Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

No, actually. Would you be okay to be taxed 90% to pay for everyone else's healthcare? Why or why not? If you're here to troll then go ahead, but actually answer.

We should be taxed to the point where everyone has access to the basics, including healthcare.  Then you get to keep the rest of what you make.  It wouldn't even have to be 90%.  We could stop wasting billions fighting wars and propping up the defense and banking industries.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Defines the GOP base ?  That's a pretty inaccurate statement. They define a part of the GOP base. They do not define what the GOP is. (Abortion,  war on some drugs, and traditional marriage are THE defining issues of the GOP. Those are directly from the evangelical contingent)  Sorry that's just incorrect.  I'm part of the GOP base (not registered, but tend to vote republican 75-80% of the time). I'm pretty much atheist(This makes you an outlier, there are very few atheist GOP voters), and I come in contact with hundreds of people in the GOP who would never be defined as evangelical.  Some I wouldn't consider religious, and many I'd consider Christian who believe wholeheartedly in separation of church and state. (Roy Moore. Louie Gohmert and our illustrious Lt. Gov are three examples for starters. Oh let's also discuss the infighting of the Tarrant County GOP trying to oust a surgeon who happens to be Muslim)

The fringes always seem to identify both parties because they're both ripe for sound bites, and media coverage.  

 

The GOP absolutely has to have the evangelical vote. That's why abortion will never not be an issue. It's why they keep trying to find ways to deny the rights of LGBT people. It's why they go to Alabama and not PR. 

In Georgia, white evangelicals made up 34 percent of the electorate in both 2016 and 2018, but that’s down from 39 percent in 2014. White evangelicals gave Trump 92 percent of their vote in 2016, and they backed Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, 88 percent to 11 percent, over former state House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams in this year’s gubernatorial contest.

In Indiana, white evangelicals made up 39 percent of the electorate in 2016 and 41 percent in 2018, and voted for Republican Mike Braun 72 percent to 23 percent over Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly this year. There wasn’t a statewide exit poll in 2014 for comparable midterm figures.

And in Missouri, white evangelicals made up 35 percent of the electorate in 2016 and 38 percent in 2018. They backed Republican Josh Hawley 75 percent to 23 percent over Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill this year after supporting Trump with 83 percent in 2016. There wasn’t a statewide exit poll in 2014 for comparable midterm figures.

 

https://www.rollcall.com/news/gonzales/are-white-evangelicals-the-saviors-of-the-gop

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What defines the Republican Party?

Their desire to Help Israel re build Solomns temple so Jesus can come back after the armageddon of course.

The real answer is rank and file members want efficient/accountable gov't, secure borders, accountable tax spending, stability in the economy,  no abortion beyond the first trimester unless there's a health threat to the mother, school choice. Of course there are others that want more and less than that.

You can ask GOP types the same question, and get different answers just as you could ask DNC folks what defines their party and you'd get a different list of values than what you might want.

What defines the democrat party in your opinion ?

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

We should be taxed to the point where everyone has access to the basics, including healthcare.  Then you get to keep the rest of what you make.  It wouldn't even have to be 90%.  We could stop wasting billions fighting wars and propping up the defense and banking industries.

Those things make way too much money for that to ever happen.

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Their desire to Help Israel re build Solomns temple so Jesus can come back after the armageddon of course.

The real answer is rank and file members want efficient/accountable gov't, secure borders, accountable tax spending, stability in the economy,  no abortion beyond the first trimester unless there's a health threat to the mother, school choice. Of course there are others that want more and less than that.

You can ask GOP types the same question, and get different answers just as you could ask DNC folks what defines their party and you'd get a different list of values than what you might want.

What defines the democrat party in your opinion ?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, you're serious.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

I will also add that the debate of whether lenders should share in culpability for projects they finance is a legitimate debate to have. People act like this concept is completely foreign to our jurisprudence, but it isn't. If a bank loaned money to a drug cartel for the specific purpose of funding illegal operations, I am pretty sure some criminal liability will attach. Sure, it isn't the standard way we approach civil liability, but it isn't inconceviable that such a system could function in some positive ways.

Do I think it is the best approach? No. Do I think some limited liability would could result in positive change without entirely disrupting the credit markets? Yes, I think the markets are resilient and would adapt.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, you're serious.

This is exactly how I know you're not being honest when you say you once voted GOP.

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is exactly how I know you're not being honest when you say you once voted GOP.

I volunteered for the Poppy Bush campaign in '88. Voted for him 1992, Dole in 1996 and Bush 2.0 in 2000.

That was enough of that. I realized they don't stand for any of the things you listed and never have. 

[jimmyjazz 45953]

20 minutes ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

Sadly you’re right. But I have volunteered at a inner city YMCA for over 40 years. And I have see some pretty bad situations that young people find themselves forced to live in. Kids who had no choice in how they got there. And fewer choices going forward. 

Our success rate of getting a kid off the streets and into a stable life environment is also sadly not as good as we would like it to be. But, we still try. And we do ask that a young person believe in something. We don’t care who you put your faith in, but put it in something. Try to follow the Ten Commandments as you go through life. Few people can honestly say they can do that one thing.

Try to resist the temptations that lead to addiction and despair. And whether you attend a brick and mortar church is entirely up to the individuals who participate in our programs. We simply believe that if you can believe in a higher power you can believe in yourself. And you can pray anywhere, at anytime. Ask for the strength to help you find a way out of a bad situation. Maybe it is bullshit, but it does seem to benefit those who commit to it. But it is not a given. It’s hard work that doesn’t always yield success easily. But I’m proud as hell of those who have managed to succeed. 

I have no idea why this was a response to my statement, as I made no pronouncements about Christianity in general (given that I am one).

[elfenix 34240]

 

41 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Their desire to Help Israel re build Solomns temple so Jesus can come back after the armageddon of course.

The real answer is rank and file members want efficient/accountable gov't, secure borders, accountable tax spending, stability in the economy,  no abortion beyond the first trimester unless there's a health threat to the mother, school choice. Of course there are others that want more and less than that.

You can ask GOP types the same question, and get different answers just as you could ask DNC folks what defines their party and you'd get a different list of values than what you might want.

What defines the democrat party in your opinion ?

soloman's temple was already rebuilt by the messiah.  that happened in 516 BC. 

*democratic party. 

[Anastasis 23469]

I don't even know what the fuck is going on this thread anymore. 

[Enchubben 5510]

Really excited to hear about what defines Democrats.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, she didnt say it, I posted the whole video and you will not find that phrase. If Bloomberg reported it as a quote, they didnt do their due diligence. And she specifically said there was nothing wrong with capital, just that we have elevated it beyond its proper standing. She is right. 

I don't intentionally read known biased news sites, either way. And have a decent soundbite sniffer.  The way she was quoted in the Bloomberg article seemed not to be out of context.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-13/ethiopian-jet-s-black-boxes-will-go-to-europe-737-max-update

But I see now that that is the same article reproduced on a number of wingnut sites.  I guess bloomberg goes on the unreliable list.

[Dahobbs 17534]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't intentionally read known biased news sites, either way. And have a decent soundbite sniffer.  The way she was quoted in the Bloomberg article seemed not to be out of context.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-13/ethiopian-jet-s-black-boxes-will-go-to-europe-737-max-update

But I see now that that is the same article reproduced on a number of wingnut sites.  I guess bloomberg goes on the unreliable list.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting you did anything wrong at all. I am just shocked to see so many news sites falsely reporting the quoted phrase. As a paraphrase it may be ok, but still lacking in important context and nuance. It is completely improper as a quote.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting you did anything wrong at all. I am just shocked to see so many news sites falsely reporting the quoted phrase. As a paraphrase it may be ok, but still lacking in important context and nuance. It is completely improper as a quote.

Well, jimmy kind of did.  And yeah it is a really bad misquote.  The interviewer really tried to get her to agree and she pretty much declined to do so.

[fattyflattie 4639]

On 3/12/2019 at 8:50 PM, GRHorn said:

The real question is who’s more in your wheelhouse, Kate Beckinsale or AOC?

Two names that should never be mentioned in the same sentence. 

The bartender that resembles a fucking donkey, of course  - no one, probably.  Well maybe a few from this thread. 

[Captainant 27668]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't even know what the fuck is going on this thread anymore. 

Well whatever is happening, I'm sure both sides are responsible

[jimmyjazz 45953]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, jimmy kind of did.  

 . . . because I know you pay attention, and I know you've no doubt seen her speak about democratic socialism dozen of times.  One tenet of DS is regulated capitalism.  That's pretty antithetical to her thinking capitalism is "evil".

[David Dennison 18860]

2 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Really excited to hear about what defines Democrats.

Pissing off whitey.

[Anastasis 23469]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well whatever is happening, I'm sure both sides are responsible

Oh, oh, oh. Did you hear the one about how both sides went to Prague. That was the best. 

[Cajun 11705]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Pissing off whitey.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

What defines the Republican Party?

The Dotard.

[Zavala 1384]

14 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Their desire to Help Israel re build Solomns temple so Jesus can come back after the armageddon of course.

The real answer is rank and file members want efficient/accountable gov't, secure borders, accountable tax spending, stability in the economy,  no abortion beyond the first trimester unless there's a health threat to the mother, school choice. Of course there are others that want more and less than that.

 You can ask GOP types the same question, and get different answers just as you could ask DNC folks what defines their party and you'd get a different list of values than what you might want.

What defines the democrat party in your opinion ?

 

13 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Really excited to hear about what defines Democrats.

 

[EMAWesome 101]

15 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

I know you find it hard to believe, but Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and Benny Hinn are evangelicals. They absolutely define the GOP base. You might not like that fact, but there is no one except you that would argue differently.

They would have defined the GOP base in the 80s and 90s.  90% of Republicans today wouldn't know them from Stewart Copeland, Claude Osteen, and Benny Hill.  The Republican party of today gives as much of a shit about gay marriage as the Democrat party of today gives about free speech.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

44 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

They would have defined the GOP base in the 80s and 90s.  90% of Republicans today wouldn't know them from Stewart Copeland, Claude Osteen, and Benny Hill.  The Republican party of today gives as much of a shit about gay marriage as the Democrat party of today gives about free speech.

God dammit !!  I know who Benny hill is !!

[bolverk 29672]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

They would have defined the GOP base in the 80s and 90s.  90% of Republicans today wouldn't know them from Stewart Copeland, Claude Osteen, and Benny Hill.  The Republican party of today gives as much of a shit about gay marriage as the Democrat party of today gives about free speech.

Bullshit.

Here's a direct copy/paste from the 2018 Texas GOP platform:

Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.

State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

[Dahobbs 17534]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Bullshit.

Here's a direct copy/paste from the 2018 Texas GOP platform:

Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.

State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

Right, but beyond being completely opposed to it, the party doesn't give a shit about gay marriage. Although, his statement is probably correct. The Democrat [sic] party gives a ton of shit about free speech. Ergo, the Republican party gives a ton a shit about gay marriage (as they obviously do). 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

10 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Bullshit.

Here's a direct copy/paste from the 2018 Texas GOP platform:

Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.

State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

Is there or has there been a plank in the Democratic platform that flies in the face of established settled law like this (or abortion for that matter)?  If there is, or was, I suppose it had to do with gun control.

I had been getting sick and tired of GOPs tilting at social windmills for quite some time.  When it lost all credibility on fiscal issues, I was done.  Then came Trump.

It's pretty disheartening.

Edited March 14, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11362]

16 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’d love to know how his congregation votes.  Because I live a mile from there. And see who goes into his church.  It sure as fuck isn’t the GOP base.  And no one I know goes there.

I don’t consider him an evangelical.  SBC is.  Methodists can be.  Same as Lutherans.   Osteen preaches prosperity gospel.  It’s not the same.  

the white evangelicals don't go to mix with the poors. they watch on tv. 

but make no mistake, osteen is the manifestation of the modern-day white evangelical, where god comes second to money.

[bolverk 29672]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is there or has there been a plank in the Democratic platform that flies in the face of established settled law like this (or abortion for that matter)?  If there is, or was, I suppose it had to do with gun control.

I had been getting sick and tired of GOPs tilting at social windmills for quite some time.  When it lost all credibility on fiscal issues, I was done.  Then came Trump.

It's pretty disheartening.

Here's the language from the Texas Democratic Party platform regarding guns. 

Spoilered for length.

Spoiler

 

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
The Texas Democratic Party supports the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We also recognize the immediate need for a balanced approach between upholding and respecting our fundamental constitutional rights and protecting the rights of Texans from those seeking to cause harm. Gun violence has reached epidemic proportions in our State and in our country, as evidenced by the Sutherland Springs and Santa Fe High School shootings and by the high number of deaths by suicide where a firearm is involved. We believe in a comprehensive approach recognizing gun violence as both a criminal justice and public health issue.

In the Heller v. DC case, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his decision for the majority that the government has the right to regulate & make laws to prevent certain weapons. “We think that the limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous or unusual’ weapons,” Justice Scalia wrote.

We strongly support:

• Strengthening and reforming current laws that require passing a background check prior to the purchase of a firearm by requiring a sufficient waiting period to provide adequate time for law enforcement officials to conduct a mandatory, background check;
• Closing loopholes that allow guns to be sold or traded without passing a mandatory and thorough background check;
• Strengthening the national background check system to incorporate all necessary records, including criminal, domestic violence, and mental health records, for both dealers and purchasers;
• Enacting legislation to require all individuals charged with domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, domestic or foreign terrorism, stalking or any violent felony to temporarily surrender all weapons and ammunition in their possession to law enforcement pending adjudication of their case(s);
• Enacting legislation empowering law enforcement officials to confiscate all firearms and ammunition in the household or in the possession of a suspect arrested for domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, domestic or foreign terrorism, stalking or any violent felony pending adjudication of their case(s);
• Enacting legislation requiring magistrates to make it a condition of any bond being granted that any individual charged with domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, domestic or foreign terrorism, stalking or any violent felony be prohibited from possessing by either owning, borrowing or using a firearm during the pendency of their case(s);
• Enacting sensible gun laws to curtail the availability of weapons with extended ammunition magazines, including rapid-fire, magazine-fed, military-style assault weapons;
• Enacting legislation prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or possession of bump stocks, binary trigger systems and trigger cranks that increase the rate of fire;
• Repealing laws that allow the open carry of handguns and assault rifles;
• Outlawing the personal possession of use of body armor and armor piercing bullets;
• Gun free zones;
• Improving training and licensing requirements for all Texans wishing to carry a firearm;
• No Congressional prohibition which limits the CDC research on gun violence;
• Allowing families to anonymously request pre-emptive, judicial action restricting the possession or purchase of firearms for loved ones in crisis threatening harm to themselves or others;
• Repealing federal legislation granting immunity from civil liability to manufacturers and marketers of firearms;
• Encourage the research, development and marketing of weapons utilizing “smart gun” technologies;
• Establishing a statewide firearms education and public safety campaign – with an emphasis on safely securing guns in the home and denying unsupervised access to minors;
• Appropriately enforce criminal penalties for individuals who negligently fail to control access to firearms in homes where minors and others are present;
• Requiring manufacturers to develop and sell childproof handguns;
• The accepted standard of care allowing physicians and mental health professionals to discuss the presence and safe storage of guns with all patients and parental guardians;
• Fully funding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives so that it may conduct more frequent inspections of FFL dealers; and
• Allocating a portion of funds collected from state License to Carry Fees toward programs dedicated to the physical and emotional rehabilitation of gun violence victims and their families.

 

 

[happyfunball 481]

[elfenix 34240]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is there or has there been a plank in the Democratic platform that flies in the face of established settled law like this (or abortion for that matter)?  If there is, or was, I suppose it had to do with gun control.

I had been getting sick and tired of GOPs tilting at social windmills for quite some time.  When it lost all credibility on fiscal issues, I was done.  Then came Trump.

It's pretty disheartening.

i was done after it became very apparent that the administration intentionally lied its way into a war that has so far cost ~4500 american service members their lives, broken countless others and their families, and cost well over a trillion dollars (and don't forget the interest on all that spent money, that figure is just getting larger every single day.).  so, held my nose, voted kerry, and haven't voted for a republican in a national election since. 

edit: well technically i voted in the republican primary so i could vote against ted cruz twice last year.  i don't think that counts.

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by elfenix

[David Dennison 18860]

34 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

Her staff is outstanding.

[Gil Bang 25958]

they're well-paid by DC standards.  

[Captainant 27668]

1 hour ago, happyfunball said:

 

Holy fuck AOC is actually participating in oversight and kicking ass. No wonder the dem establishment didn't like her initially, they don't generally like people who get results

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Holy fuck AOC is actually participating in oversight and kicking ass. No wonder the dem establishment didn't like her initially, they don't generally like people who get results

AOC is like Teen Wolf on the basketball court.  She’s great but her entire team hates her for stealing the show.  They want the mediocre Scott Howard back.  

Hopefully the Republicans have read Pasha Malla’s Guide to covering Teen Wolf.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/covering-teen-wolf-one-coachs-guide

COVERING TEEN WOLF:
ONE COACH’S GUIDE

Used to be, the key to beating Teen Wolf’s Beavers was just to play them on any night there wasn’t a full moon. We were unlucky one season in that we met them 28 days apart, both times in their barn, and Teen Wolf destroyed us—64 points in the first game, then a quadruple-double in the second, with 14 blocked shots and 25 steals. Our third matchup, though, we were fortunate enough to have a 76 percent waxing gibbous, so it was regular Scott Howard, who turned the ball over twice before fouling out, scoreless, in eight minutes of play. These days, however, it seems the guy can change over whenever he wants, which poses a real problem to opposing coaches. What follows is the best strategy my staff and I have come up with to limit Teen Wolf’s effectiveness on the court. While admittedly far from foolproof, it will, hopefully, prove useful to your team. We’re all in this together, folks.

To begin, you’re going to have to resign yourself to the fact that Teen Wolf is probably going to drop at least 50 points. That might seem like a lot, but, unfortunately, it’s just the way the ball bounces. As coach, you need to recognize that your job isn’t to do the impossible; you’re not going to stop Teen Wolf entirely, but you can try to contain him by making him play your team’s style of basketball. Discipline and defensive fundamentals help: nose on the ball, feet moving, channeling him into traps—careful with those, though. Soon as Teen Wolf gets two guys on him, he tends to find the open man. He’s a heads-up ballplayer with great court sense, so if you’re going to bring a trapping zone against Teen Wolf, make sure you have solid weak-side rotation and your defenders are communicating.

Of course, that’s only if he feels like passing. Teen Wolf gets scrappy once you put the pressure on, and he’s a great ball handler with a low-to-the-ground style reminiscent of Pistol Pete or a young Isiah Thomas. Add to his skill and quickness those gigantic, hirsute paws, and you’re up against one hell of a dribbler. We’ve tried giving Teen Wolf a step, respecting his speed, but we’ve found that if our guys slack off him, he’ll generally hit the open jumper—or else take off from wherever he’s standing on the court, sail over everyone’s heads, and finish with one of those dunks where he ends up sitting on the top of the backboard, howling, feet dangling down through the hoop.

While you’re welcome to try it, my feeling is that man-to-man defense simply isn’t an option. Some teams like to play a box-and-one, which generally works well against most lycanthropes. With Teen Wolf, though, you have to be careful. He’ll just stand baying by the sideline while the rest of the Beavers run four-on-four. Then, at a signal from Coach Finstock, Teen Wolf will come screaming down the lane, fur bristling and fangs bared, for the alley-oop. (And with him having what’s rumored to be a 78-inch standing vertical leap, rest assured he’s even more difficult to stop once he gets up in the air.) I’ve heard of coaches dealing with this by putting a sniper in the crowd with a box of silver bullets and a hunting rifle. We tried it once, back when Teen Wolf was only a freshman: the shooter missed, and when the cops showed up and cleared the gym we were forced to default.

So, I bet you’re wondering, if it’s impossible to cover him through conventional defenses, what can we do? Here’s the key: Teen Wolf doesn’t get along with his teammates. While he’s certainly got the individual skills to dominate most games, I’d have to struggle to think of ever seeing a more selfish player in my 28 years of coaching. He tends to alienate his fellow Beavers by doing things like stealing the ball off them, or stealing their girlfriends, and their resentment is easy for opposing teams to exploit. Sympathy seems to work well; get your players to say stuff like, “Man, sure sucks playing with Teen Wolf,” or “I’d hate to have a guy like Teen Wolf on my team,” and you’ll be surprised how quickly the Beavers’ team defense will start to open up.

Another trick is to keep on the officials about aggressive play. Granted, most refs are pretty scared to call anything on Teen Wolf, what with the risk of being devoured in the parking lot after the game. Still, it’s hard to ignore someone being gouged by lupine talons, especially if the player’s entrails are exposed. Coach Finstock hates sitting Teen Wolf, but if his star picks up three fouls early, there won’t be any other option. Just make sure to tell your guys to resist taunting Teen Wolf while he’s on the bench; it only makes him angrier, and with that anger comes frightening strength.

Finally, keep in mind that beneath all that fur, Teen Wolf is only human—or half-human, whatever—with weaknesses, just like any of us. And as a hormonally imbalanced, eternally cursed teenager, he’s particularly fragile. For one thing, at just under 70 percent, Teen Wolf’s free-throw shooting is comparatively weak; if you’ve got a kid on your team brave or crazy enough to knock Teen Wolf down with a hard foul, encourage it. Make him earn his points at the line. “Hack-a-Wolf” brought us within 10 of the Beavers during last year’s playoffs—that is, until Teen Wolf dunked eight consecutive trips down the floor from the 3-point line, putting the lead out of reach.

OK, that’s pretty much all I’ve got. As I mentioned earlier, defending Teen Wolf isn’t an exact science, and you’re more than welcome to alter these tactics as befits your own ball club. I hope that between us we can keep the lines of communication open and continue to share strategies that seem to work. My feeling is that there’s no team that is completely unbeatable, even if their star transforms into a werewolf before every game. Oh, and if you come up with some way of preventing Teen Wolf from jumping up and catching your team’s shots, I’d be particularly interested in hearing it.

Thanks, and best of luck.

[Lurch 5930]

Long-cat teen-wolf fan-fiction is a certainly a new one.

[Incredulity 11671]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is there or has there been a plank in the Democratic platform that flies in the face of established settled law like this (or abortion for that matter)?  If there is, or was, I suppose it had to do with gun control.

I had been getting sick and tired of GOPs tilting at social windmills for quite some time.  When it lost all credibility on fiscal issues, I was done.  Then came Trump.

It's pretty disheartening.

Agree, but what choice do you have?

 

Democratic Socialism?  There isn’t exactly a Bill Clinton in the field.  Sadly, I feel pretty confident we are going to go guardrail to guardrail on Presidential politics for a while.

[Incredulity 11671]

2 hours ago, happyfunball said:

 

Assuming AOC is correct on the technical issue, what this really shines a light on is the conflagration of laws that no one has any chance of following.

That clip is a total clown cirus of Toothy McLib quoting a staute no one,including Cummings, have any idea if applies.  Based on her previous, “don’t matter, moral perspective in right place” ambiguity on facts I certainly wouldn’t give her the benefit of the doubt.

[David Dennison 18860]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Agree, but what choice do you have?

 

Democratic Socialism?  There isn’t exactly a Bill Clinton in the field.  Sadly, I feel pretty confident we are going to go guardrail to guardrail on Presidential politics for a while.

You need to ask yourself why democratic socialism is so attractive to so many people in a nation where capitalism is allegedly working well.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

I like talking about AOC for the same reason I like talking about Elizabeth Warren.  They're putting forth some ideas on real problems.  Warren's generally strike me as more realistic and probably higher priority issues than what AOC goes off on, but I can't think of any GOP politicians that are putting forth real, actual ideas.

[Incredulity 11671]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

You need to ask yourself why democratic socialism is so attractive to so many people in a nation where capitalism is allegedly working well.

Give it time.  Capitalism wins.

The pendulum swings and per the human condition we insist on punching ourselves in the balls every so often.

Woodrow Wilson out front should have told ya.

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Give it time.  Capitalism wins.

The pendulum swings and per the human condition we insist on punching ourselves in the balls every so often.

Woodrow Wilson out front should have told ya.

Democratic socialism appears to be winning, too. 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

I QUOTED THE WRONG POST, BUT IN RESPONSE TO 7062

I don't disagree that we have too gotdamn many laws.  But this would not appear to be one of those cases.  First, the census is a Constitutional imperative of the Congress (Art. 1, s. 2), so it's not subject to federalism concerns.  Second, the law in question was super easy to find.  It's in Title 14 US Code, which deals with the census.  Then it's section 141.

Quote

(f) With respect to each decennial and mid-decade census conducted under subsection (a) or (d) of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census—

(1)

not later than 3 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects proposed to be included, and the types of information to be compiled, in such census;

(2)

not later than 2 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the questions proposed to be included in such census; and

(3)

after submission of a report under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection and before the appropriate census date, if the Secretary finds new circumstances exist which necessitate that the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in reports so submitted be modified, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects, types of information, or questions as proposed to be modified.

So, she appeared to know more about the census statutes than anyone else in that room, including the dumb motherfucker in charge of the census (but he's rich so he must be smart!).  Good for her.

Speaking of that dumb corrupt motherfucker Wilbur Ross, somehow Trump stumbled on a fantastic Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property/Director of the USPTO.  No idea how that happened, but I'm glad it did.  Obama's second appointee was a google hack and was terrible, but his first one was pretty good.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11671]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I don't disagree that we have too gotdamn many laws.  But this would not appear to be one of those cases.  First, the census is a Constitutional imperative of the Congress (Art. 1, s. 2), so it's not subject to federalism concerns.  Second, the law in question was super easy to find.  It's in Title 14 US Code, which deals with the census.  Then it's section 141.

So, she appeared to know more about the census statutes than anyone else in that room.  Good for her.

Fair enough.  Her performances have been mixed, no one in that hearing had any idea if she was right or wrong.  Including as Cummings points out some $$$$$$$ lawyers who should. 

As I have said, I respect her passion.  She had had some real head shakers and I don’t agree with her perspectives.  Her next 4 years are going to be interesting to watch.  She is shining lights in some corners that aren’t comfortable for Washington.

[Incredulity 11671]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Democratic socialism appears to be winning, too. 

Not really. Read any poll.

[UpperWestside 6164]

I have a whole lot of respect for this woman. She is the representative for my district and seeing her actually doing something in Washington is pretty cool. As has already been said she has quite the badass staff supporting her. I hope she continues to grill assclowns like Ross and anyone of his ilk.

Edited March 15, 2019 by UpperWestside

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Not really. Read any poll.

Those polls will tell you that the socialist programs in America are by far the most popular.