TomatoPie wrote:Test

Are You a Libber Terrier?

TP is.

Hahahaha that "test" is awesome. Why yes, I think the government should decide that I engage in a homosexual relationship. While forcibly subjecting us to risky medical treatments. And my gay partner should have to buy a Toyota.

Stunned that it comes from Cato.

Do you know you're a libertarian and want an internet test to masturbate your ego? Click here!

Damn all the closet libbers are ruffled!

TomatoPie wrote:Damn all the closet libbers are ruffled!

Libertarians: Freedom to live your life how you want (except when it comes to ideology, you're libertarian and you'll like it!)

Came out pretty moderate. I like building codes, compulsory education (because despite the occasional spelling bee winner, many so-called home schooled kids turn 18 and can't even pass the test to take classes to get a GED (and also, there seems to be a common belief among many so-called libertarians that parental tyranny is a-ok, so much so that many of their arguments amount to treating kids as property.), government protecting people from quacks, and seat belt laws.

It's also interesting that they left out unregulated immigration and free trade among the things that you need to believe in to be a libertarian. The immigration thing is absolutely central to libertarianism. That is, if you really want people to engage in voluntary relationships with authority, then people need to be free to choose the government under which they live, thus, immigration restrictions are perhaps the most serious impediment to liberty.

Chuy Garcia, Cook County commisioner, forced a runoffagainst Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago. Time to work!

TenuredVulture wrote:Came out pretty moderate. I like building codes, compulsory education (because despite the occasional spelling bee winner, many so-called home schooled kids turn 18 and can't even pass the test to take classes to get a GED (and also, there seems to be a common belief among many so-called libertarians that parental tyranny is a-ok, so much so that many of their arguments amount to treating kids as property.), government protecting people from quacks, and seat belt laws.

It's also interesting that they left out unregulated immigration and free trade among the things that you need to believe in to be a libertarian. The immigration thing is absolutely central to libertarianism. That is, if you really want people to engage in voluntary relationships with authority, then people need to be free to choose the government under which they live, thus, immigration restrictions are perhaps the most serious impediment to liberty.

pro tip: that quiz ish has shish to do with libertarian anything

O'Reilly is entertainment, but we don't have an entertainment thread, soooo....

He's telling people they can take his threats as threats, in public, and then Roger Ailes deciding "hey, yeah, we back this lying nut alla way", is just weird.

I mean Rupert got pied or something during the last big legal ruckus one of his media outlets got tangled up in. Can't believe wants more of that

some nitwit at Gawker is posting a bunch of these O'Reilly "I was there" things, for some reason they got me laffing. Here's one:

jerseyhoya wrote:Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.

I'm just asking because I seriously don't know, but do they get a kickback from the money donated to the foundation? it's a charity and I don't know if they are designated as CEOs with millions in salary or what. If their daughter runs it and gets paid from it, I don't see the issue. If no one else is getting big payments, who cares? If so, I can see where it's an issue.

Newsflash: Politics is corrupted by money. Particularly concerning in this case is the threat posed by Norway.

The political reality is this doesn't smell good at all for the Clintons. It may be legal, the Clintons may not have personally profited from it, and it may not even be something that changes the electoral dynamic. It probably will minutely reduce some of the enthusiasm for Hillary, but not much more than that.

Indeed, the more interesting (and troubling) thing is that people aren't going to change their minds about the Clintons because of this. The haters will keep hating, the apologizers will keep apologizing, and those in the middle will have to decide that unless they want a cretin like Scott Walker to be President, they may have to hold their nose and vote for Hillary if that's the choice we get.

At best, it shows the Clintons are no worse or better than others in the political class.

Net neutrality is approved. Doesn't this just basically keep everything the way it is instead of giving advantages to the big Cable/Internet providers?

see, i knew i was in the middle. thanks TV!

I'm not saying it's a persuasive argument, but the argument against net neutrality hinges on the huge amount of bandwith a handful of content providers use--netflix is an example. If I understand it correctly, ISPs would like to be able to charge these corporations more, and in exchange, you'd be less likely to have problems with their content. The idea is that ISPs could use the extra revenue to upgrade their system.

But of course they really have no incentive to do so, since there really isn't competition for ISPs--how many markets are there even 3 viable providers? It's pretty easy for three companies to collude on pricing/service. I suppose you could believe that if running an ISP were more lucrative, there'd be more ISPs, more competition, and lower prices better services, but I'm pretty skeptical about that argument.

Neither side I don't think cares too much about the consumer, though obviously netflix wants its users to have as trouble free experience as possible. And basically, I think most consumers have far worse experiences with their ISPs than their content providers. That is, if people understand this as a corporate tug of war between netflix, google, youtube, etc, and Comcast, they'd be likely to strongly support ISPs.

The real problem with abandoning Net neutrality to me is it opens the door for a return to AOL type service. Since I'm of the opinion that various big content providers like buzzfeed and so forth are really terrible and stupid, I'd hate to see those kinds of things dominate even more, which is what I'm afraid would happen in the absence of net neutrality.

We're already paying for that bandwith space, though

Sharon Stone is Being Sued for Skipping an Anti-Chevron Protest

I'm left with more questions than answers after reading this

ISIS doing some depressing stuff in Mosul

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/f ... useum-iraq