Not every Democrat or person who votes for a Democrat is a liberal. Cuomo's father was, but Cuomo isn't.

 

eta: NYC also voted Rudy Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg into the mayoral office for almost two decades

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by StrangeSox

If, and it appears as if it will be here forever, there is a minimum wage law, it needs to be indexed to inflation in some manner. This every few years huge jump does not help anyone. Minimum wage really becomes almost like a union wage scale in some industries. As long as everyone is paying it, to the employer it almost doesn't matter what it is. I'd rather see 2 or 3% raises annually than these jumps.

 

But once we accept that minimum wage laws are here to stay we should be able to work on a better way for them to work.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/its_not_wh...s_toxic_appeal/

 

Pretty good article about why Trump has been so appealing.

Edited July 25, 201510 yr by caulfield12

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/its_not_wh...s_toxic_appeal/

 

Pretty good article about why Trump has been so appealing.

Great article. That is why I love him. I'd just love to see him tear into Hillary if he runs.

 

I like this part of the above mentioned article. ...

 

“He doesn’t know what ‘PC’ means,” as one New Hampshire supporter raved. For these people, Reeve writes, Trump is appealing because “he violates social taboos but not their own political sensibilities.” He says what they believe but don’t have the guts to say for themselves.

 

Granted, this sounds like a pretty frivolous metric to use when deciding who should be president. But humans can be exceedingly tribal and frivolous things! And because Trump’s fans believe that political correctness is primarily enforced by an ill-defined group of elites, his willingness to say things that most of us would consider grotesquely uncouth and bigoted is understood as a more wide-ranging opposition to the powers that be. Look, for example, at how Rush Limbaugh, another veteran practitioner of political resentment, recently defended Trump. He focuses almost exclusively on the billionaire’s critics, rather than the man himself:

Rep Chakah Fattah, D-PA, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the Appropriations committee (helps write my budgets) gets a 29 count indictment on fraud, racketeering, etc.

"Doesn't know what PC means" translates to "sucks at being a diplomat"

Rep Chakah Fattah, D-PA, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the Appropriations committee (helps write my budgets) gets a 29 count indictment on fraud, racketeering, etc.

From the link..."He will be replaced by Mike Honda, D-Calif., who is currently the subject of an ethics probe."

From the link..."He will be replaced by Mike Honda, D-Calif., who is currently the subject of an ethics probe."

 

There ain't much difference between D and R in the ethics department. The only difference is who gets excused by which people™.

Look, for example, at how Rush Limbaugh, another veteran practitioner of political resentment, recently defended Trump. He focuses almost exclusively on the billionaire's critics, rather than the man himself:

 

Right, look at how he's impossible to defend, so pundits don't even try.

There ain't much difference between D and R in the ethics department. The only difference is who gets excused by which people™.

I looked earlier and we're at IIRC 2 D indictments and 1 R indictment, along with 1 R who resigned before the indictment, so far this year, counting all of Congress.

I looked earlier and we're at IIRC 2 D indictments and 1 R indictment, along with 1 R who resigned before the indictment, so far this year, counting all of Congress.

 

Exactly. I've always said that one of our strengths as a country that corrupt politicians are the exception, not the rule. From the local, volunteer, part time, school board member to the POTUS.

Exactly. I've always said that one of our strengths as a country that corrupt politicians are the exception, not the rule. From the local, volunteer, part time, school board member to the POTUS.

Unless you are talking Illinois and Chicago city aldermen. Then that would be reversed.

Ok, I get that killing the lion wasn't very popular. But really?

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ceci...?source=gravity

 

PETA and their ilk are every bit as crazy as the religious right.

Personally, I think what the dentist did was sick and I am not anti-hunting by nature, but luring a protected animal out of its protected space and paying a fine just to stick it up as a trophy sickens me. And I realize the guy didn't realize the animal was lured out, but still, I am more of a, if you hunt, hunt because of population control (potential need), to protect something (crops, etc) or because you are going to eat the meat. To just stick it up as a trophy, sorry, you lost me.

Big game "hunters" are the worst, and that guy should be extradited and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Personally, I think what the dentist did was sick and I am not anti-hunting by nature, but luring a protected animal out of its protected space and paying a fine just to stick it up as a trophy sickens me.

 

It's my understanding that he is basically a dude that wanted to kill a lion, so he hired a bunch of guides who told him they got the proper permits and it was all cool. The blame seems to be on the guides moreso than the guy.

 

 

Ok, I get that killing the lion wasn't very popular. But really?

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ceci...?source=gravity

 

PETA and their ilk are every bit as crazy as the religious right.

 

Peta long ago descended into self parody.

 

There's a decent argument, I think made through a 60 minutes special, that these big game hunters are actually a net positive to the animal populations/reserves, because they pay so much. They fund a lot of these places which allow animals to thrive. Not sure if that is the case here with a lion.

It's my understanding that he is basically a dude that wanted to kill a lion, so he hired a bunch of guides who told him they got the proper permits and it was all cool. The blame seems to be on the guides moreso than the guy.

The desire to kill a lion as a trophy is still pretty pathetic. And he's still at least partially responsible.

 

There's a decent argument, I think made through a 60 minutes special, that these big game hunters are actually a net positive to the animal populations/reserves, because they pay so much. They fund a lot of these places which allow animals to thrive. Not sure if that is the case here with a lion.

They could donate the money without needing to "hunt" an animal someone else tracked and drove them to.

 

The desire to kill a lion as a trophy is still pretty pathetic. And he's still at least partially responsible.

 

Why? If you hire an expert in any other field (doctor, lawyer, whatever) and you rely on their expertise, its generally not your fault if some third party gets hurt through their screw up.

They could donate the money without needing to "hunt" an animal someone else tracked and drove them to.

 

They COULD, but they won't. If there's a market for it, and at the end of the day it aids a conservation goal, why not do it?

Why? If you hire an expert in any other field (doctor, lawyer, whatever) and you rely on their expertise, its generally not your fault if some third party gets hurt through their screw up.

Seems like you could game plausible deniability pretty easily that way.

Seems like you could game plausible deniability pretty easily that way.

 

I guess, but what knowledge does a Minnesota dentist have about lions and property lines in Africa? If it turns out they told the guy what they were doing and he shot anyway, i'm in agreement with you. If he thought, innocently, that he bought and paid for the kill and it was all legal and proper, I don't see how he's at fault.

Edited July 29, 201510 yr by Jenksismybitch

All good reasons to stop this disgusting fantasy fulfillment for rich assholes.