So, the Senate voted in favor of net neutrality 52/47. The next vote is in the house. Idk what's gonna be more dangerous at this point, small government rhetoric or the age of the reps.

What's ironic is that the republicans who call the net neutrality regs big government are the same people who advocate the War on Drugs and the NSA spying, among the PATRIOT and NDAA acts.

"Small government" doesn't mean they want the state to be weak or lacking in police and surveillance powers or failing to implement policies of social control, far from it in fact. That is merely a misunderstanding many people have of this important concept in American politics. "Small government" is a euphemism for corporate power. Politicians who want "small government" are actually saying they want corporations, especially big ones, to have more power over individuals. Since a government under control of politicians with this desire can help corporations have more power over individuals by using police and surveillance powers and implementing policies of social control, it is not contradictory for them to advocate those things as well. It is very important to look past the literal meaning of the terms when you're talking politics and examine what their meaning is in practice.

In short, they want "big government" for surveillance and policing power, and "small government" for things that are meant to actually help Americans, like regulations and civil rights protections.

I once heard it described as "big government with small obligations". Seems as accurate as anything else you could call it.

Anyone who still believes the GOP is the party of "small government" or "low spending" after their trillions dollar war is a complete moron at this point.

You ever notice that "GOP" and "complete moron" go together perfectly? Almost like they were meant to be said together all the time.

I don' think the word "evil" gets associated with GOP enough nowadays.

That's pretty much what I thought. It amazes me in this day and age that anyone could be so fucking stupid. That is effectively the result of his statement--that the earth is spiraling into the sun--noticeably closer every single year.

The religious right want to have a small goverment (except for the military and police but only if they are in their pocket) because they want a more direct control over the population. They want a theocracy but the current constitution prevent that so they need to undermine the institutions, thus their need for having a small secular government. They don't want to be told by a governement to that they can't discriminate Lgbt people for exemple. I'm pretty sure if they had all the power it would be a conversion gulag and if not enough the death penalty. And than again, I'm optimistic about wanting them to have converstion camps and not instant death. I could go on and on about how I loathe those religious maniacs on so many levels.

The religious right are pretty much a less powerful American Taliban. It's scary how similar they are.

How many of those people do you think believe the sun revolves around the earth? Because 1 in 4 Americans believe that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... urvey-says

Whenever someone tells me that the Real Problem™ with America is a lack of democracy, a lack of direct democracy, or congress not listening to voters, I just think about statistics like those. I also remember how many of the people I've met down on the Hill are substantially smarter/better educated than what they or their bosses portray on the stump. Trying to educate your constituency is a very easy way to lose a primary.

Now I kinda wish the planet would spiral into the sun.

Have you actually researched geocentrism and the reasoning behind it at all?


What "religious right" are you talking about? I'm by NO means right-wing or conservative, but I know several conservatives and there is absolutely no comparison between "not baking cakes at same sex weddings" and throwing gay people off of buildings; between "being paranoid about needing guns all the time" and attacking innocent civilians with armed soldiers and airplanes. That's so hyperbolic it borders on delusion.

The universe actually revolves around Makemake; it's just such a cute little planet.

Ever heard of Fatwa envy? It's a thing. Look it up. If the religious right had the power to do so, they'd make sure everyone who doesn't fit the mold of a straight, white Christian into a second class citizen, if not worse. They brandish the same kind of demented, zealous paranoia as their Muslim counterparts; they just don't have the influence or the balls to fully enact their goals, thankfully.

Then again, I'm talking with someone who seemingly takes geocentrism seriously, so I might be wasting my time trying to explain anything.

Oh, come off it already.

The USA is the center of the universe. It's only logical that the sun and everything else would revolve around it.

Are you suggesting that there's some merit to geocentrism...?

Hey Of_This_Night36, have you actually researched Flat Earth Theory and the reasoning behind it all?

Also, Christian and right-wing terrorism is absolutely a thing. Just look at the massacres of Muslims by the Christian "freedom fighters" in Central African Republic, or even in the US with regards to Planned Parenthood. Hell, violence committed against Muslims has been on the rise exponentially in the US after a certain election, and it shows no sign of letting up. Al Jazeera had a great documentary about it just a few days ago that's definitely worth a watch:

I see no convincing reason to believe that a large fraction of the Christian right in this country would not do the same if the force of secular government were not there to keep them in check. I have no desire to run the experiment needed to find out if this suspicion is true.

Also, I confess, I think your attempt at ingroup-signaling is feeble; I suspect right-wing and conservative is precisely what you are.

I repeat: Have you actually researched geocentrism and the reasoning behind it at all?

Do you disagree with it because you've looked actually looked into it, on your own, and you actually understand the science?

And no, I'm not suggesting there's any merit to it......... but I'm also not suggesting there isn't - all I'm doing is asking a question.

Have you? Or did you just pick the flat earth theory because it's a meme? Again, I'm asking if you've actually researched what you're mocking, or if you're just parroting what you've been told by people you consider to be reputable. And considering you defaulted to the low-hanging fruit of flat earth theory, especially when we were talking about a completely different idea altogether, well, that's not a very good sign for the amount of research you do on things, now is it?


Oh yeah man, the US government is totally 100% invincible. The ONLY reason white Christians aren't out bombing black neighborhoods or Mosques or whatever is because the government "won't let them"! I'm ALWAYS hearing stories about American Christians trying to get tanks and airplanes and bazookas and going after government buildings and minorities and stuff and then the government comes in and stops them. I'm always hearing about SWAT teams going in and stopping groups of white Christians who were secretly planning terrorist attacks, but were stopped in just the nick of time. That's something you hear about on a daily basis!

Also no, please don't act like you somehow know me when this is probably the first you've ever seen me post. Surprise, just because I didn't bash conservatives in my first post, doesn't mean I am one. I'm very strictly moderate, and just as against American conservatism as you are.


It's pretty hilarious that you talk about "demented, zealous paranoia" and then go on about how conservative Christians would be the next ISIS if they "could". Do you know any conservative Christians? Have you ever talked to one? Because unless every single conservative you've ever met has also been a member of the KKK or something, your post is LOADED with "demented, zealous paranoia". The EXACT same negative generalizations conservatives make about Muslims, and minorities, etc.

what they can't do in USA, Right wing christians, be it racists or not, try to implant their bigotry in other parts of the world like in Africa for exemple, and anywhere the human rights are lacking. How can you handle people that believe that you will go in hell if you don't read the bible and submit to Jesus?

Yes, I have a basic grade school education.


Yeah, no. Go JAQ off somewhere else.

Not sure how we are supposed to "research geocentrism on our own". Most people don't have the resources to launch our own satellites up there; nor will we live long enough to chart Neptune's entire orbit as proof that none of the other planets revolve around Earth. Sometimes, you just have to accept what the experts tell us, especially when there is no conceivable gain in them lying about geocentrism.

it's all about control, maannnn

Right wing Christians don't care for the rights of anyone who isn't like them, so yeah, it's basically like Oblarg said. Left unchecked, they'd do everything in their power to undermine or outright destroy the rights of minorities such as Muslims, Asians, Latinos, LGBT people, etc. For them, it's their way or the highway, when they can afford it. History is proof enough of that.

Who I do or don't know personally is irrelevant. An infinitesimal amount of research on your part (something you claim we seem to be failing on when it comes to something as absurd and widely discredited as fucking geocentrism) would show this to be true. If this wasn't real, Mike Pence, a man who openly believes in the merits of "gay conversion centers" (that is, torture camps for LGBT people) wouldn't have risen to the position of vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet, plus a plethora of countless other things I won't bother elaborating because your silly ass isn't worth the time.

Geocentric and heliocentric models of planetary motion have observational equivalence, so you could use a geocentric model to determine where an object will be in the sky at a given time and have it be as accurate as your data.

This is intensely misleading, as one of these models is far more parsimonious. Also, constructing physical descriptions in a rotating reference frame does have some hard limitations - apart from the usual difficulties with non-inertial frames, you also simply cannot describe anything more than a certain distance away (as everything past a certain radius can easily be seen to be moving faster than light in such a reference frame).

And nothing you do in defining your reference frame can get around the fact that the gravitational force vectors on bodies in the solar system (to a very good approximation) point towards the barycenter of the solar system.

There is a very obvious, intuitive sense in which it is "more true" that the bodies in the solar system go around the sun than that they go around the earth. Any argument to the contrary is empty, and can easily be adapted to support basically any claim.

That's why I used the word observational. They create planetary motions which appear the same as observed from Earth, although the models would actually be describing entirely different motions of those objects in reality and would require entirely different laws of physics.

From a reshash of the Taliban Dan ad to Just Asking Questions about geocentrism in 2018. Page 80 is one of only a handful of pages I would like to excommunicate from this thread's canon.



In actual news,

*here's one of Trump's favorite senators apparently trying to kill a (narrow in scope) prison reform bill even though Trump allegedly supports it. Apparently Arkansas doesn't have enough prisoners or something.

*we quite possibly won't have a farm bill

*Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign manager thinks he's running in 2020

I don't think I've ever seen so much said in so few paragraphs in my life:



Strongest sanctions in history means the Trump is intended on forcing Iran into a position they cannot accept, which is designed to lead to war.

European Union is sticking by the original deal, which means any step the US takes on this, it takes alone. There will be no coalition like there was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran is being punished for being like America.

Bernie shouldn't run. He'll just muddy the waters and risk creating another split in the Democratic party that was too butthurt and led by Russian troll ads to get their shit together to support Hillary. Bernie Sanders running in 2020 will just bring up shitty memories of the 2016 election, and that is not what this country needs then. He needs to step the fuck down.

Disagreed. He should run because he's the best chance the party has. His candidacy with support from the party apparatus would fire up their base and result in a crushing defeat for Trump which could potentially turn the republican party away from Trump-style demagoguery (and revert back to republican demagoguery classic, I guess). Unfortunately the DNC is committed to failing both themselves and the American people so they'll probably bank on another deeply compromised, deeply unpopular candidate and will inevitably lose because the moral of the democratic party voting base will keep going lower and lower in this scenario. They've been grooming Chelsea for a career, so why not start with the top job?

I'd much prefer a Bernie acolyte to run in 2020 rather than Bernie himself. I'd be interested in somebody like Tammy Duckworth stepping up.

On an unrelated note, The White House is doubling down on the whole "I meant to say that MS-13 were the animals" thing. Too bad the way this article keeps saying "animals" makes it sound like Turl from Battlefield Earth is talking.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/nee ... als-ms-13/

I agree with John, Bernie should run. He's still popular, and has good domestic ideas. The only concerning thing is his age, he'll be 78/79 in 2020? That's pretty old for the start of a presidential term. He seems in good health and even clearer in mind though.

Yes it would. But support from the party apparatus is exactly what Bernie Sanders does not have. And I don't see that changing in the near future, or even in time for 2020. Sure, they could learn from their mistakes and actually allow a more well-liked candidate to win the nomination, but I wouldn't count on it. The continual hammering away at failed investigations of old news like the Russia collusion and Stormy Daniels, shows that the Democratic Party is living in the past - which probably means, still wedded to the same type of candidates that the establishment likes.

His age alone may well be enough of a barrier. Democrats have done much better in recent elections with younger, dare I say "hipper", and more relateable candidates. Bill Clinton passed himself off this way, Barack Obama was this to a T. Bernie Sanders is also a symbol of Democratic disharmony, just as Hillary is. Either one of them would be a death knell for a Democratic option for 2020. I think Bernie could maybe have won in 2016, but not in 2020. His name is muddied, his image tarnished, and that will not be a symbol of Democrats learning from their mistakes or moving on.

Nothing says they're ready to fail like the mantra of "hey guys, what about our Number 2 option from last time?" It's time to move forward.

The notion of a Bernie acolyte, however, would be more palatable.