The Swamp

That's kind of a straw man though. Drugs are an addiction, guns are not. I agree the mandatory minimums for drug possession are stupid. Despite your attempt to, I don't see how you can compare the two. If you want to stick up a 7-Eleven to get money for drugs, you can use a weapon other than a gun and take your chances.

Hillary Clinton Not Talking About ’92 Clinton-Gore Confederate Campaign Button

Apparently on ebay

howard wrote:Hillary Clinton Not Talking About ’92 Clinton-Gore Confederate Campaign Button

Apparently on ebay

I know you hate her, Doc, but is there any indication, at all, that is anything officially sanctioned from the campaign? It wasn't hard, even in 1992, to print some shit.

There are indications that it was not official campaign material. (The vast majority of, but not all, official campaign material had a little union made dongle on the face.)

At issue is her declining to answer questions, which is standard modus operandi for her and her number 1 campaign strategy.

howard wrote:There are indications that it was not official campaign material. (The vast majority of, but not all, official campaign material had a little union made dongle on the face.)

At issue is her declining to answer questions, which is standard modus operandi for her and her number 1 campaign strategy.

Unlike Ernie Anders, am I right?

(Changing his name, because he doesn't have BS anywhere near him.)

howard wrote:There are indications that it was not official campaign material. (The vast majority of, but not all, official campaign material had a little union made dongle on the face.)

At issue is her declining to answer questions, which is standard modus operandi for her and her number 1 campaign strategy.

Well god knows she and her husband have never been profiles in courage, that's for sure - and it is beyond weird to not knock this ball off the tee , even for her.

Probably doesn't want to risk losing Mississippi.

brian wrote:That's kind of a straw man though. Drugs are an addiction, guns are not. I agree the mandatory minimums for drug possession are stupid. Despite your attempt to, I don't see how you can compare the two. If you want to stick up a 7-Eleven to get money for drugs, you can use a weapon other than a gun and take your chances.

I don't quite think it is.

1. Not everybody who uses drugs is addicted to them, not by a long shot. Unless you think I'm a drug addict.

2. Harsh penalties for murder, ie the death penalty, have not decreased the frequency of murder and just end up costing us more money in the long run.

I just don't think the answer is mandatory long sentences. That doesn't seem to work for anything else.

tennbengal wrote:

howard wrote:There are indications that it was not official campaign material. (The vast majority of, but not all, official campaign material had a little union made dongle on the face.)

At issue is her declining to answer questions, which is standard modus operandi for her and her number 1 campaign strategy.

Well god knows she and her husband have never been profiles in courage, that's for sure - and it is beyond weird to not knock this ball off the tee , even for her.

You haven't been following the campaign much, huh? She's flubbing all this shit by not answering it firmly and directly. I really think she's going to lose if she gets the nod. In fact, I don't think she'll end up getting it.

Gunpowder wrote:

tennbengal wrote:

howard wrote:There are indications that it was not official campaign material. (The vast majority of, but not all, official campaign material had a little union made dongle on the face.)

At issue is her declining to answer questions, which is standard modus operandi for her and her number 1 campaign strategy.

Well god knows she and her husband have never been profiles in courage, that's for sure - and it is beyond weird to not knock this ball off the tee , even for her.

You haven't been following the campaign much, huh? She's flubbing all this shit by not answering it firmly and directly. I really think she's going to lose if she gets the nod. In fact, I don't think she'll end up getting it.

I am coming around to this view.

I am for Sanders, if he somehow gets the nod, he probably gets McGonvern'd. Still worth a shot. I just can't vote for a Clinton again.

Gunpowder wrote:2. Harsh penalties for murder, ie the death penalty, have not decreased the frequency of murder and just end up costing us more money in the long run.

But this is trying to modify the behaviors of a much, much, much bigger and more malleable pool, no?

I apologize for being harsh here, but Bernie Sanders has no shot at ever getting elected to national office. Zero. Hate to break it to you guys. It's great to root for what looks for all the world to be a great little story, but he has almost none of the necessary power brokers behind him. All his money comes from unions, and that doesn't get you elected in 2016. Hillary is as good as nominated already, imho. (Unless, as the saying goes, she gets caught with a dead woman or a live boy.)

sancarlos wrote:I apologize for being harsh here, but Bernie Sanders has no shot at ever getting elected to national office. Zero. Hate to break it to you guys. It's great to root for what looks for all the world to be a great little story, but he has almost none of the necessary power brokers behind him. All his money comes from unions, and that doesn't get you elected in 2016. Hillary is as good as nominated already, imho. (Unless, as the saying goes, she gets caught with a dead woman or a live boy.)

Psst...that's why I typed, best case scenario, he gets McGovern'd.

2 quick points. If the North punished the South harshly, I think we would have had a lot more resentment, and like Howard said, probably a second Civil War. Look at the German response to harsh sanctions following WWI.

As for the cause of the Civil War:

mister d wrote:

Gunpowder wrote:2. Harsh penalties for murder, ie the death penalty, have not decreased the frequency of murder and just end up costing us more money in the long run.

But this is trying to modify the behaviors of a much, much, much bigger and more malleable pool, no?

I would bet there is a significant overlap. Felony murder laws haven't done anything either as far as I know (ie if someone dies during commission of a felony you all get charged with murder, etc).

I just don't know of any serious legal situation where "let's make the penalties 5x stronger" has worked. One state with a 10 year minimum for an illegal gun is.....Florida. Fa rill. Ain't done a thing.

tennbengal wrote:

Gunpowder wrote:

tennbengal wrote:it is beyond weird to not knock this ball off the tee , even for her.

You haven't been following the campaign much, huh? She's flubbing all this shit by not answering it firmly and directly. I really think she's going to lose if she gets the nod. In fact, I don't think she'll end up getting it.

I am coming around to this view.

I am for Sanders, if he somehow gets the nod, he probably gets McGonvern'd. Still worth a shot. I just can't vote for a Clinton again.

She is using a pretty standard approach, trying to stand above daily politics and squabbles, issue mostly well-planned statements and answering questions of the day with weak, mealy-mouthed middle positions (like TTP). Jeb is using the same style, useful for presumptive heavy favorites.

Until they aren't presumptive heavy favorites. Then they have to get down into the muck.

I'm trying hard not to watch, but the horse race is impossible for me to ignore completely. I am consuming less than 1% of the data/noise that I do historically (at least once Iowa is a month away or so.) And I can't help forming this opinion/analysis of her approach.

Whether it will work for the nomination, I have no idea. It is way early, which is the easiest thing I repeat every round that makes me look like a sage.

The prospect of Bernie swooping to the nomination on a wave of true progressive sentiment I think is really remote (Clinton money doesn't talk, but screams), but I'll root for it from afar. It would indicate a significant number of people waking up.

But for someone else who today is a longshot (which is every dem not named Hillary) to end up winning the nod, sure. O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, even Jim Webb? Weirder things have happened. Hillary is a uniquely polarizing figure, moreso than Teddy Kennedy, that makes it tough to handicap her. (Teddy damn near pulled it off in 1980, against a sitting president.)

I want to kick this drug, of handicapping the presidential race. I'm taking a tapering approach, rather than cold turkey. One day at a time.


ETA: Lincoln Chafee: ‘Secretary Clinton is not going to be the nominee.’

From your lips, Linc…

Gunpowder wrote:

mister d wrote:

Gunpowder wrote:2. Harsh penalties for murder, ie the death penalty, have not decreased the frequency of murder and just end up costing us more money in the long run.

But this is trying to modify the behaviors of a much, much, much bigger and more malleable pool, no?

I would bet there is a significant overlap. Felony murder laws haven't done anything either as far as I know (ie if someone dies during commission of a felony you all get charged with murder, etc).

I just don't know of any serious legal situation where "let's make the penalties 5x stronger" has worked. One state with a 10 year minimum for an illegal gun is.....Florida. Fa rill. Ain't done a thing.

In general, violent crime is at a 25-year low, so that may not be true. Of course, there are a great many reasons why that might be also.

The Sybian wrote: As for the cause of the Civil War:

Slavery it is, sir!

I had forgotten about that years ago, hilarious.

Bottom line is, this kid really fucked it up for a lot of decent and responsible racists out there.

From the declaration of secession written in SC prior to the Civil War:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

But it wasn't about slavery!

If you're into other state flags and funny blurbs, then this is for you.



"Iowa tried to turn in the French flag as its own work, but Iowa’s older brother told it to put “an eagle with, like, something in its beak” on, too, to throw the teacher off."

Very funny.

Stan Lee designed this. Also, the lady on the left has killed the Sorting Hat and impaled it on her long stick for some reason.

It's remarkable how like two-thirds of state flags are terrible. Especially the ones with the name of the state in a MS Paint default font.

Johnny Carwash wrote:It's remarkable how like two-thirds of state flags are terrible. Especially the ones with the name of the state in a MS Paint default font.

Well, remember that most were designed by hand many many years ago.

There are several graphic designer blogs devoted to reflagging the states - they're mostly awesome.

This one is subtle at times, but still has nice ideas. Like keeping the Alabama flag the same except let's add cotton!

I've lived in three states in my life - Colorado, Texas and California. I like the flags of all three of them, especially the Colorado flag.

I've always liked the Michigan state flag. Nevada's is "eh". Nothing really offensive dumb about it though.

(BTW, if you Google Michigan's state flag the Latin is Michigan's state motto "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you". We learned that shit in kindergarten for some reason.

Who doesn't seek a pleasant peninsula?

brian wrote:I've always liked the Michigan state flag. Nevada's is "eh". Nothing really offensive dumb about it though.

(BTW, if you Google Michigan's state flag the Latin is Michigan's state motto "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you". We learned that shit in kindergarten for some reason.

They put it in Latin so the Delaware flag couldn't troll the lettering

My favorite flag I'm not personally partial to is Kentucky's though. No joking. Sweet flag.

P.D.X. wrote:Who doesn't seek a pleasant peninsula?

Exactly. But Florida still managed to fuck that shit up.

brian wrote:My favorite flag I'm not personally partial too is Kentucky's though. No joking. Sweet flag.

The comment on that link was gold, too.

sancarlos wrote:I've lived in three states in my life - Colorado, Texas and California. I like the flags of all three of them, especially the Colorado flag.

Red for the hills, blue for the skies, white for the snow, and yellow for the gold!

brian wrote:I've always liked the Michigan state flag. Nevada's is "eh". Nothing really offensive dumb about it though.

(BTW, if you Google Michigan's state flag the Latin is Michigan's state motto "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you". We learned that shit in kindergarten for some reason.

They ain't teaching that shit in Ann Arbor... I had no idea.

I know they're big on H.O.M.E.S, though.

My home state flag is so cool it comes with a GPJ tune.

This could go in a couple places, but I'll put it here.

Johnnie wrote:This could go in a couple places, but I'll put it here.

Um, Mr. President, your White is showing.

just show the parts without the car

You mean the General Grant?