• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Plasmid
Member
(01-31-2012, 05:54 PM)
Plasmid's Avatar
When is the usual time that the nominations are given out? I'm antsy :lol
Mike M
Member
(01-31-2012, 06:02 PM)
Mike M's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dax01

The Community section isn't a "'sent to die' area." Plenty of sub-groups on GAF thrive here.

We're getting by, but the pace of this thread has been decidedly lethargic.

Though ironically it's moving faster than the actual OT thread about the primary today...
ToxicAdam
Banned
(01-31-2012, 06:19 PM)
ToxicAdam's Avatar
Re: Community thread bitching

Definitely not a lot of 'bootstraps'-type of people here in Poligaf. Explains a lot.
PhoenixDark
(01-31-2012, 06:28 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dax01

The Community section isn't a "'sent to die' area." Plenty of sub-groups on GAF thrive here.

Mainly relating to videogames. All this decision has done is clog the OT with a series of bad "Republican says x dumb thing; Obama does y bad thing" individual threads to go alongside the more traditional libertarian trap threads.

Why aren't sports threads in the community thread? Why isn't the GAF-hop thread, or the Victorious thread, etc here? The decision making makes no sense.
Dax01
Founding member, Guardians Anonymous
(01-31-2012, 06:29 PM)
Dax01's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

Mainly relating to videogames. All this decision has done is clog the OT with a series of bad "Republican says x dumb thing; Obama does y bad thing" individual threads to go alongside the more traditional libertarian trap threads.

Why aren't sports threads in the community thread? Why isn't the GAF-hop thread, or the Victorious thread, etc here? The decision making makes no sense.

I don't see why it matters. We have as much to discuss, even more so, than many videogame-based communities.
PhoenixDark
(01-31-2012, 06:33 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dax01

I don't see why it matters. We have as much to discuss, even more so, than many videogame-based communities.

That still does not address the general problem of the random decision on what constitutes a "community" and what doesn't on an internet forum. The LA, NY, etc threads are on the OT, as are the other threads I mentioned earlier.

Is the OT just supposed to be a series of news stories, virgin/thirsy-gaf crying, celeb talk, and sports stuff?

Anyway back on topic. Wouldn't want individual posts to be regulated as well...
Byakuya769
Banned
(01-31-2012, 06:35 PM)
Byakuya769's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

Mainly relating to videogames. All this decision has done is clog the OT with a series of bad "Republican says x dumb thing; Obama does y bad thing" individual threads to go alongside the more traditional libertarian trap threads.

Why aren't sports threads in the community thread? Why isn't the GAF-hop thread, or the Victorious thread, etc here? The decision making makes no sense.

Glad I'm not the only one noticing. And those threads don't have the inertia of regular participation to even provide much discussion.
Dax01
Founding member, Guardians Anonymous
(01-31-2012, 06:35 PM)
Dax01's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

That still does not address the general problem of the random decision on what constitutes a "community" and what doesn't on an internet forum. The LA, NY, etc threads are on the OT, as are the other threads I mentioned earlier.

Is the OT just supposed to be a series of news stories, virgin/thirsy-gaf crying, celeb talk, and sports stuff?

Anyway back on topic. Wouldn't want individual posts to be regulated as well...

Why would I address that? My original post wasn't about the policy. Stop trying to connect my posts to something I wasn't talking about, please.
PhoenixDark
(01-31-2012, 06:41 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dax01

Why would I address that? My original post wasn't about the policy. Stop trying to connect my posts to something I wasn't talking about, please.

Why are you being defensive? I'm just making a point, chill. We can all agree to disagree here, like any healthy community
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(01-31-2012, 06:51 PM)
ClovingWestbrook's Avatar
I have to agree that moving the thread here was a way to kill the thread. For whatever reason, I and many others just don't visit the community section. We're so ingrained to click on Gaming/ OT tabs. I know that since this thread was moved to the Community side I've been less inclined to not only post but read the thread in general.

Anyway, today isn't going to be exciting in the least. Romney will win by 15-20 points and Newt will say it was the greatest injustice in the history of the U.S.
Jackson50
Member
(01-31-2012, 06:58 PM)
Jackson50's Avatar

Originally Posted by A27_StarWolf

he's got some big ideas and some of his plans seem to make sense. if things get worse with Obama and its proved his plans and escapades haven't worked out voting for.him is going to be iffy for me. Even if I don't fully support Newt I hope he gets the nomination

Okay. You do not necessarily trust Newt. But you are attracted to his big ideas. Although, the notion that Newt's ideas are "big" is risible unless big is synonymous with inanely absurd. Newt promotes pablum: a moon colony, child labor, citizen immigration boards, impeaching federal judges. He's a fraud who spews nonsense.
EskimoJoe
Member
(01-31-2012, 07:03 PM)
EskimoJoe's Avatar
The thing that kills a thread is when people stop discussing in it. The PoliGAF Megathread was mostly filled with regulars anyway. The only reason PoliGAF is "dying" now is because so many of you would rather talk about how PoliGAF is now doomed to die. We can make this work if we try.

Now, to get slightly on topic, I'm so surprised by how suddenly all my facebook friends are interested in politics. I'm in Virginia, so I'm not sure what the catalyzing event could be but suddenly everyone is posting political pictures and statuses (mostly wrong, but who am I to say that. I'm not too well informed either). I'm wondering what the reason is for this sudden interest, but I guess the more people pay attention, the better.
NihonTiger90
Member
(01-31-2012, 07:13 PM)
NihonTiger90's Avatar

Originally Posted by EskimoJoe

The thing that kills a thread is when people stop discussing in it. The PoliGAF Megathread was mostly filled with regulars anyway. The only reason PoliGAF is "dying" now is because so many of you would rather talk about how PoliGAF is now doomed to die. We can make this work if we try.

Now, to get slightly on topic, I'm so surprised by how suddenly all my facebook friends are interested in politics. I'm in Virginia, so I'm not sure what the catalyzing event could be but suddenly everyone is posting political pictures and statuses (mostly wrong, but who am I to say that. I'm not too well informed either). I'm wondering what the reason is for this sudden interest, but I guess the more people pay attention, the better.

Upcoming elections always generate interest. So it's probably just the elections in Novemeber + the economic situation.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(01-31-2012, 07:18 PM)
ClovingWestbrook's Avatar

Originally Posted by A27_StarWolf

he's got some big ideas and some of his plans seem to make sense. if things get worse with Obama and its proved his plans and escapades haven't worked out voting for.him is going to be iffy for me. Even if I don't fully support Newt I hope he gets the nomination

Ideas like what? Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a moon base that is pretty much useless at this point? Relaxing child labor laws? Making Sarah Palin a hallmark of his cabinet? Attacking Iran which would cause the entire Middle East to erupt in war? Fire judges who he disagrees with? Arresting judges that are too liberal for his liking? Doing away with an entire circuit of judges because they offer decisions he finds anathema? Working to make the U.S. a theocratic system of sorts? REALLY?
ToxicAdam
Banned
(01-31-2012, 07:26 PM)
ToxicAdam's Avatar
I think the best defense for Newt is the one some tried to make for Dean in 2004. This election is going to be about the incumbent. It's not about the Republican ideology or any new way of governing, it's about what Obama has done and if you agree with that direction in the future.

So, you need to elect the person that can most effectively attack Obama and his record. That person is Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is not an effective person when he tries to attack his opponent and will not sway enough people to win the election.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
(01-31-2012, 07:31 PM)
A27_StarWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by ClovingSteam

Ideas like what? Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a moon base that is pretty much useless at this point? Relaxing child labor laws? Making Sarah Palin a hallmark of his cabinet? Attacking Iran which would cause the entire Middle East to erupt in war? Fire judges who he disagrees with? Arresting judges that are too liberal for his liking? Doing away with an entire circuit of judges because they offer decisions he finds anathema? Working to make the U.S. a theocratic system of sorts? REALLY?

I'm sure its just pandering. Something people in both parties are guilty of. How else are they going to win an election -_-
jamesinclair
smells clean, brushes teeth. Also combs hair regularly.
(01-31-2012, 07:33 PM)
jamesinclair's Avatar
The house is at it again.

Their new transportation proposal does two things:

a) Massive handouts to the truck and oil lobby, by allowing higher truck weights.
Why is this a big deal? Wear and tear on the road is exponential with weight.

Trucks now limited to 80,000 pounds on interstate highways could run as heavy as 97,000 pounds under a proposal contained in the long-awaited transportation reauthorization bill set to be unveiled Tuesday by House Republicans.

Most of the maintenance required on roads is due to trucks, and now they want to make it worse with no additional funding mechanism.

Oh, and the whole "state/county etc rights" bullcrap?

Straight out the window when it comes to micromanaging things for their oil friends.

In addition, the bill would mandate that New York City and Washington, D.C., allow 53-foot single trailers. States allow those trailers but the two cities restrict them.

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...portation-Bill

Thats right, apparently congress can now tell individual cities what they can and cannot do.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(01-31-2012, 07:36 PM)
ClovingWestbrook's Avatar

Originally Posted by A27_StarWolf

I'm sure its just pandering. Something people in both parties are guilty of. How else are they going to win an election -_-

What is pandering? Everything that I listed? If its all pandering how are you able to argue he has big ideas? Give me the big ideas that are genuine and the ideas that are pandering. I find it very interesting that for someone who was supporting a moderate like Huntsman, you're so willing to support an extremist like Newt.
Last edited by ClovingWestbrook; 01-31-2012 at 08:04 PM.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(01-31-2012, 07:37 PM)
ClovingWestbrook's Avatar

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

The house is at it again.

Their new transportation proposal does two things:

a) Massive handouts to the truck and oil lobby, by allowing higher truck weights.
Why is this a big deal? Wear and tear on the road is exponential with weight.



Most of the maintenance required on roads is due to trucks, and now they want to make it worse with no additional funding mechanism.

Oh, and the whole "state/county etc rights" bullcrap?

Straight out the window when it comes to micromanaging things for their oil friends.


http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...portation-Bill

Thats right, apparently congress can now tell individual cities what they can and cannot do.

Oil? States rights? loll!!!! Health care? STATES RIGHTS IS BEING ATTACKED!!!
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(01-31-2012, 07:40 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar
Put this thread in your subscriptions, or just bookmark it.

Jesus...
ToxicAdam
Banned
(01-31-2012, 07:50 PM)
ToxicAdam's Avatar
The weight limit is outdated as many steel companies can run wider/heavier coils than in the past. So, the cap is actually hurting production, as companies have to limit the amount per unit to meet weight specifications.

Also, trucks are required to get (state) permits for loads over a certain weight (per axle). This is a revenue generator for them and that money is funneled back into state DOT coffers. States can merely raise the costs of these permits accordingly and offset any additional damage done to roads.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
(01-31-2012, 07:54 PM)
Wolfgunblood Garopa's Avatar

Originally Posted by A27_StarWolf

I'm sure its just pandering. Something people in both parties are guilty of. How else are they going to win an election -_-

Exactly. They cancel each other out! Stop being so hard on Newt, guys. It's just politics, sheesh.
jamesinclair
smells clean, brushes teeth. Also combs hair regularly.
(01-31-2012, 07:59 PM)
jamesinclair's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

The weight limit is outdated as many steel companies can run wider/heavier coils than in the past. So, the cap is actually hurting production, as companies have to limit the amount per unit to meet weight specifications.

Also, trucks are required to get (state) permits for loads over a certain weight (per axle). This is a revenue generator for them and that money is funneled back into state DOT coffers. States can merely raise the costs of these permits accordingly and offset any additional damage done to roads.

The system in place absolutely does not take into account the level of damage done by trucks to roads. Not at all. And the bill doesnt address it either. Worse is that most states charge per axle...meaning trucks have an incentive to use as few as possible. But wait, that means the wight is distributed over less points, meaning greater force applied to the road! Doh. A 20 axle truck would be better for roads than a 3 axle.

If steel companies want to ship heavier loads, we've got these nice big trains for that.
thatbox
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:05 PM)
thatbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

I think the best defense for Newt is the one some tried to make for Dean in 2004. This election is going to be about the incumbent. It's not about the Republican ideology or any new way of governing, it's about what Obama has done and if you agree with that direction in the future.

So, you need to elect the person that can most effectively attack Obama and his record. That person is Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is not an effective person when he tries to attack his opponent and will not sway enough people to win the election.

Newt would be better at attacking Obama, but you're probably immediately alienating 10% or more of the the general electorate if you put him forward as your candidate. Romney almost certainly has a much better chance in the GE, even if he won't be as effective in attacking or debating the incumbent.
Jason's Ultimatum
Americans out of Mexico! The Border Tax Equity Act
(01-31-2012, 08:19 PM)
Jason's Ultimatum's Avatar
I bet it'll be called early for Romney tonight.
GhaleonEB
knows his net worth
(01-31-2012, 08:20 PM)
GhaleonEB's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jason's Ultimatum

I bet it'll be called early for Romney tonight.

Probably in the same sentence in which the polls are announced to be closed.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:25 PM)
A27_StarWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by GhaleonEB

Probably in the same sentence in which the polls are announced to be closed.

Wow he is that far ahead in the polls?
ToxicAdam
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:25 PM)
ToxicAdam's Avatar

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

The system in place absolutely does not take into account the level of damage done by trucks to roads. Not at all. And the bill doesnt address it either. Worse is that most states charge per axle...meaning trucks have an incentive to use as few as possible. But wait, that means the wight is distributed over less points, meaning greater force applied to the road! Doh. A 20 axle truck would be better for roads than a 3 axle.

If steel companies want to ship heavier loads, we've got these nice big trains for that.


If I'm not mistaken (if this proposal is similar to the one that floated through the senate last year) the truck would need a sixth axle to carry that heavier load.

Absolutely the system in place takes into account damage done by trucks to roads and bridges. Whenever there is a proposal to raises fees, taxes etc. it's one of the most cited reports to justify them. They even include the costs associated with of the trucks (they guess) are illegally shipping overweight loads. Also, whenever the DOT wants to expand employment/enforcement, they will often commision studies to justify it.

SETA would give each state the option to raise interstate weight limits selectively from 80,000 pounds to up to 97,000 pounds. The higher limit applies only to vehicles equipped with six axles instead of the typical five. The additional axle would not affect truck size, but would allow shippers to use extra cargo space.

http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/2..._weight_limit/


Rail is not an economical method of shipping when dealing with small quantities. Especially when some coils (of specialty steel) need to travel less than 100 miles to get additional work.
Last edited by ToxicAdam; 01-31-2012 at 08:40 PM.
PhoenixDark
(01-31-2012, 08:28 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar
I can't wait to see Romney attacking the health care law to Obama's face in debates, I just don't see how it will work. Either it'll be a double negative where neither candidate takes an advantage, or Obama wins out with the "republicans disagree with me even when they agree with me" narrative.

Every time Romney defends the MA law it sounds like he's defending Obama's law. Private insurance, exchange groups, a mandate to prevent people from free loading off emergency care...
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:42 PM)
Flying_Phoenix's Avatar
I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:



Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?
Miletius
Member
(01-31-2012, 08:47 PM)
Miletius's Avatar

Originally Posted by Flying_Phoenix

I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:

Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?

The skull on the table really makes the picture. Yes, I believe some religious people believe in the absolute immorality of drugs but I doubt they equate shooting up with sticking a needle in Jesus' arm.
Byakuya769
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:48 PM)
Byakuya769's Avatar

Originally Posted by Flying_Phoenix

I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:



Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?

Heroin is a pretty destructive habit.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
(01-31-2012, 08:50 PM)
Wolfgunblood Garopa's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

I can't wait to see Romney attacking the health care law to Obama's face in debates, I just don't see how it will work. Either it'll be a double negative where neither candidate takes an advantage, or Obama wins out with the "republicans disagree with me even when they agree with me" narrative.

Every time Romney defends the MA law it sounds like he's defending Obama's law. Private insurance, exchange groups, a mandate to prevent people from free loading off emergency care...

How amazing is this. One potential nominee is responsible for a state health care law that was used as the blueprint for the Federal one that Republicans have been driving the country crazy over as if Obama just lied us into a war in Iraq. The other is Newt Gingrich.

Just from that alone, there shouldn't even be an election this year. Republicans lose the right to even field a candidate, try again next time.
Last edited by Wolfgunblood Garopa; 01-31-2012 at 08:57 PM.
ToxicAdam
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:51 PM)
ToxicAdam's Avatar
Understanding large groups of people through individual Facebook/youtube comments.

I think we are breaking ground into a new social science here.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
(01-31-2012, 08:54 PM)
Flying_Phoenix's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

Understanding large groups of people through individual Facebook/youtube comments.

I think we are breaking ground into a new social science here.

Faceotology.

I admit that I just wanted to find an excuse to post it in here.
GhaleonEB
knows his net worth
(01-31-2012, 08:57 PM)
GhaleonEB's Avatar

Originally Posted by Flying_Phoenix

I don't really know where to put this. I doubt its thread worthy but I saw this on facebook and thought it was hilarious:



Is this how many of very religious Americans see drug use?

For the love of space jesus, please post the comments.
PhoenixDark
(01-31-2012, 08:57 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

Understanding large groups of people through individual Facebook/youtube comments.

I think we are breaking ground into a new social science here.

Sounds worthy of federal spending to further expand our understanding, thank you for suggesting this dude!
Miletius
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:00 PM)
Miletius's Avatar

Originally Posted by Flying_Phoenix

Faceotology.

I admit that I just wanted to find an excuse to post it in here.

That's one nice thing about the community forums -- it's more Wild Wild West, so you could probably get away with more Off-topic posts in general.

I just had some leftover pizza and now I'm going to the gym. This workout plan of mine is retarded.

I will be back just in time to check our Romney's victory speech and hopefully watch Rick Santorum drop out.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
(01-31-2012, 09:02 PM)
Flying_Phoenix's Avatar

Originally Posted by GhaleonEB

For the love of space jesus, please post the comments.

He posted it less than an hour ago so there aren't that many (at all). But here it is:



I'll post them later tonight when there are more comments.
Last edited by Flying_Phoenix; 01-31-2012 at 09:04 PM.
Diablos
(01-31-2012, 09:08 PM)
Diablos's Avatar


This is why Gingrich has to win the nomination, but he's probably not going to.

Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...
GhaleonEB
knows his net worth
(01-31-2012, 09:13 PM)
GhaleonEB's Avatar
Given the state of the economy, wouldn't Obama being tied in swing states at this point - before the general has even started - be a good thing? :p

Besides, aggregated 'swing state' polls are not especially useful, state breakouts are needed. General election polling in general won't solidify until the primary is over.

Thanks for the comments, Flying_Phoenix.
Matthew Gallant
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:16 PM)
Matthew Gallant's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...

Not really. Saying you'd vote for Romney over Obama and actually making the effort on election day are two different things. Romney will lose, because the large GOP voting bloc of evangelical Christians are not excited to vote for him. He's too moderate and too Mormon.
remist
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:17 PM)
remist's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

http://i.imgur.com/Pxgg3.gif

This is why Gingrich has to win the nomination, but he's probably not going to.

Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...

Wow at those Romney v. Obama Swing state voters. Is this new or have previous polls showed similar numbers? I see why the establishment is so desperate for Romney.
Allard
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:18 PM)

Originally Posted by Diablos



This is why Gingrich has to win the nomination, but he's probably not going to.

Romney is neck to neck with Obama among swing voters. This is bad news, especially so early...

No this is good news, especially so early. Lets put it this way, if the best Romney can do is be neck and neck with Obama when Obama has done little to nothing on campaigning, then he is in a good position.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(01-31-2012, 09:23 PM)
ClovingWestbrook's Avatar
Folks, its Diablos.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
(01-31-2012, 09:32 PM)
Plinko's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

I can't wait to see Romney attacking the health care law to Obama's face in debates, I just don't see how it will work. Either it'll be a double negative where neither candidate takes an advantage, or Obama wins out with the "republicans disagree with me even when they agree with me" narrative.

Every time Romney defends the MA law it sounds like he's defending Obama's law. Private insurance, exchange groups, a mandate to prevent people from free loading off emergency care...

I think it's simple: He won't attack the health care law.
Door2Dawn
Banned
(01-31-2012, 09:40 PM)
Door2Dawn's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plinko

I think it's simple: He won't attack the health care law.

He'll have to say something. This will be brought up in the debates.
Skiptastic
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:44 PM)
Skiptastic's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

I think the best defense for Newt is the one some tried to make for Dean in 2004. This election is going to be about the incumbent. It's not about the Republican ideology or any new way of governing, it's about what Obama has done and if you agree with that direction in the future.

So, you need to elect the person that can most effectively attack Obama and his record. That person is Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is not an effective person when he tries to attack his opponent and will not sway enough people to win the election.

Isn't a basic tenant of whether you want the incumbent out be that you're okay with the person replacing him? I agree your argument is Newt's best hope, but at the end of the day, I'm guessing the anti-Newt sentiment is enough for independents to ignore whatever anti-Obama sentiment is there. Just my thinking, though.
Crisco
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:57 PM)

Originally Posted by Plinko

I think it's simple: He won't attack the health care law.

He'll say what he's always said: he was solving a problem specific to Massachusetts as their governor, but that he never believed it was ideal for the entire country. It's horseshit, but it's what he'll say.
Matthew Gallant
Member
(01-31-2012, 09:57 PM)
Matthew Gallant's Avatar

Originally Posted by Skiptastic

Isn't a basic tenant

tenet.

Thread Tools