Sign In

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Sep-2006
Last activity
17-Jul-2018
Posts
3575
Web Site
http://www.hardbat.com/puggo

Post History

Post
#1226244
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

There is no comparing Obama’s relationship with Russia versus Trump’s. They are in a completely different league. Obama never publicly called on Russia to hack into an opponent’s system.

Neither did Trump, to be accurate. At the time of Trump’s statement the server was wiped but believed to have been hacked before that point.

Accordingly the NYT, at the time, described Trump as saying that “he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen.”

Notice use of the past tense. Also the DNC also had already been hacked at that point.

Trump’s comments were inappropriate and encouraging of bad behavior by foreign adversaries, but it was understood, at the time, that he was asking for release of materials already presumed stolen because of negligence by Clinton.

Now that the context is forgotten, the NYT claims, “Donald J. Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.”

So now we’ve shifted to a future request for hacking, rather than a request to publish what was already hacked, only because people are ignoring the context.

Trump clearly said, and I quote: “Russia, I hope you’re able to find” Hillary’s emails. I remember seeing the interview live at the time, and couldn’t believe a candidate could talk like this and not be run out of town. It’s up for posterity on the BBC channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b71f2eYdTc

Post
#1226206
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

There is no comparing Obama’s relationship with Russia versus Trump’s. They are in a completely different league. Obama never publicly called on Russia to hack into an opponent’s system. Obama didn’t have the depth of business ties. And Obama most certainly never openly trusted Putin’s word over his own intel.

If you want hypocrisy, look no further than Fox News’ vitriol when Obama floated the idea of meeting with North Korea.

Post
#1225897
Topic
World Cup 2018
Time

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The problem with a play-till-you-win match, is if it isn’t a final, it could ruin the final. Just look at Wimbledon… after that marathon Mahut-Isner match, Isner could barely play the next match. Now I hope I’m proven wrong, but there is every likelihood that this recent marathon Anderson-Isner semifinal is just as likely to have ruined the final.

Surely they could set things up so that is a full day’s rest between the semifinal and final.

One day’s rest is insufficient recovery time after an 11-hour match. (that was the length of the Mahut-Isner match)

What are the odds a soccer game would go for 11 hours?

I’d guess about the same odds as for a tennis match.

Having said that, I’ve always thought there should be better ways than penalty kicks. What about reducing the number players on each team by 1 (or 2), at each 10 minutes of overtime play?

Post
#1225886
Topic
World Cup 2018
Time

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The problem with a play-till-you-win match, is if it isn’t a final, it could ruin the final. Just look at Wimbledon… after that marathon Mahut-Isner match, Isner could barely play the next match. Now I hope I’m proven wrong, but there is every likelihood that this recent marathon Anderson-Isner semifinal is just as likely to have ruined the final.

Surely they could set things up so that is a full day’s rest between the semifinal and final.

One day’s rest is insufficient recovery time after an 11-hour match. (that was the length of the Mahut-Isner match)

Post
#1225854
Topic
World Cup 2018
Time

The problem with a play-till-you-win match, is if it isn’t a final, it could ruin the final. Just look at Wimbledon… after that marathon Mahut-Isner match, Isner could barely play the next match. Now I hope I’m proven wrong, but there is every likelihood that this recent marathon Anderson-Isner semifinal is just as likely to have ruined the final.

Post
#1224098
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

While there’s more to quality of life than just environmental threats and humans are still better off today than at any other point in history,

Do we have to make this pointless statement every single time we criticize Trump?

I agree climate change is probably the most pressing issue for us as a species and it’s unfortunate that bad politics could end up wrecking the planet.

Unfortunate? It’s not just politicians. It’s primarily to blame on a willfully ignorant population that votes for people like Trump. Even Hillary, although she would’ve been better, was still incredibly weak on environmentalism. There’s also a lot of corporate propaganda in conservative-leaning media that spread outright lies about climate change. I’ve noticed lately that they’re back to spreading the lie that climate change is a total myth. I think it should be illegal to publish fraudulent studies about climate change, kind of like how it’s illegal for tobacco companies to publish fraudulent studies that cigarettes won’t destroy your lungs.

Although I disagree with them, I could sorta understand people supporting politicians that deny climate change. The science isn’t obvious to the layman (it’s not even obvious to scientists in different fields), and expecting layfolks to assess the scientific research process itself is just as tenuous. But what I do not understand is the voters’ support for the repeal of protections on obvious things like clean water, clean air, national monuments, etc. That stuff affects people directly and in the short term, as do protections against bank and loan fraud. And wanting to dismantle the EPA? Geez! The willingness of voters to go along with those sorts of things, when the only positive is quick corporate profits for the mega-rich, has me questioning the basic validity of our political system. (And, the utter failure of our national education.)

Having traveled a large swath of the world and having had the chance to chat with a wide range of people of all types and backgrounds around the globe, I am convinced that American pride in its “greatness” is naive at best. We’ve got an uneducated and at times degenerate underbelly that politicians are getting very good at exploiting for their own personal profit. Whereas a good half of our population is oblivious to it, I can assure you that the rest of the world is not.

Post
#1223087
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

It’s true that there could be some missing context. I know of a couple of restaurants where rude waiters are part of the appeal. Or maybe the stuttering guy was being an ass and this was the barista’s clumsy form of revenge. Or maybe the barista was having a bad day - his bike was stolen or something. Or what the heck, maybe he’s just a prick. I wouldn’t make fun of someone’s disability, but 49% of voters seem to think it’s ok for the president to do it.

Is he really disabled? I’d be offended by that kind of language more than being made fun of. Maybe that’s just me. It probably is.

That’s interesting… you’re offended by it being called a disability, but not by it being mocked? You can be tricky to navigate sometimes 😃

As to whether stuttering is considered a disability, I have to admit that I didn’t know if it was or not. But a brief Google search seems to indicate that it is. at least the American Institute for Stuttering sure thinks so. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also seems to be applicable to stutterers, so while I have no horse in this race and would be happy to agree with you to avoid offending, apparently as an educator I am legally obligated to consider it a disability. Sorry.

Post
#1223036
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

It’s true that there could be some missing context. I know of a couple of restaurants where rude waiters are part of the appeal. Or maybe the stuttering guy was being an ass and this was the barista’s clumsy form of revenge. Or maybe the barista was having a bad day - his bike was stolen or something. Or what the heck, maybe he’s just a prick. I wouldn’t make fun of someone’s disability, but 49% of voters seem to think it’s ok for the president to do it.

Post
#1222074
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

  1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

  1. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

Post
#1221855
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

There are issues that I could see varying state by state. For instance, I might reasonably expect different laws regarding fireworks in Nevada than in Minnesota, because of the differences in climate. However, I can’t understand the justification for basic personal issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. being any different in one state than another.

My mother, who is an attorney, says it’s because “Family Law” is traditionally determined by the states.

I still don’t see why such things should vary from state to state.

Post
#1221800
Topic
TV shows you have loved
Time

The Red Green show was great! Sure it was very hit-and-miss, but when it hit it was hilarious. Some of the skits I remember fondly were (1) when they converted a car to gull-wing doors using duct tape and a garage door opener, (2) when Bill tried to set up a trolling motor and got tangled up in the fishing lines, and (3) this skit explaining Boolean Logic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXkh6ho41-I