Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 130127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ariich

  • sexin' you later
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 20630
  • Gender: Male
  • Fun! Fun! Fun! Fun!
The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« on: May 01, 2009, 03:31:08 AM »
I don't actually know how many versions we had at the last place, but I've arbitrarily decided that this is version two :P

Knock yourselves out.

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2009, 07:31:51 AM »
I thinmk this actually is version 2.

So who was expecting a Supreme Court retirement this quickly, and who would have thought Souter?
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2009, 07:39:29 AM »
Me and not me.  I was expecting Ginsberg.  This was actually one of the only reasons I preferred Obama to McCain.  Since I've now come to realize they're one in the same, I'm curious how this is all going to turn out. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2009, 09:41:47 AM »
I think this is v.3

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2009, 10:23:39 AM »
Reprinted from 11/02

Quote
WASHINGTON, DC—By an 8-1 vote Monday, the members of the U.S. Supreme Court collectively resolved to lose their virginity by Dec. 31, 2002.

"Whereas neither this judicial body, nor the bodies of any of its nine members, has ever been touched in an intimate manner, it is wholly appropriate for us to become men and women via acts of sexual congress, and this on a deadline described by the completion of the year 2002," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, voicing the majority opinion. "The only caveat is: There are no caveats."

The pact was first proposed on Oct. 23, when Kennedy and Justice Antonin Scalia were bullied by a coalition of prominent congressional jocks led by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

"The legislators in question were stepping on our robes and coughing the word 'fag' and carrying out a variety of other acts that, while not unconstitutional, would unequivocally be construed as mean," Kennedy said. "The final straw came when Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told me she thought I was cute and said to meet her at the Jefferson Memorial dressed as a cowboy so we could make out."

After complying with Collins' request, Kennedy was ambushed and pelted with eggs by several assailants, including Collins herself, who walked off holding hands with Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE).

"She laughed and said, 'So long, virgin! Have a nice night with Mr. Right Hand,'" Kennedy said. "After that, I decided I'd had enough. It was time to take action."

The court decided to move forward with the pact later that evening when, during a late-night bonding session, Chief Justice William Rehnquist admitted to being a virgin—shattering longtime perceptions that he is the worldliest and most experienced member of the court.

"Hearing that Big Willie had never buried the gavel was a key turning point," Justice David Souter said. "It opened up our eyes and made us see how we were not alone, after all. After a period of deliberation, we arrived at a majority opinion that if we all worked together, we could overcome our nervousness and actually get laid."

"Hey, everybody!" Souter added. "We're all gonna get laid!"

The lone dissenting vote, cast by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, came as a surprise to many, given her long track record of defending personal liberties. Washington Post judicial reporter James Klingler theorized that the vote may represent an attempt on Ginsburg's part to prevent Scalia from coupling with another woman.

"I'm not at liberty to name names, but a certain Supreme Court justice recently informed me that Ginsburg confided in her that she 'totally loves' Scalia," Klingler said. "This, I believe, is the reason she voted against the pact. But while, on its surface, this pact would seem to drive Ginsburg and Scalia further apart, it may well be the very thing that brings them together. Perhaps during a particularly long and difficult get-laid strategy session, Justice Ginsburg will remove her glasses and rub her tired eyes, prompting Justice Scalia to finally see the beautiful woman beneath that hard liberal exterior."

The first major test case for the pact will take place this weekend at a Judicial Branch/Daughters of the American Revolution mixer, which Justice John Paul Stevens said will be attended by some "really slutty girls" he knows from law school.

"Under penalty of perjury, I swear to God, there is this one chick who is completely hot for Souter," Stevens said. "She personally attested to this fact during a conversation I recently overheard that I am not at liberty to discuss in any detail. Saturday is his night, man."

Subsequent opportunities are expected to arise at a pool party Supreme Court Marshal Pamela Talkin is slated to throw at the Alexandria Radisson over Thanksgiving break, as well as at the Judicial Branch Big Beach Bonfire on Dec. 14.

Stephen "Pee-Wee" Breyer, the most recently sworn-in justice, reported being nervous about the impending virginity loss. A close confidant, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that a trembling Breyer recently asked him, "Gee, getting it on with a real girl—what do I do?"

Not all of the justices admit to being so nervous, however. Asked to assess his prospects for losing his virginity within the next two months, a confident Scalia lifted his judicial robe and quipped, "Res ipsa loquitur."
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2009, 01:38:54 PM »
"Bury the gavel."  :lol

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40299
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2009, 04:30:56 AM »
*chats*
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2009, 11:46:34 AM »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/fox-news-assailed-for-vid_n_196719.html

Quote
Hey, kids! Do you ever get tired of Fox News' crops? I don't mean the food they might be literally growing, in Glenn Beck's Doom Room, in preparation for Imminent Socialist Panic. I'm talking about the way they manipulate video to make it look like people are just straight up saying the opposite thing they actually said. Well, it's been bothering the media critics at Media Matters For America for some time, and they have, for a long time, been cataloging "examples of Fox News hosts and correspondents cropping comments by progressives and Democratic political figures in a manner that misrepresents them." A new mash-up video offers some side-by-side examples of what they're talking about:

Some constructive criticism? I think the third example -- Obama's "empathy" criteria for Supreme Court justice -- isn't the best example of a Fox cropping. While it's certainly true that Major Garrett's statement, "That aggravates those who feel that justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent," seems to neatly ignore the fact that Obama's next statement was "I will seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the appropriate limits of the judicial role," the fact is, just about every news organization honed in on the "empathy" part of the statement. It became the sound bite from that press exchange.

In a more lengthy report, however, Media Matters has other candidates that are fitting examples of these games with videotape, well worth reviewing. Key examples include Sean Hannity's intentional omission of Obama's admonishment of Europeans' "casual...insidious" anti-Americanism to make it look like Obama was apologizing for the United States, and Wendell Goler's splice-happy report that made it look like Obama was in favor of "European-style health care," when he was actually specifically opposing it. Also close to my heart is Fox's misleading insertion of an out-of-context Joe Biden clip into a report, for which the network eventually had to apologize. At the time, I opined:

    It's very sad, and weird, because Fox News would have made their point just fine if they hadn't included the misleading part of this clip. All they've really done is demonstrate that they do not have enough faith in their own editorial premises to avoid bolstering them with falsehoods. But more to the point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense entirely.

Yet they persist!

If there isn't a law against this, there should be.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2009, 02:25:08 PM »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/fox-news-assailed-for-vid_n_196719.html

Quote
But more to the point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense entirely.
They'll be debunked by organizations who aren't Fox News.  The people who actually watch Fox thinking it's news, as opposed to it's comedic value, will never see the debunking; nor would they want to or believe it if they did.  'Merika seems to be made up entirely of two classes: those who think Fox is the only trusted news source and those who know better and they seem to be split about 50/50.  The latter group can see both sides.  The first group will never accept anything outside of Fox's point of view.   
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2009, 05:28:29 PM »
Oh ya I wasn't agreeing with him. That's why I think there should be a law against it, becuase the people who watch fox news won't learn the truth and it basically amounts to propaganda.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2009, 06:19:20 PM »
We don't need more laws for anything. Education cures stupidity.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2009, 06:32:25 PM »
Yes well American's are retarded. The fact that fox news is the most popular news source should tell you that.

Also, wouldn't educating the populace be a law?

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2009, 06:37:05 PM »
If they are under 18, yes.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2009, 06:52:41 PM »
We don't need more laws for anything. Education cures stupidity.
The best non-snortable thing I've seen from ColOmbia to date. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2009, 09:33:41 PM »
We don't need more laws for anything. Education cures stupidity.

Gotta agree with you there, trying to outlaw clever editing is simply not a good idea.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2009, 10:55:40 PM »
We don't need more laws for anything. Education cures stupidity.

Gotta agree with you there, trying to outlaw clever editing is simply not a good idea.

Outlawing down right manipulation to serve a political end and presenting it as factual and accurate is different then outlawing clever editing.

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2009, 12:18:14 AM »
Um, isn't that totally contradictory to the first amendment (a free press)?

Wouldn't the government then have to determine what is "correct" news and what is not?

Not to mention, I don't think this would be strictly subjectable to only FOX.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 12:29:36 AM by MetalMike06 »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2009, 12:48:11 AM »
No it wouldn't. But seriously, if the government was doing this it would be called propaganda and we would all be rightfully decrying it. And another great example of where people think free press means the press can print whatever it wants. I have freedom of speech but I can't yell fire in a public place if there is no fire, and I cant' defame someone in an act of libel. I can't incite violence or a riot in the press. I can't give out false advertisements. Whats similiar in all these cases? Lying and hiding it as the truth to a public audience. I would say this fits very closely with the spirit of those other laws.

And no the government wouldn't. Fortunately, when you edit and crop like Fox News is doing to serve your agenda, it's quite obvious - and, as the free-markets should point out, Media Matters is already doing this. I guess I should be clear, I don't want some governmental agency patrolling for this, but when you have a company which repeatadly distorts reality like Fox News does something should be done. Especially in the Supreme Court case. The guy literally objected to Obama with something Obama actually said right after the clip they showed ended. I mean what the fuck.

And yes, any news organization which does this repeatedly should face penalties.

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2009, 01:01:27 AM »
Ah, I see. My only concern is how it is enforced.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2009, 01:03:12 AM »
Make it like libel - someone, not the government, has to bring it to court.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2009, 11:46:16 AM »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2009, 04:36:09 AM »
Video that won't embed. 
:lol

In response to scheavo's post, perhaps we could flush away the entire mainstream media and start new. 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2009, 01:15:51 PM »
I'm all for that. Frankly, I think mass media is about the worst thing to happen in this country. Mass media is just an easy way for demagogues to have power. Is there any studies which show the negative effects of 24 hour news channels? Because I can't imagine there's much benefit, it forces the news to become about ratings and not about the news.

Maybe we could have a law against one company having monopolistic broudcasting rights on a station? So for example, on Fox News channel, instead of everything being broud casted by the same company, we require a different company to come in. Say, MSNBC. And have the reverse true on the MSNBC channel. This way people don't get one viewpoint and spout it as the truth. A la the idea behind equal show time for political candidates and such.



Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2009, 01:46:28 PM »
No. The point is to educate people so they start to demand for quality news instead of entertainment. Not asking for FREAKING BIG BROTHER to say what we can and should see.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2009, 02:26:42 PM »
That's a nice idea and all, but you're forgetting the mass media is most peoples education. Plus, it wouldn't stop people from seeing what they want to see, I don't even know how you can say this. You can turn off the TV, and they wouldn't be forcing you to watch anything.

In this case the ends is more important than the means. I'm much more frightened of a "free" public who is effectively brainwashed by mass media who's only concern is for profit and ratings than big brother dictating BALANCED news coverage. Besides which, your plan requires big brother, and some could argue much more severely. Who's to educate the people to try and get a balanced viewpoint? You said it youreslf, we must EDUCATE people, not convince people to educate themselves.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2009, 05:34:00 PM »
Lets just get rid of the FCC.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2009, 12:45:56 AM »
I think I'll actually agree to that. V-chips can control what kids are allowed to watch, and if the parent doesn't use them then they're an idiot. Plus, kids are getting far far far far more damaged from access to the internet than they are from TV. Curse words never hurt anybody, it's just purism taken to an extreme and it's not as if kids don't know what is being said.

Still, big brother or not I don't trust the masses to get a balance source of news, and I'd rather have big government and big brother dicating this then face the consequences of a dumb public. Democracy in the hands of idiots is simply terrifying.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2009, 03:52:04 AM »
I think I'll actually agree to that. V-chips can control what kids are allowed to watch, and if the parent doesn't use them then they're an idiot. Plus, kids are getting far far far far more damaged from access to the internet than they are from TV. Curse words never hurt anybody, it's just purism taken to an extreme and it's not as if kids don't know what is being said.

Still, big brother or not I don't trust the masses to get a balance source of news, and I'd rather have big government and big brother dicating this then face the consequences of a dumb public. Democracy in the hands of idiots is simply terrifying.

That's an argument against democracies, not an argument in favor of big government. That's why we were never supposed to have a democracy in this country.  Rule of law, the constitution, is supposed to be the final judge. 

The FCC does a lot more than police f-bombs and flashes of flesh, but on that topic it's the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids aren't seeing that stuff if they don't want them too.

I'm talking about everything the FCC does.  I'd have to dig it up but there's been a series of rule changes that have favored the conglomeration of media.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2009, 08:57:36 AM »
I never said I liked democracies, I more or less fear the demos. But I don't see a better alternative; Republanism suffers from the inability to accurately and adaquately define who should rule. No matter how you try and define it, it'll be misused and abused. <insert the famous quotes about democracy being the best we have>.

And I believe I've mentioned it before: I fear the masses more than I fear the government. My argument aren't going to be "in favor" of big government, just against the alternatives. If we talked about less economic issues on this board, you and I would agree far more.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2009, 12:51:02 PM »
I never said I liked democracies, I more or less fear the demos. But I don't see a better alternative; Republanism suffers from the inability to accurately and adaquately define who should rule. No matter how you try and define it, it'll be misused and abused. <insert the famous quotes about democracy being the best we have>.

And I believe I've mentioned it before: I fear the masses more than I fear the government. My argument aren't going to be "in favor" of big government, just against the alternatives. If we talked about less economic issues on this board, you and I would agree far more.

As with everything, from this we can say that moderation is best.  Give some rule to the people, and some to the government.  Not that I think the Republicans or the Democrats are right; just find the happy median is all.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2009, 03:22:06 PM »

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2009, 09:45:20 PM »
What happened to El Barto?

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9401
  • Gender: Male
  • Lost within a world I chose to hide
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2009, 06:29:49 AM »
Obama's handling of the economy is a complete failure. I don't know why I'm only just realizing this.

The economy is in shambles right now because Wall Street invested so carelessly and put so much money into non-value creating ventures that the system collapsed under the massive debt it incurred.

So basically, you have a group of financial elites who have proven themselves to be incompetent money managers. You have debt bogging this country down. You have a non-value oriented perspective on making money.

What does Obama do?

He runs up trillions of dollars in debt. He leaves the incompetents who caused this problem in charge of our financial institutions. He's trying to keep the old way of investing money alive, even though it's been proven to not work.

And the stock numbers on Wall Street go up, even though the actual productive ability of the economy is in the shitter.

I don't know if Obama either can't see the consequences of his actions, or if he can but ignores them. It's irrelevant. What matters is that the very nature of the economy is about to radically and fundamentally shift, and Obama's policies are making that coming shift as violent as possible. The American auto companies have become bloated corporate giants, with the UAW rivaling their decadence. If the companies were just allowed to fail, we could remove their toxic business practices from this nation and rebuild a modern and efficient American auto industry more in line with the rest of the world.

But we're not, we're essentially nationalizing the auto-industry like the Soviets did. We can debate the philosophy of this all we want, but the Soviet Union collapsed because it was an untenable system. We absolutely cannot just throw money at the auto industry and produce shitty cars that can never turn a profit for the auto industry, but Obama's acting like that's just fine. Rather than letting the auto companies die gracefully and move on, he's making their eventual collapse cost billions more than it should.

Or take green energy as an example. Obama can talk about the tax breaks and green building bullshit in his stimulus package all he wants, but it won't do anything to meaningfully impact how much green energy this country uses. China's paying electric companies to install solar panels. The CHINESE are more forward thinking on this than we are. They're revolutionizing how they get their electricity, and we're stuck with tax credits for green windows that won't do a fucking thing for energy consumption.

I'm not even an expert on this shit, but it just seems too obvious. You don't solve a problem by continuing the conditions that caused the problem, and that's exactly what Obama's doing. I'm hoping at some point people realize this.
We must learn to rise above the past
Before we can at last
Begin again

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2009, 10:59:52 AM »
Good to see that you've also arrived to that conclusion, RePsTA.

As for the Chinese and their auto-industry... well, the Chinese government doesn't respect patents (which I agree completely) that's why they can advance that fast in their electric revolution. The car industry hasn't advance too much in the Western civilization because of all that BS that big car companies sue your ass off if you develop an idea that they came up with before and don't want to share it, nor even use it on their cars. So that's why we're practically "stuck" in that issue.