Jump to content

Policy shit I like (for non liberals)- in the spirit of unity


Wulaw Horn

Recommended Posts

Yes- donkey it was the thumbing through on the phone while in between meeting for 10 minutes. I thought it was clear and you got it, but apparently it wasn’t. 
In my defense I think there might be a case of some people trying to torture the reading to be as shitty as possible toward the intent I had, but I could have communicated it better obviously. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Truly- no ulterior agenda. Literally a place to say- check in here if you aren’t a liberal and say something nice about a policy you liked as it happened. In the spirit of unity and being a happy person dealing with the world optimistically. 

Clarity. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

doing transactions isn't a financial win for you when you are in real estate and title processing? okay.

if you have more deals than your can handle, stop whining about how financially distressed you are.  you operate in an industry that is so fucking rigged that bored, platinum-haired suburban housewives looking for spending money can't screw it up.

also, just to help you to realize how bizarre this thread really is given your premise, you just described its central purpose to be a thread that isn't a wishlist of policies you would like to see changed in the future, but instead a placed where you are supposed to say something nice about a policy that has already happened in which you liked it...when it happened. nothing more.

meanwhile, a material portion of the op is lamenting a former policy that you called "dumb dumb dumb policy" and that you found objectionable...while expressing hope that the policy would eventually change in the future.

think for a minute.

I’m not whining about anything financially. I’m happy with my life and my profession. I get paid when I help people and the more people I help the more I get paid- it’s pretty cool- it makes me happy. I’ve been working on building my new business for 3 years- and it’s pretty cool. I looked back and we helped people save almost 8 figures in money last year- it makes me happy to serve my fellow man to the best of my abilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where I fall on your spectrum; probably left of center since I seem to be trending that way as I age. However, one thing I haven't' seen mentioned and doubtful it will ever be addressed, but I'd like to see a good bipartisan discussion on foreign ownership of American property (land). I'm not in favor of it, but admittedly that's probably policy ignorance on my part. The only thing I do know is that it is mostly left up to states, there are no federal restrictions. For example, Texas is no holds barred, Iowa says no way. I'm wondering if this is something where the states and the fed should get together and 'talk' about it; pros and cons. With over 30 million acres of US farmland (that's just farmland, not overall acreage) owned by outside entities, it seems like a noteworthy discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the part of the Affordable Care Act where children weren't penalized for the rest of their lives for pre-existing conditions, that in 99.9% of cases weren't any of their faults.  You as an adult smoke, drink soda, eat Popeye's, and play scratch-offs...sorry...you're gonna have to bear the brunt of the cost of your health care down the road.  But it shouldn't have taken a nation of our intellect, wealth, and morality 235 years to stop penalizing kids for how they were born and to which parents/DNA.  

Am I doing this right?  I honestly think this could be a good exercise for many of us if we stay between the guardrails.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a reinstatement and broadening of the Fairness Doctrine. Broaden it to include cable news. 

I dont know if fits that doctrine exactly but if the news facts are strictly reported in an unbiased manner, you call that News and everything else you can call opinion, with the opposing view disclosed but not necessarily expounded on. 

Maybe we can get back to being on the same page if we understand the slant of the news we are consuming better by labeling it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't know where I fall on your spectrum; probably left of center since I seem to be trending that way as I age. However, one thing I haven't' seen mentioned and doubtful it will ever be addressed, but I'd like to see a good bipartisan discussion on foreign ownership of American property (land). I'm not in favor of it, but admittedly that's probably policy ignorance on my part. The only thing I do know is that it is mostly left up to states, there are no federal restrictions. For example, Texas is no holds barred, Iowa says no way. I'm wondering if this is something where the states and the fed should get together and 'talk' about it; pros and cons. With over 30 million acres of US farmland (that's just farmland, not overall acreage) owned by outside entities, it seems like a noteworthy discussion.

It’s truly nothing I’ve ever considered in the slightest. 
You're welcome to post anything anytime and anywhere. You are good people and I like talking to you at all times even when we don’t remotely agree. You are a credit to this place and I aspire to be more like you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

^^ Should have led with this to minimize confusion and in the future be more clear.

As a side not, you do have to use effective written communication for a living, right? I have noticed you seem to ramble and there are lots of issues with your writing, generally across most threads, in a lack of clarity and succinctness. And if you are going to not be succinct, you have to have style, which you also severely lack. Not trying to be mean, and if you are just thumbing these threads on your iphone as you take your daily constitutional, I get it, but a little more effort would be helpful for the community here.

He does it on purpose to leave himself an out so he can argue with everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

So you like the DACA program because..... they can get mortgages, which benefits you financially?  And not because it's the right thing to do for the country and these people and the contributions they make to our society, both financially and culturally? 

 

 

fuck you pay me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

 

Am I doing this right?  I honestly think this could be a good exercise for many of us if we stay between the guardrails.  

Sure. Close enough. You are certainly one of the types of people I’d be taking about checking in on this thread. And I hope it’s positive. I’m trying for it to be a positive place for a non-Democrat/liberal to come with- hey- this is pretty cool- this one got done right. I think if we can do more of that as a country we can all be happier and relate better to each other. It’s hard to hate someone if you are “giving credit where it’s due”. 
or people can just continue to attack each other, call each other Nazi’s and fling shit. 
I really really really hope Biden lowers the temperature to a simmer instead of a boil. 
we will disagree. We will always disagree. But if we can say- hey- not everything you do is wrong and stupid then it can go from I hate you and you sick to disagreeing about fundamental policy differences. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

He does it on purpose to leave himself an out so he can argue with everyone.

No. I do it because I’m usually banging away on an iPhone while in between calls at work or laying in bed. IE boredom time. 
like now- I’m half listening to a zoom meeting that I’m pointlessly required to be at so messing around online. Have all sorts of typos, wrong words, autocorrects, needs to edit- etc. I’m literally the only record as being the only fan of W on this board- it’s not like I’m super worried about being in the main of the zeitgeist of this board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No. I do it because I’m usually banging away on an iPhone while in between calls at work or laying in bed. IE boredom time. 
like now- I’m half listening to a zoom meeting that I’m pointlessly required to be at so messing around online. Have all sorts of typos, wrong words, autocorrects, needs to edit- etc. I’m literally the only record as being the only fan of W on this board- it’s not like I’m super worried about being in the main of the zeitgeist of this board. 

It has nothing to do with the typos.  Those are annoying, your "style" is the issue and it sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It has nothing to do with the typos.  Those are annoying, your "style" is the issue and it sucks.

Cool. Thanks. That’s not what I’m intending to do, and I think it’s an unfair characterization but nobody forced you to click on a thread I started. And I’m certainly not arguing with everyone on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're all honest, there is no President we cannot find some common ground with except maybe William Henry Harrison.  He was a pussy who spent his entire 30 day term in office coughing and asking people to open and close windows. 

I am just biased against the Executive Branch so it's hard for me to find much I like about every President, even the ones I voted for.  The office is an abortion of what was intended and I wish the worst on most Commanders in Chief.  There's a reason the first Article is about the Legislative Branch.  They weren't going in alphabetical order, they were listing hierarchy.  That said, I like when both parties get shit done in Congress and I like it when there's gridlock.  I don't like it at all when one party runs roughshod on the other, that's dangerous.  But I always like when the fuck with the President, so long as it does not undermine our foreign affairs posture.  

It's just a somehow hollow statistic of varying magnitudes, but I like that both Bush-43 and Obama signed less than 300 executive orders apiece in 8 years in office.  Trump was on his way to have more than anybody since Eisenhower until that scoundrel Pelosi stole the election from him ;)  

I also hate it when President's propose budgets.  Was never their job, should never be their job.  But something I like about what has become of the Executive Office that was mostly under "the other side" was both Clinton and Obama.  Both presided during a time of 24/7 news coverage (something Carter, LBJ, et. al. never had to worry about)  With Clinton and Obama, you never had to check the news before bed and check it as you woke up to see, "Oh shit, what the fuck did they say/do now?"  They were slow burns into shit that bothered me long-term, but it wasn't a daily, "Oh, for fuck's sake!"  I mean, they were plotting with Democrats in Congress to screw shit up, but it wasn't a daily public spectacle for the globe to laugh at, it was just Democrat politics.  With Trump, it was all of the above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a young Republican type in college, so may as well play one here for the next four years. 

I can't even tell what the fucking question was in the OP.

1) I am in favor of aggressively getting rid of federal regulations, as long as they are shitty regulations.

2)I am in favor of a xenophobic strict border control policy, as long as the people we keep out are clearly more vile than then the folks who stormed the capitol. Everybody else should be welcome.

3) I am rabidly pro-Israel as long as we treat them like we treated South Africa during apartheid.

4) I am in favor of a national service program for all persons 18-20.

5) I am in favor of color blind policies as long as we are engaged in aggressive economic affirmative action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, B00M said:

SIAP but re-joining/funding the fucking WHO during a FUCKING pandemic. Pretty sure that's a policy move both sides can largely support. 

Hey, he said no librul shit. That's some leftist shit in today's environment.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, B00M said:

SIAP but re-joining/funding the fucking WHO during a FUCKING pandemic. Pretty sure that's a policy move both sides can largely support. 

Yeah, that was no-brainer #1 for Biden yesterday.  I'm gonna give Biden a wide berth for a bit, and then start railing on him old-school shaggybevo style.  

But yeah, many of us from all political stripes had many issues with the WHO and its funding model and purpose.  But the time to leave and dismantle those is not during the deadliest pandemic in 100 years.  I have serious issues with airlines and flight itself, but I tend not to jettison my relationship with the airline and aircraft in question during landing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, that was no-brainer #1 for Biden yesterday.  I'm gonna give Biden a wide berth for a bit, and then start railing on him old-school shaggybevo style.  

But yeah, many of us from all political stripes had many issues with the WHO and its funding model and purpose.  But the time to leave and dismantle those is not during the deadliest pandemic in 100 years.  I have serious issues with airlines and flight itself, but I tend not to jettison my relationship with the airline and aircraft in question during landing.  

It's like "diplomacy" is a bad word these days. If we disagreed with some aspects of how the organization is run or operated, then we flex our muscle as the United Fucking States of America to advocate for those changes, and sweet talk our allies into supporting what we want, while explaining why. If we get outvoted, then we accept it, or we keep pressing on trying to obtain change. This is how society fucking works. A return to normalcy is so welcome right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

I would like to see a reinstatement and broadening of the Fairness Doctrine. Broaden it to include cable news. 

I dont know if fits that doctrine exactly but if the news facts are strictly reported in an unbiased manner, you call that News and everything else you can call opinion, with the opposing view disclosed but not necessarily expounded on. 

Maybe we can get back to being on the same page if we understand the slant of the news we are consuming better by labeling it.

This is really important but feels like a total pipedream. Most Americans can't seem to distinguish news from entertainment and it's just snowballing. Practically speaking, what would a modern fairness doctrine look like during say, a Tucker Carlson out-of-context-montage? A dem in the corner of the screen just shaking their head then given 1 minute to try to argue against a series of clips?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lobo said:

If we're all honest, there is no President we cannot find some common ground with except maybe William Henry Harrison.  He was a pussy who spent his entire 30 day term in office coughing and asking people to open and close windows. 

I am just biased against the Executive Branch so it's hard for me to find much I like about every President, even the ones I voted for.  The office is an abortion of what was intended and I wish the worst on most Commanders in Chief.  There's a reason the first Article is about the Legislative Branch.  They weren't going in alphabetical order, they were listing hierarchy.  That said, I like when both parties get shit done in Congress and I like it when there's gridlock.  I don't like it at all when one party runs roughshod on the other, that's dangerous.  But I always like when the fuck with the President, so long as it does not undermine our foreign affairs posture.  

It's just a somehow hollow statistic of varying magnitudes, but I like that both Bush-43 and Obama signed less than 300 executive orders apiece in 8 years in office.  Trump was on his way to have more than anybody since Eisenhower until that scoundrel Pelosi stole the election from him ;)  

I also hate it when President's propose budgets.  Was never their job, should never be their job.  But something I like about what has become of the Executive Office that was mostly under "the other side" was both Clinton and Obama.  Both presided during a time of 24/7 news coverage (something Carter, LBJ, et. al. never had to worry about)  With Clinton and Obama, you never had to check the news before bed and check it as you woke up to see, "Oh shit, what the fuck did they say/do now?"  They were slow burns into shit that bothered me long-term, but it wasn't a daily, "Oh, for fuck's sake!"  I mean, they were plotting with Democrats in Congress to screw shit up, but it wasn't a daily public spectacle for the globe to laugh at, it was just Democrat politics.  With Trump, it was all of the above. 

FearfulAdventurousDorado-small.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, B00M said:

This is really important but feels like a total pipedream. Most Americans can't seem to distinguish news from entertainment and it's just snowballing. Practically speaking, what would a modern fairness doctrine look like during say, a Tucker Carlson out-of-context-montage? A dem in the corner of the screen just shaking their head then given 1 minute to try to argue against a series of clips?

I see it as being similar to NFL pre- and post-game round tables.  When I was a boy (GET OFF MY LAWN), there was no such thing.  Then, the broadcast booth started to become a "play by play" and a "color" guy.  Then, they started fronting some games with a "pre-game" show, usually one guy with a few stats and maybe a taped interview.  Then, it started to metastasize.  Before you knew it, there were a half dozen "pre-game" shows (and their "post-game" counterparts) staffed with mostly-lucid ex-players wearing $4K suits, $10K watches, and tennis shoes, delivering impassioned rehearsed monologues about Tom Brady's subscapularis muscle, all the while waving a $500 pen and shuffling through empty pages of "notes".

So, map that to political cable "news" channels.  Americans see it as normal.  There is no going back.  There is no new fairness doctrine.  The thirst for the echo chamber is too vast to be slaked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

side note- I'm shocked at how many people are officially married to non- citizens- and have been for many years- can someone explain that to me?

I could write a book about this....I've been married to a non-citizen since 2004 and we've been married 6 and a half years now.  Marriage got us off the non-permanent visa game of finding a student visa or a temporary work visa like an H-1B, and now he's a permanent resident.  We have to pay a small fee every 10 years to renew now.  It was a fucking grueling process to get through that.  It involved putting together a whole binder to prove we were really married, an interview with immigration where we had to once again prove we were married.  We also retained counsel for that and paid some feeds to the government I think in the neighborhood of $1k.  Then, he only got a 2 year green card and had to go through the whole thing again 2 years later to get a regular green card, which cost another $1k in fees, required us to put together a binder of proof that we were really married, which included years of copies of shared bills, old driver's licenses, pictures of us together with friends and in different locations at different times, and then they made us make an even bigger binder of more of the same (It was 600 pages of shit by the time we submitted it), and with a second interview we finally got there.

From now on forever, we pay the fee every 10 years and we're golden.

Alternatively, we could sign up to go through another year long process with a $1200 price tag on it, and take the extra time and attention of our time to get through the next step for him to be a citizen, but his country doesn't allow dual citizenship so the other thing we have to think about is, is it worth it for him to give up citizenship to his home country or not?  Especially since the only benefit he'd be getting out of it is the right to vote. 

So yeah, since there's no rush, we haven't really decided its worth the time and pain and heartache and aggravation of going through this process a third time because we know how this movie goes and we're not sure it's worth the price of admission.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I’m in a similar boat.  It took them 2 years to process my wife’s initial green card application, during which most of that time she couldn’t leave the country to visit her family or even work because her prior visa expired while the application was pending.  Then, on the next round 2 years later to remove conditions, I especially appreciated our wonderful government informing me that the years of joint bank account statements, joint tax returns, travel records, bills showing us at the same address, etc., were just not enough evidence that we weren’t a sham marriage and we needed to show them more.  

Their letter was the biggest piece of crap  I’ve ever seen.  It was like mad libs “You have provided [joint bank account statements].   You have not shown evidence that you shared financial assets.”  WTF?   Did you just read the prior sentence?

Yeah, it was fucking infuriating.  I think the only time in my adult life that I have ever been madder than reading that letter was the time when insurrectionists stormed the capital.  It was so infuriating that until you mentioned it I had successfully blocked it out of my memory. 

I don't ever want to be that mad again, so I'm kind of ok that he hasn't been willing to put himself through that process again, because I don't want to go through it either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only a limited experience in trying to get green card, etc., but I can sympathize.  I hired a young engineer out of India with a master's degee from a good US school, and the hoops I had to jump through to justify maintaining him on my team were nuts.  He wasn't Albert Einstein, but it would have been a fair amount of  effort to find a similarly skilled American replacement, not to mention the on-the-job training that would have had to have been repeated.  The whole system sucks.

I eventually lost him to a company in Detroit that was proactive in their policies.  Yay, immigration!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have only a limited experience in trying to get green card, etc., but I can sympathize.  I hired a young engineer out of India with a master's degee from a good US school, and the hoops I had to jump through to justify maintaining him on my team were nuts.  He wasn't Albert Einstein, but it would have been a fair amount of  effort to find a similarly skilled American replacement, not to mention the on-the-job training that would have had to have been repeated.  The whole system sucks.

I eventually lost him to a company in Detroit that was proactive in their policies.  Yay, immigration!

Streamlining shit like this would be a good example- if accomplished- of something I’d put in here. Make it as friendly on business and applicant as possible. It does nobody any good to create this kind of process as you, LHM and NAIU describes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Shit that a lot of the country can (or should) probably get behind.

I don't think this is too crazy liberal and I can imagine some right-wing policy wonks are against this. But to add on to the same neighborhood of your DACA example, I want a guest-worker and path to citizenship component as part of the immigration policy. On top of increased surveillance along the border and more judges to process cases. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, YChang said:

I don't think this is too crazy liberal and I can imagine some right-wing policy wonks are against this. But to add on to the same neighborhood of your DACA example, I want a guest-worker and path to citizenship component as part of the immigration policy. On top of increased surveillance along the border and more judges to process cases. 

That seems like where the middle ground should be. I thought we were gonna get there during the early 2000’s. It’s an absolute shame that we didn’t. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I see it as being similar to NFL pre- and post-game round tables.  When I was a boy (GET OFF MY LAWN), there was no such thing.  Then, the broadcast booth started to become a "play by play" and a "color" guy.  Then, they started fronting some games with a "pre-game" show, usually one guy with a few stats and maybe a taped interview.  Then, it started to metastasize.  Before you knew it, there were a half dozen "pre-game" shows (and their "post-game" counterparts) staffed with mostly-lucid ex-players wearing $4K suits, $10K watches, and tennis shoes, delivering impassioned rehearsed monologues about Tom Brady's subscapularis muscle, all the while waving a $500 pen and shuffling through empty pages of "notes".

So, map that to political cable "news" channels.  Americans see it as normal.  There is no going back.  There is no new fairness doctrine.  The thirst for the echo chamber is too vast to be slaked.

 

But unlike the NFL, this proliferation of echo chambers is causing the death of our republic because we can have alternate realities. We have to have a way to discern opinion news from fact reporting so that no one goes into action based on fantasy. The Tucker Carlton show should be labeled Opinion. Maybe incentivize the Networks to throw in some "greens" into the news diet by having unbiased news reporting labeled News in their opinion shows for a few minutes. You have to come up with something.  

Edited by burntorangebongos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

But unlike the NFL, this proliferation of echo chambers is causing the death of our republic because we can have alternate realities.. We have to have a way to discern opinion news from fact reporting so that no one goes into action based on fantasy. The Tucker Carlton show should be labeled Opinion. Maybe incentivize the Networks to throw in some "greens" into the news diet of by have unbias news reporting Labeled News in their opinion shows for a few minutes. You have to come up with something.  

That's pretty apt, on average, our "news" diets mirror our actual diets... Gross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't know where I fall on your spectrum; probably left of center since I seem to be trending that way as I age. However, one thing I haven't' seen mentioned and doubtful it will ever be addressed, but I'd like to see a good bipartisan discussion on foreign ownership of American property (land). I'm not in favor of it, but admittedly that's probably policy ignorance on my part. The only thing I do know is that it is mostly left up to states, there are no federal restrictions. For example, Texas is no holds barred, Iowa says no way. I'm wondering if this is something where the states and the fed should get together and 'talk' about it; pros and cons. With over 30 million acres of US farmland (that's just farmland, not overall acreage) owned by outside entities, it seems like a noteworthy discussion.

property law is pretty exclusively the domain of the states.  federal law actually gets pretty torturous trying to limbo between the different regimes out there (taxation of income to married persons in community vs. non states, for example). 

the fact that you can't unbolt real property and ship it elsewhere makes me less concerned about it than the products of that land being shipped elsewhere.  remember the meat shortage that happened in april-may of last year?  there really wasn't one - the largest pork producer in the US is chinese owned and shipped pork to china. but, of course, that's how trade works. at some point, i suppose, the US government could step in and stop food shipments should there be mass starvation.  or war.

the US is the worst at that sort of thing anyway.  quinoa gets hot in the US and suddenly all the tenant farmers in peru get kicked off their land and all of their staple food gets shipped to yoga pants wearing superfood chasing suburban hotmoms. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I am guilty. I didn't use to watch cable news channels until after 2017. I watch CNN mostly but do get sick of Don Lemon and go to Lawrence O'Donnell who is just as slanted in his opinions but entertaining. But I have critical thinking skills so I know what is happening. 

I used to at least watch PBS NewsHour and ABC News before and find myself a bit bored now by them. I looked on the News Bias chart and they are very high on reliability and neutrality for the most part. That is where I kind of thought of maybe make everybody label their News so people would know what they are consuming news wise.  

Edited by burntorangebongos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B00M said:

This is really important but feels like a total pipedream. Most Americans can't seem to distinguish news from entertainment and it's just snowballing. Practically speaking, what would a modern fairness doctrine look like during say, a Tucker Carlson out-of-context-montage? A dem in the corner of the screen just shaking their head then given 1 minute to try to argue against a series of clips?

Simple but probably still a pipedream, and also not a complete solution -- make Fox and CNN and MSNBC and whoever else spin off their talking head shows into separate networks labeled as such. You could have Fox Hate Speech Network, or Rachel Maddow Russian Paranoia Network or whatever.

I think it's the way news and opinion are mixed and segue into one another that makes things so toxic. They need to have separate brands. 

Delineate a much clearer line between news and opinion. There should be stations that are all news all the time and others that are all opinion all the time. 

When you read the newspaper and you got to the opinion pages, you knew you were on the fucking opinion pages. There were the editorials you never read by the board of the newspaper and then you had a mix of voices on the rest of the pages. That was clear to me when I started reading papers seriously at around 16 years old.

It's when you get into media like radio and TV that you have trouble because they are more passive and sneaky media. They come at you whereas a newspaper does not. That distinction should have been made when the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded.

And it did not predict the Internet. Now we trust every American to find their own level, wisdom wise, after decades of skimping on education costs and in a culture that never prized values like skepticism, erudition, or even intelligence all that much. The older generations and their relationship to politics and the Internet is like getting a a 15-year-old Mormon kid drunk and turning him loose in a whorehouse -- there is no resistance or ability to resist. And now cable news and the Internet are feeding off each other. 

TL;dr: Build a wall between News STATIONS and Opinion STATIONS. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, elfenix said:

property law is pretty exclusively the domain of the states.  federal law actually gets pretty torturous trying to limbo between the different regimes out there (taxation of income to married persons in community vs. non states, for example). 

the fact that you can't unbolt real property and ship it elsewhere makes me less concerned about it than the products of that land being shipped elsewhere.  remember the meat shortage that happened in april-may of last year?  there really wasn't one - the largest pork producer in the US is chinese owned and shipped pork to china. but, of course, that's how trade works. at some point, i suppose, the US government could step in and stop food shipments should there be mass starvation.  or war.

the US is the worst at that sort of thing anyway.  quinoa gets hot in the US and suddenly all the tenant farmers in peru get kicked off their land and all of their staple food gets shipped to yoga pants wearing superfood chasing suburban hotmoms. 

Thank you for the explanation. Just for conjecture, what if a foreign country owned large swaths of land in Texas or Idaho and then financially assisted American citizen white supremacists to live on said land and promote secession or other issues pertinent to their interests through their duly elected representatives? How would a state deal with that? That is obviously a far fetched example, but trying to get my brain around what avenues the state would have. I understand that the military and all the other 'secession' arguments that were discussed in another thread, but specifically I am referring to what is almost an occupation settlement of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Thank you for the explanation. Just for conjecture, what if a foreign country owned large swaths of land in Texas or Idaho and then financially assisted American citizen white supremacists to live on said land and promote secession or other issues pertinent to their interests through their duly elected representatives? How would a state deal with that? That is obviously a far fetched example, but trying to get my brain around what avenues the state would have. I understand that the military and all the other 'secession' arguments that were discussed in another thread, but specifically I am referring to what is almost an occupation settlement of sorts.

might look something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints#Legal_trouble_and_leadership_struggles

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Well, even better then! The key call out there, though, is that he will build coalitions and relationships globally to help-- you know, play politics-- which is needed.

I will also second some reasonable gun reform and reasonable student loan reform/forgiveness as something I think is good and will happen (keyword, reasonable).

What do you mean "reasonable gun reform"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I see it as being similar to NFL pre- and post-game round tables.  When I was a boy (GET OFF MY LAWN), there was no such thing.  Then, the broadcast booth started to become a "play by play" and a "color" guy.  Then, they started fronting some games with a "pre-game" show, usually one guy with a few stats and maybe a taped interview.  Then, it started to metastasize.  Before you knew it, there were a half dozen "pre-game" shows (and their "post-game" counterparts) staffed with mostly-lucid ex-players wearing $4K suits, $10K watches, and tennis shoes, delivering impassioned rehearsed monologues about Tom Brady's subscapularis muscle, all the while waving a $500 pen and shuffling through empty pages of "notes".

So, map that to political cable "news" channels.  Americans see it as normal.  There is no going back.  There is no new fairness doctrine.  The thirst for the echo chamber is too vast to be slaked.

 

You're, likely, right.  And if that's the case, we're fucked.  Simple as that.  You can't operate a democracy w/ 35-40% operating in a different reality. Only a matter of time before we rip ourselves to shreds. 

Edited by DigglerontheHoof
drunk, tense
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

these threads are like a kick in the real nuts. the mechanism of making decisions and improving things is broken, ergo, thats the first fix. until then the issues will pile up and the populace will get more pissed off. 

on the optimist's side of things - maybe, just maybe, the obliteration of the Republican party gets the democrats some runway to try and catch the US up to other western countries in terms of social services and quality of life. sadly, its the democrats so I don't think it will happen ergo my first ergo.

the current pattern is R's make the water dirty and Ds try to come in a clean it up, are labelled socialists, and the beat rolls on

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America's main disease is short-termism. Desperately need to build strength across the whole of society and try to get more people actively participating in civic discourse and business. (the idea that they are opposed is archaic and flawed). 

business is good. pro corporate is not pro business and the conflating of that irks the shit out me. as policy we need to disconnect the word corporate from pro business IMO. 

anyway, you homies be good. my no nuke friday is sweet so far. first one with such a breathe of fresh air

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...