Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:55 pm**

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:51 pm**

Women's March Co-Founders Won't Condemn Farrakhan, Revealing the Hollowness of Intersectionality

On Monday, Mallory and Bland appeared on ABC's The View to generate buzz for the Women's March and address the controversy. Conservative host Meghan McCain asked Mallory directly whether she would condemn Farrakhan's statements; she would not. Instead, she merely said that she disagreed with them. She also maintained that Farrakhan was the "greatest of all time because of what he has done for black communities."

Again, this is a man who said that Jews in Hollywood had become the chosen people of Satan for their role in promoting LGBT equality. (Defending himself against charges of anti-Semitism, Farrakhan attempted to clarify the matter by insisting, "I'm not anti-Semite, I'm anti-termite," which, uh, says something.) The Southern Poverty Law Center rightly considers the Nation of Islam to be an organized hate group. This could be why the organization withdrew as a co-sponsor of the Women's March this year.

Mallory's extreme reluctance to disassociate herself from a noxiously anti-Semitic figure is characteristic of the far-left. At elite college campuses, criticism of the state of Israel—legitimate or not—occasionally overlaps with anti-Semitism. People like Angela Davis—an activist and organizer who supported all the worst aspects of the Soviet Union and the Black Panthers, and even backed mass murdering cult leader Jim Jones—are remembered fondly in activist circles on campuses and on social media. The Root called her a "freedom fighter" just last week.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:07 pm**

Those women have already been discredited. Who gives a shit what they say or think or do? They only reason they still exist on the national stage is that they co-opted a serious movement for their own ends. America (or western culture in general) does not have a mechanism in place for separating valid criticism from invalid criticism with regard to culturally sensitive topics, and so these people still remain at large, so to speak.

There is also the broken definition of racism (mostly in America that I can find) discussed previously that proposes that racism can only exist in a lopsided power structure, which can result in things like this, where black women in America cannot be racist despite obviously racist actions and attitudes towards white women and/or jewish women.

Good luck, America.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:07 am**

Yeah.....she's a bastion of a government run without personal issues getting in the way...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:25 am**

LawBeefaroni wrote:Yeah, this is just he final pound of crap that broke the camel's back. And it's actually damning that it took this long. That's one strong camel.

The camel's back ain't broken, and the issue isn't what he said (to the GOP leadership), it's that he did it after the blue wave and is being made an example of to (try to show) they aren't racists, but guess what? 2020 week be more of the same.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:26 am**

stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:07 am Yeah.....she's a bastion of a government run without personal issues getting in the way...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

Shrug. You run over my dog I'm not hiring you. You lobby to keep me from being promoted, it is unlikely that I will support you in the future.

I'm shocked to hear that politics are involved when politicians in a political party engage in politics.

This is exactly how it works, and how it has always worked. That's why senior members with significant favours to be called in are so important in actually getting anything done.

If Pelosi snubs someone for a relative while her daughter gets a lucrative job with a lobbyist and major kickbacks from a boondoggle project she approved, then we can talk. How is it unreasonable that people have political allies and enemies and everything that that entails?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:06 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:26 am
stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:07 am Yeah.....she's a bastion of a government run without personal issues getting in the way...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp
I'm shocked to hear that politics are involved when politicians in a political party engage in politics.

This is exactly how it works, and how it has always worked. That's why senior members with significant favours to be called in are so important in actually getting anything done.

And this is why government is shit and why it has always been shit.
Favours have no place in politics. And those like you who just shrug and accept it as business as usual are a big part of the continuing problem.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:59 am**

stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:06 am And this is why government is shit and why it has always been shit.
Favours have no place in politics. And those like you who just shrug and accept it as business as usual are a big part of the continuing problem.

You might as well complain gravity exists. This is how it has always been. It's how legislation gets passed.

Good luck to you in your windmill tilting.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:15 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:59 am
stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:06 am And this is why government is shit and why it has always been shit.
Favours have no place in politics. And those like you who just shrug and accept it as business as usual are a big part of the continuing problem.
You might as well complain gravity exists. This is how it has always been. It's how legislation gets passed.

Good luck to you in your windmill tilting.

It's the way private business works. Those with the favor of the CEO go farther than those who have offended the CEO. Actually, I can't think of an area of human endeavor where those who have the favor of those with power don't fare better than those that don't.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:13 am**

gbasden wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:15 am
GreenGoo wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:59 am
stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:06 am And this is why government is shit and why it has always been shit.
Favours have no place in politics. And those like you who just shrug and accept it as business as usual are a big part of the continuing problem.
You might as well complain gravity exists. This is how it has always been. It's how legislation gets passed.

Good luck to you in your windmill tilting.
It's the way private business works. Those with the favor of the CEO go farther than those who have offended the CEO. Actually, I can't think of an area of human endeavor where those who have the favor of those with power don't fare better than those that don't.

Thats great when you're working for yourself.
Last I heard, the government works for we the people.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:31 am**

stimpy wrote: Last I heard, the government works for we the people.

Politicians work for their constituents by trading favors. How else do you think compromise works?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:15 am**

They aren't called office politics for nothing.

In any case, let me be clear. This isn't typical horse trading to get things done. This is refusing to reward someone who has worked to harm you and your career, and very recently too.

Seniority is also one of the least merit based reasons to promote someone there is. Her one touted quality that makes her more deserving of the job than others is that she's been around longer. Whoopdedoo.

She didn't get a plum committee position that she "deserved" due to seniority because she worked against the interests of someone in a position of authority over that committee.

Politics - 1 : the activities, actions, and policies that are used to gain and hold power in a government or to influence a government

You can hate politics all you want. I'm not a fan most of the time either. In this particular case however, it's not even a particularly egregious example of politics in action. In fact it's a reasonable reaction that most people would have when confronted with an opportunity to help or hinder someone who has worked to harm them in the past.

This appears to be a perfectly reasonable and rational action in this context.

Parliamentary systems are constantly shuffling cabinets as they gain or lose favour with the boss. You sure as hell shouldn't expect a cabinet position if you worked against your current party leader in the past, and rightly so.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:32 am**

Zarathud wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:31 am
stimpy wrote: Last I heard, the government works for we the people.
Politicians work for their constituents by trading favors. How else do you think compromise works?

Compromise???? Where you been?
Apparently there is no such thing in government anymore.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:44 am**

stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:32 am
Zarathud wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:31 am
stimpy wrote: Last I heard, the government works for we the people.
Politicians work for their constituents by trading favors. How else do you think compromise works?
Compromise???? Where you been?
Apparently there is no such thing in government anymore.

That's what happens when you spend 30 years convincing people that any sort of compromise equals weakness. It's either we get literally everything what we want and the other side gets nothing, or we are content to let everyone suffer...and there's no in between.

And before you say BSAB, remember than multiple bills have been approved in the House to re-open the government while negotiations around the wall continue, and the WH (well, McConnell) has rejected every single one of them.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:27 am**

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:44 am
stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:32 am
Zarathud wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:31 am
stimpy wrote: Last I heard, the government works for we the people.
Politicians work for their constituents by trading favors. How else do you think compromise works?
Compromise???? Where you been?
Apparently there is no such thing in government anymore.
That's what happens when you spend 30 years convincing people that any sort of compromise equals weakness. It's either we get literally everything what we want and the other side gets nothing, or we are content to let everyone suffer...and there's no in between.

And before you say BSAB, remember than multiple bills have been approved in the House to re-open the government while negotiations around the wall continue, and the WH (well, McConnell) has rejected every single one of them.

I would never say BSAB, because I have no idea what it stands for.....

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:30 am**

I am guessing Both Sides Are to Blame.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:31 am**

stimpy wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:27 am I would never say BSAB, because I have no idea what it stands for.....

Both Sides Are Bad

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:56 pm**

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1085643162675306502

I'm starting to really like her.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:09 pm**

Jury is still out on whether she is a good congresswoman. Since that's her job, I'll reserve judgement.

I mean I'm sure she's cool and all but my only concern is her as a rep. Refreshing and good at Twitter mean nothing.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:37 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:09 pm Jury is still out on whether she is a good congresswoman. Since that's her job, I'll reserve judgement.

I mean I'm sure she's cool and all but my only concern is her as a rep. Refreshing and good at Twitter mean nothing.

What is the definition of a good rep? Would seem to be hard to define a bipartisan metric.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:00 pm**

stessier wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:37 pm

What is the definition of a good rep? Would seem to be hard to define a bipartisan metric.

I would think re-election (and/or high approval ratings by your constituents) but I don't think that's the case, especially in these hyper-partisan times.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:34 am**

Well, this is something:

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1 ... 6223303681

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:22 am**

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:09 pmJury is still out on whether she is a good congresswoman. Since that's her job, I'll reserve judgement.

She seems to be doing a good job just by grabbing the spotlight and shining it brightly on the mushrooms around her.

Kind of an anti-Trump.

I wonder what lobbyists think of her, or what she'll do with them... ?

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:34 am**

stessier wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:37 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:09 pm Jury is still out on whether she is a good congresswoman. Since that's her job, I'll reserve judgement.

I mean I'm sure she's cool and all but my only concern is her as a rep. Refreshing and good at Twitter mean nothing.
What is the definition of a good rep? Would seem to be hard to define a bipartisan metric.

Represents her constituency's interests despite personal or party preferences. Not saying she won't, just that we have no idea.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:51 am**

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:34 am
stessier wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:37 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:09 pm Jury is still out on whether she is a good congresswoman. Since that's her job, I'll reserve judgement.

I mean I'm sure she's cool and all but my only concern is her as a rep. Refreshing and good at Twitter mean nothing.
What is the definition of a good rep? Would seem to be hard to define a bipartisan metric.
Represents her constituency's interests despite personal or party preferences. Not saying she won't, just that we have no idea.

Country>Constituency>State>then you can worry about party, personal, lobbyist, whatever. Though sadly that's not how it seems to in reality. Both House and Senate seem to be Party>lobbyist>state>personal>constituency>country seems to be closer to the recipe for electablity. Maybe she breaks the mold. More power to all of us if she does. I'm all about the future being better than what we turned out to be.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:55 am**

The first priority she mentions is climate change. That's pretty much everybody's constituency.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:01 pm**

Fox News is still obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez, but they always use photos in which she's grinning like a madman with her eyes wide. Anything to make her look like a crazy person.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:27 pm**

The first priority she mentions is climate change.

I like her idea of a Green New Deal (she's not the first to think of it), but so far I can't find where it stands on Nuclear Power. Unless it's willing to allow for Nuclear Energy, at the very least as a stopgap measure to fulfill energy needs until other green technologies become more viable on the scale we need, I would consider it a pie-in-the-sky solution.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:11 pm**

Vox

The first school, represented by left environmental groups, wants all that carbon-free power to come from renewable energy. Last week, a collection of 626 environmental groups, led by longtime lefty stalwarts like the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, sent a letter to Congress laying out principles and policies they believe should be included in the GND.

Among them is a call for 100 percent renewable energy, specifying that “any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies.” (Some of the groups involved later clarified that they meant no new nuclear or hydro — not shutting down existing plants — but the letter itself is highly unclear on that extremely important subject.)

The second school of thought, represented by a number of academic energy analysts (see here and here) and a vociferous bloc of nuclear power enthusiasts, believes that renewable energy won’t be able to do the job of decarbonization on its own. They predict we can get to 50 percent, maybe 80 percent renewables, but after that, it will start getting very expensive without some of the “firm” resources that the enviro letter explicitly excludes. They believe nuclear, CCS, biomass, waste-to-energy, run-of-river hydro, and who knows what else will eventually be needed to fully decarbonize.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:40 pm**

If anyone could ever crack reliable nuclear fusion as an energy generator, that would be wonderful.

But until then, I agree that nuclear fission as an energy generator really does need to be looked at as a way to help get off of fossil fuel usage.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:20 pm**

hepcat wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:01 pm Fox News is still obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez, but they always use photos in which she's grinning like a madman with her eyes wide. Anything to make her look like a crazy person.

Yeah, it's not great, but literally everyone does it. There are so many pics of drumpf in his pursed lips expression out there even from more reputable media that it's becoming distracting.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:30 am**

FUCKING GRAVITY!!!!!

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:27 am**

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1086483485668319233

link

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:58 am**

Holman wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:27 am https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1086483485668319233

link

I’m not a big fan, but points for that!

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:22 pm**

That's impressive. That definitely pre-dates her by quite a bit.

Actually, now that I think about it (and confirmed), Breakfast Club pre-dates her as well.

So she isn't limited to only things that she's experienced. Seems many younger folks today seem to consider anything "old" to be not worth their time.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:04 pm**

TheMix wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:22 pm That's impressive. That definitely pre-dates her by quite a bit.

That depends on how you look at it. AOC and Zero Wing were both released in 1989, but the AYB meme didn't emerge until sometime around 1998.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:23 pm**

It's a shameless plug for the video gamer vote. And I love it!

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:51 pm**

Max Peck wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:04 pm
TheMix wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:22 pm That's impressive. That definitely pre-dates her by quite a bit.
That depends on how you look at it. AOC and Zero Wing were both released in 1989, but the AYB meme didn't emerge until sometime around 1998.

Really? Huh. I would have sworn that was around when I was in high school. At least the Breakfast Club part is still true.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:14 pm**

Wiki

"All your base are belong to us" was a popular Internet meme based on a broken English ("Engrish") phrase found in the opening cutscene of the 1992 Mega Drive port of the 1989 arcade video game Zero Wing. The quote comes from the European release of the game, featuring poor English translations of the original Japanese version.

The meme developed from this in the early 2000s, as the result of a GIF animation depicting the opening text, which was initially popularized on the Something Awful message forums.

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:25 am**

Today we saw an exhibit called The Art of Propaganda: Postcards Something Something, which was a collection of postcards from the leadup to WW1 through the end of WW2. They were curated in four groups: Rally the faithful; identify the enemy; ridicule and dehumanize the enemy; and lie about your victories and defeats. The implications were rather daring for the stodgy old Museum of Fine Arts.

Octopus Overlords

Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness