http://gamingtrend.com
December 19, 2014, 10:58:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
1  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Public speaking on: October 31, 2014, 12:46:48 AM
It's natural to move around. I totally agree with drifter, just don't turn your back on anyone.

I was speaking in front of middle school classes all day today. Since the topic (the election, how Congress works, etc) wasn't entirely engaging, I tried to up my energy level a bit to keep their attention, and that involved moving around as I spoke, stepping towards the kids who were asking questions, etc. I'm not the best public speaker, though I have to do some for work, but it was fun.

The three most common questions? "Should I be worried about Ebola?" and "Have you met President Obama?"

Those seventh graders, keeping their eye on the big picture. smile
2  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gamergate - Thoughts on: October 29, 2014, 03:53:51 PM
I knew he was conservative, which is no big deal. But the personal vitriol he's spitting at people online is amazing.
3  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gamergate - Thoughts on: October 29, 2014, 07:49:23 AM
So, I have been tangentially aware of this for awhile, but not really paying attention. I don't see how anyone could argue that women are treated horribly and deeply objectified in many (most?) mainstream games, or justify any sort of harassment of those who point this clear fact out.

This childish, hateful behavior makes me sad.

What makes me even more sad is that after cracking the lid of this thing to look in, I quickly came across posts from Adam Baldwin (Firefly) and Nick Searcy (Justified) that make it pretty clear that they are immensely hateful and intolerant people with no ability to think beyond their limited and selfish perspective. That was heartbreaking.
4  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Crisis of faith or is it over? on: October 25, 2014, 06:01:54 PM
I'm not Catholic. What I posted is directly from the Book of Common Prayer. You may not consider it the Nicene Creed, but that is how that Creed is referred to.

The Creed defines the faith. Christianity is a creedal religion, not a book religion. The New Testament hadn't even been codified at the time the two Councils, Constantinople and Nicea, authored this Creed. It is the historic profession of the Christian faith.

You have to draw a line somewhere about what separates orthodox Christianity from religions that are closely related to, but distinct from, historic Christianity. I feel the creed draws that line appropriately. 
5  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Crisis of faith or is it over? on: October 21, 2014, 11:56:58 PM
Historically, the Christian religion has been defined by the great traditional Creeds, most importantly the Nicene Creed. The books of the New Testament were selected in part because of their adherence to the Creeds. What is a Christian? It is someone who can profess this:

WE BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.
6  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Liberal Fascism in Houston on: October 15, 2014, 07:04:43 PM
Who's to say that the IRS hasn't received a complaint but is yet to act?

These churches also aren't just the local church down the street that's been subject to a blanket set of complaints. These aren't blind demands for sermons. These churches were leading the effort to combat the Equal Rights Ordinance. Churches put their tax exempt status at risk when they become publicly involved in electoral politics, the same as any charity does.

It's one thing for members of the clergy to be at rallies or speak as individuals. It's something altogether different to use the pulpit or church-paid communications to push a specific political agenda.

No one has a first amendment right to tax-exempt status.
7  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Liberal Fascism in Houston on: October 15, 2014, 06:18:15 PM
We give churches tax exempt status under laws that govern charities. However, that comes with strings attached. The churches in question have been reported as engaging in direct political activity in sermons and church-paid-for communications, which violates the law -- laws the churches agreed to follow when becoming tax exempt charities.

It is fine for a pastor in the pulpit to say "being gay is a sin." It is not fine for him to say "being gay is wrong, so vote against Annise Parker," or "being gay is wrong, so vote against anyone who supports the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance."

That's the law.

It is the responsibility of those governments granting tax exempt status to investigate when claims are made that such status is being abused.

So, what is your position:

1) That churches shouldn't be tax exempt?

or

2) That governments shouldn't be empowered to investigate when laws are reportedly being broken?
8  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Crisis of faith or is it over? on: October 14, 2014, 08:20:22 PM
Narrowing the focus on America, because I don't know much about Christianity in many other parts of the world outside of Catholicism, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, there has definitely been what you could call a takeover of many branches of Christianity by movement conservatives. Forty-five years ago the Southern Baptist Convention, to name a prominent example, was a middle of the road denomination that was not expressly opposed to abortion. In the 1970s a concerted effort by conservative political activists fundamentally changed the SBC and other congregational churches into a toxic breeding ground of right-wing political ideology. The notion that churches would be leading the charge against social services to poor people and championing the most cut throat notions of American capitalism would shock Christians from 50 years ago.
9  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Crisis of faith or is it over? on: October 13, 2014, 05:39:34 PM
Conservative Christians are destroying Christianity. A religion that hates gay people, denigrates women, denies science, etc, has no future because it has no truth or grace in it. Liberal Christians aren't doing enough to stop the right-wing hijacking of our religion, though it does seem some of us are finally waking up to this.

I'm a Sunday school teacher, active in my local parish, and obviously I'm not going anywhere. But I see my friends, particularly my gay friends, being driven further and further away from religion because they increasingly associate with nasty, bigoted people like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, or charlatans like Joel Olsteen. What's bad about American Christianity is so toxic, it makes the far greater part of it that is good harder to acknowledge.
10  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 20, 2014, 09:39:36 PM
Got my iPhone 6 yesterday. Was immediately a bit put off by the size, but it's not a deal breaker. I wish they'd stuck with having a 4" phone with modern internals.

I don't restore my phone from a previous backup when moving to a new device. Instead, I just redownload my apps as I need them, as a way of cleaning off the cruft that had built up on my old phone. I love Touch ID, and the "Hey, Siri" functionality is nice to have, as well. Had a weird issue with voiceover directions with Maps last night, but it seems to have gone away today.

For some reason Facebook's Paper app wasn't registering for notifications, so I'm stuck using the regular Facebook app for now. Probably an iOS 8 related bug.

Aside from the size, I love the feel of the phone in my hand. The leather Apple case I got with it is very nice. It's a nice upgrade. I've been using iPhones for 7 years now, aside from a terrible 6 month period where I had to use Android. This phone falls nicely in line with the iPhone, 3GS, 4, and 5 that preceded it. In keeping with tradition, I have dubbed it "Uhura 5."
11  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 15, 2014, 02:12:07 PM
Also, porting your number to Google Voice means trusting Google never to discontinue the service. Google's track record at that is bad, to say the least.
12  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 10, 2014, 05:34:54 PM
They're not "a joke," but like all manufacturers, they are misleading. Computer markers define a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes. A computer defines a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes, thus the difference. On the Mac, Apple has switched the OS to using the marketing definition. I wonder why they haven't done that on iOS.
13  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 10, 2014, 05:14:35 AM
I'm in for the iPhone 6, maybe the 128 GB model. Wish the screen was still 4", but I can live with 4.7".
14  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Apple Watch on: September 10, 2014, 05:12:51 AM
I will buy one, as soon as they are available.
15  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I'm a former Jehovah's Witness, AMA! on: August 22, 2014, 04:27:34 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 07, 2014, 02:06:12 PM

What exactly DID Jesus teach, though?  All we have are the written words of so many people...most with agendas...that it's become impossible to know what Christianity really stands for.

We have the Gospels. Which were selected by the Church because they conformed with the Creed and had been accepted as valid by the various Sees as far back as there are records. The three synoptic Gospels are variations on a theme (both Matthew and Luke seem to be revisions and expansions of Mark), while John is something else. While you can't assemble a day by day specific chronology of Jesus's ministry from the four Gospels, they do have a consistent message and spirituality to them. Most importantly, they also conform to the Creed, which is the actual foundational beliefs of the Christian religion. If you're a Christian from an Apostolic tradition, then you trust the four Gospels because the ante-Nicean church accepted them, and the post-Nicean Church confirmed them as canon because they reflect the beliefs of the Creed, and you believe that God guides the Church.

If you're from a non-Apostolic, sola-scriptura Biblical tradition, then I have no idea how you make sense of what is or isn't part of the New Testament canon. In fact, some of the early Protestant Reformers tried to change the canon to get rid of books that didn't agree with them. One of the reasons I am no longer Methodist.
16  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I'm a former Jehovah's Witness, AMA! on: August 07, 2014, 03:01:32 AM

Quote from: ATB on August 03, 2014, 07:34:43 PM

Glad to hear it.  Would be interested in hearing what caused the change.

Also, now that you're free to explore actual Christianity, get an NIV Bible and start reading in John and Matthew.

I would recommend an NRSV with the Apocrypha. If you're getting a Bible, might as well get a complete one. smile

Eel, I'm sorry that your religion tried to lock you away from the world like that. That's certainly not the sort of religion that Jesus founded. There are plenty of Christian denominations that focus on Jesus' actual teachings, and don't expect you to see such crazy things as literal creationism. To put a plug in for my own religion, the Episcopal Church would definitely welcome you, and there's almost certainly one near you.
17  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Phones must now be unlocked? on: August 04, 2014, 04:08:05 PM

Quote from: Lee on August 01, 2014, 05:53:15 PM

So why aren't we all switching to these cheaper companies? There aren't any drawbacks?

Limited networks. Data speed throttling, in some cases. The main drawback, the lack of modern or interesting phones, is now, effectively, addressed.
18  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Ebola outbreak on: August 01, 2014, 10:39:56 PM

Quote from: Caine on July 31, 2014, 04:19:17 PM

Quote from: farley2k on July 31, 2014, 03:51:02 PM

We have the science to build an Ebola vaccine. So why hasn't it happened?

Quote
The problem, instead, is the economics of drug development. Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to pour research and development dollars into curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries. They aren't likely to see a large pay-off at the end and could stand to lose money.
This is tough.  Do we somehow force these companies to make a product that will lose them money?  Ethically, short-term answer is yes, but what of the impacts beyond profit?  

We pay them to do it, so they don't lose money.
19  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chic fil a and their overly religious behavior. on: July 25, 2014, 02:53:50 AM

Quote from: raydude on July 24, 2014, 12:17:38 AM

Quote from: Fireball on July 23, 2014, 05:08:51 AM

I also fail to see how this has anything to do with religion.

But I do get the part about not liking it when people are creepily overly polite or enthusiastic. I walked into a McDonalds once and everyone behind the counter turned at once and yelled out "Welcome!" and "Hello!", etc. It really upset me because I felt like I was suddenly being thrust into the center of attention. I turned and walked out.

Never had that experience at a Chick Fil A, though. Admittedly, I don't go there very often.

That reminds me, I remember when the sushi chefs at most sushi restaurants would call out "Irasshaimase!" every time a customer walked in. In fact, my wife and I giggled at the sushi restaurant scene in Monsters Inc. when the octopus chef would say that, because we knew the reference. But nowadays I don't hear that anymore when entering a sushi restaurant. And it makes me feel a bit sad.

See, that wouldn't bother me too much. 'Cause I'm not ashamed to walk into a sushi place. Eating at McDonalds is something I do only when I have few other options, and I'm not proud of it. Please don't call attention to my lapse in taste, nice people behind the counter!
20  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chic fil a and their overly religious behavior. on: July 23, 2014, 05:08:51 AM
I also fail to see how this has anything to do with religion.

But I do get the part about not liking it when people are creepily overly polite or enthusiastic. I walked into a McDonalds once and everyone behind the counter turned at once and yelled out "Welcome!" and "Hello!", etc. It really upset me because I felt like I was suddenly being thrust into the center of attention. I turned and walked out.

Never had that experience at a Chick Fil A, though. Admittedly, I don't go there very often.
21  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: What's for Lunch Today? on: July 14, 2014, 07:29:44 PM
I went to the swing station at the Cafeteria. Today it was "American Regional." Had chicken in wine sauce, baked fish patties with tartar sauce, peas and carrots, and rice. Not bad.
22  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sarah Palin demands...DEMANDS...impeachment. Can still see Russia from porch. on: July 10, 2014, 02:08:26 PM

Quote from: ATB on July 10, 2014, 11:52:01 AM

Heard an interesting report on NPR about Obama's approval rating is in the toilet and one of the commentators said 'We are only 18 months into his second term, and he's already a lame duck and no one is expecting him to be able to do anything.'

His approval rating isn't great -- 42% approve, 54% disapprove according to Gallup. But that's not even the lowest rating he's had (he dipped into the high 30s in 2011). As much as I don't want it to happen, a Republican Senate would give him an opposition Congress to parry against. The GOP would pass a lot of nasty stuff, and Obama would benefit from the resultant vetoes.

The current situation is bad for him: the House won't consider Senate bills, and the Senate won't consider House bills. So nothing is happening. Which means that the entire government is just sort of listing about. It's hard to look like a leader without the ability to either achieve success or stand strong against an enemy able to pass bills.
23  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sarah Palin demands...DEMANDS...impeachment. Can still see Russia from porch. on: July 10, 2014, 01:51:49 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on July 10, 2014, 02:42:33 AM

The President takes an oath to "faithfully execute" the laws that Congress passes, but Obama has taken it upon himself to fudge certain deadlines and other details without the consent of Congress. I don't know enough about constitutional law to judge just how flexible faithfully executing should be, but the objections have some merit. Calling a law "Obamacare" doesn't mean that Obama gets to define it as he goes along.

Impeachable? I doubt it, but impeachment is at least as much about political power as it is about legal merits.

The thing is that the laws Congress writes have all sorts of wiggle room in them. Congress writes laws that lack specificity, and then delegates to the Executive Branch the power to issue rules to fill in the gaps and adjust things to accommodate reality. This is a necessity -- otherwise it would take Congressional action to alter any program that needs small tweaks.

The President has pushed this to the edge a few times regarding the ACA, but ultimately it's all built on a foundation of precedent from previous presidents. He hasn't changed the law, he's adjusted deadlines, which has happened numerous times with previous laws. He hasn't single-handedly eliminated any provision of the law, or created entire new parts by executive order, both of which would be way out of bounds.

Ironically, on immigration he often gets accused of lawlessness when in fact he has enforced immigration law more vigorously than any previous president.
24  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: WAZ 7/3/14 on: July 07, 2014, 02:31:39 PM

Quote from: Scraper on July 03, 2014, 03:53:47 PM

I predict this thread goes from amusing to awesome once Fireball jumps in.

Meh. Low-class, gay-hating troll posts a low-class trolling tirade that includes anti-gay nonsense. Boring.
25  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State! on: June 25, 2014, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: ATB on June 25, 2014, 03:40:24 PM

The supremes got one right!  

So now you can get stopped based on an anonymous call and they can swab your mouth for DNA, but they cannot search your phone! slywink

So they can know if you're a natural blond, but not if you say so on your Grindr profile.
26  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State! on: June 25, 2014, 02:30:10 PM
Sure, that's understandable. Also, on the Republican side, there have been a lot of repeated names over the last 62 years. In fact, since 1952, the Republicans haven't won a single election for President without Richard Nixon or a George Bush on the ticket. They also ran only one ticket between 1952 and 2004 without a Nixon, Bush or Dole on the ticket:

1952: Eisenhower / Nixon - won
1956: Eisenhower / Nixon - won
1960: Nixon / Lodge - lost
1964: Goldwater / Miller - lost
1968: Nixon / Agnew - won
1972: Nixon / Agnew - won
1976: Ford / Dole - lost
1980: Reagan / Bush - won
1984: Reagan / Bush - won
1988: Bush / Quayle - won
1992: Bush / Quayle - lost
1996: Dole / Kemp - lost
2000: Bush / Cheney - sorta won
2004: Bush / Cheney - won
27  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 25, 2014, 01:28:45 PM
So is the position ATB is arguing that:

1) The trademark office shouldn't have standards regarding what they do or do not allow to be trademarked?

or

2) That if the trademark office has such standards, but issues a trademark that may not be in compliance with them, that no one should have standing to contest the issuance of the trademark?
28  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State! on: June 23, 2014, 02:53:44 PM
Members of Congress are generally very wealthy because as wealthy people they tend to know the sorts of people who can afford to fund campaigns, and can afford the often large personal expenses that come with running a campaign.

As for dynasties, we've always had them in American politics. Before the Clintons and Bushes there were the Kennedys, the Tafts, the Harrisons, the Adamses, and many more that we never hear about because while powerful in their day they didn't rise to the sorts of prominence that gets them recorded in history. Even today, we also have (presently) second-tier dynasties of that sort, like the Browns, the Salazars and the Castros. Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a powerful politician from Maryland.

The notion that American politics is more dynastic today than it was in the past is generally untrue.
29  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 08:15:35 PM

Quote from: Teggy on June 19, 2014, 08:04:57 PM

OK, you seriously must be trolling now. I really hope you are.

Is this at question?
30  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
This wasn't a situation where someone filed a complaint and the TM&P office acted without further consideration. The complaint included numerous examples of the term "redskin" being used as a slur, including at the time that the trademark was granted. Don't be so lazy, and research the situation before shooting off your ignorant mouth.
31  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:58:19 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:55:33 PM

The words hepcat, fireball, gellar, and forgeforsaken are offensive to me. I do not wish to see any of these words here anymore.

Being conservative on a liberal-majority forum makes me the minority.

So which one of you will step up to the plate and stand by your convictions and change your name?



Please explain how this has anything to do with trademark law.
32  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:31:06 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:26:47 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 19, 2014, 03:24:52 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:22:57 PM

you all defending this type of thing are fine with it until the right gets a hold of the same power and uses it.

lol it's baffling to me that you're not realizing it.

The law says you can't use bigoted pejorative terms or profanity in trademarked names. How could this be abused? There's an appeals process, so it's not like you can just wave your hand and say "Apple is now a racist word, so that trademark is revoked!" The only one here positing unlimited power on behalf of the Trademark & Patent Office is you.

you're dead wrong. ANY word could be deemed offensive to ANYONE at any given time.

Slippery slope indeed.

God, you're so obtuse.

The law doesn't give the power to the trademark office to reject trademarks that are "offensive" in some vague and undefined way, but instead categories of offensive terminology such as well-known slurs and profanity.
33  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:24:52 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:22:57 PM

you all defending this type of thing are fine with it until the right gets a hold of the same power and uses it.

lol it's baffling to me that you're not realizing it.

The law says you can't use bigoted pejorative terms or profanity in trademarked names. How could this be abused? There's an appeals process, so it's not like you can just wave your hand and say "Apple is now a racist word, so that trademark is revoked!" The only one here positing unlimited power on behalf of the Trademark & Patent Office is you.
34  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:23:07 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:10:18 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 19, 2014, 03:06:17 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 02:57:46 PM

The BET Channel is racist, and offends me. There is no WET Channel, so why are the rules different?

Is there a bigoted slur or profanity in the name BET? If so, you could complain that it should not be granted a trademark. Otherwise, the comparison falls flat.

There is no White Entertainment Channel......or any other race-only-in-name channel that i'm aware of. Why is a minority allowed to break their own moral-rule?

Just the fact that there is no WET Channel proves that therwe should be no BET, if we're gonna play by the PC-crowd, racism rules.

So start one. No one is saying that BET gets to exist by law, but a WET doesn't. If you want there to be a "White Entertainment Television" channel, go ahead and start one. Since, like BET, there's no racial slur in the name, you could even trademark it. This is a complete nonsequitor  
35  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:06:17 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 02:57:46 PM

The BET Channel is racist, and offends me. There is no WET Channel, so why are the rules different?

Is there a bigoted slur or profanity in the name BET? If so, you could complain that it should not be granted a trademark. Otherwise, the comparison falls flat.
36  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 02:52:10 PM

The Gov't is in fact denying the team's right to protect it's patent. This is different.

Trademark, not patent. This is different.

Quote
So let's take this PC stuff to the extreme......let's say the left manages to remove all words they feel are disparaging, then the right does the same, where do we end up? How far does this go? We're talking about words. Any word could be deemed offensive to anyone as some point.

It's absurdity.

What's absurd is a slippery slope argument. Racist and other slurs, profanity, these things aren't defined arbitrarily. And this isn't proactive government action. A complaint was filed, and adjudicated under the process laid out by law.
37  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 02:33:17 PM

Quote from: Canuck on June 19, 2014, 02:21:43 PM

Honest question. Does the First Amendment extend to trademarks/patent rights?

No. This is not a free speech issue in any way, shape, or form.
38  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 01:24:40 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: Fireball on June 19, 2014, 04:09:36 AM

Why is anyone arguing with Zeke? He doesn't care about slurs that hurt people. He just wants rich white people to be allowed to do whatever they want.

He'd probably be fine with changing the name of the team to the Washington Faggots.

Or the Washington Chinks.

I'm obviously a minority on this forum, so do I get to cry and moan about your liberal privilege?

LOL people like you still don't see the absurdity in it all.

I'm surprised you get such strong wi-fi under that bridge.
39  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 04:09:36 AM
Why is anyone arguing with Zeke? He doesn't care about slurs that hurt people. He just wants rich white people to be allowed to do whatever they want.

He'd probably be fine with changing the name of the team to the Washington Faggots.

Or the Washington Chinks.
40  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again on: June 18, 2014, 07:56:13 PM

Quote from: Moliere on June 18, 2014, 07:38:35 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

2) Publicly finance all campaigns, by either making the public financing so generous that everyone will want to opt into it, or just outlawing private contributions to campaigns.
I don't like the idea of tax money going to pay for campaigns. Would everyone on the ballot get the same amount of money or only the Democrats and Republicans? It's a bit of a contradiction for a libertarian to accept tax money for their campaign. Would a Ross Perot not be able to finance his own campaign? Is the public financing only in the general election and not the primaries? If so, then the advantage will be given to anyone that can raise the most money to win their primary. If not, then the budget to finance every primary candidate that happens to get on the ballot will become astronomical.

There are a lot of different ways to handle public financing. Most would prevent a billionaire from swinging in and trying to buy an election because, well, that's part of the point. You can set thresholds such as gathering signatures to prevent just anyone from securing funds for the primary. You can fund all parties equally in the general election, or fund parties based upon previous performance (with set amounts for parties who had received more than, say, 0.5%, 5%, 15% and 25% of the vote).

Even if you assume that you'd have an astronomical number of candidates, and that you funded the House campaigns at an incredibly generous amount ($1,500,000 for major party nominees, $500,000 for minor party nominees, $500,000 for major party primary candidates, $100,000 for minor party primary candidates) and that all candidates met those highest thresholds, it'd amount to less than $5 billion per cycle... you're talking less than 0.07% of the Federal budget for the two year cycle.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.218 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.118s, 1q)