LorneReams posted:

Actually, I think it would be closer to having a Jewish deli worker saying he/she is chosing not to serve any non-kosher food and he can't be fired/punished for it.

SirKibbles posted:

Well since a church of satan leader was quoted as saying Ayn Rand is the closest their philosophy I'm guessing no,it only proves how crazy the country is getting.

computer parts posted:

Yes, how crazy it is that all of the people you consider bad guys are not working in lockstep together.

SirKibbles posted:

Never mind then why can't be people be united in their love for the dark lord and master

Badera posted:

From that Santorum article:


http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/1021/cardinal.aspx

I mean...just...what?

Evil Fluffy posted:

So 50 shades of grey is basically someone's fantasies of one of the male characters abusing the poo poo out of Bella or whatever that girl's name was.

Shear Modulus posted:

I've yet to hear anyone suggest a responsible exit strategy for the search function.

Shageletic posted:

Forgot to add TNR, American Prospect, and longform.com as a nice conglomerator.

HootTheOwl posted:

USPOL September: Impeach Fried Chicken - The White Meat's Burden
When our efforts fail, we'll instead file a mod report

Unrelated, but were are now just one step away from literal Benjamin Gazi's

Pornographic Memory posted:

Yeah I don't see why you'd doubt companies whose entire source of income is defense contracts would be very clever about securing as much government cash for themselves as possible.

Gail Wynand posted:

So I was just listening to Mark Levin's show from yesterday and he talked at length about how Obama's worst abuse of power yet is set to happen at the end of the summer. He was very vague on what that would be though. Did I miss some Fox News rumor or is this just generic fearmongering?

Shifty Pony posted:

Remember how a ton of companies (particularly pharma) have been moving their corporate headquarters to the UK in name only in order to dodge a fuckton of US taxes through what is called an "inversion"?

It looks like the Treasury has figured out a way to kneecap them by preventing a common accounting trick that moves profits offshore by loading up the US division with a ton of debt for which the interest payments are deductible:


As you can imagine the usual suspects who benefit from such accounting trickery are really mad:


The best part of the proposed change in treatment is that companies which have already inverted are going to be royally hosed because their planned upon tax dodge is going to go poof.

emfive posted:

OK so an "impeachment" is basically the special form of "indictment" for presidents. (or not because I'm really dense)

Muscle Tracer posted:

This is not how impeachment works.

Amergin posted:

Per my boss, paraphrased:

"When we have a leak in our gas pipeline, it's not as bad. It'll just float up and disperse into the air. But we need a 5 minute response time on leaks in the oil pipe, because that just leaks to the ground, then people come out and take pictures, and then we get bad PR."

And thus, my group doesn't really worry about leak detection on the gas side as much as the oil side.

Amergin posted:

US Politics August - Golf is only for rich Suburbanites who are all Conservative Baby-Eaters

EDIT: With regards to the On Point: Ferguson edition
Remember folks: It's racist to be scared of young black men while walking alone at night because of high crime/incarceration rates of that group, but it's perfectly fine to label all rural folks as racist white hicks who will bring about an economic collapse!

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Come on, you're better than this. The only thing that makes your gimmick tolerable is that you've got higher standards for fake bullshit.

computer parts posted:

I thought the main issue was just the VTOL stuff, the rest of the plane would be fine sans that.

Amergin posted:

And I doubt that the GOP, after seeing the aftermath of the Bush-era foreign policy coupled with the rise of more "small government" Tea Partiers/libertarian-lite voters, will try that same strategy so soon after the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're taking a Bush-era policy and saying "This is, will be and forever was the Republican foreign policy for those we don't like" which is just ignoring most rhetoric coming out of the right wing these days.

Hell, even McCain is basically just asking for more airstrikes at this point.

Amergin posted:

Counterpoint: Diplomacy has been working swimmingly with I/P, Syria, Libya, Russia/Ukraine, Iraq/IS...

Jackson Taus posted:

Yes it has. When you realize that the American diplomatic objective is theoretically to (1) further American hegemony and (2) promote "Democracy" while not getting an Americans killed or substantively harming the American economy. Within those constraints, we've more or less accomplished those objectives as well as we're going to. Nobody's really got a way we could substantively have achieved more of (1) or (2) without risking American lives or treasure. When you get right down to it, we value American lives and treasure tens of thousands of times more than we value the lives and treasure of non-NATO folks, especially brown people. Obama's diplomatic policy threads this needle - he's doing what he can to further our objectives without risking American lives or substantial economic harm.

Putin knows drat well that the American people won't support any sort of action against Russia that could cause us economic pain or result in dead US soldiers (and ditto for Germans, btw). That's why he's so effective at calling our bluff - he's smart enough to realize the worst we can do is various sanctions and international punishments, and he's decided he'll trade Eastern Ukraine for that. We can't put more troops on the ground in Iraq because the Iraq government straight up said they don't want American troops, so even if we could negotiate with IS(IS|IL) it's not like we're holding good cards there either.

Any sort of diplomatic argument involving "making Putin back down" means either (a) magically cutting his IQ in half or (b) acting in such a way that he'll believe we'll sacrifice hundreds of thousands of NATO (primarily American) troops and risk retaliatory nuclear strikes to invade Russia, siege Moscow and overthrow him. Any lesser military action plays into his hands domestically - if "imperialist American aggressors" invade Eastern Ukraine and Crimea and fight pro-Russian forces there, that'll empower a generation of American-hating Russian jingoism/revanchism that'll keep Putin in power indefinitely.

So the only real foreign policy options in those areas are a few nibbles here and there with a few more bombs dropped on , or batshit-crazy stuff like "Land War with Russia" or "re-invade Iraq and install a new puppet govt in place of the democratically-elected one".

Amergin posted:

Alter Ego posted:

1) OK, you're not even trying here, since Hillary's been good on women's issues since she became First Lady.

2) No, you're right, she wasn't. Just like every other loving member of the Democratic Party with a few notable exceptions. I'd rather have someone capable of changing their mind, even if it's for political reasons, especially since I'm not stupid enough to think she wasn't PERSONALLY in favor of both those things before coming out politically for them.

3) Because Rand and Romney aren't socially liberal either, maybe? Let's see--Rand and Romney would DEFINITELY turn the United States into the show "Continuum" circa 2077, whereas Hillary would at least not make things worse than they are.

Is Hillary Clinton a political opportunist? Hell yes she is. Is she too friendly with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party? Yeah. Would Rand Paul and Mitt Romney undoubtedly be worse by light-years? Duh.

Also, Amergin, it makes me laugh to think that YOU think Hillary's got any real friends on the left. Like us, they're smart enough to know that if she runs, she's the one that will protect the balance of the Supreme Court--and since so many important social and economic issues will no doubt be decided there in the next ten years, how anyone that cares about gay rights or women's rights could honestly look at ANYONE in the GOP field is mind-boggling to me.

Alter Ego posted:

I know what he is--I think my past responses bear that out.

Shbobdb posted:

Amergin is a national treasure and his posts make this thread worth reading. I don't watch any news TV and I need to see rebuttals to standard rightwing arguments. Plus, the "go team!" action of it is fun to watch.

Fried Chicken posted:

"God is a predator drone..."

pangstrom posted:

That's that sexperiment preacher... guessing he's basically the clickbait version of a preacher.

anonumos posted:

You can't possibly address race as an issue by ONLY focusing on class and wealth. Race is a fundamental building block of wealth and any other kind of privilege.

loquacius posted:

I'm having fun; sorry you're not vv