US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1674

On February 27 2015 07:51 Introvert wrote:


I think there are a number of people who could win (at least more than TL would admit), but I really like Walker. I just hope he doesn't sell out for all that big donor money :p

On February 27 2015 10:31 xDaunt wrote:

All presidential candidates have to sell out to a degree to raise money. However, I do not think that Walker will be one who compromises himself too much.

It may be that other republican candidates can win, too. I just think that Walker clearly has the best chance in a national election. The dude is a political beast who has repeatedly crushed the opposition in a swing state. You cannot ask for more than that.

On February 27 2015 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which other conservatives are you thinking could win the primary and general? Are you suggesting you genuinely think Carson or Cruz has a chance at a win in the general election?

On February 27 2015 10:55 Introvert wrote:


There are those with better chances.

On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.

Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter.

On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:


So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre.

@ jonny

I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs.

+ Show Spoiler +

I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service.

Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price.

On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:


So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre.

On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:


So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre.

@ jonny

I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs.



I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service.

Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price.

On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:


So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre.

@ jonny

I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs.

+ Show Spoiler +

I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service.

Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price.

On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:

read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek.

On February 27 2015 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which other conservatives are you thinking could win the primary and general? Are you suggesting you genuinely think Carson or Cruz has a chance at a win in the general election?

On February 27 2015 04:08 Acrofales wrote:

Edit: oh, and he also equates it with people who don't revert to ridiculous hyperbole to get their point across. You can be an intellectual and disagree (strenuously) with Obamacare and everything it means. However, you cannot be an intellectual and think that it is worse than slavery.

On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue.

But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today.

On February 27 2015 03:58 hunts wrote:


What I read so far makes it sound like a good thing, then I read a bunch of republicans talking about how its the end of the world so was wondering if someone here could explain it better. I have to go to class now though, and then work, so I won't really get to find out until later today

On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:


Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated.

On February 27 2015 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations.

It's starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

"The Obama administration was unable to ban America's most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it's trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group's policy and lobby shop. "The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama's latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms."

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren't going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I'm not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It's the small gun in a guy's hand you can't see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we're always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR platforms, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

On February 27 2015 12:58 hannahbelle wrote:


Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity.

When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up.

kek