Straight Dope Message Board

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Thanks. Though I will admit to being skeptical about the idea of Ron DeSantis cleaning up Rick Scott's crooked activity. DeSantis didn't strike me as being the sort to clean up crooked activity. (I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong.)

DeSantis is an odd duck.

So far his one veto is on a bill that would have prohibited local laws that ban single-use plastic straws. It passed on a pretty clear party-line vote, but then the Gov. of the party that passed it shot it down.

My read is that he's a straight-up Pubbie except for the environment.

Cleaning up Scott's mess does also seem to be a priority of the FLGOP this year. Scott got supported in his Senate bid, but he was NOT popular with the apparatchik of the Florida GOP. 41151

[Superdude]

So I made the mistake of arguing with a die-hard conservative, bible-thumping friend of mine, who doesn't like hearing the Democrats are no longer the party of the 1800s, and actually support minorities. This was his response (which I'm sharing, hoping y'all can help me with my homework here):

There is only one major party who continues to make race an issue and talk about race constantly, and it is not the Republicans. There is only one party whose policies continue to impoverish those who are less fortunate no matter the “intention” of those policies , and it is not the Republicans. There is only one major party who supports the murder of millions of minority babies, and that is not the Republican Party. There has been no pivot. There has only been a “rebranding”. Martin Luther King, Jr., prayed for a color blind society. Republicans have embraced just that, while Democrats pander for votes. You are just plain wrong, and I pray for you, while I know that means nothing to you.

I have seen many of your offensive and wrong posts of late and have refrained from responding. But, you can’t seem to resist responding to my posts. Therefore, I suppose, “it is on”. 41152

[foolsguinea]

How stupid does your friend think African-Americans are? Is it possible that black voters, who tend to vote Democrat in the country as well as in the city, vote Democrat when they're middle class as well as when they're working class, and vote Democrat overwhelmingly though not universally, know something about which party takes them seriously? 41153

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, you can respond that "tough on crime" and anti-abortion policies lead to people who are poor tending to stay poor, so he doesn't get to claim it is Democrats who "continue to impoverish" minorities. I guess you could also refer to how modern evangelicals got politicized in the first place, and it wasn't over Roe v. Wade but because their whites-only bible colleges were being denied their tax exemptions. If modern Democrats were as he described, the evangelicals would now be in their camp, not the Republicans'. 41154

[Annie-Xmas]

Missouri Republican Rep. Barry Hovis has come up with the concept of consensual rape. How oxymoronic! 41155

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Ike Witt

Here is a recipe for liver with braised fava beans. I assume that everyone knows the correct wine accompaniment....

Key-ANN-Tee, or Key-AHN-Tee?

Key-AHN-Tee is my choice. That's why I can't take that movie seriously. 41156

[Locrian]

(He says it that way to poke fun at Starling's accent.) 41157

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Key-AHN-Tee is my choice. That's why I can't take that movie seriously.

I can't take it seriously because he recommended drinking chianti.

Originally Posted by Locrian

(He says it that way to poke fun at Starling's accent.)

Which was dead nuts PERFECT! Maybe his choice of chianti was to make fun of her background 'cuz twine-wrapped bottles of chianti were the only wine in her area liquor store/gas station/bait shop/post office. Been there, shopped there. 41158

[ThelmaLou]

"Trump judicial nominees decline to endorse Brown v. Board under Senate questioning"
https://wapo.st/2Q6XveW

For months, a Democratic senator has been asking Trump judicial nominees what appears to be a straightforward question: Was Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision that ended legalized school segregation, properly decided?

Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum say the answer is clearly yes. Still, more than two dozen nominees have declined to answer the question at a time when many schools remain segregated by race.

The standoff has come to resemble a serious game of chicken. If the nominees say Brown was correctly decided, are they obligated to opine on more controversial precedents, in particular Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to abortion? Some nominees say the Democratic senators are not content with statements calling segregation immoral.
....

I guess the 13th amendment is the next target. 41159

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Key-ANN-Tee, or Key-AHN-Tee?

Key-AHN-Tee is my choice. That's why I can't take that movie seriously.

Originally Posted by Locrian

(He says it that way to poke fun at Starling's accent.)

I’ve only ever seen that clip. They should change the clips to make that clear. 41160

[Covfefe]

Candace Owens was a speaker at the Wisconsin GOP state convention yesterday and praised by the Speaker of the Assembly. 41161

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Superdude

So I made the mistake of arguing with a die-hard conservative, bible-thumping friend of mine, who doesn't like hearing the Democrats are no longer the party of the 1800s, and actually support minorities. This was his response (which I'm sharing, hoping y'all can help me with my homework here):

There is only one major party who continues to make race an issue and talk about race constantly, and it is not the Republicans. There is only one party whose policies continue to impoverish those who are less fortunate no matter the “intention” of those policies , and it is not the Republicans. There is only one major party who supports the murder of millions of minority babies, and that is not the Republican Party. There has been no pivot. There has only been a “rebranding”. Martin Luther King, Jr., prayed for a color blind society. Republicans have embraced just that, while Democrats pander for votes. You are just plain wrong, and I pray for you, while I know that means nothing to you.

I have seen many of your offensive and wrong posts of late and have refrained from responding. But, you can’t seem to resist responding to my posts. Therefore, I suppose, “it is on”.

Ask him if his basic position is that black people aren't smart enough to know they're being fooled and they should just trust the good white folks in the GOP? Because that's what it sounds like he's saying. 41162

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by enipla

… we have found the stupidest people on the planet. …

We seem to be overrun with them.

This here thing is not a SRIotD, per se, but I believe that the gross damage that the Rs have heaped upon edumacation, combined with their whole-hearted forstering of sharianoia has given us this prime bit of stupid:

A group called CivicScience conducted a poll that covered a range of topics. One of the questions (I suspect it was a respondent assessment question) resulted in numbers that are at once hilarious and terrifying. 29% felt that schools should teach our children arabic numerals, as compared to LVI% who thought it was a bad idea.

Chew on that. A majority of Americans think kids should not be taught arabic numerals.

Yes, it was sorta a gotcha question, but jesus-bleeding-christ, we are fucked. 41163

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Superdude

So I made the mistake of arguing with a die-hard conservative, bible-thumping friend of mine, who doesn't like hearing the Democrats are no longer the party of the 1800s, and actually support minorities. This was his response (which I'm sharing, hoping y'all can help me with my homework here):

There is only one major party who continues to make race an issue and talk about race constantly, and it is not the Republicans. There is only one party whose policies continue to impoverish those who are less fortunate no matter the “intention” of those policies , and it is not the Republicans. There is only one major party who supports the murder of millions of minority babies, and that is not the Republican Party. There has been no pivot. There has only been a “rebranding”. Martin Luther King, Jr., prayed for a color blind society. Republicans have embraced just that, while Democrats pander for votes. You are just plain wrong, and I pray for you, while I know that means nothing to you.

I have seen many of your offensive and wrong posts of late and have refrained from responding. But, you can’t seem to resist responding to my posts. Therefore, I suppose, “it is on”.

Your friend is an advocate of Schrodinger's Racism: as long as no one talks about racism, racism doesn't exist - but the moment anyone openly points it out, the waveform collapses and bingo, racism springs fully formed into existence, entirely the fault of the person who pointed it out.

I mean, you could point out that the current President of the United States has repeatedly disseminated material from white nationalist groups and has been openly endorsed by them in turn (including David Duke). You could point out that throughout his campaign the only time Trump talked about black people was in the context of urban crime. You could mention the 2012 campaign and the "Don't Re-Nig in 2012" and "It's Called the White House for a Reason" memes that were widely circulated. You could also point out the virulent anti-immigrant - and specifically anti-Hispanic-immigrant - rhetoric coming from Republicans which openly and in many cases exactly mirrors the language used by the Nazis against Jews (including referring to them as "vermin"), resulting in actual American citizens with Hispanic names having their citizenship questioned and passports withheld.

But you can't rebut an argument that is so fundamentally grounded in self-delusion, so I'm afraid you'll never convince your friend of any of this. 41164

[ThelmaLou]

The easy way to improve climate change numbers! WINNING!

"E.P.A. Plans to Get Thousands of Deaths Off the Books by Changing Its Math"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/c...on-deaths.html

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the health risks of air pollution, a shift that would make it easier to roll back a key climate change rule because it would result in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.

The E.P.A. had originally forecast that eliminating the Obama-era rule, the Clean Power Plan, and replacing it with a new measure would have resulted in an additional 1,400 premature deaths per year. The new analytical model would significantly reduce that number and would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules if it is formally adopted.

....

41165

[Morgyn]

Yesterday I had an exchange with a woman who is a follower of the (now-deceased, and he didn't even prophesy it would happen!) Kim Clement. She is very-anti-abortion because, she says, it violates the laws of Nature. I asked her to explain this, and in two of the last messages in the exchange, she said, and I am copying and pasting these with NO EDITS:

It is gravitational force that ensures that procreation happens, therefore we exist. Mammals give birth under the force of gravity. Negate the force of gravity, and the Darwinian code 'Survival of Species' is shattered.

There is a myth flying around, that there are aliens on a mission to force women to breed. No such aliens exist. The only one responsible for 'forced breeding' is the Force of Gravity under the Laws of Physics, ensuring the Darwinian code: 'Survival of Species' is sealed in gold.

Yes, you read that right. She's convinced that gravity causes pregnancy and explains Darwin's theory of evolution.

She's also homophobic. As far as I know, she has no real claim to fame, not even a blue checkmark. But I'd consider her to be pretty representative of what we're up against in the Republican base, especially the Trump base.

(I'll have to give her a small sliver of credit for not buying into a conspiracy theory that includes aliens, but that's a mighty low bar.) 41166

[elucidator]

Well, of course gravity. People are heavy, they walk around, get tired. Lay down to rest, and then one thing leads to another, then those two things lead to pregnancy. 41167

[mcgato]

Regarding gravity: have fun with the crazy person and try to convince her that gravity doesn't exist. It is "Intelligent Falling." 41168

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Well, of course gravity. People are heavy, they walk around, get tired. Lay down to rest, and then one thing leads to another, then those two things lead to pregnancy.

Pregnant women are very gravid-y. 41169

[dropzone]

I forget, but wasn't it Reagan who closed all the mental institutions, allowing our mixed nuts to range freely? 41170

[Morgyn]

Originally Posted by dropzone

I forget, but wasn't it Reagan who closed all the mental institutions, allowing our mixed nuts to range freely?

As far as I can tell, the woman in question is (mostly) rational. The non-rational part is, unsurprisingly, pretty twisted up with extreme religiosity.

Even so, her beliefs are a bit odd. 41171

[BigAppleBucky]

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump, once said that a president's refusal to comply with congressional oversight was an impeachable offense.

In an unearthed video from December 1998 circulating on Twitter on Friday, the South Carolina legislator passionately states that Richard Nixon could have been impeached for failing to comply with subpoenas from Congress.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

At the time, then-Representative Graham was a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and subsequently served as a manager in the unsuccessful impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

41172

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

"Richard Nixon (D-CA)" 41173

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Well, dang! This time "It's Okay When Republicans Do It" fails. Oh noes!! What to do??

Originally Posted by Smapti

"Richard Nixon (D-CA)"

That's the ONLY possible explanation. 41174

[DesertDog]

Originally Posted by Smapti

"Richard Nixon (D-CA)"

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

That's the ONLY possible explanation.

Damn! That deep state is way deeper than I'd thought. I wonder how they overlooked Obama's Kenyan passport. 41175

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by dropzone

I forget, but wasn't it Reagan who closed all the mental institutions, allowing our mixed nuts to range freely?

The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. During the following Ronald Reagan administration, the United States Congress repealed most of the law. {...}

CITE

CMC fnord! 41176

[running coach]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

CMC fnord!

dropzone was talking about when Reagan was Governor of California. 41177

[Buck Godot]

Hey, I actually found some common ground between the House Democrats and House Republicans.

Both groups want to talk only about the Democrats on their official websites.

Admittedly since the Democrats are in charge their agenda is going to be the greatest topic of conversation, but one would think that in the 7 months since they lost that 2018 election they would have at least one piece on their news site that would be about what their delegation was up to. But the last article that didn't include the word Democrats, or the name of a Democratic congressman in its title or first sentence was an Armistice day recognition on November 9th 2018. 41178

[Rick Kitchen]

This link is dated "2 hours 11 minutes ago "

The We Build the Wall group, who raised money to build WALL and then didn't, actually built one mile of wall over the holiday weekend, after Steve Bannon stepped in to make sure it got done.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/we-bu...151119347.html 41179

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen

This link is dated "2 hours 11 minutes ago "

The We Build the Wall group, who raised money to build WALL and then didn't, actually built one mile of wall over the holiday weekend, after Steve Bannon stepped in to make sure it got done.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/we-bu...151119347.html

If the government has given itself permission to bypass environmental and/or construction laws, does that make it legal for private citizens to do the same? 41180

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

If the government has given itself permission to bypass environmental and/or construction laws, does that make it legal for private citizens to do the same?

It looks like they purchased the land. Are environmental studies and such needed to build a wall on your own land? 41181

[digs]

Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen

This link is dated "2 hours 11 minutes ago "

That was good, shows you're not mad at people pointing it out. And, as I tell my wife "See, I CAN learn new tricks!" (usually for some kind of "housebreaking" that she'd given up on me learning... but then I surprise her!) 41182

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by manson1972

It looks like they purchased the land. Are environmental studies and such needed to build a wall on your own land?

I don't know about Texas, but in Ohio, yes. Pretty much any form of construction is going to need a permit, which is going to need impact studies. 41183

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

I don't know about Texas, but in Ohio, yes. Pretty much any form of construction is going to need a permit, which is going to need impact studies.

Especially a mile-long fence of unusual size that stretches across several properties. 41184

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by manson1972

It looks like they purchased the land. Are environmental studies and such needed to build a wall on your own land?

ISTM that most building is carried out on land that is owned by the builder, so those things don’t seem like they would be reserved for projects on land that the builder DOESN’T own... 41185

[CalMeacham]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Especially a mile-long fence of unusual size that stretches across several properties.

"The FOUSes? -- the Fences of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist."








(Wesley is immediately slammed by a piece of Fence of Unusual Size.) 41186

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

I don't know about Texas, but in Ohio, yes. Pretty much any form of construction is going to need a permit, which is going to need impact studies.

I'm not doubting you, but if you decided to build a fence around your yard, you would need to do an environmental impact study?

Well, I guess I am doubting you. 41187

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by manson1972

I'm not doubting you, but if you decided to build a fence around your yard, you would need to do an environmental impact study?

Well, I guess I am doubting you.

"A fence around your yard".
Disingenuous much? 41188

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by manson1972

I'm not doubting you, but if you decided to build a fence around your yard, you would need to do an environmental impact study?

Well, I guess I am doubting you.

I would have to get permits, and those permits say what kind of fence I can build. As long as I am building that type of fence, I do not have to do an impact study, as those fences do not have much of an impact.

Were I to want to build a different type of fence (or wall) than is usually granted permits for, one that would interrupt the flow of groundwater, then yes, I would have to go to zoning meetings and try to get waivers granted, and probably have to do some sort of offset, or make sure that proper drainage or culverts are installed.

Are these people putting up fences or walls?

I've never been that involved with building walls, but parking lots? Yeah. If I put in a parking lot, I need to do impact studies to see how much drainage I need to offset and how large a retention pond I need to do so. 41189

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

"A fence around your yard".
Disingenuous much?

I'm not the one who said "any form of construction" 41190

[Tim@T-Bonham.net]

Originally Posted by manson1972

I'm not doubting you, but if you decided to build a fence around your yard, you would need to do an environmental impact study?

Well, I guess I am doubting you.

No, but it would have to follow city ordinances. Like it couldn't be more than 6 feet high, must have the presentable side outward, is limited to certain materials, etc.

If I wanted to do anything outside those limits, I would have to present info to request a variance (including approvals from x% of my neighbors). 41191

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

I would have to get permits, and those permits say what kind of fence I can build. As long as I am building that type of fence, I do not have to do an impact study, as those fences do not have much of an impact.

Were I to want to build a different type of fence (or wall) than is usually granted permits for, one that would interrupt the flow of groundwater, then yes, I would have to go to zoning meetings and try to get waivers granted, and probably have to do some sort of offset, or make sure that proper drainage or culverts are installed.

Are these people putting up fences or walls?

I've never been that involved with building walls, but parking lots? Yeah. If I put in a parking lot, I need to do impact studies to see how much drainage I need to offset and how large a retention pond I need to do so.

Well, on one hand, I suspect they got all the necessary permits and whatnot, since they are actually putting up a fence or wall or whatever.

On the other hand, I hope they DIDN'T get all the necessary permits, just so I can laugh when they have to knock down the whole thing. 41192

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net

No, but it would have to follow city ordinances. Like it couldn't be more than 6 feet high, must have the presentable side outward, is limited to certain materials, etc.

If I wanted to do anything outside those limits, I would have to present info to request a variance (including approvals from x% of my neighbors).

I agree. 41193

[foolsguinea]

nm, covered 41194

[Fiveyearlurker]

Everyone who pretended that Merrick Garland shouldn't be nominated because it was an election year is now free to admit that this was a bullshit excuse.

"Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky, McConnell was asked by an attendee, "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, "Oh, we'd fill it," triggering loud laughter from the audience." 41195

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Everyone who pretended that Merrick Garland shouldn't be nominated because it was an election year is now free to admit that this was a bullshit excuse.

"Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky, McConnell was asked by an attendee, "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, "Oh, we'd fill it," triggering loud laughter from the audience."

I detest that man. 41196

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Well, on one hand, I suspect they got all the necessary permits and whatnot, since they are actually putting up a fence or wall or whatever.

Why on earth would you think that? These are people who hate all regulation and worship a man who has zero regard for the rule of law. I find it quite likely that they are of the ask forgiveness rather than permission school of thought. Also, assuming it isn't up to code, then its up to the government to knock it down. If they try then a call will go out for a bunch of patriot knuckleheads to come out with their guns and have a Bundy style standoff against the criminal loving commies from the El Paso zoning board. Win! Win! Win! 41197

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Also, assuming it isn't up to code, then its up to the government to knock it down. If they try then a call will go out for a bunch of patriot knuckleheads to come out with their guns and have a Bundy style standoff against the criminal loving commies from the El Paso zoning board. Win! Win! Win!

As much as I would like to see this happen, I doubt it will. 41198

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

I don't know about Texas …

They were not doing it in Texas. 41199

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by eschereal

They were not doing it in Texas.

I thought they were doin' it in Texas. 41200