Soxbadger

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 03:35 PM) My best guess is pardon implies innocence whereas commuting is a disagreement on sentencing. I think May puts Manning on a more reasonable sentence for her crimes. The non-violent drug offenders were commuted, again, not implying innocence but instead sentencing issues. Yeah this is a pretty good explanation. A pardon is as if it never happened. So if youre pardoned you get certain privileges restored (ie if a law says you cant hold office if convicted of an infamous crime). If your sentence is just commuted, you are still guilty, but you are now free. I have a feeling that based on this "technicality" Assange wont be turning himself in.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 01:54 PM) No fiscal conservative ever touts true free market principles, if that even exists. They're still ok with some regulation, limiting the players involved, etc. when it benefits them/us. I object to your premise that all fiscal conservative policy is being abandoned here and that you can only be for or against the free market. I think it's more of a scale where fiscal conservatives would rather be closer to a true free market than not, but still within certain constraints. Just like we're not a truly capitalistic society. I don't know of many conservatives who want to abandon all social services for a purely capitalist society. Some for sure, but not all. There is an ocean of difference between "regulating" and "protectionism". Threatening BMW for where they choose to build a plant is not "regulating" its protectionism, and it completely disrupts a free market economy. And while you object to my premise, Trump is almost the antithesis of fiscal conservative. The only box he checks is "lower taxes". Trump has espoused for significant increases is govt spending and govt debt, which are ultimately the backbone of "fiscal conservative" ideas. Trump and the Republican party are now arguing for a socialist protectionist economy. Maybe that is what Republican's are now. Because Trumps plan of spending a huge amount of money on infrastructure, govt guaranteed healthcare and anti-free market, has no resemblance to anything that Republican's/fiscal conservatives ever stood for.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) 1) I think both parties do this as it is impossible to be absolute on just about any given policy. Liberals are the anti-war/anti-violation of rights party (ha ha, guns) and yet Obama loves his drone program and would (or did? I can't remember) take out an American citizen without due process. He's still holding detainees in Gitmo who are awaiting trial. 2) I think you can still have those beliefs but recognize they aren't always manageable or practical in a given situation. I'm all about smaller government but understood the need for an increase in national security post-9/11. I'm all about free market but understand it shouldn't come at the cost of the American people (Trump's America-First policy is one of the very few of his that I agree with in principle). As to healthcare, it's a quagmire for sure. I don't believe it's a right, not do I believe it's the governments duty to force people to buy or pay for something they don't want. 1) Come on Jenks, you cant seriously believe what you posted. Liberals arent pro-war or pro-peace, that is not a tenant of liberalism. Plenty of "liberal" Presidents (Lincoln, FDR) were involved in major wars. Again violation of rights? This is the exact opposite, liberals are generally staunch supporters of the 1st amendment, etc. The 2nd amendment is really a question of whether "gun" use is a fundamental right. But when it comes to things like marijuana etc, its usually the Republicans who want to restrict rights. 2) With 9/11 I think that is an extreme example and I think that most reasonable people understand that national defense is an outlier because it would be impossible for states to be responsible for their own national security. As for free market, you are either for it, or you are against it. There is no "Im for it but", that isnt free market. The entire point of free market is that the govt does not intervene because that creates inefficiency. I have no problem with people who are anti-free market, but call it what it is. Eroding free market will eventually hurt the US, when you move from a capitalist economy to a protective socialist economy which is what Trump is suggesting. But if you want a capitalist economy, then you need free market. You are a smart guy, I know that you understand that "free market" isnt coming at the cost of the American people. Free market ensures that the American people get the best products for the cheapest prices. As soon as you allow Trump to institute his protective socialist economy, you will see worse products at higher prices much like the Soviet Union or Russia. Maybe idolizing Russia is the new Republican core belief. I dont know. But I just cant believe that Republicans are actually backing this s***.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 04:56 PM) Nah, it's a fundamental disagreement about what government should provide and who should pay for it. I agree that it should be a fundamental difference. But as we both know, the Republican party really has thrown a lot of its core values out the window (small government, free trade, etc.) The catchphrase seems to be "repeal and replace" which suggests that the Republican party is seeking to create some sort of comprehensive health care law. Impossible to tell what they really mean though, as Obamacare has become more popular now, so I think that many Republican's may get scared when they realize its "their" constituents who are going to get hit the worst.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) So if a guy says he would like to sign now for a bit less than he would be able to make on the open market because he likes where he currently is and that team inked him to that deal for the sole purpose of trading his ass thats OK? That's really how you want teams to behave? Not only would the guy be getting traded, but he'd be making less than he could've if he tested the market. You do understand if this kind of situation plays out the idea of the hometown discount will completely disappear? What I do understand about the situation is that when you are signing a multi-million dollar contract, you arent some sort of underprivileged person who cant afford to hire an attorney. If the player/agent care enough about whatever issue you are raising, then put it into the contract. No trade clause, etc, are all ways the player can protect their rights if it means that much to them. Again he is about to make $50mil, if he or his agent (who is likely getting paid at least $500k for this contract) dont negotiate it well, I really have 0 sympathy.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) Lying to a guy about your plans regarding him to get him to sign is not "business". In some respects it could be considered fraudulent but at the very least its dishonest and not commendable. I dont think that's what Moore is doing with Duffy though, having a decent starter locked for $12m per is probably a solid move. He has an agent. He is free to negotiate any clause he wants into his contract. Its not "fraud" because the contract is going to have a merger clause that basically says "This is the entire agreement, anything not contained in this agreement means jack s***." And if his agent isnt smart enough to understand how to negotiate and draft a contract, Ill gladly take the 1-3% of $50mil and do it for him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) lol. Yeah, poor guys fleeing murderous dictators. I wonder why we ever tried to protect them as special versus other people who were just fleeing for better opportunities that the Dems are saying they won't send back. Will they be doing the same to Syrians? You know, so no one gets "special" treatment, and all get treated like every other immigrant? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) Except that they are doing everything that they can to increase that number, while apparently trying to curb the same from Cuba. I honestly dont know what your complaint is, well besides for originally misconstruing what the change in policy was. But if you think that we should accept all immigrants and give them the benefits that we were previously giving Cubans, I 100% agree. All immigrants, Syrian, Cuban, English, Italian, whatever should at minimum have the same policy that Cubans did. But I have a feeling that you arent really pro-immigrant.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) We're not. The economies of the world won't allow for it without some country taking a massive economic hit. Never say never, but it's hard to believe having a moron spout dumb things over social media would really escalate anything to that degree. War is extremely doubtful. NATO's purpose is to create a larger sphere of influence for the US without us having to invade. This seems completely lost on Trump. What Trump's idiocy will likely due is cause increased prices with decreased quality for consumers. This is the cost of trying to kill free trade. Not sure what happened to Republican's, but free trade used to be something they were proud of. Same with Capitalism.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) The thing that's still the most confusing to me is getting rid of all of that...to what end? What does the US possibly have to gain by blowing up many of its existing alliances in order to capitulate to a second-tier economic country run by an autocrat who isn't actually offering anything in return? God cant you liberals just leave Trump alone. Why are you asking questions about his plan? Dont you know that America is going to be great again if only you would just not question authority and blindly follow. I swear you are a Nazi with all of your damn questions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 07:52 AM) Mass deportations are bad, unless they are to Cuba... http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americ...0113-story.html Uh what? Cubans used to enjoy "special" privileges, it was referred to as "wet foot, dry foot." If a Cuban made it to the US they were immediately granted residency. Not one part of the article even suggests "mass deportation", nor even uses the word. Instead the article states that now Cubans will be treated like every other immigrant, and not get a "special" status from the govt, that being offered immediate residency. This article is about those Cubans who were planning to come to America to get this "special" treatment, and are now worried that they will be treated like every other immigrant.

They do stuff like that with federal funding as well. They dont realize that its generally "blue" states that are "donor" states and "red" states that are "recipient states". Perception distorts reality.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:58 PM) Right now, there is no new healthcare plan. It has been 8 years and there is still no replacement option from the GOP. Because if there was a real option or if they didnt just want to kill it, they could have worked with Democrats to "improve it". Do people really think Obama wouldnt have passed laws that were intended to improve Obamacare? But as we know, Mitch McConnell wont support any bill that may give credit to Democrats. So now we have a house that is completely built, but has some leaks in the roof. Instead of fixing the roof at a low cost, we are going to tear down the house and then design a new much better house sometime in the next 3 years. THANKS OBAMA!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:51 PM) Let's hope the new health care plan is good. I don't want people to suffer obviously. As far as the election and not voting for either ... we agree to disagree only because you guys think Hillary was an OK choice considering the opponent was Trump. I, meanwhile, think both were equally bad. I can't change your minds on Hillary's horribleness so go ahead and think I'm an uncaring beast when I merely consider Hillary also unfit to lead hence the no vote. The new healthcare plan might be OK. You never know. As Obama said, if they come up with a better plan, Ill be the first one to support it. But as of today, they are "repealing" Obamacare and have "no" plan. Basically we are going with what is behind mystery door number 3 and hoping its not the donkey.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) And you took away top health coverage from my family and millions of others. Your vote for Obama caused insurance companies to tell millions and millions to go f*** themselves in regards to hospital and doctor choices, we are barely even covered anymore. Your votes are responsible for putting my family's health at risk. Actually had Republican's worked with Obama they could have made sure that your insurance company couldnt have done that to you. But Republican's chose not to assist in the crafting of the bill to protect American's like you, so instead we were put in the inevitable position of 1) voting so that EVERYONE gets coverage but some wouldnt get as good of coverage or 2) voting so that not everyone got coverage, but those who did got to keep their plan. I do agree, it is a complete atrocity that the Republican party did not want to help, which made the above choice a reality. That being said, I do believe there are certain people who believe healthcare is a right not a privilege. I just believe that every American should be entitled to some minimum care, and I believe that it is economically beneficially because hospitals/healthcare providers have less bills that are "written off" because the person who owes the money has no conceivable way of paying.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:04 PM) The problem with this is, it's like a snake biting it's own tail. If we break Trump, we inevitably break ourselves...and to what end? Do you REALLY think the people will learn anything? I don't. Reminds me of one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes (its in my sig), but I have to hope people will learn. I have to hope that there are other people out there who may be willing to sacrifice a small amount for the better of everyone else. Because without that hope, I may as well become Trump. Just use all of my advantages to take the most from everyone else, to gain the most for me.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:56 PM) To go with the sandwich analogy it's more along the lines of you are being told you have to decide which fast food chain you'll eat all of your meals at for the next for years. Hillary is like Subway - it's gonna be reliable and won't be bad for you depending on some circumstances. Trump is like saying "f*** fast food chains! I'm going to get all of my meals at Blockbuster! They have popcorn!" But Jared Fogle.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) ...and I'm so desensitized to Trump... Haha true, I just want to see our country break him. In the hopes that no one else tries this type of bulls*** again.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:31 PM) I have to assume he means a bully is someone that actually pounds weaklings into the ground...whereas Trump merely talks about it. Yeah this is where I was going with the statement. But Im so desensitized to lawsuits that I dont really think threatening to "sue" everyone is akin to being a bully as a President. When it comes to China/Russia etc he cant just go crying to his lawyer to file a lawsuit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) The f***? Trump lashes out and threatens, but he never actually does what he says. You can tell he is a complete coward. Putin is a bully. If Putin and Trump go head to head, Trump is not going to stand up to him. If China goes head to head, he will back down. I guess I could have been more clear. But I just dont consider threats that will never come true to be bullying, I could easily see how someone could though. I think Trump "tries" to a bully or is a bully, but generally he is just really ineffective (well except against the weakest of the weak) and I dont think that would cause WWIII.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:20 PM) So what percentage would you people put on Trump starting WW3? Rephrase the question. Do you mean that its entirely Trump's fault or that WW3 occurs on his watch. Cause I think it is almost 0 that Trump "starts WW3." He is a blowhard, not a bully. There is a big difference.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) The mere idea that the people we elect would work for we the people is absurd. People dont hold their elected officials accountable. Im sure youve read the stories about people using Obamacare who voted for Trump/others who said things like "Oh we just dont believe theyll get rid of it." It will be interesting to see if the Republicans actually go through with it. For a long time they got to score a bunch of political points and basically could "blame Obama." I have a feeling this may be one of those "careful what you wish for" moments in history. Because its impossible to predict the future but I have to imagine if millions lose coverage and premiums dont go down (lets be honest its pretty far fetched to believe the insurance industry will lower rates) there may actually be consequences for once. QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) Both parties have overlords to serve. Money talks. Money only talks because people dont pay attention when they vote. If money didnt get votes or staying power, it would be meaningless. The one thing Trump may have done accidentally was change how campaigns equate money to success. A lot of Trump's message got out to people for free, twitter, etc. I have to imagine that there is someone out there that will realize that in today's society you can get a message out at significantly reduced costs.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 08:38 AM) I hate that people still insist on calling this Obamacare, because the Republicans successfully branded it as such. The ACA needs fixes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be repealed because of reasons... I think more control needs to be exerted over drug and healthcare prices if this is ever going to work. Im pretty sure that if both parties worked together they could put together some pretty amazing controls that could result in better/cheaper healthcare for everyone. Its unfortunate.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 11:04 PM) Cause you keep pushing false narratives. Or as Tony pointed up, he always brings it back to Hillary. He remarks about Streep's comments, I remark about the 1st amendment and how that means standing up for both sides of an argument. He responds "It simply amazes me how Hillary gets no fallout over all this." Fallout over what? Chilling the first amendment, threatening the Press? In what world is that at any way related to Hillary f***ing Clinton. He cant even discuss a topic that is completely unrelated without somehow associating it back to her. I at one time had belief in Greg, he seemed like a good guy that just had different point of view than me.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 05:00 PM) He is not. Dude was just trolling per his M.O. I dont think Jenks is a troll. I do think he may not have known that CSPAN is not run by the govt and therefore hacking the CSPAN server isnt something Obama could control.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 04:55 PM) If so, then that's a damning indictment on Obama's admn for allowing Russia to literally take control of our federal government's operations. How is Obama responsible for CSPAN? Last I checked the govt isnt responsible for private companies and their internet security. Can I blame Obama cause Russian's hacked my Steam account (true story.)?