This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Lenience
A Sudanese man was beheaded for being a 'sorcerer'.
I know someone has a Mage joke prepared for this.
Post by
MyTie
Obama using executive powers in situations where checks and balances are reluctant to oppose him, despite possible unconstitutional situations.
I find it interesting that the president can veto legislative actions to challenge his executive orders.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
http://www.wistv.com/story/15926027/10-year-old-pulls-gun-after-candy-theft-joke?hpt=ju_bn4
WTF is wrong with people. And by people, I mean whatever useless defects raised these kids.
Post by
Heckler
WTF is wrong with people. And by people, I mean whatever useless defects raised these kids.
That's crazy, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. There's so many things wrong in that situation.
Post by
MyTie
the watchdog group of nuclear scientists... ...moved the Doomsday Clock up to five minutes until midnight
Post by
Azazel
http://www.wistv.com/story/15926027/10-year-old-pulls-gun-after-candy-theft-joke?hpt=ju_bn4
WTF is wrong with people. And by people, I mean whatever useless defects raised these kids.
Guncrazy rednecks. They are so funny.
Post by
MyTie
I get elected. I take electorate money and spend it on a company who gives me personally money.
Post by
pezz
I saw a funny quote in an
Economist article
. You probably can't read that without a subscription, but I wanted to make sure I gave my source.
The young have been faster than the old to lose faith in politics. According to Pew, the engagement of millennials is much depleted. At this time four years ago, 28% said that they were giving a lot of thought to the presidential candidates, and 24% that they were following election news closely. These numbers have slumped to 13% and 17% respectively.
If I'm reading that right, doesn't that mean that more millenials are following the news than are actually bothering to think about the candidates? That's scary and hilarious on several levels.
Post by
Heckler
I saw a funny quote in an
Economist article
. You probably can't read that without a subscription, but I wanted to make sure I gave my source.
The young have been faster than the old to lose faith in politics. According to Pew, the engagement of millennials is much depleted. At this time four years ago, 28% said that they were giving a lot of thought to the presidential candidates, and 24% that they were following election news closely. These numbers have slumped to 13% and 17% respectively.
If I'm reading that right, doesn't that mean that more millenials are following the news than are actually bothering to think about the candidates? That's scary and hilarious on several levels.
Interesting article... as a millennial progressive myself, I have to say it's a bit confusing. The author says that the President "has lately moved sharply left to energise the party’s base" -- I'm not sure what he could be referring to (probably the jobs bill... but given that the plan is 50% tax cuts, I'd hardly call it a "sharp left" idea -- I'm certainly not feeling energized, assuming I'm part of 'the base').
The percentages (13/17) don't really surprise me is because the "presidential
candidate
" landscape is pretty boring at the moment, more-so when compared to November 2007. First, only one party is choosing a candidate; and second, the choices are all lackluster and unexciting (seems to largely be a "Mitt Romney" vs. "Anyone-but-Mitt-Romney" debate).
So I could say that I'm following "election news" but not "candidate news" because to me,
candidate news
really just means the Republican candidate, which I'm really not "giving a lot of thought" to (aside from cementing my view that none of them are worth voting for, even if that means four more years of wishing President Obama was something he's not) -- Jon Huntsman is the only one that doesn't hurt my brain after 15 seconds of listening, and he doesn't seem to have even a slight chance of winning anything.
I suppose my point is, as someone that would probably have fit into your 'scary and hilarious' category, I think my stance is defensible. It doesn't take much deep "thought" to come to the conclusion that for all his flaws, Barack Obama is a wiser choice than any of the Republicans currently in contention (at least those who actually have a shot at winning their primary per current polling). As such, while general election news is worth following, further analysis of
how
bad these candidates' policies are really isn't worth the mental exertion once I've concluded that they're bad. I'll worry about that once the Repubs actually pick someone, after all, I'm not voting in their primary.
All that aside, 17% is still terrifyingly low even if the 13/17
split
is defensible. If that was your point, then I definitely agree.
Post by
pezz
What I thought was scary was someone who guzzles down news and then doesn't bother to consider it at all. If it's the way you've defined the terms, I don't have a problem. I just have visions in my head of people saying "I have spent a great deal of time listening to each of the candidates, and after several seconds of deliberation I have decided to vote for the one who is most handsome."
Post by
Lenience
Panda poo fertilizers for delicious tea.
I wonder if Pandaren leavings will make for a new drinking recipe.
Post by
Lenience
Why is PETA allowed to be an organization?
They are a pain in the @ss.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Lol- Good thing they got right on top of that too. Wouldn't want to let the image of Mario in a fur suit persist for, like, 22 years or so before saying anything.
Oh, wait...
Post by
Patty
/facepalm
No wonder the 'advanced' world is facing an obesity crisis. :|
Post by
MyTie
Here
is a CNN article titled "Being gay is not a choice", but the article itself is about discrimination against sexual orientation. I don't understand what the two have to do with each other. Being black is not a choice, but that has nothing to do with not discriminating against them. If someone chooses to be homosexual, I don't believe they should be discriminated against, but I still believe it is a choice. I get tired of being painted as a bigot. I am against homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong. I will never support it. However, I will never treat someone poorly because they choose homosexuality.
This CNN article subtly paints those who do believe that homosexuality is a choice, as bigots. They key sentence is this one: One of the main reasons discrimination persists is that many people in America -- whether we speak of Don Dowless, Shorter's president, or presidential hopefuls Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann -- advance and reinforce the myth that being gay is a choice.I contest it, strongly. it is politically motivated and narrow.
Post by
Jubilee
Here
is a CNN article titled "Being gay is not a choice", but the article itself is about discrimination against sexual orientation. I don't understand what the two have to do with each other. Being black is not a choice, but that has nothing to do with not discriminating against them. If someone chooses to be homosexual, I don't believe they should be discriminated against, but I still believe it is a choice. I get tired of being painted as a bigot. I am against homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong. I will never support it. However, I will never treat someone poorly because they choose homosexuality.
This CNN article subtly paints those who do believe that homosexuality is a choice, as bigots.
What you believe is great, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that it is an extremely common argument against homosexuality.
Post by
MyTie
What you believe is great, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that it is an extremely common argument against homosexuality.
I agree with that, but it isn't automatically discriminatory, as it is portrayed in that article.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Because pretty much everyone who is gay says it isn't a choice, and since they're the only ones who can really know for sure, a lot of us give them the benefit of the doubt.
Post by
MyTie
Because pretty much everyone who is gay says it isn't a choice, and since they're the only ones who can really know for sure, a lot of us give them the benefit of the doubt.
My problem isn't with the concept of homosexuality being a choice or not, but with the concept that if I believe homosexuality is a choice, I must be discriminatory.
Post by
Patty
Because pretty much everyone who is gay says it isn't a choice, and since they're the only ones who can really know for sure, a lot of us give them the benefit of the doubt.
My problem isn't with the concept of homosexuality being a choice or not, but with the concept that if I believe homosexuality is a choice, I must be discriminatory.
I think it's more the "immoral" aspect of viewing homosexuality that is seen as more discriminatory than the concept of genes vs. environment.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.