Soxbadger

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2017 -> 02:42 PM) https://twitter.com/XEVATabasco/status/910223441877487618 video of a whole building just falling down after the quake https://twitter.com/mcantu06/status/910221789619527680 explosions I cant speak (read) Spanish, but I believe in the comments people are saying that the first video is of a demolition not related to earthquake.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2017 -> 11:17 AM) I think it's fair to take "Obama did [x]" to mean "The Obama administration did [x]" rather than a claim that Obama personally did it himself. That doesn't make the rest of Trump's claim, which have been directly refuted by the DoJ and FBI, any less ridiculous. I don't think ss2k5 was an apologist for the warrantless wiretapping under Bush or the surveillance state in general, but this is not that. Paul Manafort was under FBI surveillance two full years before he became associated with Trump. Michael Flynn was recorded while talking to a Russian diplomat and suspected spy. Carter Page initially came under suspicion for contacts with suspected Russian agents back in 2013. I'm really struggling to see any sort of undue partisan influence or an overly broad surveillance state issue with any of these guys. I meant at Obama's behest. As in Obama asked them to do it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2017 -> 10:37 AM) They didn't wiretap Trump... they wiretapped everyone! As if that's better. Awesome. It was the implication of the statement that people seem to be avoiding. (IMO) Trump was insinuating that Obama (not the FBI, etc) was wiretapping him illegally in an attempt to hurt Trump's chances at becoming President. If Trump had said "While I was running for President, my building was being wiretapped because some of the people that are my associates were under criminal investigation. " I dont think anyone would have doubted it.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 17, 2017 -> 11:38 PM) Actually not true. Cops addressed this with videos at the scene of alleged cop window breaking. Yes there are bad cops. But without cops society is over. Man is inherently evil and man would run amok without cops. Sad but true. Now are there bad cops? Hell yes. I'm still steaming about the condescending prick who pulled me over that night in Kansas when he was dying to catch a drunk but I haven't had a drink in years. LOL to him. There are bad cops. But these protestors piss me off when they disrupt society as they have been doing. We just have to put pressure on our judicial system to convict crooked cops when the evidence says they committed a crime such as murder. From the "experts" on TV it seems it would have been tough to convict this past cop. Hence the judge did not convict. Sad if you believe that to be true. I dont think people are inherently evil, I think that its often times easier to do bad things than good, but I like to think there are more "good" people than bad.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 06:05 PM) http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/...olitical-tide-2 To quell some of the fallacy thrown around here, ESPN's Public Editor stated it's "clear" that the channel is liberal and they need to improve ideological diversity. That article is exactly what I have been trying to say. ESPN doesnt mean to be left or right, it just happens based on the personalities of the people they hire. That being said, the ultimate goal of Disney/ESPN is to make more money. and if they think being liberal/conservative/green/mickey mouse would make them more money, they are going to do it. Its not about politics, its about money.

Here is an article about ESPN and bias: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/espn-bec...-174132864.html It clears up some of the myths, such as Schilling was treated differently (he was given multiple chances) and that also ESPN commissioned a survey to see if this alleged bias was hurting their ratings ( https://www.espnfrontrow.com/2017/06/espn-r...ias-viewership/ )A few ESPN antagonists (notably people from Fox Sports who have an economic interest in hurting ESPN) have been pushing the narrative about ESPN and liberal bias. But this article goes to pretty much what most people were saying here, Disney is about money. If they thought "bias" was hurting their bottom line they would fix it.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 04:38 PM) Read my post again. You're off here. I didn't say anything about 2016. Youre right. Since 2012 (besides for GOLF) ESPN is the only one who in total has lost. But every network listed has lost viewers since 2016. 2012 is just an arbitrary number, but it does show that those smaller channels breaking up ESPN's monopoly on live sports was one of the major reasons for viewer loss.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) So with all the cord cutters, why has MLB Network, NFL Network, FS1 and NBCSN all have increases in viewership since 2012? https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulannounc...a-playoffs.html Your statement isnt even factually correct. Every channel you listed besides NFL Network lost viewers last year and in 2016. The more correct statement is that ESPN is losing viewers "faster" and its because all of those channels increased content at the expense of ESPN and other companies. X years ago ESPN basically had a monopoly on live television. Over that time period contracts have shifted and channels like the ones you listed have begun to broadcast live programming. So if in 2010 MLB Network had 0 games and now it has 100, of course its viewership will go up.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 04:06 PM) Did you mean to direct this at me? I stated this hours before you did. Their force feeding of politics just exacerbated their viewership loss. If ESPN was right wing they'd be losing viewers too. It's more the inclusion of politics in their content in general than it is the fact that their bias is leftwing. Impossible to tell, but I am going to defer to Disney's opinion that it is not hurting their viewership. Because I simply dont believe Disney is going to take any action that it thinks will hurt its bottom line. It is a faceless corporation that doesnt care about anything but how to make more money.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 03:54 PM) Exactly. Even centrist views are considered "liberal leaning" so of course EVERYTHING is going to be viewed as biased toward liberals. It's most of the population. On the plus side There is a gigantic media presence for far right beliefs that the left doesn't get. There are tons of religious and far right channels on every platform. You mean like how Joel Osteen is on every Sunday morning? A fun one is that Duck Dynasty was on A&E which is owned by Disney. Because again, Disney cares about money, not politics. And did you know that Freeform, who is owned by Disney, broadcasts 700 Club which is Pat Robertson's talk show.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 03:35 PM) I wasn't talking about the physical standing of the corporate media HQs. Media is served through the medium of social media. Facebook, twitter, google, YouTube, etc. Good grief. If you want people to understand your posts, you should take care in writing them in a way that they are easily understandable. That being said, I am still not sure what your saying. Media is not just "social media", media includes television, radio, etc. I also am not sure what Facebook, Twitter, Google (Google owns youtube so somewhat superfluous to state them twice) have to do with mainstream media as none of them are primarily media "creators". I can just as easily find conservative media on each of those platforms as I can find liberal media. Rush Limbaugh has a twitter, facebook and youtube. Is he liberal? Or are you saying that since social media leans more to a younger generation that there is likely more users who are liberal?

QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 02:43 PM) Isn't CNN in Atlanta and MSNBC in New York? Last I checked, Fox which owns Fox News was headquartered in Los Angeles. The problem is that he is pushing that correlation equals causation.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) A majority of the country leans left of this fake center line so of course their material is presented in a way to garner the most viewers. If it was off target it wouldn't be successful. It also the reason that "Alt-left" media is non existent while alt right has millions upon millions of listeners and viewers. You play to your audience. Its like arguing that the reason there are more Disney stores in Chicagoland area than in Kansas is political, while discounting the fact that there is more money to be made in the Chicagoland market. There are more Chik Fil A in Los Angeles than the entire state of Montana, I guess Chik Fil A has a hidden liberal agenda.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 01:50 PM) ESPN's employees think there is a liberal bias. ESPN's study shows their viewers think there is a liberal bias. Not sure why it is so important for you to defend otherwise? I think youre missing the point. I dont know if there is a liberal bias or not. What I care about is how much money Disney makes because I am a shareholder. If I thought the stock would go up because they fired her, I would say fire her. Since I dont think it matters at all, I dont care. I personally think that companies like Disney are likely to make more money if they are perceived to be "liberal" so I have no problem with them pushing that perception. My guess is that they agree with me. I leave opinions and politics out of business decisions.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) I was not familiar ABC/Disney fired a future president for ripping Obama. ESPN is not conspiring to make money. They are conspiring to make influence. Check out their viewers and subscription numbers since they've infused leftist politics into sports. Trump was on NBC, he didnt get fired for his perspective. He was bringing in money, so NBC didnt care what he was doing as he was driving ratings. ESPN is run by Disney. Disney's objective is to make money. ESPN's viewership decline has nothing to do with "politics", as you said said before your generation gets sports news from other sources, it has nothing to do with politics. I cant recall a single Disney shareholder call where "politics" was brought up, but I can remember "cutting the chord" being discussed.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 01:33 PM) What is the current status of media? Where does it come from now? Who dictates what is acceptable and mainstream? Media used to be centralized in New York and have traditional New York liberal values. Values that were in favor of social liberties and free speech. Now media comes from a tiny little area in California with revolutionary leftist views. Uh? Google is based in Cali, Disney Cali, Comcast Philly, 21st Century Fox NY, Facebook Cali, Bertelsmann Germany, Viacom NY, CBS NY, Baidu Beijing, Newscorp NY. Of the top 10, only 3 are based in California. More are based in NY.

Remember when ABC fired a reality television host who repeatedly made claims about Obama not being born in the US? Oh wait that guy became President. It's Disney's employee, they can take whatever action they feel appropriate. If you dont like it, stop watching Star Wars, Marvel and anything related to Disney. Im sure that Disney is loving all of the attention that this is getting, maybe it will even cause a ratings spike. There is this thing called Occams Razor, the simplest answer is usually the better answer. The simplest answer is money. Disney feels that whatever was said this time, is less likely to cost them money than what Schilling said. I personally agree. I know people dont like to discuss it, but there is more money to be made from "liberals" than "conservatives". Its not some sort of conspiracy, unless the conspiracy is to "make as much money as possible." In which case I agree, companies are all conspiring to make the most money.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 7, 2017 -> 01:48 PM) Seems he is getting desperate looking for a friend. I wonder which mess has him most worried. I really dont think its that. I actually think that seeing Harvey's devastation and now with the potential hurricane's in Florida, Trump may have realized that being President isnt the same as being the main character on a reality tv show. Or cynically he realizes that he has a lot at stake financially in Florida and he doesnt want all the money to have gone to Texas.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 6, 2017 -> 02:20 PM) I suppose I buy the Administrative Procedures Act argument, if that's really a thing. The constitutional arguments are bogus IMO. I think it would be pretty dangerous precedent to allow lawsuits against the government brought by citizens relying on promises that go unfulfilled. Sounds like 15 states have already joined in the federal lawsuit in NY, and California is planning their own. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-dreamer...-htmlstory.html Looks like they are going to be using the case Texas brought against Obama Administration as the basis.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 6, 2017 -> 12:04 PM) Agreed. DACA's an executive order, not law. And isn't DACA basically an order saying that the executive won't enforce immigration law in certain circumstances? So what's the argument? That not enforcing the law is unconstitutional? Its going to be a 1) improperly followed administrative procedure act, 2) due process and 3) equal protection argument. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-...0905-story.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-daca...n-idUSKCN1BG32Y I think you will see judge's reach conclusions that arent necessarily the best "legally" so that they can make sure innocent people arent harmed. Bad facts make for bad case law. (Edit) And Id bet that it gets stayed by at least 1 court, because if it ultimately was found unconstitutional it would be almost impossible to "right the wrong."

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/09/05/micr...ers/?yptr=yahoo Microsoft allegedly will pay for the defense of Dreamer employees and may file a motion to intervene on their behalf. If they actually end DACA it is going to be a huge legal battle. If Trump thought the immigrant ban was tough, this could be far more difficult.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Sep 3, 2017 -> 10:19 PM) Oh yeah they clearly solved the immigration crisis. Right. We'll never worry about that one again. I think its the faulty premise of your argument, not that the immigration problem is solved. The Republican party nominated a President who is arguably the most anti-immigrant President in the last 20+ years. The only chance your idea has is with the Democratic party.

Most likely the contracts have something called force majeure, which means that no liability for act of god.

Some people have way too much time, so here is a picture that shows the white walkers looking like the House Stark sigil. http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a2...sigil/?zoomable

Cersei's child will marry Jon/Dany's child. That is my random theory on how a truce could be made.