the old very flawed system? ~a
[2013-10-23 10:45:18] - mig: yeah, i like better healthcare for the masses, but this does seem to be a weird half-solution. i'm holding out judgment on whether i like it or hate it. ~a
[2013-10-23 10:40:50] - Hell, at this point, I'M in favor of a single-payer instead of the ACA. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 10:39:09] - paul: Are there really any ACA supporters on this board? both ~a and daniel never seemed very enthusiastic about defending the law. - mig
[2013-10-23 10:32:03] - Paul: I doubt supporters will ever say it needs repealing. If it's flawed, as you note, then more government is needed, so clearly the answer is single-payer. Not repeal. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 10:12:52] - In my experience, problems caused by government interference often gets blamed on the "free" market and used as justification for more government intervention (see: bubble, housing), so I'm into getting people on the record now.
-Paul[2013-10-23 10:11:00] - So my question to the Obamacare supporters here is: What has to happen for you to admit that the law is flawed and needs repealing? The website problems are obviously a black eye, but it reflects more on the incompetency of the government than on any inherent flaws with the law. -Paul
[2013-10-23 09:22:16] - Xpovos: Actually, that makes more sense to me. I kinda figured the part about Cuccinelli being a closer match. Your opinion on Sarvis is a little less clear to me (are you expecting him to compromise more, or to naturally be a better fit with the House and Senate?), but I think I get the general idea. -Paul
[2013-10-23 08:56:52] - But, also in the real world, McAuliffe is going to win. Which will be... interesting. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 08:34:14] - In a flawed world, Sarvis' positions are generally better and result in better governance, even when I don't agree with all of them on an intrinsic level. They're compromises I'm happy to make, as opposed to the compromises I'm frequently forced to make in voting for a major party candidate. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-23 08:32:14] - Paul: This may only confuse things more, but I'll try to explain. I'm voting for Cuccinelli because I trust him to do the right things (and the things I'd want in a perfect world) and because as far as political candidates go, he's "in my circle". I.e. my Bacon number is low. 3 tops, probably 2. I'd prefer Sarvis because the world isn't perfect... -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 20:09:34] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcLA_D1FZnA jon stewart is apparently not done complaining about the healthcare website. - mig
[2013-10-22 16:16:21] - Daniel: Maybe. That would only confuse me more, though, since this doesn't appear to be a particularly close race. Doesn't the whole not-wasting-your-vote thing not work as well if it's harder to delude yourself into thinking your vote will make a difference? -Paul
[2013-10-22 16:14:59] - daniel: that could be common in even a 3+ party system. in any situation where #1 could possibly be under contention. (unless you have a non-fptp voting system) ~a
[2013-10-22 15:55:57] - Paul: He doesn't want to throw his vote away so he is going to vote for the one he thinks has a shot. Your favorite part of the two party system! -Daniel
[2013-10-22 15:43:46] - Xpovos: I'm all sorts of confused. Ideally Sarvis would win, but you prefer Cuccinelli, and this is the kind of election you would be thrilled to vote for Sarvis, but you're voting for Cuccinelli... -Paul
[2013-10-22 15:41:48] - Paul: Yeah, I'll be voting for Cuccinelli. In an ideal world Sarvis would win, even though I'd "rather" have Cuccinelli. And if the Republicans had nominated almost anyone else, e.g. Bolling, I'd be all-in on Sarvis too. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:39:34] - a: So, yeah... you're on the right path all around. % of elligible voters who are registered is close to 80%, which is pretty impressive. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:38:18] - Xpovos: I kind of figured that was the reason (maybe you lean more towards Cuccinelli), but you also said, "this is normally the kind of election I'd be thrilled to vote for Sarvis in" so I thought maybe you were enamored with the choices either. -Paul
[2013-10-22 15:37:39] - a: 76.64% of the population of Virginia (8,001,024) is over 18. With felons/other ineligible to vote, that gives you a possible voter pool of about 6M. So ~2M turnout for a gubenatorial election (2009) is roughly 33%, but since not everyone eligible registers, the reported number is higher (~40-42%) -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:34:38] - a: Turnout is: #voters/#registered voters. The two numbers you see are for total registered (bigger denominator) and "active" registered (smaller denominator). "Inactive" voters are ones that (generally) have had a mailing from the registrar rejected (moved, no forwarding address ->invalid registration). -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:32:26] - Paul: Because I won't be voting for Sarvis. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:26:22] - hmmm, i think maybe i have an incorrect definition of "voter turnout"? because i'd divide by the total number of 18yo+ virginians (maybe removing the felons and non-citizens), which is more than 4million. probably closer to 6million? actually now i'm super surprised that 80ish% of eligible voters are registered?! i must be misunderstanding lots of things. ~a
[2013-10-22 15:22:48] - Xpovos: I'm confused. Why are you disappointed, then? -Paul
[2013-10-22 15:04:22] - So, 40% is the starting point, and we're likely to go down. To 35%? Lower? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:03:53] - a: 46% turnout was probably referring to the 2010 general, which included Congressional races. Yeah... gubenatorial is lower turnout than congressional, and that appears pretty consistent going back a few elections. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 15:01:06] - a: 2009 votes. https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2009/37C2EDEB-FACB-44C1-AF70-05FB616DCD62/Official/95_s.shtml Not sure if that link works, so the bottom line is I was given bad data earlier, and the actual turnout was between 40 and 43% depending on how you count. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 14:49:42] - 2009 was 46%? are we talking about the same thing? that seems much much much higher than i thought it would be: 2009 wasn't even a quadrennial year. ~a
[2013-10-22 14:43:04] - Turnout projections? 2009 was 46%. I'm pegging sub-40%. Another EO I respect was saying it might get down to 35%. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 14:35:26] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/22/could-robert-sarvis-open-the-door-for-vi silver lining on Sarvis's potential results, even if he has no chance of actually winning? - mig
[2013-10-22 14:33:29] - Paul: In related news, I'm disappointed. This is normally the kind of election I'd be thrilled to vote for Sarvis in. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-22 13:20:20] - paul: that seems to drive the point home about to the anti-libertarian hysteria from the salon article: if you aren't totally 100% with us then you're obviously in league with the crazies. - mig
[2013-10-22 13:20:08] - Daniel: In fact, I think it might be the first time in 12 years I'll not write in a name for governor. -Paul
[2013-10-22 13:19:40] - Daniel: I know where you're coming from in that the likely results of this race is probably going to be the most depressing in a while, but in an odd way this is one of the more exciting races for me in a while since there is somebody I am legitimately excited to vote for in a governor's race in over a decade. -Paul
[2013-10-22 13:16:20] - a: And while I understand he doesn't have experience holding political office, Sarvis does have a ton of varied experience elsewhere (software development, law, economics). -Paul
[2013-10-22 13:14:31] - a: Glad the dispatch (and by extension, the atlantic wire) mentioned Sarvis, although I wasn't thrilled that they referred to him as "conservative-leaning". -Paul
[2013-10-22 12:36:07] - a: Thats pretty close to how I feel. Andrea asked me about the gov stuff recently and I think my position was well, I don't want Cuccinelli to be gov, but its not like I'm excited about the options. -Daniel
[2013-10-22 11:49:59] - got this from not-the-onion: virginia paper endorses 'none of the above' for governor. ~a
[2013-10-22 10:36:17] - daniel: Considering how hyper partisan the author is, I think I'm safe in assuming that the author does know better but is willful in such a misassociation, because god dammit, the progressive have to *win*. - mig
[2013-10-22 10:28:07] - mig: I wonder if people who don't know better associate Libertarians and the Tea Party? Though generally you might hope someone writing articles for a website might know better it might not be the case. -Daniel
[2013-10-22 10:10:14] - who's token offer of reform was pretty laughable? Sure, that makes sense! - mig
[2013-10-22 10:09:47] - And lastly, the assertion that the key to NSA reform is with the democrats? You mean the same party with the leaders in both houses of congress enthusiastically supporting the NSA snooping program who all called snowden a traitor, and with the democratic president who loves the program ...
[2013-10-22 10:03:44] - It sometimes amazes me who violently antagonistic progressives are towards libertarians these days. I mean, I don't expect love from progressives, but the amount of hate thrown at libertarians way is still suprising to me. - mig
[2013-10-22 10:02:26] - reality support gay marriage, want to end the drug war, want to end costly unprovoked foreign wars, are generally pro-choice, and want to end corporate welfare. Progressives believe in these things too, right? - mig
[2013-10-22 10:01:22] - Or the fact that he lists several "bad" things libertarians are for but doesn't even come close to mentioning the multitudes of things that libertarians support that progressives. In the authors alternate universe, they apparently only share a dislike of the surveillence straight, but are otherwise bible thumping right wing crazies. Nevermind that libertarians in
[2013-10-22 09:58:22] - the whole purist idealogue thing? - mig
[2013-10-22 09:58:14] - I'm trying to figure out which part of the piece is sadder, the author complaining about how dogmatic idealogues libertarians are and then demands that progressives only associate with other "true" progressives for any political cause (way to be a dogamtic idealogue!). And doesn't the fact that libertarians frequently reach across the isle ot the left kind of debunk
prev <-> next