Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 657

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

We’d want to know the reason for offering the benefits. I wager it was merely a way of marketing and drawing in business. There may be an argument that they’re just getting away from political organizations altogether, and not necessarily because of a disagreement with what the NRA stands for.

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

We’d want to know the reason for offering the benefits. I wager it was merely a way of marketing and drawing in business. There may be an argument that they’re just getting away from political organizations altogether, and not necessarily because of a disagreement with what the NRA stands for.

Yes, that makes more sense to me than your previous assertion that they are “staking out positions aligned with liberal politics”.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

Changing from supporting a conservative cause to being politically neutral is still perceived as movement in a liberal direction, rightly or wrongly. Such is the team sport of politics – if you’re not with us, you’re against us.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie.

Not just nowadays. Art is inherently political.

But nowadays everything is political. My Grandpa had a “Dogs Playing Poker” print. I’m not denying it was political even back in the day. But more things are political now, beyond art.

DominicCobb said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

This makes more sense to me. I was honestly surprised to see so many companies offered discounts to NRA members. Like, why? (I mean beyond the obvious)

Agree. Although I have no idea if other big organizations have these deals.

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.

Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?

That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.

Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?

Changing from supporting a conservative cause to being politically neutral is still perceived as movement in a liberal direction, rightly or wrongly. Such is the team sport of politics – if you’re not with us, you’re against us.

FedEx made the Solomonic decision to keep offering NRA member benefits and express a political position on guns.

A new Gallup survey paints a familiar map, but with a twist.

Basically it’s a binary political ideology by state (conservative/liberal) survey, but there are only nine liberal states. The rest of the country is shades of conservative. But regardless of how you view that distinction, it shows trends: all but four states have become more liberal over the last ten years, but many of the biggest swings were in states that were already “Blue” – they just went from being conservative Democrats to moderate or liberal Democrats. Georgia showing the biggest leftward swing of the most conservative states over the past ten years, but still more conservative than average at the moment.

Also:

However, a few states rank significantly higher on the net-conservative list than they do on the net-Republican list. These are Alaska, Idaho, Arizona and Oregon. A handful of other states – Mississippi, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas – rank significantly lower on net-conservatism than they do on net-Republicanism.

So Alaska, Idaho, Arizona and Oregon are states that vote for more Democrats than they should given their level of conservatism. Sounds like the libertarian effect. Mississippi, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas vote for more Republicans than they should given their level of conservatism. Hmm, the South, I wonder what factor could be overriding all other political considerations there?

Insinuations about weather aside, I think it shows a mismatch between ideology and political party. I do think weather, or maybe latitude, has something to do with political affiliation however, given the liberal-libertarian bent of Oregon, Maine, Canada, and Nordic countries.

TV’s Frink said:

It’s warmer?

That’s a hoax. It snowed there once.

Awarded: One Internet.

Use it wisely.

I’m intrigued by this case of the Texas high school transgender kid winning the girls’ wrestling title. Ordinarily, we hear of boys becoming girls and then [unfairly] winning the girls’ division. But in this case, a girl became a boy and wants to wrestle in the boys division, but is forced to wrestle in the girls’ division. It sure seems unfair for someone being allowed to bulk up on the associated hormones, and then competing against girls.

The typical Yahoo comments are 90% from people complaining about liberals. But in this case, it seems that it was the conservatives forcing people to compete in their “birth” gender, that is the cause of this particular conundrum.

I’m not sure what I think is the right solution. It seems to me like it would be doping even if he is allowed to compete against boys. But not allowing transgender kids to compete in sports at all seems discriminatory.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I’m intrigued by this case of the Texas high school transgender kid winning the girls’ wrestling title. Ordinarily, we hear of boys becoming girls and then [unfairly] winning the girls’ division. But in this case, a girl became a boy and wants to wrestle in the boys division, but is forced to wrestle in the girls’ division. It sure seems unfair for someone being allowed to bulk up on the associated hormones, and then competing against girls.

The typical Yahoo comments are 90% from people complaining about liberals. But in this case, it seems that it was the conservatives forcing people to compete in their “birth” gender, that is the cause of this particular conundrum.

I’m not sure what I think is the right solution. It seems to me like it would be doping even if he is allowed to compete against boys. But not allowing transgender kids to compete in sports at all seems discriminatory.

Might consider the case of Dutee Chand whose body naturally produces excessive male hormones which give her an advantage.

I don’t see anyway that is fair/accommodating to everyone.

Or find a different way to break up wrestling groups equitably, something along the lines of weight classes. Gender in this case is a proxy for other things that could likely be measured and accounted for. Boys and girls, regardless of birth gender, could compete within the same group. As long as the groups were created by some reasonable capability-measuring standard, I don’t see how that would be a problem.

Same thing with firefighters. Firefighters used to exclude women because the average man has more upper body strength than the average woman. But if the department simply tests upper body strength regardless of gender, some women will pass (and some men will fail).

The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.

As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.

Also, new reports of swastikas carved into the magazines used in the attack indicate that although particular affiliations still aren’t certain, white supremacist is a pretty safe bet.

EDIT: Someone snarkily commented what is sure to be the actual NRA response to the teacher shooting incident.

They should arm the students to protect themselves from teachers.

I can think of a couple teachers back in my high school days I probably wouldn’t want to be packing heat.
How long before some stressed out teacher implies they are packing just to keep unruly students in line?

I’m a teacher and believe me, some of my colleagues should NOT be packing heat.

I love that my post resurrected the term “packing heat”.

My work here is done.