This forum is for talking about non-music-related stuff that the DBT fanbase might be interested in. This is not the place for inside jokes and BS. Take that crap to some other board.
Cole Younger wrote:I told them exactly what I thought and ended my rant with, "you forget. Those crazy third party folks you make fun of, I'm one of them."
which third party?
b/c some of them need making fun of.
And the big two don't?
excellent point and you are absolutely correct.
lots of issues with our political process. systemic, chronic and fatal flaws involving corruption of souls, ethics and ideas.
additionally, some groups are able to add your regular, run of the mill, bat shit crazy to the rabbit hole gumbo of dysfunction.
Zip City wrote: Sure, but many experts are saying Texas is trending that way. Most likely not by 2016, but with the huge Hispanic population, it's not as solidly red as many other southern states
Texas also has a large quasi-Libertarian segment that just isn't interested in government regulations of any kind, and the more the Republicans dig their heels in on the religious issues, the more they alienate that segment of conservatives.
I wouldn't call it a Southern state either. It's pretty different, culturally speaking, from the rest of the former Confederacy. It's pretty different culturally from about anywhere for that matter.
Zip City wrote: Sure, but many experts are saying Texas is trending that way. Most likely not by 2016, but with the huge Hispanic population, it's not as solidly red as many other southern states
Texas also has a large quasi-Libertarian segment that just isn't interested in government regulations of any kind, and the more the Republicans dig their heels in on the religious issues, the more they alienate that segment of conservatives.
I wouldn't call it a Southern state either. It's pretty different, culturally speaking, from the rest of the former Confederacy. It's pretty different culturally from about anywhere for that matter.
Ask any southerner and they will tell you that Texans are not southerners. Hell, most Texans will tell you that too except when talking about barbecue or sweet tea.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the WTF thread or here. Sadly this kind of thing doesn't really have me saying WTF anymore but rather "here we go again".
Tequila Cowboy wrote:Wasn't sure whether to put this in the WTF thread or here. Sadly this kind of thing doesn't really have me saying WTF anymore but rather "here we go again".
Tequila Cowboy wrote:Wasn't sure whether to put this in the WTF thread or here. Sadly this kind of thing doesn't really have me saying WTF anymore but rather "here we go again".
Tequila Cowboy wrote:Wasn't sure whether to put this in the WTF thread or here. Sadly this kind of thing doesn't really have me saying WTF anymore but rather "here we go again".
Cole Younger wrote:I told them exactly what I thought and ended my rant with, "you forget. Those crazy third party folks you make fun of, I'm one of them."
Cole Younger wrote:I told them exactly what I thought and ended my rant with, "you forget. Those crazy third party folks you make fun of, I'm one of them."
which third party?
b/c some of them need making fun of.
I'm a libertarian. Conservative on most issues, moderate on some, liberal on a few. I have my own ideas about what is best but I don't care what others do as long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights or legitimately endanger anyone. So...libertarian.
If the political arena was a bar room I feel like we would be in the corner watching the big two cock block each other all night.
As for some needing to be made fun of, I think the democrats and republicans have shown us how productive it is to make fun of and demonize other people just because they don't think what you think.
Cole Younger wrote:I told them exactly what I thought and ended my rant with, "you forget. Those crazy third party folks you make fun of, I'm one of them."
which third party?
b/c some of them need making fun of.
I'm a libertarian. Conservative on most issues, moderate on some, liberal on a few. I have my own ideas about what is best but I don't care what others do as long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights or legitimately endanger anyone. So...libertarian.
If the political arena was a bar room I feel like we would be in the corner watching the big two cock block each other all night.
As for some needing to be made fun of, I think the democrats and republicans have shown us how productive it is to make fun of and demonize other people just because they don't think what you think.
so I assume your relative is running for the Tea Party?
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever
Cole Younger wrote:As for some needing to be made fun of, I think the democrats and republicans have shown us how productive it is to make fun of and demonize other people just because they don't think what you think.
just one example......folks that actively try to enact legislation that is intolerant and/or baiting of other races, sexual identities and gender should be openly mocked and ridiculed. demonize will also work.
Zip City wrote: Sure, but many experts are saying Texas is trending that way. Most likely not by 2016, but with the huge Hispanic population, it's not as solidly red as many other southern states
Texas also has a large quasi-Libertarian segment that just isn't interested in government regulations of any kind, and the more the Republicans dig their heels in on the religious issues, the more they alienate that segment of conservatives.
I wouldn't call it a Southern state either. It's pretty different, culturally speaking, from the rest of the former Confederacy. It's pretty different culturally from about anywhere for that matter.
Ask any southerner and they will tell you that Texans are not southerners. Hell, most Texans will tell you that too except when talking about barbecue or sweet tea.
Y'all are spot on. Texas is its own separate entity. Culturally it has a lot in common with the South but Texas is Texas. East Texas is by far the most like the South. Except for that dang nasty sweet cornbread that they eat. I think they drink unsweetened tea there too. Yuck.
Cole Younger wrote:As for some needing to be made fun of, I think the democrats and republicans have shown us how productive it is to make fun of and demonize other people just because they don't think what you think.
just one example......folks that actively try to enact legislation that is intolerant and/or baiting of other races, sexual identities and gender should be openly mocked and ridiculed. demonize will also work.
reach out, not down.
just my opinion.
I agree they should be called out. But doing childish and stupid things like calling them nazis etc is counterproductive. Simply stating the facts about what they do is more than enough. Because speaking out that they are doing these things to certain kinds of people makes them look like what they are. Calling them names just makes the one doing the name calling look bad and undermines their credibility.
The thing about Wendy Davis though that people need to understand is this bullshit or not she has almost zero chance of winning. Her real role here is to build a infrastructure for Democrats that doesn't exist right now. There is very real Math that shows the state slowly going purple as early as 2016 and blue several years after that as the population grows younger and more moderate. In order to capitalize on that they need a dynamic candidate to help build an organization and Davis' candidacy is perfect for that. She very well might win a state election one day, but it's unlikely to be in 2014.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
dime in the gutter wrote:what's ya'lls take on the russia/crimea situation?
is it reminiscent of the russia/georgia thing from a few years ago?
very interested to hear from our overseas contingent here at 3dd.
My understanding is that The Ukraine wants no part of this but Crimea has a large ethnic Russian population and wants to be a part of Russia.
I understand how those folks must feel and I personally hope that we stay out of this unless the situation were to change significantly.
However, Putin is a bad guy. And he has zero respect for anything that is being said to him from our direction. If he gets more aggressive I can see this getting ugly.
dime in the gutter wrote:what's ya'lls take on the russia/crimea situation?
is it reminiscent of the russia/georgia thing from a few years ago?
very interested to hear from our overseas contingent here at 3dd.
My understanding is that The Ukraine wants no part of this but Crimea has a large ethnic Russian population and wants to be a part of Russia.
I understand how those folks must feel and I personally hope that we stay out of this unless the situation were to change significantly.
However, Putin is a bad guy. And he has zero respect for anything that is being said to him from our direction. If he gets more aggressive I can see this getting ugly.
i struggle to think of any reason for us to stick our noses too far into that hornet's nest.
I don't claim to know a lot about that part of the world, but a couple of things seem obvious:
The Crimea will end up Russian.
Whatever chance the US/West had to significantly impact Russia and guide it towards a more Westerly path has long since passed. But it was always long odds anyway.
The US and Western Europe don't really have any idea how to deal w/ Russia and there don't seem to be a whole lot of people who understand it. As I said, I don't know much, but I do know that Putin's playing to a very different audience and we keep acting like he cares about what we think or what we might do.
At a guess, he's probably hoping that we will initiate some kind of military action. It would be the best thing that ever happened to him (after the 10th billion or so, anyway).
At some point the US will hopefully learn that just because one side is bad it doesn't mean that any of the other sides are good (by our definition, anyway). This would be as good a time as any.
Fossil fuels are still the bottom line. The best thing that could ever happen to advance the possibility of peace on earth is the development of true replacements for fossil fuels, preferably from renewable resources. In the meantime, Putin's got the goods, Western Europe needs them desperately and the story will play out along some line in which that is the dominant plot/theme.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Learned a ton from last nights episode of Fresh Air. The whole episode is worth listening to but the guest really boils down the key dangers in the last few minutes.
Crimea is only ethnically Russian since post WWII.
Putin's language recently has turned distinctly ethnic nationalist
With a march to Moldova and/or Odessa, Russia could motivate Poland (Poles shares ethnic ties, old Lithuanian Empire turf) to get involved militarily. Poland is a NATO nation. Hello WWIII.
Beebs wrote:Putin's language recently has turned distinctly ethnic nationalist
For sure. This is what I meant by "playing to a very different audience."
Beebs wrote:With a march to Moldova and/or Odessa, Russia could motivate Poland (Poles shares ethnic ties, old Lithuanian Empire turf) to get involved militarily. Poland is a NATO nation. Hello WWIII.
Seriously? I am no student of this area but this goes against at least a couple of hundred years of what I think is the history of the region. Plus look at the geography: Both Moldavia and Odessa are a long way from Poland and it would require an invasion of the Ukraine to get there (perhaps the Ukranians would go along w/ this but that would be like, oh, say, Cuba siding w/ the USSR in the US's backyard, which didn't really work out too well for the Cubans). OK, Poland is a part of NATO now and this isn't the 19th century. But the idea of Poland dragging the West into a war over Moldavia and/or Odessa seems somewhere between unlikely and you've gotta be kidding me.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
dime in the gutter wrote:what's ya'lls take on the russia/crimea situation?
is it reminiscent of the russia/georgia thing from a few years ago?
very interested to hear from our overseas contingent here at 3dd.
My understanding is that The Ukraine wants no part of this but Crimea has a large ethnic Russian population and wants to be a part of Russia.
I understand how those folks must feel and I personally hope that we stay out of this unless the situation were to change significantly.
However, Putin is a bad guy. And he has zero respect for anything that is being said to him from our direction. If he gets more aggressive I can see this getting ugly.
i struggle to think of any reason for us to stick our noses too far into that hornet's nest.
Beebs covers the lines along which I was thinking.
If I may, I don't think Beebs means that a Russian invasion of Poland is exactly like what lead to WWII. I think he means an increasingly aggressive Putin bent on acquiring more territory could lead to us having to get involved. Think Putin deciding to move into Western Europe. Is it unlikely? Oh yeah. And that's the only way I could see us needing to get involved. If nothing else maybe this makes it a little less popular to hate America. Putin sure seems to want Russia to be a military power on the world's stage.
Cole Younger wrote: If I may, I don't think Beebs means that a Russian invasion of Poland is exactly like what lead to WWII. I think he means an increasingly aggressive Putin bent on acquiring more territory could lead to us having to get involved. Think Putin deciding to move into Western Europe. Is it unlikely? Oh yeah. And that's the only way I could see us needing to get involved. If nothing else maybe this makes it a little less popular to hate America. Putin sure seems to want Russia to be a military power on the world's stage.
I think it's pretty likely that Putin will try to reconstruct a substantial portion of the USSR. I thought that the guy beebs was quoting was saying that Poland would try to stop him (if Russia went after certain areas) and would drag NATO w/ them. I think that's unlikely. I think it's unlikely that anyone, including the USA, will try to stop him militarily unless he tries to move West, e.g. the Baltics or Poland, which we agree doesn't seem like the most likely scenario. Or unless he turns off the gas pipeline, but it's hard to see why he'd do that.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
beantownbubba wrote:Fossil fuels are still the bottom line. The best thing that could ever happen to advance the possibility of peace on earth is the development of true replacements for fossil fuels, preferably from renewable resources. In the meantime, Putin's got the goods, Western Europe needs them desperately and the story will play out along some line in which that is the dominant plot/theme.
I think this is a key issue here (as allways). Just google up a picture of existing and planned oil/gas pipelines from the area around the Caspian Sea and beyond, and you will see a pretty interesting picture. Adding into the equiation that most of the key players both on the Ukrainian side as well as the Russian side in one way or another are or were involed in the Oil and Gas industry.
Involvement by the US and Western Euorpean contries I would guess are pretty much determined by how the situation influence the energy markets.
Everyone needs to read today's SCOTUS decision on McCutcheon v FEC. You thought Citizens United was bad? This is worse. This is not shaping up to be a good day.
edit:
Here's the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation's official response to the decision:
Once again, the Supreme Court has given more power to special interests and a tiny percentage of the very rich. Its Citizens United ruling four years ago opened up the floodgates for unlimited spending in our elections, and now it might as well have tied a big bow around Congress and deliver it to the 1%. By striking down the long-standing cap on total contributions individuals may give to federal candidates and political parties, the Supreme Court has permitted the unseemly spectacle of a single donor being able to contribute more than $3.5 million to one party during an election cycle (or double that, if he/she wants to hedge her bets).
In light of today’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, we need now more than ever real-time transparency of political spending so the public can know whether their elected officials are representing their interests or special moneyed interests. It’s technologically possible, so there’s no reason Congress should not act fast to enact legislation to mandate disclosure of all contributions of $1,000 or more to parties, candidates and political committees within 48 hours.
What this court fails to recognize is the First Amendment rights of the 99.9% of citizens who cannot buy access to elected officials in order to give voice to their issues. Seven-figure contributions are not a megaphone merely amplifying the voices of the donors, they are a sonic boom, overpowering to the point of silencing all other voices. Real-time transparency can foster accountability, deter corruption and act as a bulwark against the unfettered and wholesale purchase of our elections by the wealthy.
As Mitch McConnell, no friend to campaign finance laws, noted in 2010, "We need to have real disclosure... why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?"
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
