stanky wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:13 amStrange that you think so highly of him.
Absolute proof you don't read anything I actually write. I've said time and time again he's an awful choice whose only redeeming feature is he's less bad than Trump.
One of them is a silly old fart who struggles to remember what day of the week it is
stanky wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:13 am
You think Trump is more likely to start a war?
No, I think he's more likely to start a nuclear war
stanky wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:13 am
i see you have nothing.
you probably won't look at anything that isn't the company line, which you've evidently bought, based on the sophomoric sludge above.
you seem intent on stereotyping me; to a role i don't play. our politics are about the same.
You know i got the shitty vax...3 times. Voted for Biden. It hurt, though. Strange that you think so highly of him.
You know he's bombing 3 countries now, right?
You think Trump is more likely to start a war?
i don't.
Sorting kids into public schools based on household income is 'immoral, discriminatory,' says advocacy group
That's the headline. From Fox News.
Haven't read the article yet, but I sense some stupidity coming just because no one does that. No one advocates it. Of course doing it would be immoral and discriminatory. So.....if the advocacy group creating a straw man? Or is Fox News creating a straw man by misrepresenting the advocacy group? Either way, there's almost certainly a straw man going on.
My guess is that the advocacy group is complaining about the fact that neighborhoods in America, and I assume everywhere else, are strongly divided by income, and schools are based on neighborhoods. Let's see.....
Ok. Not quite what I expected. It's a school choice article. The right wingers who support school choice have decided that words like "discriminatory" make good marketing. They're advocating that anyone get to go to any public school they want to.
Plenty of stupid there. Fox didn't point out the obvious flaws in the plan. It just gave the advocacy group a platform, uncritically passing along the complaints.
Actually, if you were to comb JREF/ISF archives, you will find a few threads where I advocate strongly for school choice, but over the years, my stance mellowed, as a result of some of the discussions. Oddly, the thing that I think is wrong with school choice is an idea that was barely mentioned, but I decided it was a deal breaker. That was transportation costs. I like the concept of people being able to opt out of public schools if those schools suck, but in practice, most of the people whose kids go to lousy schools won't be able to afford the time and/or money to get them to a more distant, but better, school.
MSNBC Guest Panics Over Christians Believing Rights Come from God Instead of ‘Earthly Authority’
from someplace called MediaLite.
I'm guessing that no one panicked. I've seen an awful lot of variations on the theme of "So and so destroys the other guys argument". It's more common on youtube videos than media commentaries, but an awful lot of media is no better than youtube anyway. Inevitably, what really happens in those videos is that person A and person B are arguing, person A says, "Well, what you believe is wrong." Person B says, "Oh, yeah, well how come....?" Person A walks away. The headline is either "Person B destroys dumbass argument from wrong-thinking person B" or , like in this case, "Person A can't deal with The Truth from Person B"
Let's see:
Yeah. I didn't really see any panic. She was explaining what "Christian Nationalists" believe. The one thing I would disagree with her is maybe with the term. She's talking right wing Christians who are involved in politics and whose votes are guided by their religion. Is that a "Christian Nationalist"? Well, whatever. She didn't seem to be panicking about anything. She was expressing concern that those people are trying to take away abortion rights, and gay marriage, and a few other things. As best I can tell, they are, and she didn't seem panicked, but she did seem concerned.
On liberal mainstream news media, i've read of Trump "exploding", "imploding", and an occasional "meltdown". I look forward to him dissipating. Or maybe sublimating.
AI solves nuclear fusion puzzle for near-limitless clean energy
from The Independent.
Yep. A major scientific breakthrough has occurred that will change all our lives forever, and the only place with a headline is The Independent. Extra points for throwing in the "AI" buzzword.
In fairness, the article was interesting. It wasn't stupid. However, of course the article is misleading click-bait. A more accurate headline would have been "Sciebtists do something very interesting that might prove very valuable someday, if they can work out all the other problems."
Those of us who follow fusion news are used to this sort of thing. Yes, it's definitely a breakthrough. But we're all well aware that there are literally thousands more breakthroughs like this that will be required in order to bring about stable, usable fusion energy.
If you're not on edge, you're taking up too much space.
Nikki Haley's 40% in South Carolina: A crushing loss for her or a '5-alarm fire' for Donald Trump?
That's what USA today asked.
Uaually, beating your opponent by 20 points is considered a good thing. I've seen so many headlines that explain that winning every primary by wide margins shows that Donald Trump is very weak.
Wishfull thinking. In a big way.
This sort of headline is a variation of the "We're smarter than you" headline. Is the plain fact sitting right in front of you real? Or do you need a journalist to explain it to you.
Anyway, today I am going to do my part and go to the polls in Michigan, as a Republican, to vote against Donald Trump. The first time I voted in a Republicn primary was 2016, in the hopes of doing my one small bit to keep him from getting the nomination. It's even less likely to succeed today, but I have to at least do my part.
