Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ants

  • Rank
    A Valiant Knight of the Fur!
  • Birthday 07/17/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,402 profile views
  1. So were you lying all those years when you argued this wouldn’t happen, or just changing your tune now?
  2. So, that surely means when teaching WW2 they’ll include Mein Kempf, in economics Das Capital, Satanism in bible class, Sharia law in lessons on the law, books arguing for a monarchy when discussing democracy, and critical race theory when discussing Texas history…..
  3. Not sure if this has been posted: https://www.salon.com/2021/10/14/kyrsten-sinema-ditches-senate-negotiations-for-fundraising-trip-to-europe/ she’s not even trying to pretend she’s a Dem anymore, is she?
  4. I don't know if there is anything else, but what had already come out sounded pretty bad. As minister she ok'd projects that directly benefited her lover, and there are tapes making clear she had been told. Now, maybe she is totally truthful that she wasn't listening so didn't really know, but the whole point of being recusing yourself is you remove the possibility of corruption. As a minimum she didn't bother to clarify what her lover was doing and what she should recuse herself from, at worst she deliberately made decisions that benefited him. It is totally appropriate that she should resign.
  5. I'm not anti-flightlessness. I give to charities to help the poor flightless. Its not your fault you're not as blessed as those of us who can fly. We just all have to recognise that being able to fly makes you better. And don't start that whole "you inherited it from your ancestors" baloney!
  6. ants

    History in Books

    Hornblower is very good. Although I wouldn't necessarily continue with the later stuff, the early Biggles is pretty good for children.
  7. Well no wonder. You're both BIRDS! (even if you can't actually fly.....)
  8. No, what I was saying is they should have negotiated that if the total figure came down, that they got more say in what the remaining figure was spent on. But at the end of the day, if Manchema are willing to walk away with no deal, they're the ones with all the power. Insulting me by calling me a moderate when I just see reality doesn't change that stark reality. For progressives to get anything they need 50 votes. If Manchema want something they also need 50 votes. But it doesn't really seem that those two do want anything, in which case they don't need 50 votes. Interesting that you seem to have quietly crept away from your previous stance. Was that just you trolling again?
  9. I've already said I'm fine with what the progressives have done, and are doing. My issue was with your statement that the progressives should let it go for nothing and the Dems should cut Manchina out of the party. Which I think would be a ridiculous strategy. .. The one thing I do think the progressives should have done is said that they should have decided on certain programs/parts, and said, we're drawing the red-line on these. These are fully funded. Manchin won't pass more than 1.5T, fine. But then the 1.5T goes to these programs and they're done properly. And the bits which aren't are a wasteland, but at least what is done is done right. But at the end of the day, if one or both of Manchema are willing to tank the bill if they don't get what they want, fundamentally nobody else has any true bargaining power. It was posted earlier but she was (is?) underperformed a generic Democrat in AZ. So you could replace her with a generic Democrat and they'd be expected to do better. Of course, other than as a threat to try and bring her into line, primarying her doesn't do anything to help with the current situation.
  10. @mormant, I totally agree that the whole incident around this rape & murder is terrible, and raises big issues around whether or not he should still have been a policeman, and how it was investigated. And I think some clueless statements have been made by the police. But when it comes to what you should do when faced with a dangerous situation, unfortunately there aren't many (any?) good options and shouting for help, running away, calling emergency services, are good advice. Certainly there is an argument that unless its for a known reason (e.g. there's been an ongoing investigation) everyone should always call the emergency services and confirm the badge numbers of any police taking you into custody. Certainly single drivers are advised to do that before pulling over when they see lights (although its not taught enough). Unfortunately, I suspect the first line is the correct one.
  11. Yep, higher GDP per citizen usually leads to better outcomes (subject to distribution of course). This seems a little bit of Boris being a klutz with his speaking. In the context of leveling up, getting wage growth up (especially for the bottom 50%) is possibly the most critical measure. That said, clearly Labour should try to make hay with it.
  12. What I really don't get, is how you can have case after case showing police corruption (most not as extreme as this), but police around the world are still deemed automatically reliable witnesses in court.
  13. I'm not really sure what the police are meant to be advising? Whether you're a woman or man, if you're in a vulnerable position with someone you think is a danger (whether they're claiming to be police or not), I'm not sure how many other options you have. Not many good ones. If you're suspicious, then yes, its your only choice to try and make yourself safe. Is Batman meant to come down from the heavens to save you? How on earth is police training/culture meant to help if its someone impersonating police, or a police officer planning on breaking the law? I mean, I don't have a high opinion of police but even I don't think their culture promotes rape and murder. They definitely underestimate the amount of incompetence in all organisations. I'm not sure they overestimate corruption, especially petty corruption. I think they probably underestimate it.
  14. They are losing their majority in the house already, and I think the senate is likely too. This has nothing to do with the treatment of the poor moderates--it has everything to do with the ridiculous nature of why the the Dakotas have four senators with just over a million people between them, while places like California with 34 million people, get two senators. The population is represented in the house, not the senate, and this is why the Republicans--an unpopular party--have found substantial ways to reshape the country. Sinema and Manchin can fuck off, or we can play pattycake with them, it literally does not matter. Well, if you believe Democrats won't hold the Senate for the next ten years anyway, then I agree ditching those you don't like from the middle won't cost you as much. Whining about states having two Senators each seems pretty pointless. It also seems strange though that if you think this is the only time Dems will hold all three houses for the next ten years, that you wouldn't prioritise getting a deal done now, rather than standing on all or nothing. Since there will be no re-run in your view, so what you can get now is all you can get. I would have thought prioritising getting the maximum you can (e.g. by trading off the top line number for prioritisation of the spending on your priorities) would be the focus. I don't think that's the progressive Dem's stance either. I do think its Simons and the @The Great Unwashed's views!
  • Create New...