2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Heald]

Link to Fox & Friends footage

Kilmeade states USA is shallow and heavily implies that Obama photo-op changed minds of voters. Also the poll itself has the usual problems that polling exit voters has, and no indication of how the question was set out to the voters, so it shouldn't really be taken seriously.

This isn't really my main point, you'll probably argue with me and say that I'm wrong but that's how I see it, the point is if you want to talk about journalistic malpractice, don't start inventing conspiracy theories on how 'THE MEDIA' is suppressing bad economic news with no evidence to back up the claim, there's ample evidence at Fox News alone of passing off complete garbage as journalism.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you're getting dangerously close to sounding like the morons who try to insult our intelligence with conspiracy theories about the President.

Careful with the flaming

The media was "hiding" a story about the economy that Fox and other conservative networks didn't know anything about so that Obama would win? Come on... You'd think that some news agency that was supporting the GOP would have found out something about this if it had been known for that long.

I'm sorry last time I checked the media does not pick up too many stories from Fox, the Benguazi thing being pretty good proof of that. But apparently it is Fox's job to do the job of the media for them.

Link to Fox & Friends footage

Kilmeade states USA is shallow and heavily implies that Obama photo-op changed minds of voters. Also the poll itself has the usual problems that polling exit voters has, and no indication of how the question was set out to the voters, so it shouldn't really be taken seriously.

Is changing your vote based merely on a photo op not something shallow? Especially as he correctly points out, the actual storm isn't handled well. Also both Fox and CBS reported the same thing with their exit polls, are you saying that both are wrong?

Mind you this is also the finding of PEW as well.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...ld-off-romney/

This isn't really my main point, you'll probably argue with me and say that I'm wrong but that's how I see it, the point is if you want to talk about journalistic malpractice, don't start inventing conspiracy theories on how 'THE MEDIA' is suppressing bad economic news with no evidence to back up the claim, there's ample evidence at Fox News alone of passing off complete garbage as journalism.

So as I asked Dark Sage, I ask you. Is it Fox News' job to put out all the stories the media wont cover or misses?

[Heald]

I'm sorry last time I checked the media does not pick up too many stories from Fox, the Benguazi thing being pretty good proof of that. But apparently it is Fox's job to do the job of the media for them.

I'd really recommend reading this blog post featured in the leading UK conservative daily paper today. It gives a pretty good explanation about why Fox News is doing more harm than good to the American right-wing agenda.

Is changing your vote based merely on a photo op not something shallow? Especially as he correctly points out, the actual storm isn't handled well. Also both Fox and CBS reported the same thing with their exit polls, are you saying that both are wrong?

It is, but there's no evidence that anyone who was going to vote Romney changed their mind and voted Obama instead because of Obama's photo-op. I'm not saying the polls are wrong, just that there are inherent flaws in such polls and Fox drew incorrect assumptions from the poll's results and then reported on them in an incredibly offensive manner.

So as I asked Dark Sage, I ask you. Is it Fox News' job to put out all the stories the media wont cover or misses?

No but that wasn't really the point I was making.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd really recommend reading this blog post featured in the leading UK conservative daily paper today. It gives a pretty good explanation about why Fox News is doing more harm than good to the American right-wing agenda.

So by that logic is MSNBC and the New York Times killing or doing more harm than good to the Democratic Party?

It is, but there's no evidence that anyone who was going to vote Romney changed their mind and voted Obama instead because of Obama's photo-op. I'm not saying the polls are wrong, just that there are inherent flaws in such polls and Fox drew incorrect assumptions from the poll's results and then reported on them in an incredibly offensive manner.

I point you to this Pew poll

"In the Pew Research Center’s election weekend survey after the storm, Obama held a 48 percent to 45 percent lead over Romney among likely voters.

A week before, the race was deadlocked with each candidate drawing support from 47 percent of the likely electorate. Interviewing for the final pre-election survey was conducted Oct. 31- Nov. 3 among 2,709 likely voters. The previous survey was conducted Oct. 24-28, before Hurricane Sandy made landfall along the East Coast.

...

Obama’s handling of the storm’s aftermath may have contributed to his improved showing.

According to the Pew Research Center, 69 percent of all likely voters approve of the way Obama is handling the storm’s impact. Even a plurality of Romney supporters (46 percent) approve of Obama’s handling of the situation; more important, so too do 63 percent of swing voters."

His actions brought major changes to swing voters by several percentage points

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...ld-off-romney/

[Heald]

So by that logic is MSNBC and the New York Times killing or doing more harm than good to the Democratic Party?

I take it you didn't read the blog post given your quick response, but the general point is CNN, NY Times and MSNBC are perceived as far more reliable and less partisan than Fox News. The problem is Fox News is an entertainment channel first, and providing serious and well-researched journalism and investigation takes a back-seat to sensationalism and partisan mudslinging.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, take a look at this:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=8187

"Fair and balanced" my foot.

[Roy Karrde]

I take it you didn't read the blog post given your quick response, but the general point is CNN, NY Times and MSNBC are perceived as far more reliable and less partisan than Fox News. The problem is Fox News is an entertainment channel first, and providing serious and well-researched journalism and investigation takes a back-seat to sensationalism and partisan mudslinging.

That seems to be based more on a lack of knowledge of the NY Times and MSNBC than Fox News.

[Heald]

That seems to be based more on a lack of knowledge of the NY Times and MSNBC than Fox News.

MSNBC perhaps, although I gather not many people really take that too seriously, but the NY Times is held in high regard as the standard of quality journalism that all others should hold themselves to. Even if you personally disagree with this, this is the perception both amongst the general public and in the journalism industry as a whole.

[Roy Karrde]

MSNBC perhaps, although I gather not many people really take that too seriously, but the NY Times is held in high regard as the standard of quality journalism that all others should hold themselves to. Even if you personally disagree with this, this is the perception both amongst the general public and in the journalism industry as a whole.

Which again as I said deals more with under informed public than anything else.

Lets start with MSNBC, this is their reaction to the Hurricane on election night.

"I’m so glad we had that storm last week.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chri...k-politically/

Now I ask you, you got mad at Fox News for a commentator for calling voters shallow for possibly changing their vote for a photo op. Is that worse than saying "I am glad we had that storm" when that storm has killed dozens of people, destroyed thousands of homes, and left many with nothing?

Can you imagine the outrage if say Hannity had come on in 2002 after the Republicans won the election decisively and said "I'm so glad we had that terror attack last year"

Now onto New York Times

Here is what their obudsman said about his own newspaper

"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/2...hive-mind-huh/

Do you want me to start posting their greatest hits as well?

[Heald]

Which again as I said deals more with under informed public than anything else.

The fact that Fox News has any viewers whatsoever is more of a sign of an under informed public than anything else.

Do you want me to start posting their greatest hits as well?

Not really, I don't particularly care. All news sources are imperfect and prone to political bias. I'm not saying NY Times is fair or perfect, in fact I believe it is liberally slanted, but that doesn't change the fact that it is perceived as being the standard of quality journalism.

Seriously dude, I'm not defending news sources that are liberally slanted or whatever. I mostly read conservative news sources in my own country. But Fox News isn't even a news agency, it's an entertainment company. Until the American right starts realising that Fox News isn't something it should be supporting and getting behind, it will continue to suffer because of its association with a channel which is, frankly, disgusting.

[Roy Karrde]

The fact that Fox News has any viewers whatsoever is more of a sign of an under informed public than anything else.

Touche

Their midday news is actually pretty good and rather non biased. It just gets unbearable between 7 and 9.

Not really, I don't particularly care. All news sources are imperfect and prone to political bias. I'm not saying NY Times is fair or perfect, in fact I believe it is liberally slanted, but that doesn't change the fact that it is perceived as being the standard of quality journalism.

Which again merely goes to perception and the need to show people how bad the NY Times is.

Seriously dude, I'm not defending news sources that are liberally slanted or whatever. I mostly read conservative news sources in my own country. But Fox News isn't even a news agency, it's an entertainment company. Until the American right starts realising that Fox News isn't something it should be supporting and getting behind, it will continue to suffer because of its association with a channel which is, frankly, disgusting.

You seriously should take a look at some of the reporting they do in the middle of the day. There of course is Commentators during the night like all 3 channels have. But their midday news actually does better in being down the middle than MSNBC.

[mr_pikachu]

As with your views on social media that were published in the book of yours we got at the wedding (I read it :3) you managed to sum up my opinions and said it better than I ever could, bravo sir Thank you for posting this!

Haha, thanks, Asi! I'm even more honored that you liked the book. I was hoping that people would appreciate the unconventional wedding favor.

Before I launch into an argument about this, I'd just like to note that mr_pikachu, Asilynne, I respect both of you, even if I disagree. I don't mean to offend you. If anything, you seem to be the only voices of compassionate conservatism in this thread. And I appreciate that.

I take no offense whatsoever. After all, I love impassioned debate -- I used to tangle with The Rusted One quite a bit back in the day -- and if I couldn't handle criticism of my opinions, this would definitely be the wrong place for me. But your tactfulness is nonetheless appreciated. ^_^

1. He didn't "hold" the rate above 8%. It wasn't an intention. Don't suggest that it was.

Sloppy wording on my part, and you're right to call me out for it. I was trying to say that Obama's policies held the rate above 8%, as I believe that his policies stagnated and weakened the recovery instead of accelerating and strengthening it. But I didn't mean to suggest that his goal was to hurt America (even if that's what the conspiracy theorists would say).

2. Fair enough. But if you can explain how Romney would have done better, with tax cuts and defense spending that could not have been paid for, do tell.

The biggest problem I've had with Romney throughout the campaign is that he was very vague about exactly what economic policies he would enact. "I know what it takes to make business succeed" isn't a plan -- he should have explained more about exactly what he would have done. If nothing else, though, even if we presume that the deficit would have increased a bit under a Romney presidency for the past four years (since I think that's what you were asking about), I highly doubt it would have inflated quite so much. Perhaps more importantly, I firmly believe that we would have gotten some growth out of that (smaller) debt increase, too. I'd rather increase the deficit to spur growth than increase the deficit and still have a stagnant economy.

3. The president has almost no control over this.

That's another crime of imprecise argumentation on my part. It's certainly true that OPEC and its ilk currently exert a great deal of control over oil and gas prices in the U.S., but that's largely because we're relying so heavily on importing. If we were to make use of our own reserves, or at least import from friendlier neighbors (see: Canada), then OPEC wouldn't be able to play games with gas prices in the U.S. We'd control them ourselves.

In short, the president has minimal control over gas prices, but that's by design. He could have taken control with a few choice policy changes. He just didn't do so.

4. This is a complete misrepresentation. Good luck finding a credible source that supports this claim.

I'm mostly going to leave this one alone, because I see that Roy's been arguing that point for the past two pages or so. If nothing else, I think it's clear that there are some sources which support this claim. You could debate their veracity, but at the end of the day, that's a judgment call at best.

5. Many more extreme Christians regard homosexuals with blind hatred, based on an ancient text that also suggests that slavery is acceptable and that stoning is the proper punishment for various minor sins. As someone who was raised Catholic, I think the Bible has some good ideas; but many people seem to cherry-pick the "fire and brimstone" that supports their own, prejudiced views.

And as much as there may be validity to the suggestion that allowing civilians to keep their guns may prevent certain crimes, it should be noted that the only reason many violent crimes occur is because of the proliferation of guns that occurred in the first place. People who believe unequivocally in unrestricted gun rights are trying to fight fire with fire. There's a reason that nations with very restrictive gun rights also have extremely low rates of violent crime.

This isn't the wild west anymore. People need to realize that you can't clean up the streets with a gun. We need to address the social disparities that have led to crime in the first place. But I agree that these are discussions we need to have without the application of partisan rhetoric.

I'm not totally sure what spawned the first paragraph. There are radicals in every religion (al Qaida, anyone?), but if that's Obama's justification for slandering an entire region and an entire religion, then he's more prone to stereotyping others than anyone I've ever seen.

As for gun rights, I agree with you in theory. For the record, I don't own a gun. They scare me. A close friend wanted to go to a shooting range for his bachelor party, and he naturally wanted me to shoot as well. I complied since it was his bachelor party, but I was terrified holding it, knowing that with the tiny block of metal and the miniscule fragments that went into it, I could have gone on a rampage. I could have turned around and killed a half-dozen people in seconds if I felt like it.

That's a scary thought, especially since I'm a martial artist. I went through many years of training, practicing steadfast discipline, and honed the abilities necessary to respond to a deadly threat with equally deadly force. The rigorous training instilled me with an appreciation of the power I wield and the responsibility I carry with me every day. On the other hand, I was allowed to take to the shooting range, holding a deadly weapon with live ammunition, after watching a video that was something like 20 minutes long. That contrast made it very hard for me to sleep that night.

And yet, you can't undo the past. If I had my way, there would be no guns and no technology to make them. (Provided that we could still get food, of course.) I'd be fine with that. But the fact is that guns do exist, and a lot of people have them. While I'm echoing others' arguments here, I firmly believe that if you took away gun rights in this country (or severely restricted them), the only people who would still have them would be law enforcement and criminals. That puts honest citizens in a real jam. The way things are now, at least your common criminals have to think twice before coming after you. I readily acknowledge that tightening restrictions on guns might prevent major incidents like the Dark Knight massacre in Colorado earlier this year, but I also believe that we would see far more criminal activity, murders included, on a day-to-day basis, and that this would more than compensate for the massacres.

Regarding less severe restrictions, I don't have much of an opinion, because gun advocacy isn't a core issue of mine. I'm more of a moderate here -- for instance, I have little problem with a three-day waiting period (as long as that didn't open the floodgates to far more serious restrictions). After all, what is someone planning to do with their gun that would make them need it the day after tomorrow? If you have a dire need to get a gun in two days, it sounds to me like you're planning something. That's not to say that we should have six-month waiting periods for guns, though. If I have any opposition to a three-day period, it's that such a policy would open the discussion to extend it a little further, then a little further....

You're also right to note that some other countries with tighter gun restrictions have less violent crime, and that's a fair counterpoint to some of my above claims. However, many of those countries are also more restrictive of freedoms in general, and law enforcement has a much tighter grip in some of those places -- perhaps approaching the point of control that would prompt rebellion in America.

Not to mention that you don't see police officers in the U.S. walking down the street with automatic rifles. That's a common sight in countries like Italy, which I visited several years ago. I'd argue that firepower cuts the crime rate there, too. More guns in the hands of non-criminals acts as a deterrent, whether it's citizens with permits in the U.S. or military-grade firearms in Italy. But we probably wouldn't want our police officers to be packing Uzis in America. I could see that generating a major public outcry across the political spectrum.

Now, we could get into a debate on whether the presence of more guns turns people who would otherwise be peaceful into offenders, because they're tempted to break the law when they have tantalizing power in their hands. I'll be frank: I don't have the background to speak on that topic, so I wouldn't be able to do much more than speculate in response. But it's a fair point to acknowledge.

As for the social disparities, I wholeheartedly agree about that. For me, that largely gets back to some of the economic issues at hand, like the disintegrating middle class. That's creating a massive canyon between the classes in America, and it's a major problem. I've already spoken to the economy in this post, so there's no reason for me to rehash my thoughts there.

There are also underlying tensions that go far beyond dollars and cents. For instance, as much as we might like to deny it, there are still racial prejudices in America. Some of those are lingering from bygone eras of overt oppression and segregation, and they're despicable.

Others are more reactionary. For instance, it frustrates me to know that in a hiring situation, if I come up against someone whose credentials rival my own, I'm probably at a disadvantage. Why? Because I'm a white male. We can argue all day long about whether I had more access to education, resources, etc., etc. But to be blunt, that devalues the work that I put into my own work and my own education. I didn't choose to be born a certain gender or race, so it's troubling that there are policies in place which could punish me for that. Even earlier today, I argued with myself over whether to conveniently forget to submit a additional disclosure form for my recent job applications that would note my race, because it can only hurt me. That's troubling, that being honest about my gender (which they probably already know from the name "Brian") and race could put me at a disadvantage in this day and age. But it's the truth. I've personally seen it happen more than once.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument over the presence or absence of "reverse racism," because that's just an aside. I only meant to give what I see as an example of a social divide, to agree with your last overall point (if not the details). Perhaps it's noteworthy that, according to a recent study -- I can track down the citation if necessary to back up this claim -- racist attitudes in the U.S. have increased over the past four years, not declined. I'm not saying that Obama intentionally or unintentionally contributed to that. I'm just saying that you're right -- we're not magically "over" these problems, and there will still be some traces of them for quite some time to come.

*looks back at the quantity of text* Whew!

[Gavin Luper]

Misc, 2013

The sky is black and filled with smoke. The once-peaceful world of Misc has been razed, now a battleground strewn with bodies and rubble and burning vehicles. In the distance, the charred remains of Mt Moon can be seen, some survivors still picking through the rubble for any undamaged spam.

At the centre of Misc, two duellers, Dark Sage and Roy Karrde, remain locked in fierce combat, a mysterious, glowing thread suspended in the air between them, each of them manipulating it to attack the other. A weary crowd watches on, occasionally bearing the brunt of an attack as the thread sparks with electricity, occasionally retaliating with one of their own. Though the thread retains vestiges of beauty and utility, it is a shell of its former self, now dull and frayed.

The mods look on from the fringes of the mob.

“We can’t let this go on anymore. This thread has to go!” says everyone.

“Yes, enough of this thread!” cries Dark Sage passionately. “We must destroy it!”

A brave misc punter steps forward from the crowd, her face bloodied and beaten from months of battle.

“I will destroy it!” she cries, lunging for the thread.

“NO!” scream Dark Sage and Roy Karrde, gesturing their hands wildly to manipulate the thread: a streamer of electricity sizzles out and strikes the punter squarely in the chest; she is blasted backwards and lands unceremoniously on a pile of corpses, her body limp and broken.

“Enough!” cries a misc member.

“Yes, enough! End the thread, close it, we must!” shouts Roy earnestly.

“I will destroy it!” bellows a stoner-looking gent, lumbering forward. He seizes the thread between his meaty hands, but as he does so, Roy fires a spark of lightning at him from the thread; he reels backwards, his hands singed.

“It has to end. This isn’t healthy, or sustainable,” says a misc mod. “Look at what they’ve done to misc. Look at what we’ve become.”

But even as he speaks, the mods around him appear to have been beaten by their weariness. Their battle-worn faces regard the thread no longer with contempt, but interest.

“Perhaps we cannot fight it any more. Perhaps ... we should embrace the thread.”

“Yes ... embrace it ...” the mods repeat, shuffling forward. They take the thread between their hands and wield its power, firing off beams of deadly light at each other with mounting glee. Luper and a small cluster of other mods and members remain, grimly surveying the sight before them.

“No! Not them too!” cries a misc member.

“Destroy the thread!” bellows a feisty young man from the shadowy ranks of members.

“Yes, destroy the thread!” Dark Sage cries, grabbing the thread with both hands.

“Get rid of it, destroy the thread!” concurs Roy Karrde, wielding the thread like a lasso.

“Yes, destroy the thread! Destroy the thread!” chant the mods, grasping it ever tighter.

Luper holsters his gun and lights a cigarette, his face ashen and drawn.

“There will be no destruction,” he sighs to the embattled spectators. “Misc is doomed. It will never end.”

[mattbcl]

Gavin wins.

[Blademaster]

Except that's a totally false (yet creative) perspective: Misc. isn't a wonderful cityscape, and this thread isn't an epic, apocalyptic battleground...

Misc. is a zoo, this thread is a primate enclosure, and Dark Sage and Roy are the monkeys flinging their feces at one another.

[Plantae]

Gavin wins.

I agree completely.

Sloppy wording on my part, and you're right to call me out for it. I was trying to say that Obama's policies held the rate above 8%, as I believe that his policies stagnated and weakened the recovery instead of accelerating and strengthening it. But I didn't mean to suggest that his goal was to hurt America (even if that's what the conspiracy theorists would say).

I think the standard burden involved in proving a negative applies here. It's hard to say how much stronger the recovery could have been.

The biggest problem I've had with Romney throughout the campaign is that he was very vague about exactly what economic policies he would enact. "I know what it takes to make business succeed" isn't a plan -- he should have explained more about exactly what he would have done. If nothing else, though, even if we presume that the deficit would have increased a bit under a Romney presidency for the past four years (since I think that's what you were asking about), I highly doubt it would have inflated quite so much. Perhaps more importantly, I firmly believe that we would have gotten some growth out of that (smaller) debt increase, too. I'd rather increase the deficit to spur growth than increase the deficit and still have a stagnant economy.

The vagueness was precisely the problem. I don't buy the idea that Romney is morally bankrupt, but it's hard to imagine how his budget plan would have worked, mathematically speaking, without a thorough explanation.

Obama may have increased the total deficit, but he decreased the annual deficit since the Bush years. And he is willing to cut spending. But cutting spending just isn't enough. Increased revenue is a necessity to balancing the budget, and even then, we shouldn't assume it can be done on a timetable of less than 20 years or so. Anything faster, and we'll be making cuts we can't bear the cost of, and which are more likely to lead to a double-dip recession.

That's another crime of imprecise argumentation on my part. It's certainly true that OPEC and its ilk currently exert a great deal of control over oil and gas prices in the U.S., but that's largely because we're relying so heavily on importing. If we were to make use of our own reserves, or at least import from friendlier neighbors (see: Canada), then OPEC wouldn't be able to play games with gas prices in the U.S. We'd control them ourselves.

In short, the president has minimal control over gas prices, but that's by design. He could have taken control with a few choice policy changes. He just didn't do so.

Both of these things are reasonable options, but in using our own reserves, we must also consider environmental factors and the long-term dangers of relying solely on unsustainable fossil fuels.

My counter-argument was also imprecise. The president has no power over gas prices on a reasonable time scale. Barack Obama could start increasing production, but we would be unlikely to see the effects during his presidency, or even during the next. Because, as you state, we do import so much oil currently.

*looks back at the quantity of text* Whew!

This was quite a wall of text. Imagine my delight when it turned out to be well-reasoned, pleasant discourse!

I'm not totally sure what spawned the first paragraph. There are radicals in every religion (al Qaida, anyone?), but if that's Obama's justification for slandering an entire region and an entire religion,

You're right. Only the most extreme Christians blindly hate homosexuals, and making a generalization of this type is invalid.

But the majority of Christians do not support same-sex marriage, and by extension, seem to have a negative view of homosexuals in general. Though the prejudice in this case is weaker, it is shared among many more, non-extremists.

Certainly Obama's intention probably wasn't to slander an entire region or religion. But there is no denying that the Christian religion has a reputation for prejudice against certain social groups. This prejudice, furthermore, is not based on any evidence; it is derived from a text of uncertain authorship. Similar arguments, based in the Bible, were once used by some Christians to suggest that blacks were an inferior people.

...then he's more prone to stereotyping others than anyone I've ever seen.

This is clearly hyperbole. I don't think Obama's statements were fair by any means (there's a reason they were called a gaffe), but the association of religion and guns with prejudice is at least true in some cases in America, and perhaps more often in certain regions of the United States.

As for gun rights, I agree with you in theory... The way things are now, at least your common criminals have to think twice before coming after you...

You're also right to note that some other countries with tighter gun restrictions have less violent crime... However, many of those countries are also more restrictive of freedoms in general, and law enforcement has a much tighter grip in some of those places -- perhaps approaching the point of control that would prompt rebellion in America...

I'm not convinced that there is unequivocal evidence that private gun ownership decreases violent crime. I think there are suggestions that this may be true, but we should be more cautious in applying this idea in terms of policy.

The United Kingdom has very tight gun restrictions, and a rate of intentional homicides committed with a firearm that is considerably smaller than the United States. Most law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom are not heavily armed; they do not carry automatic weapons in the street anymore frequently than our own police officers do. I would suggest that our two societies are reasonably comparable, but yet their rates of violent gun crime are drastically different.

The difference seems to be that gun culture is ingrained in the United States, and firearms are so common as to be easily available to criminals. Consider that the majority of these weapons are coming from a black market based inside the country, not outside it. Criminals can easily smuggle guns from a state with weak gun laws into a state with stronger gun laws, because of the total inconsistency of gun regulations from state-to-state. The lack of consistent restrictions on gun traffic is a leading cause of the proliferation of guns, their availability to criminals, and thus gun violence.

The point I would like to make is that though it may be true that putting guns in the hands of citizens decreases gun crime, at least some gun crimes are the result of an easy availability of guns, which is the direct effect of weak regulation.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument over the presence or absence of "reverse racism," because that's just an aside.

I don't doubt the existence of "reverse racism;" prejudice can be directed by anyone, at anyone. But as a white male, I know that this type of "reverse racism" is not as prevalent, and usually not as damaging, as prejudice by white, normative citizens against minority citizens.

Others are more reactionary. For instance, it frustrates me to know that in a hiring situation, if I come up against someone whose credentials rival my own, I'm probably at a disadvantage. Why? Because I'm a white male. We can argue all day long about whether I had more access to education, resources, etc., etc. But to be blunt, that devalues the work that I put into my own work and my own education. I didn't choose to be born a certain gender or race, so it's troubling that there are policies in place which could punish me for that. Even earlier today, I argued with myself over whether to conveniently forget to submit a additional disclosure form for my recent job applications that would note my race, because it can only hurt me. That's troubling, that being honest about my gender (which they probably already know from the name "Brian") and race could put me at a disadvantage in this day and age. But it's the truth. I've personally seen it happen more than once.

There's the possibility that this sort of situation is equalized by the offerings of other employers, who might not be as predisposed to judge applicants equally based only on their objective qualities.

The root problem, as you suggest, isn't about race. It's about socioeconomic opportunity. It should be considered an American duty to provide as an equitable education as possible to all children, in hopes that by the time this sort of hiring process would occur, such disparities would already be equalized.

I notice you use the word "punish" here. I think that's a troubling way to look at it. Policies such as affirmative action aim not to punish majority groups; they aim to grant privileges to minority groups that would otherwise be denied them. It's not that another applicant's race, creed, or gender is the deciding factor here; it's that yours also isn't. And sometimes that means taking background and socioeconomic factors into account.

The idea that you've "seen it happen more than once" also perplexes me. Are you entirely sure that what you believe to be the case, was actually the case in those instances? With the example of job applicants, isn't it equally possible that some other, less tangible quality was the reason for one seemingly equal person being hired instead of another?

[Magmar]

Misc, 2013

The sky is black and filled with smoke. The once-peaceful world of Misc has been razed, now a battleground strewn with bodies and rubble and burning vehicles. In the distance, the charred remains of Mt Moon can be seen, some survivors still picking through the rubble for any undamaged spam.

At the centre of Misc, two duellers, Dark Sage and Roy Karrde, remain locked in fierce combat, a mysterious, glowing thread suspended in the air between them, each of them manipulating it to attack the other. A weary crowd watches on, occasionally bearing the brunt of an attack as the thread sparks with electricity, occasionally retaliating with one of their own. Though the thread retains vestiges of beauty and utility, it is a shell of its former self, now dull and frayed.

The mods look on from the fringes of the mob.

“We can’t let this go on anymore. This thread has to go!” says everyone.

“Yes, enough of this thread!” cries Dark Sage passionately. “We must destroy it!”

A brave misc punter steps forward from the crowd, her face bloodied and beaten from months of battle.

“I will destroy it!” she cries, lunging for the thread.

“NO!” scream Dark Sage and Roy Karrde, gesturing their hands wildly to manipulate the thread: a streamer of electricity sizzles out and strikes the punter squarely in the chest; she is blasted backwards and lands unceremoniously on a pile of corpses, her body limp and broken.

“Enough!” cries a misc member.

“Yes, enough! End the thread, close it, we must!” shouts Roy earnestly.

“I will destroy it!” bellows a stoner-looking gent, lumbering forward. He seizes the thread between his meaty hands, but as he does so, Roy fires a spark of lightning at him from the thread; he reels backwards, his hands singed.

“It has to end. This isn’t healthy, or sustainable,” says a misc mod. “Look at what they’ve done to misc. Look at what we’ve become.”

But even as he speaks, the mods around him appear to have been beaten by their weariness. Their battle-worn faces regard the thread no longer with contempt, but interest.

“Perhaps we cannot fight it any more. Perhaps ... we should embrace the thread.”

“Yes ... embrace it ...” the mods repeat, shuffling forward. They take the thread between their hands and wield its power, firing off beams of deadly light at each other with mounting glee. Luper and a small cluster of other mods and members remain, grimly surveying the sight before them.

“No! Not them too!” cries a misc member.

“Destroy the thread!” bellows a feisty young man from the shadowy ranks of members.

“Yes, destroy the thread!” Dark Sage cries, grabbing the thread with both hands.

“Get rid of it, destroy the thread!” concurs Roy Karrde, wielding the thread like a lasso.

“Yes, destroy the thread! Destroy the thread!” chant the mods, grasping it ever tighter.

Luper holsters his gun and lights a cigarette, his face ashen and drawn.

“There will be no destruction,” he sighs to the embattled spectators. “Misc is doomed. It will never end.”

i'll figure out an unown award to nominate you for because this

specifically, because this

[Dark Sage]

Gavin wins.

I concur. That's why he's the one running this place.

[Asilynne]

My two cents ~ archive it as is. Everyone who posted did so under their own free will, if the were rude or questionable they obviously didn't mind doing so at the time, why censor it after the fact? If people don't like a record of what was said out of anger or spite then maybe next time they will think more carefully before speaking next time. I know our social media laden society encourages indiscriminate sharing but lets try to avoid knee jerk reactions from now on.

[Blademaster]

i'll figure out an unown award to nominate you for because this

specifically, because this

I'm on it. brb

EDIT: Raconteur. Look it up.

(Spoiler:) Honorable mention to the other candidates including Minstrel, Allegorist/Anecdotist, and Bard.

[Drago]

It may come as no surprise, but I see no point in archiving this thread when it's done. Why would we want to brandish any memory of this in our history? It'd be like Clinton proudly displaying a picture of Monica Lewinsky on the wall, or Nixon chortling with the masses, saying with a smirk, 'Watergate - what an excellent night it was!'

[/politics]

[Asilynne]

Its historic regardless if its a pleasant memory or not lol

[Dark Sage]

Florida has now officially been given to Mr. Obama.

I'd like to give my thanks to the Governor of Florida...

Who, by attempting to pass a voter suppression law that was ultimately struck down, had the exact opposite effect that he intended, by encouraging minorities and young people to come out in droves to vote.

I'd also like to thank the folks behind the similar failed laws in Ohio and and Pennsylvania. We couldn't have done it without you and your failure to understand that cheaters only cheat themselves.

[Magmar]

On that note, there was a voter ID law passed here in Rhode Island, but it seemed to only require "something that has your name on it that has a credible source" i.e., a cell phone bill, college ID, BJ's membership card... I don't completely agree with it, but we still had amazing turnout and voted Obama over Rmoney 2:1.

OH AND THANK GOD BARRY HINCKLEY LOST. I'm sorry but that man is a turd sandwich. True I voted for the giant douche (Sheldon Whitehouse) but that complete arse literally moved to Rhode Island so he could run for senate and openly said he thought it would be an easy win. Oh HELL NO.

[Roy Karrde]

Just before the thread is closed, if people remember a few weeks ago there was a Fox News report about the CIA on the ground in Benguazi requesting help and being denied. There was a very innocuous video released around that time called "Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell". Who is Paula Broadwell? Well she is the girl that Petraeus was screwing, and the one who had access to his computer and sensitive information.



"The challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it's political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will," she said. "The fact that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.

"They were requesting the – it's called the C-in-C's In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex. Now, I don't know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back. It's still being vetted.

"The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus is that in his new position, he's not allowed to communicate with the press. So he's known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening."

[Dark Sage]

Congress doesn't seem to interested in Obama or Clinton's role in Bengazi anymore. They seem far more focused on General David Petraeus for some reason.

[Roy Karrde]

Congress doesn't seem to interested in Obama or Clinton's role in Bengazi anymore. They seem far more focused on General David Petraeus for some reason.

Well there are two questions that now need to be answered

A: What did Obama know, and when did he know it. If Obama knew Petraeus had been compromised week ago, and let him stay on until after the election to avoid a sex scandal. Then that opens Obama up to possible criminal prosecution.

B: When will Petraeus testify before Congress. He was scheduled to testify just days before he resigned. Some say he won't now. As a chief witness in Bengazi, he needs to testify.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, do you actually think that Boehnir will initiate impeachment hearings against Mr. Obama?

He won't do that for the following reasons:

1. He remembers all too well the humiliation the GOP suffered when they attempted to impeach Clinton.

2. He's more moderate than Gingrich, and far smarter.

3. Due to the results of the election, he realizes that the GOP's popularity isn't as high as previously believed, and he's worried about 2014 right now, where he stands a good chance of losing his position.

4. Due to the results of the election, people are taking Fox News, the biggest source of information on this "scandal", far less seriously, and their ratings are in the toilet.

5. Boehnir realizes that there are too many Democrats in the House and Senate for such an endeavor to ever have a prayer of being successful. (Refer to the first and third reason.)

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, do you actually think that Boehnir will initiate impeachment hearings against Mr. Obama?

He won't do that for the following reasons:

1. He remembers all too well the humiliation the GOP suffered when they attempted to impeach Clinton.

2. He's more moderate than Gingrich, and far smarter.

3. Due to the results of the election, he realizes that the GOP's popularity isn't as high as previously believed, and he's worried about 2014 right now, where he stands a good chance of losing his position.

4. Due to the results of the election, people are taking Fox News, the biggest source of information on this "scandal", far less seriously, and their ratings are in the toilet.

5. Boehnir realizes that there are too many Democrats in the House and Senate for such an endeavor to ever have a prayer of being successful. (Refer to the first and third reason.)

Hey I do not know what will happen, nor do you. However I am pointing out that such a action by Obama does open himself up for possible criminal prosecution. By the way where is your proof on Fox News ( Note it is a red harring anyway in your argument )

[Dark Sage]

You can live in denial as much as like, Roy. The GOP is in damage control after their worst humilation in years.

Romney won a single battleground state, and lost the others. Obama won both of Romney's home states, Ryan's home state, Rubio's home state, Christie's home state, and Jeb Bush's home state. Not something that five prominent Republicans should be pleased with. In fact, other than North Carolina, the states that Romney won were Republican strongholds that no-one expected Obama to win.

The GOP's plan to retake the Senate not only failed, they lost two seats. Elizabeth Warren's upset victory over Scott Brown in Massechusetts is something they'll remember for a long time.

And Michelle Bachmann is likely tearing out her hair now that Tammy Baldwin has been elected as the first openly gay Senator. Clearly, the voters in Wisconsin told the folks who wrote the GOP Party Platform where they could stick it.

Speaking of Bachmann... Several months ago, she predicted that the GOP would not only retake the White House and the Senate, but they would have a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I had a good laugh when I heard that. Idon't know whether she was incredibly optimistic or just plain crazy. In any rate, the GOP utopia she envisioned is in shambles.

So keep dreaming of Mr. Obama's downfall. He's staying, and the Affordable Health Care Act will never be repealed. He will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and it will be somebody who will vote to uphold Roe vs Wade. At this rate, even if you can find solid proof that he was watching live televised footage of the attack and chose to do nothing, as Fox News claims, the GOP will never get enough votes to oust him.

[Roy Karrde]

So you post a rant that has nothing to do with what I said, nor do you provide proof of Fox News' ratings being "in the toilet".... Yeah

[Dark Sage]

So you post a rant that has nothing to do with what I said, nor do you provide proof of Fox News' ratings being "in the toilet".... Yeah

Mr. Obama has been re-elected, so I do not feel the need to satisfy your demands for proof anymore.

And I never had the desire to.

[Roy Karrde]

Mr. Obama has been re-elected, so I do not feel the need to satisfy your demands for proof anymore.

And I never had the desire to.

So the only conclusion I can draw now is that you were lying about Fox News' ratings. Obama being reelected does not give you cart-blanch to make things up, if you cannot provide proof to the claim, then all I can guess is that it was a lie.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, please... Accept reality. So many folks - like you - are saying that Obama's re-election was unexpected. Well, not me.

Only dumb people were dumbfounded by this election result. I called it as a landslide for Obama weeks before the election, but the conservative folks did not see it that way. Even when the unemployment numbers came out and they were the best in four years, which is an indicator that indeed folks were not suffering as much as the GOP projected they were. All in all, we are doing just fine and nobody - I emphasize this - nobody - wanted the tax cuts and war platform the GOP was selling. NOBODY was.

Set aside the economy and then you have the GOP pushing no birth control and totally demeaning women and their rights even going so far as to say only "some" rape is forced. Their treatment of immigrants over the past 4 years was absolutely despicable, including the Arizona "Show me your papers" law based on what they look like alone. Then cap it all off with Romney's campaign t...hat not only embraced those policies but increased them with the "self deport" and the 47% comment that I believe solidified a landslide victory for Obama.

No folks, it didn't happen overnight, this is and WHO the GOP has been for four years and it is a losing platform they need to change. They are in fact un-electable in nationwide elections. They may win their little representative districts in long-held Republican strongholds , but national elections and swing state statewide elections are off the table for the GOP until they change.

As for your opinion that I'm lying... If that's what you want to believe, fine. I no longer care about your opinions.

In fact, I'm not afraid to say now that I never did.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, please... Accept reality. So many folks - like you - are saying that Obama's re-election was unexpected. Well, not me.

Only dumb people were dumbfounded by this election result. I called it as a landslide for Obama weeks before the election, but the conservative folks did not see it that way. Even when the unemployment numbers came out and they were the best in four years, which is an indicator that indeed folks were not suffering as much as the GOP projected they were. All in all, we are doing just fine and nobody - I emphasize this - nobody - wanted the tax cuts and war platform the GOP was selling. NOBODY was.

Set aside the economy and then you have the GOP pushing no birth control and totally demeaning women and their rights even going so far as to say only "some" rape is forced. Their treatment of immigrants over the past 4 years was absolutely despicable, including the Arizona "Show me your papers" law based on what they look like alone. Then cap it all off with Romney's campaign t...hat not only embraced those policies but increased them with the "self deport" and the 47% comment that I believe solidified a landslide victory for Obama.

No folks, it didn't happen overnight, this is and WHO the GOP has been for four years and it is a losing platform they need to change. They are in fact un-electable in nationwide elections. They may win their little representative districts in long-held Republican strongholds , but national elections and swing state statewide elections are off the table for the GOP until they change.

As for your opinion that I'm lying... If that's what you want to believe, fine. I no longer care about your opinions.

In fact, I'm not afraid to say now that I never did.

And... what does this have to do with Fox News' ratings other than merely being ANOTHER Red Harring?

[mattbcl]

A: What did Obama know, and when did he know it. If Obama knew Petraeus had been compromised week ago, and let him stay on until after the election to avoid a sex scandal. Then that opens Obama up to possible criminal prosecution.

Roy, if you wouldn't mind, I have a question here, because I'm a little confused and would like some clarification - what crime are you accusing Mr. Obama of perpetrating? I'm no lawyer, but as far as I'm aware, having an extramarital affair isn't illegal in the U.S., nor is having knowledge of someone else having one and choosing to keep it to oneself (although it would be mightily humiliating in the case of a commander-in-chief). And I haven't seen anything regarding Petraeus being "compromised" beyond the fact that he made an extraordinary error in judgment over his personal life. I don't see the possibility of criminal prosecution in existence here unless there's context that I'm missing.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, if you wouldn't mind, I have a question here, because I'm a little confused and would like some clarification - what crime are you accusing Mr. Obama of perpetrating? I'm no lawyer, but as far as I'm aware, having an extramarital affair isn't illegal in the U.S., nor is having knowledge of someone else having one and choosing to keep it to oneself (although it would be mightily humiliating in the case of a commander-in-chief). And I haven't seen anything regarding Petraeus being "compromised" beyond the fact that he made an extraordinary error in judgment over his personal life. I don't see the possibility of criminal prosecution in existence here unless there's context that I'm missing.

The problem is not that it is humiliating or that having a extramarital affair isn't illegal. The problem is that by having the affair, Petraeus was sitting himself up for possible blackmail, to use a term being connected with this, Petraeus had been "compromised", again by sitting himself up for potential blackmail. If Obama allowed Petraeus to stay in the position with all the power, rights, and privileges it brings while knowing that Petraeus could be blackmailed with information about his infidelities, merely for electoral gain. I would suspect that would be breaking a few laws, just for having that liability still be in position for even a few more days.

[mattbcl]

Hmm. Well, I can't deny that it would be quite wrong to do as you describe. But I rather doubt that would've had any effect on the outcome of the election, since nobody was electing Petraeus to anything, and I've a feeling the same discussion would've been had by anybody who might've known about it beforehand. Maybe we should check to see if there are any poll numbers that reflect a downshift in public opinion of the executive branch between the closing of voting booths and now, see if Petraeus had that much of an effect?

Anyway, IMO, "I'll tell your wife" is not something you say to the head of the CIA. But assuming that's what happened, let's consider the fact that Petraeus himself, not his mistress, made it public and immediately tendered his resignation, rather than struggled to keep his job. Despite how I may feel about any man carrying on behind his wife's back, I have extreme doubts that Petraeus would ever have permitted himself to be blackmailed by this woman. And if that potential ever did exist, it certainly doesn't now. As it stands, law enforcement officials say he's not under investigation and they don't expect any criminal charges will come of what's happening.

Now, there's the theory my girlfriend's dad suggests - that the administration wanted to set Petraeus up as the fall guy for what happened in Benghazi, and then Petraeus used his affair as a convenient way out before the building caved in on his head. Strikes me as a particularly craven conspiracy theory, but... who knows? I guess we'll find out if/when the hearings come around. I don't think Petraeus will refuse to testify. He'd be held in contempt, not that a good chunk of the country isn't doing that to him already.

Meantime, I'm afraid I don't see the president being either impeached or brought up on criminal charges for anything that's gone down this year. Impeachment's a pretty rare and extraordinary thing, and even if charges were brought, I don't think anyone could find the 67 Senate votes needed to remove him from office. In my opinion, he'd get a censure, at absolute worst... and I would doubt him getting even that.

[Roy Karrde]

Well the talk about the timing is this, Obama basically got a massive lift the minute the Hurricane struck. He was able to act Presidential and look Presidential, he was able to walk around and survey the damage, be photographed in the situation room talking to FEMA, etc etc. There is alot of power in that.

Now lets say that right as Obama is getting good press, word comes out the CIA director is resigning because he was having a affair. Suddenly ALL the oxygen is sucked out of the room, questions of how long it has gone on, what did she see, how was the affair uncovered, basically what we see now would be dominating the news.

What ever boost Obama got from the Hurricane coverage would fade away quickly as instead of talking about him acting Presidential, the news would be focused on Petraeus resigning.

In what was thought to be a incredibly tight race at the time, and Obama seeing a boost from what he was doing in terms of the recovery. Would he have possibly told Petraeus to hold on until after the election so not to ruin the messaging he was getting for the last few days?

[mattbcl]

Is it possible? Sure, just about anything is. But General Petraeus has never struck me as someone who's particularly interested in political convenience - his interest is in making sure the job gets done, and if he can't do it, then he'll let you know and point you in the direction of who can. His record speaks for itself in that regard.

Meantime, both the FBI and senior officials have been rebutting what you suggest, and there's been no evidence yet that supports the theory. Unless anything else turns up, I think this is probably going to wind up being a dead end in which the president will barely even be involved.