prev <-> next
[2015-04-27 14:34:42] - mig: "You taught me a painful but important lesson". Don't be on the wrong side of history. Don't get in the way of history being made. Don't study history. Don't stand next to people studying history. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-27 12:31:52] - Does that really undo decades worth of work in support of a cause? - mig
[2015-04-27 12:30:47] - All this over the heinous crime (apparently) of sharing a space and having a dialogue with someone who has a different political opinion? - mig
[2015-04-27 12:30:21] - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gay-businessman-ted-cruz-made-terrible-mistake-117372.html "The people that know me know the work that I have done over the last 20 years for the advancement of gay rights. Today, I came to realize that I might have nullified my past efforts and accomplishments in just one week.” Is this for real? - mig
[2015-04-26 19:12:34] - because twitter is how you really show you care about something.
~a[2015-04-25 22:04:56] - In case anybody tries to retroactively claim libertarians don't care about police misconduct when it comes to black lives, my Twitter feed is full of indignant libertarians angry that the news is not covering Baltimore. -Paul
[2015-04-25 22:03:29] - a: and I hate the idea of leaving money on the table when it comes to my retirement. -Paul
[2015-04-24 16:04:49] - My love for markets is dubious but I am quite interested in retirement savings and its vehicles. -Daniel
[2015-04-24 16:01:52] - paul: np! i love talking about this stuff with people who care about it, like people here on the message board. most of my work friends don't care about markets. ~a
[2015-04-24 15:56:48] - aDaniel: Thanks for the info. -Paul
[2015-04-24 15:56:39] - a: Cool, sounds like I should look into vanguard, then. Honestly, with this money, it would pretty much be setting it up in index funds and forgetting about it for a year until I check back in to possibly re-balance it (but honestly, probably just let it ride). I have my Roth IRA for individual stocks and stuff that I want to more actively trade. -Paul
[2015-04-24 15:45:06] - i like buying and selling things through vanguard way more. getting money into and out of my account is way easier. their website is better. everything is free. mutual funds in general have some downsides (you can only can trade once per day), but that's typical. ~a
[2015-04-24 15:36:38] - paul: vanguard does offer roth and traditional IRAs. ~a
[2015-04-24 15:31:01] - paul: you are completely correct. dividend reinvestment is (pretty much) always what you want. i'm not sure scottrade's commission free "Flexible Dividend Reinvestment Program" always existed, though, so it's possible it wasn't a thing you could always do. ~a
[2015-04-24 14:31:57] - a: Why do you have reinvesting disabled? Maybe it doesn't save on taxes, but it doesn't hurt, right? And it saves the trouble of having to manual go in and buy more shares every couple of months/years... -Paul
[2015-04-24 14:31:18] - Daniel: I don't think I've bought mutual funds through Scottrade before, but I imagine it's a $7 charge per transaction (buy or sell). I guess I didn't even think of going straight to Vanguard. They offer traditional IRAs that I could put my money into their index funds using? -Paul
[2015-04-24 14:03:18] - a: I'll admit to some hyperbole there, but strawman I'll object to. - mig
[2015-04-24 14:00:41] - miguel i knew exactly what you're referring to, but i was bored of seeing ridiculous strawmen like this one: "we've already established that having the 'wrong' political opinion is the equivalent of committing violence, so it makes sense to respond in kind" ~a
[2015-04-24 13:59:19] - aggression is also not the same thing as violence. ~a
[2015-04-24 13:58:16] - mig: a hostile environment is the same as committing violence? i don't follow. ~a
[2015-04-24 13:58:04] - I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. - mig
[2015-04-24 13:55:45] - http://news.yahoo.com/no-mor-chikin-johns-hopkins-students-ban-chick-232634775.html "In the resolution, which passed 18 to 8, the SGA stated that having a Chick-fil-A location on campus would be a “microaggression” toward the campus community," - mig
[2015-04-24 13:54:21] - http://oberlinreview.org/8032/opinions/in-response-to-sommers-talk-a-love-letter-to-ourselves/ "Her talk is happening, so let’s pull together in the face of this violence and make our own space to support each other. She exists, but so do we." - mig
[2015-04-24 13:51:25] - a: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/02/the_university_of_michigans_in.html "They claimed the column had created a "hostile environment" because one of the editors felt "threatened" by Mahmood's mockery of microaggressions." - mig
[2015-04-24 13:28:18] - who established that having the "wrong" political opinion is the equivalent of committing violence? that doesn't sound right. ~a
[2015-04-24 13:03:08] - mig: And I don't deserve to have a job, or a means to a livelihood--therefore I really can't be allowed to live, otherwise I'm just a drag on respectable and responsible society. And frankly, it's a mercy to put me out of my misery, living in such a hate-filled world. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-24 12:57:03] - xpovos: we've already established that having the "wrong" political opinion is the equivalent of committing violence, so it makes sense to respond in kind. - mig
[2015-04-24 12:45:27] - xpovos: that was going to be the logical next step. - mig
[2015-04-24 12:38:18] - mig: No, then we need to wage war on the bigots. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-24 12:06:49] - I have to wonder if these people won't be happy until we have complete social segregation across politically ideological lines. - mig
[2015-04-24 12:04:35] - http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/24/ted-cruz-event-in-new-york-prompts-boycott-threats/ have we reached "peak boycott"? - mig
[2015-04-24 10:35:43] - https://www.google.com/maps/place/33%C2%B030%2752.5%22N+73%C2%B003%2733.2%22E/@33.5169848,73.0597719,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en what an oddly shaped forest - aaron
[2015-04-23 17:28:40] - daniel: my guess is no. if i were paul, i'd buy from vanguard directly to avoid the commission. which is actually what i do. i have an ira (and normal account) with both vanguard and scottrade. ~a
[2015-04-23 17:25:09] - paul: i have reinvesting disabled on my scottrade accounts (roth ira, and my standard account). reinvesting is nice, sure, but it doesn't actually save you any in taxes. ~a
[2015-04-23 16:53:25] - Paul: How much does Scottstrade charge for investing in Vanguard through them vs just going straight to Vanguard? Is there a benefit to going through Scottstrade? -Daniel
[2015-04-23 16:40:24] - a: That reminds me that I need to find out how I can tell Scottrade (or whoever deals with my 401(k)/traditional IRA) to reinvest my dividends. Should be relatively easy to do, right? -Paul
[2015-04-23 16:32:34] - if you're talking about the mutual fund, i do see the dividends are reported, yes. also, you get to decide what happens to them: dividends are reinvested or they get sent to you. it's the s&p500 index that i'm confused by: why does the index not have any dividends reported? i would expect the index to default to reinvesting, like you said ("lockstep"), no. ~a
[2015-04-23 16:26:57] - a: Yeah so I'm confused too, when I go to google finance and look at VFINX and compare it on their graphing tool to the S&P index they are pretty much lockstep throughout the whole history. So do dividends not get counted in the mutual funds performance? Even though they matter in the real world for performance? Clearly I need to learn more about dividends. -Danie
[2015-04-23 16:19:51] - a: Ah gotcha. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 16:17:35] - daniel: that was me, not paul. if i invested $30k in Vanguard's S&P500 fund or $30k in the S&P500 (pretending that it was something i could actually invest in), i'd have $7k more today using vanguard's s&p500 fund because of dividends. ~a
[2015-04-23 16:11:45] - Paul: What do you mean how the s&p 500 deals with dividends? I'm not totally sure I follow your question. I don't think the actual index would account for dividends since those aren't part of a companies stock performance but I'm not sure on that point. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 16:09:10] - yeah, it seems like everything should beat the s&p500 in the long run by close to 1.5% because the s&p seems to completely ignore dividends. ~a
[2015-04-23 16:06:20] - paul: that is correct. actually, it almost seems like they do *too* well. 3% per year over the market for the past 10 years? i . . . wonder how the s&p500 deals with dividends. does anybody know? i don't see any dividends listed, but the vanguard funds that follow the markets have almost 1%/year of dividends. ~a
[2015-04-23 15:56:23] - a: So, it looks like your page echoes a bit what Daniel said? It looks like the Vanguard Index funds do pretty well relative to the S&P500... -Paul
[2015-04-23 15:55:57] - Daniel: Cool, thanks for the info. I'll take a look to see if Scottrade offers those vanguard funds (I'm guessing the Principal does not). -Paul
[2015-04-23 15:40:08] - paul: also, if you click on the headers, it lets you sort by that column. ~a
[2015-04-23 15:36:04] - paul: http://aporter.org/401k/ . . . this page takes lots of explanation. i created it to analyze how various funds are doing compared to the s&p500: vtwnx is up 34%, s&p500 is up 17%, so vtwnx is down 5%/year by comparison (after dividends). the purpose was to analyze the funds in my companies 401k. i don't like that we don't have any index funds. ~a
[2015-04-23 15:25:46] - I'll try to stop my Vanguard commercial now. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 15:25:20] - As a different piece to consider, this is one of the reasons I'm pro Vanguard: https://about.vanguard.com/what-sets-vanguard-apart/why-ownership-matters/. Their structure I feel aligns better with ours as consumers than say Principal or Fidelity. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 15:21:44] - Paul: As a comparison the S&P index for vanguard (https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0040&FundIntExt=INT) has an expense ratio of .17. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 15:19:47] - Paul: Yes there are foreign index funds, https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0533&FundIntExt=INT https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0113&FundIntExt=INT as examples. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 15:17:15] - Paul: When it comes to expense ratio's its hard to beat Vanguard generally. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 15:16:57] - Paul: Generally any index fund worth its salt would be SUPER close to other index funds that track the same index. The only real difference ought to be the expense ratio. That said its a good idea to check because sometimes funds are like 80% index fund 20% managed fund which seems dumb to me. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 15:15:53] - Paul: Vanguard would be my off the cuff answer. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 14:58:15] - developing markets. -Paul
[2015-04-23 14:58:11] - (Roll it into my Tradtional IRA at Scottrade, I mean) But the guy from the Principal swayed me into sticking with them (for now) since their expense ratios for the S&P Index Funds seemed low-ish (0.31%), although I found some on Scottrade that seemed to be half of that. Also, is there such a thing as a foreign market index fund? I need more exposure to... -Paul
[2015-04-23 14:56:40] - Okay, so now I have to deal with my 401(k) from Learning Tree. Anybody here (*cough*Daniel*cough*) done any research into what the best index funds are in terms of expense ratio (and, I guess, performance)? I was going to roll the 401(k) over to Scottrade, where I should have lots of mutual funds to choose from... -Paul
[2015-04-23 14:14:58] - Xpovos: http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8 If the push for increased minimum wages keeps happening, I think we'll see more than just the clerks replaced. -Paul
[2015-04-23 14:09:53] - xpovos: http://www.cnet.com/news/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/ europe is way ahead of the curve on this one, for what should be rather obvious reasons. - mig
[2015-04-23 14:08:06] - Paul: So let's automate those jobs completely. Why does a clerk take my order at McDonald's anyway? -- Xpovos
[2015-04-23 14:03:25] - and I know this is a tired trope at this point, but I do wonder how many progressives would be howling in outrage if GW Bush was president (or any republican for that matter) right now. - mig
[2015-04-23 14:02:13] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/23/full-text-obamas-remarks-on-the-killing-of-american-held-by-al-qaeda-in-a-u-s-operation/ 2 hostages accidentally killed in drone strike, prez say, "whoops, my bad!" how exactly will he be taking "full responsibility". what exactly does that entail? - mig
[2015-04-23 13:55:21] - Daniel: You want to get your mind blown about economics and inflation... start looking into why we have inflation (fractional reserve banking, central banking, etc). That stuff simultaneously blew my mind and opened my eyes to a lot of stuff. -Paul
[2015-04-23 13:53:31] - mig: So, yeah, it sounds really impressive to say the company "makes billions in profits", but that doesn't exactly mean they can start doubling people's wages. -Paul
[2015-04-23 13:48:29] - mig: I'm not so sure they can "obviously" afford to pay him more. According to their information, they made $1.2 billion (actually euros, but I don't have that special character on my keyboard
) in 2014. They also appear to have around 507,000 employees. Even if they completely forgo profit, that means only an extra $2,366 (euros) per person per year. -Paul[2015-04-23 13:33:39] - Xpovos: Because not every job involves work that is that valuable? -Paul
[2015-04-23 12:49:02] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/22/heres-rand-paul-wearing-sunglasses-on-the-senate-floor-and-fist-bumping-harry-reid/ - mig
[2015-04-23 12:01:47] - Precisely. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-23 11:45:18] - also living costs vary wildly by location, which makes a "national" living wage rather tricky. Making $60k a year livinig in NYC is possibly borderline poverty. - mig
[2015-04-23 11:29:45] - This whole argument also gets complicated by discussions of 'comfort'. Working 40 hours should absolutely entitle someone to enough to pay for food and shelter for the family. Cell phones are another question entirely. That discussion is further complicated by the existing governmental programs supplying those essentials, e.g. SNAP. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-23 11:28:00] - Daniel: The problem with this process is a living wage with a minimum wage. The amount needed to support a family depends less on the wage than it does on the family. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-23 10:30:40] - paul: I believe his bigger point was that the company can obviously afford to pay him more because they make tons in profit, so they should pay him more. - mig
[2015-04-23 09:45:22] - Though I also would have said I was ok with minimum wage increases since inflation moves up regardless of minimum wage so maybe my thought process is too simplistic. Economics is complicated! -Daniel
[2015-04-23 09:44:41] - Basically I think the market has established a relationship (though indirect) between the value of a work week and the value of bread and if the $ we pay out for a work week goes up I think the $ for bread goes up eventually. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 09:43:30] - Xpovos: I feel like there is an interesting economic thought experiment with that question. My immediate thought would be that if minimum wage was increased so that it could support a family on a 40 hour work week it would cause other wages to rise and eventually prices to rise and then minimum wage wouldn't support a family on a 40 hour work week anymore. -Daniel
[2015-04-23 07:38:10] - "Not every job in the world can have a salary that supports a family on a 40 hour work week." Why not? -- Xpovos
[2015-04-22 23:06:56] - "Mistreatment implies something a little more serious that being underpaid" I don't know that it does. anywho, I used the word, and I meant underpaid. so, there you go. ~a
[2015-04-22 21:50:23] - And I strongly disagree with the idea that this person is being mistreated (unless there is some more information other than this article). Mistreatment implies something a little more serious that being underpaid (which I'm not even sure this person is). Not every job in the world can have a salary that supports a family on a 40 hour work week. -Paul
[2015-04-22 21:38:42] - The implication seems to be that because they work at the Senate, they should be making a lot of money? I don't get the point. -Paul
[2015-04-22 21:37:54] - a: Maybe I'm missing something, but what's interesting about the article? Somebody is working a job that (even by their own admission) appears to be a low-skilled job and they're complaining that they aren't highly paid over it? -Paul
[2015-04-22 15:50:52] - yah. ~a
[2015-04-22 15:06:16] - a: so out of curiosity, the cafeteria is essentially closed right now? - mig
[2015-04-22 15:00:58] - a: sure underpaid is a good description. I personally get really turned off and irritated when people use emotionally loaded words to overemphasize their grievances. - mig
[2015-04-22 14:38:28] - i'd consider underpayment a mistreatment, but that's probably just my perspective. ~a
[2015-04-22 14:37:45] - mistreat is probably the wrong word. under-pay. is that better? ~a
[2015-04-22 14:33:07] - (which the author isn't alleging as far as I can tell). - mig
[2015-04-22 14:32:42] - a: I'm not sure I would use the word "mistreat". He's being paid well above minimum wage, and while he's complaining about not giving benefits, I'm not sure Compass Group is legally required to provide them. Yeah, it'd be nice if they paid him more and provided some benefits, but I'd hardly call that mistreatment unless there's horrid or hostile working conditions
[2015-04-22 13:56:54] - i would have informed the senate that the compass group was not the right choice for this contract because the compass group mistreats their employees, which means the senate will be served by pissed-off staff. who wants that? ~a
[2015-04-22 13:55:52] - audrey can't get food in the cafeteria today. pretty interesting article. i probably would have worded the argument differently though. ~a
[2015-04-22 13:37:58] - ah. maybe. i hadn't thought of that. "yep." still seems like it'd be my answer in that situation. ~a
[2015-04-22 13:18:28] - a: I guess it's the phrasing that just threw me off. Since this person asking is hispanic, I think she is asking me if I'm one of those hispanics who just hang around their own "kind". I'm still not sure how to respond other than, "yes I have checked off other boxes in my multicultural associate scavenger hunt". - mig
[2015-04-22 13:02:56] - if it's one of those questions where your answers are public (or semi-public), i wouldn't answer it. okcupid had tons of questions i skipped because there was no penalty for skipping questions. not answering a question was almost always better than answering the question. ~a
[2015-04-22 13:01:12] - mig: do you dislike people who look different from you? honestly, it seems like an easy question to me. on the other hand, it's a pretty dumb question. and it would make me question the person asking it. ~a
[2015-04-22 12:33:31] - mig: "A little cream in your coffee?" Honestly, no idea though. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-22 12:08:06] - a weird eharmony anecdote - I've been asked the question by someone: "Do you have a liking for cultural diversity?" What the fuck does that even mean? I have no idea how to repsond. - mig
[2015-04-22 11:58:33] - xpovos: well it's certainly entertaining when that happens (i.e. #CancelColbert), but at the same time it's pretty sad. - mig
[2015-04-22 10:37:58] - mig: In my opinion it's a cultural revolution that has eaten it's children. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-22 10:33:33] - so much so, that they feel it is wholly appropriate to commit actual violence in response. - mig
[2015-04-22 10:27:53] - xpovos: what I think is most troubling about this brand of "social justice" is that these hypersensitive dipshits don't just strawman dissenting views in such an absurd way, but in a lot of cases, consider espousing opposing views to be the equivalent of committing violence against them. - mig
[2015-04-22 09:31:00] - https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social-justice-bullies-the-authoritarianism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3 -- Xpovos
[2015-04-20 15:09:40] - And for the record, I think that's been the "pure libertarian" answer for gay marriage for a while. -Paul
[2015-04-20 15:04:45] - daniel: that's my feeling as well. I think it would take a lot of the air out of arguments from religious folks if the government just renamed marriage licenses into something more generic like domestic partnership license or whatever. From the article, it seems like republicans of Rand Paul's ilk seem willing to accept that. - mig
[2015-04-20 15:00:35] - a: Oh yes I do agree that it would be a headache but I think it solves most of the issues that I'm aware of people having. There are a few arguments against gay marriage that aren't religious but they are pretty weak, so if we are able to remove religion from the issue then it becomes a lot simpler in my head. -Daniel
[2015-04-20 14:35:39] - yeah, that's what miguel was saying. i think all three of us agree that would be a good idea. i'm less convinced, though, that we could actually convince states and the federal government that they want to do that. ~a
[2015-04-20 11:55:56] - a / mig: My answer for awhile is that the government shouldn't be giving out marriage licenses since marriage is an inherently religious idea. The state should give out "civil unions" or whatever label they want and churches should marry or not marry people as they see fit. -Daniel
[2015-04-17 16:28:59] - /r/nottheonion ~a
[2015-04-17 16:24:47] - if you gave only a "civil union" license to everybody i could get behind that, but i don't think you'll get enough approval from non-libertarians. ~a
[2015-04-17 16:23:29] - mig: nay. we already tried that. it didn't work. why didn't it work? because laws ended up being eventually written to differentiate them past the name. oh we're going to give you something that's exactly like marriage only the name is different. (it's a trap!) ~a
[2015-04-17 16:16:17] - Ultimately though I think that's silly, might as well just have a generic "civil union" license, and let people call their partnership whatever they want. - mig
[2015-04-17 16:15:33] - a: good question. Let's make some assumptions for now as a thought exercise. 2 types of certificates. Marriage and Civil Union. Both grant identical benefits/rights. Difference is only in the name. yea or nay?- mig
[2015-04-17 15:58:33] - which? rand doesn't specify how this will be executed. what will be granted by the law? will there still be "marriage certificates" for straight couples only? ~a
[2015-04-17 15:17:11] - practically legal equivalents? - mig
[2015-04-17 15:16:58] - http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/12/politics/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage/ "And you probably could have both," he said. "You could have both traditional marriage, which I believe in. And then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another." I'm just curious, is there a reason we can't have both, as long as they are ...
[2015-04-17 13:49:57] - the same thing you based "I don't know if religious folks would be up in arms if they had to go get 'civil union licenses' as opposed to marriage licences" on.
~a[2015-04-17 13:47:03] - a: "i'm fairly confident that they would hate that idea." on what basis do you think that? - mig
[2015-04-17 13:16:23] - i have no idea what you'd do with the people that currently have marriage certificates. there's no way in hell you'd be able to revoke or modify them. ~a
[2015-04-17 13:03:40] - i'm fairly confident that they would hate that idea. i think you'd see possibly more fierce political opposition for "failing to recognize our marriages!" ~a
[2015-04-17 12:01:29] - a: possibly. I don't know if religious folks would be up in arms if they had to go get "civil union licenses" as opposed to marriage licences? I mean, maybe they won't like it, but would there be this fierce political opposition as there is to the current situation? - mig
[2015-04-17 11:51:48] - "if they just started calling them civil unions" you mean if the government started calling all marriages "civil unions?" i doubt the religious right would like that either. ~a
[2015-04-17 11:27:10] - pitchforks? - mig
[2015-04-17 11:27:04] - So I was giving some thought after reading an article about Rand Paul being fine with civil union contracts but not calling them marriage and wondering if we really are at a point where this whole issue is just arguing about semantics. I do really wonder if they just started calling them civil unions if the religious right would possibly drop their opposition
[2015-04-15 13:54:05] - paul: as far as scandals go, I think it'll hurt more in the general election than the primaries. - mig
[2015-04-15 11:54:39] - mig: Yeah, I was a little surprised how blunt he was about his compatriots in the Senate. Usually people are more gracious when they are on their way out. -Paul
[2015-04-15 11:03:14] - paul: wow, Reid is really turning into a cantankerous old fuck as he's leaving the senate. - mig
[2015-04-15 10:56:23] - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/harry-reid-gop-2016-presidential-candidates-116995.html Not if Harry Reid has anything to say about it. Apparently he thinks we should just do away with the primaries for Clinton.
-Paul[2015-04-15 10:36:51] - paul: that might be the problem, is there going to be a legitatmate field? - mig
[2015-04-15 10:36:47] - Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. Clinton seems to take most of the worst parts of the Obama presidency and adds an even more hawkish foreign policy, so it's hard for me to imagine a candidate I would dislike more (maybe somebody like Santorum?). -Paul
[2015-04-15 10:35:31] - mig: Fair enough. If I could only pick one person to bet on, it would certainly be Clinton, but if you let me take the field, I would take the field. I also wouldn't feel too confident about it, but there's a long campaign season ahead. -Paul
[2015-04-15 10:34:36] - Also, she does have a number of controversies swirling around her. None seem to be all that serious, but Bridgegate ultimately didn't seem all that serious either, but it torpedoed Christie's status as a virtual front-runner and he hasn't recovered yet. -Paul
[2015-04-15 10:34:26] - paul: mitt romney had the same issues, and even though there was some difficulty, he did eventually cruise into the nomination. Also I'm sure the DNC is going to try and make this primary as non-competitive as possible. - mig
[2015-04-15 10:20:02] - mig: She actually holds a number of unpopular opinions, and I'm not convinced she's a good enough speaker/campaigner to completely gloss all those over. -Paul
[2015-04-15 10:19:18] - mig: Even though I couldn't tell you who I think will be the nominee, I still have this nagging feeling Clinton isn't going to get it. It just seems like everybody likes the idea of her as a candidate (maybe because of the first female president or something? residual goodwill for Bill's presidency?), but once they get specifics, they're less enamored. -Paul
[2015-04-15 09:41:17] - Now to install on my iPod and repeat. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-15 09:40:35] - My free pack for playing a game on my phone included a rare that I was missing that belonged in the deck I was playing. Decent. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-15 09:13:53] - mig: Downloaded it last night, needed to get back to my activator, though, which was weirdly at work. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-14 17:49:25] - xpovos: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/18648148/hearthstone%C2%AE-now-available-on-mobile-4-14-2015 hearthstone for phones out. now. - mig
[2015-04-14 15:10:49] - I kind of hope Webb is able to bring some fire into the process, but it's not looking like that'll play out that way. - mig
[2015-04-14 15:04:26] - daniel: there's no Obama type candidate this time. Even if Warren does decide to run (I think the ship has sailed on that front), she's a loony bin candidate. - mig
[2015-04-14 14:59:07] - mig: I think the thing that prevents me from thinking Clinton is a shoe in is that everyone thought she was a shoe in back in 08 and that didn't work out. There is room for scandals / gaffes / crazy things to happen still. -Daniel
[2015-04-14 13:27:23] - neat thing about gta v pc: While you are setting up your graphic settings it estimates how much vram you'll need to run it at those settings. Not sure how accurate it is but I thought it was a nice touch. - mig
[2015-04-14 13:18:29] - so now that clinton has announced, is her dem nomination now fait accompli barring anything really crazy happening? I feel like we're kind of doomed to Clinton v. Rubio for 2016. - mig
[2015-04-13 10:43:37] - mig: God, I'm hardcore pro-life and even I thought that law was a bad idea. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-13 10:43:07] - This has got to be satire, right? http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121406/civil-war-150th-anniversary-confederacy-defeat-should-be-holiday -- Xpovos
[2015-04-13 10:14:56] - a: gta v on pc is out tomorrow and unlocks today @ 7pm est if you get it digitally. - mig
[2015-04-13 10:08:27] - Even among those libertarians who would consider themselves pro life, they generally aren't in favor of typical anti-abortion legislation (ex: VA's ultrasound law). - mig
[2015-04-11 13:43:03] - I'd agree that libertarians trend pro-choice. I'm less sure immigration is as thorny an issue a Paul suggests, but he's probably right. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-11 00:12:59] - a: Although that is the big issue where there isn't good agreement on what is the "pure" libertarian stance (that, and maybe immigration). -Paul
[2015-04-11 00:11:37] - a: Actually, I think pro-choice is the majority opinion among libertarians. -Paul
[2015-04-10 23:17:13] - sorkin's republicans are hardly republicans. i doubt you'd consider vinick nor mcavoy very libertarian either. i mean, seriously, they're both pro-choice. how libertarian is that? ~a
[2015-04-10 20:41:41] - a: Openly an atheist? Wow. Point taken. I've no idea how apt the comparison is, but even without the Rand Paul point, I still find it interesting the "Republican" apparently won over the West Wing audience. -Paul
[2015-04-10 15:33:02] - either way, the point was that vinick was sort of a "different type of republican", a label that I think that would apply to Paul as well. - mig
[2015-04-10 15:19:42] - a: i have never watched West Wing but looking at the bio, while there are definitely differences (the major one being on religion), I don't think the comparison is too outlandish. - mig
[2015-04-10 14:58:18] - paul: i watched the west wing. many times. rand paul is not arnie vinick. "Now, that’s not exactly Rand Paul’s policy portfolio" is the biggest understatement of the article. arnie was an atheist for *god's sake*. arnie was a republican like will mcavoy was a republican (also sorkin). ~a
[2015-04-10 14:06:09] - http://www.cato.org/blog/rand-paul-arnie-vinick I never watched the West Wing, but I found this to be an interesting story. I never heard about those "real" debates. -Paul
[2015-04-10 13:58:12] - daniel: I was about to ask, has anyone wondered why Hilary hasn't commented on this yet? - mig
[2015-04-10 13:56:45] - mig: n+1 sentences from a R. -Daniel
[2015-04-10 13:46:25] - Because contrary to the title, the article notes that Rand Paul did in fact speak about the Walter Scott tragedy. So I guess he has to hold a press conference solely for that issue? Include a sentence or 2 mentioning it in every single speech he has down there? How much speaking is required to show that you "care"? - mig
[2015-04-10 13:44:28] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/rachel-maddow-rand-paul-walter-scott-staying-quiet_n_7041268.html I'm just curious, since it seems the whole "libertarian-ish types aren't speaking out on criminal justice tragedy" seems to have come up again, what is the exact protocol that progressives demand for speaking about these types of issues when a tragedy occurs?
[2015-04-09 21:59:17] - a: oh wow, great job!! the difficulty rating is a new feature, i wondered if the problems just got harder and harder and harder.... but, it looks like that's just for the first 200 or so, and after that it's a mixed bag - aaron
[2015-04-09 14:36:49] - mig: I was also surprised to hear the officer had already been charged. -Daniel
[2015-04-09 12:58:31] - ( . . . coding time. running time: 0.1seconds, 6seconds) ~a
[2015-04-09 12:48:08] - aaron: 510. 147.
(each took me many . . . many hours) ~a[2015-04-08 14:56:15] - I think it's also pretty telling the PD immediately charged him with murder. Even if you take into account pressure from other incidents, it's rather stunning how quickly charges have been brought. - mig
[2015-04-08 12:51:21] - I haven't read much about the story at all, but what leaps out to me is that the officer fired 8 times at the back of a fleeing suspect (seems excessive almost no matter what the situation was) and that he blatantly lied about a number of things that happened. -Paul
[2015-04-08 12:34:21] - mig: Thanks for the link. To answer my other question specifically, the ruling is 1985 then. -- Xpvoos
[2015-04-08 12:29:27] - xpovos: well in reality, what I can think of right away is that you can't be of the assumption that police officers are good marksmen. Sure they can reasonably handle firearms, but shooting a moving target when there are potentially multiple bystanders around hardly seems like a great idea. - mig
[2015-04-08 12:27:08] - xpovos: SCOTUS, apparently. - mig
[2015-04-08 12:26:15] - And I should clarify, I don't think the officer acted correctly, necessarily. There is at least a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence indicating he acted very poorly, in fact. I'm more specifically interested in the reality vs. the fictional media culture of cops on shooting fleeing suspects. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-08 12:25:06] - mig: Do you know when that SC ruling was? Or what it's name was? -- Xpovos
[2015-04-08 12:23:48] - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html "The Supreme Court has held that an officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only when there is probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” - mig
[2015-04-08 12:22:12] - Of course the video is only part of the encounter, but the officer moving the taser like that seems pretty damning. - mig
[2015-04-08 12:20:41] - also in the video, it appears that the officer takes his taser (which had been dropped during the altercation), and moves it near the body. His report indicated that the subject had taken his taser (the rationale for responding with lethal force, I'm assuming). So it appears that he was trying to doctor evidence, which is a serious problem in of itself. - mig
[2015-04-08 12:11:29] - mig: I hadn't heard/read that he was off-duty. It was a traffic stop, which means he initiated it with an on-duty act. Even if he was off-the-clock, I'd consider that on-duty now. This isn't some random guy he shot fleeing a crime scene that occurred while he was out grocery shopping. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-08 12:09:39] - xpovos: the fact he was off-duty changes a lot of things. Unless the suspect was very clearly armed and dangerous, which I don't know since I haven't read much about this incident. Either way shooting at a fleeing suspect in such an open area and at that distance is pretty dangerous if there are bystanders around. - mig
[2015-04-08 12:00:29] - So, another police shooting. The debate I've heard about this one has centered on the fact that the officer shot the fleeing suspect in the back. Maybe I've watched too many movies, but shooting a fleeing suspect in the back--isn't that kind of a thing? -- Xpovos
[2015-04-07 12:01:04] - I actually still wasn't sure if he was going to run until about a few days ago when it did become a really open secret he was announcing today. Either he doesn't care about potentially vacating the Senate seat like Rubio or he found some way to deal with it. - mig
[2015-04-07 11:50:47] - xpovos: it seems like both the establishment press on the left and the right is looking for their attack angles. You get right leaning media going bonkers after he didn't clap enthusiastically enough at Netanyahu's speech to congress and then people like Rachel Maddow who seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with finding something to whine about him. - mig
[2015-04-07 11:49:16] - paul, because bits. ~a
[2015-04-07 11:48:13] - a: Surprising that you would be the person to announce that on the message board.
-Paul[2015-04-07 11:46:13] - Obviously, I'm editorializing the coverage a little bit. But it was frustrating to see what seemed like an intentional effort to align the listener's views of Rand Paul for the future with stupidity, campaign finance evasion and fringe candidates. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-07 11:35:33] - those evil Republicans and their evasion of campaign finance laws. The second used Paul's imminent announcement to discuss how easy it was to declare candidacy that anyone could do it, in fact 196 people had, so let's interview some of these fringe candidates including this wacky Libertarian. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-07 11:34:24] - I was listening to NPR yesterday, and in an hour's time (two different programs) they ran two pieces on how Rand Paul was going to announce today. The first was "worst kept secret" followed up by commentary on how a) Rand was probably stupid for announcing this early since now he'd be subject to campaign finance laws and b) [...] -- Xpovos
[2015-04-07 11:32:58] - a: He's obviously been running in an unofficial sense for a while, and even the past few days, it's been an open secret he was announcing this morning. It's interesting though... -- Xpovos
[2015-04-07 11:18:50] - doctor rand paul is running for president. first presidential candidate to accept donations in the form of magical internet money?! donated. ~a
[2015-04-07 10:05:59] - also Duke was one of the schools that tried to keep VT out of the ACC when the Big East still existed as a football conference. - mig
[2015-04-07 09:56:52] - daniel: Duke has a reputation over the years of getting of a lot of preferential treatment from the powers that be of college basketball. A long history of favorably officiated games, undeserved high seedings in the tourney, that sort of thing. - mig
[2015-04-07 09:49:16] - mig: I'm confused about Duke? Just cause they win? I honestly don't follow college sports to know anything about Duke other than that. -Daniel
[2015-04-07 09:33:39] - SF giants is more a dislike of their fans than the team itself (though what ties all those teams together is that all the fans of those teams are unbelievably obnoxious). - mig
[2015-04-07 09:31:44] - daniel: I was pretty sure my dislike of the Patriots is pretty well known. TL:DR - CHEATERS! Ohio State is more of an extension of a dislike of the Big 10 conference and it kind of stings that VT beat them last year and they ended up winning the title. Duke, is well, I didn't think that needed any explaining. - mig
[2015-04-07 08:47:02] - mig: I'm not sure I despise any sports teams other than the Utah Jazz and even that has faded some. What don't you like about those teams? You told me about the spurs before but I'm unsure about the others. -Daniel
[2015-04-07 00:19:39] - this sports year might be the most worst I'll probably ever remember. Literally every time I despise has won each respective title: spurs, sf giants, ohio state, patriots, and duke. good thing I don't care about hockey I guess. - mig
[2015-04-06 15:22:05] - Daniel: That would be my guess as well, but all it takes is the judge having a bad day... -- Xpovos
[2015-04-06 14:59:10] - Xpovos: NPR thought they would make it through the legal prelims. -Daniel
[2015-04-06 14:05:36] - But if they can get past standing, it probably gets settled out of court. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-06 14:05:25] - mig: Well, they can definitely sue. Whether they get past the preliminaries is another matter. They'll need to show standing, and even if they manage that (I think they have a good case for standing, but it's not air-tight) moving into the trial there's no guarantee they'd win. Not even a probability. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-06 13:49:57] - xpovos: what seems to complicate matters I thought would be that no actual member of the fraternity was actually named as an rapist in the article (the named rapist turned out to not exist in reality), so it's confusing to me right now whether the individuals can actually sue in a sort of guilt by association type of damages. - mig
[2015-04-06 13:20:49] - would have their own independent and strong cases against Rolling Stone. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-06 13:20:29] - mig: They're not a public figure, and it being untrue is extremely helpful. Truth is a defense against libel, which would be the accusation here. They might get both a libel and a slander case going. The technicalities would rest on the nature of incorporation of the fraternity, I think. Though the individuals from the fraternity, particularly if named, ... -- Xpovo
[2015-04-06 13:18:17] - mig: They were talking on NPR this afternoon that the frat was going to pursue legal action against Rolling Stone. -Daniel]
[2015-04-06 12:25:22] - a published article that is pretty demonstrably false, and a really appalling amount of journalistic negligence. Is malicious intent a requirement.for libel or is that slander? - mig
[2015-04-06 12:24:29] - on a little bit of a tangent, now that the discredited Rolling Stone rape story has been thoroughly analyzed. Does the fraternity affected have a case to sue the publication for libel? They probably would skate on a technicality but it seems like all the conditions are there ...
[2015-04-06 10:46:12] - a: that's I guess where we have an agreement ... sort of. The law shouldn't treat interracial couples and gay couples differently. Where we probably disagree is on whether private anti-discrimination laws as a whole are necessary. - mig
[2015-04-06 10:37:39] - mig: "do you really think these nightmare scenarios ... are realistic?" no. "the answer is probably no to both your questions" ok, then why should our laws be any different for gay couples? ~a
[2015-04-05 21:03:48] - I'll ask again, do you really think these nightmare scenarios that are regularly brought up if we allow businesses to discriminate in unsavory ways are actually all that realistic? - mig
[2015-04-05 21:02:35] - the almighty business, which I think is bunk given the actual effects that activist consumers have been able to inflict against business that take rather bigoted stances. - mig
[2015-04-05 21:01:40] - I agree with 1) but do not believe that in of itself is justification for government action (many thing that are most would consider morally reprehensible are legal, for example, westboro dipshits parading around their god hates fags" signs). 2) I don't find realistic in this day and age. 3) is based I believe on a premise we as consumers are powerless against ...
[2015-04-05 20:55:40] - discriminate will "normalize" among the general populace and we as a country will never "evolve" from ugly attitudes. - mig
[2015-04-05 20:54:16] - I will throw another question back at you, one that I asked earlier. In my view, there seem to be 3 main reasons to outlaw racial and sexual orientation discrimination in private business: 1 ) It's morally reprehensible. 2) It's possible that all businesses will conspire to shut out minorities or LGBT folks from a particular market. 3) allowing businesses to ...
[2015-04-05 20:47:45] - a: i would wager in most cases, someone wishing to not provide services to an interracial will provide have a hard time doing so without any sort of legal reprecussion. So the answer is probably no to both your questions. - mig
[2015-04-05 08:19:21] - mig, agreed i guess: i don't believe that governmental and business discrimination are the same thing. so, let's focus on business discrimination, then: do our laws allow businesses to discriminate against interracial couples? or against couples of certain races? ~a
[2015-04-03 14:50:08] - as such I don't believe they are explicitly moral equivalents because governments hold power over people. Businesses don't, as much as we like to think they do (I've yet to encounter an instance were a private business has literally coerced me into doing something). - mig
[2015-04-03 14:45:11] - I may have mangled what I was trying to say, let me try again. I think the problem is that people tend to view government mandated discrimination (Jim Crow) and private business discrimination (wedding photographers) as interchangeable issues when I think they are distinct issues. - mig
[2015-04-03 10:40:22] - both sets of people have had government mandated discrimination. i don't understand the distinction. ~a
[2015-04-03 10:30:32] - My point that I'm trying to make is that its (imo) government mandated discrimination that causes real substantial harm. Does private business discrimination suck? Yes, it does, but it is something that can be remedied by people themselves without the need for government involvement. - mig
[2015-04-03 10:09:58] - if you're referring to non-marriage discrimination of minority races in law, there is plenty of non-marriage discrimination of gay people in law too. so i don't understand that distinction either. ~a
[2015-04-03 09:50:22] - then i still don't understand the distinction. interracial marriage was illegal then it wasn't. gay marriage was illegal then it wasn't. what's the difference? ~a
[2015-04-03 09:39:14] - And yes, we still have states that do not allow gay couples to legally marry, but that may not hold true for much longer with some SCOTUS cases coming up the docket. - mig
[2015-04-03 09:37:28] - a: yes that was what I was saying. There was a reason Jim Crow laws, were called laws. "Separate but equal" was mandated by state governments. Interracial marriage was illegal in Virginia until Loving v. Virginia. - mig
[2015-04-03 09:28:46] - "previous discriminatory practices were not just sanctioned by government, but in a lot of cases, mandated" interracial marriage? i'm pretty sure discrimination of gay marriage is mandated too. i'm not sure i understand what you mean. maybe that discrimination of minority races in general was mandated? but, i don't think i understand that point either. ~a
[2015-04-02 18:55:39] - I mean, we hear about all these nightmare scenarios about what might happen if we let people just discriminate as they please, but be honest, do you think any of those is really that realistic? - mig
[2015-04-02 18:50:59] - in their service accomadations. - mig
[2015-04-02 18:50:25] - Because it's not like gay couples will be having a hard time to find businesses willing to provide services for their weddings. And it's not like we are having issues with gay people being denied more basic services. For all the rage that was directed at Chik Fil-A I've yet to hear of any instance of the franchise either discriminate in their employment practices or
[2015-04-02 18:44:02] - photos for a gay wedding or whether a pizzeria wouldn't cater a gay wedding really matter? - mig
prev <-> next