Null



TitanTiger

ADMIN
  • Content Count

    46,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

TitanTiger last won the day on June 17

TitanTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10,152 Sterling

About TitanTiger

  • Rank
    Secretary of Crowd Control

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Alabama
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,383 profile views
  1. From what I could tell, no one was on their property. They were on the sidewalk and in the street. Walking on the sidewalk and in the street does not give you a free pass to point a loaded gun at someone with your finger on the trigger. They should have stayed inside. Have the weapon ready if anyone comes up to the house and attempts to break in or anything. And I agree with Dub. One of those dipshits is going to end up shooting the other before any BLM protester does.
  2. A coworker got his results back in a week. He was negative. His dad had tested positive so he had to quarantine and get tested before coming back to work. Two weeks is insane, especially when you're already feeling bad.
  3. There is no entity called "The US Roman Catholic Church." There are lots of Catholic entities, and they applied for and got PPP so they could try to avoid laying people off. Just like other religions, non-profits, and businesses. Non-profits, religious or otherwise, are not only critical for vulnerable members of a community, those they employ spend money in a local economy. The point wasn't just to keep businesses open, it was to keep money flowing in the economy, prevent foreclosures, keep folks off unemployment, etc. And non-profit organizations do that just like for profit businesses do. The tweet tries to take a nuanced situation and oversimplify it in an extremely slanted fashion.
  4. The plan would tighten rules to ensure products purchased by the federal government are comprehensively made in the United States. The review would determine supply chain “vulnerabilities” to reduce dependence on China for — among other things — medical supplies, and create a more robust domestic “stockpile” and “manufacturing capacity” in crisis conditions. All this highlights Trump’s refusal to marshal federal power behind a testing-and-tracing regimen and the private-sector manufacturing of supplies. Shortages are again causing medical professionals to scramble amid new spikes in cases, and are still impairing capacity to do the testing needed to reopen safely. Industrial policy Biden is proposing what’s known as “industrial policy.” This employs government intervention to “reindustrialize” the United States in specific sectors to achieve deliberate national goals, such as supply preparedness for pandemics or greater manufacturing capacity to reduce dependence on imperiled global supply chains. Samuel Hammond, the director of welfare policy at the Niskanen Center, points out that Biden is filling the hole left by Trump’s abandonment of economic populism and his failures in areas where he has lurched in that direction, such as his ill-fated trade wars. “The Trumpian approach is purely negative: Throw tariffs up and hope manufacturing jobs will miraculously return,” Hammond told me. “Biden’s approach is to level up American workers and make our supply chains more resilient. Trump just wants to turn back the clock on globalization.” The Trumpist mythology In the mythological view of Trump’s 2016 victory, the Biden plan is just the sort of thing Trump would do. As Bannon suggested, Trump would break with the reigning GOP orthodoxy of Koch brothers-style libertarianism and “free” market fundamentalism. Trump would use government power to rebuild U.S. manufacturing jobs that “globalists” drained from the “forgotten” industrial heartland, and to protect the welfare state (particularly social insurance for the elderly) that Paul Ryan-type Republicans wanted to gut. The pandemic offered an opening to marshal federal power. But Trump punted on deploying the Defense Production Act: His main mobilization was to marshal his magical lying powers to make coronavirus disappear. More broadly, as president, Trump fully embraced GOP plutocracy with a massive corporate tax giveaway and an effort to gut health coverage for millions, which continues even amid pandemic conditions. “Democrats like Biden will always have the upper hand in economic policy, because they actually believe in the power of government,” Hammond told me. Of course, this also represents a new direction for Biden, who is associated with the more neoliberal and trade-friendly instincts of centrist Democrats. This plan makes real concessions to progressives who have long criticized those priorities. Indeed, a source tells me Biden advisers consulted with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and her team — who have their own “economic patriotism” blueprint — and deliberately incorporated their contributions. Yet the very fact that Biden is now moving to fill this space itself flips the script on Trump. It also should force a reckoning among those working to create an intellectual “conservative populist” underpinning for Trumpism. A reckoning for ‘conservative populism’ The basic take of those intellectuals is that working people are gravitating toward conservative populism because “liberal elites” (and some conservative ones) are all-in with globalization, neoliberal financialization of the economy and identity politics, and working people place higher value on “goods” like stability and community. Those elites supposedly disdain such values, and have abandoned class politics while ministering only to their new base of “knowledge” workers (the suburban, educated whites who are moving toward Democrats) who are plugged into the globalizing, digitalizing economy. As Jamelle Bouie notes, this narrative defines “working class” as “white working class.” It airbrushes away nonwhite working-class people who see battles for racial justice as central to the struggle for economic justice — who see racial and class struggle as linked. But in addition to that, these conservative populists should explain why neoliberal elitist Biden and many “identity politics” progressives embrace a far more robust agenda than Trump in using government power to rebuild the economic foundation of the industrial heartland that liberal elites have supposedly forsaken. As Hammond notes, some populist conservatives genuinely want government to invest in the working class, but a big chunk of the Trumpian right “sees populist rhetoric as a cover for a fundamentally plutocratic agenda of tax cuts and deregulation.” Meanwhile, how is it that Biden and many progressives are able to speak both to racial justice issues and to the need for rebuilding manufacturing capacity, if the former is supposed to represent a selling-out of working-class interests? Trump is supposed to be the ultimate paragon of conservative populism. Yet Biden is filling the vacuum left behind by the fraudulence at the core of that Trumpist vision. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/09/joe-biden-flips-script-trump/ Sounds really good if he'll follow through on it.
  5. The issue of children themselves dying isn't the only one. They can bring it home to their parents. Some live with grandparents in the home. I'm not saying we shouldn't have in person instruction with proper safety procedures in place (masks, distancing, temperature checks, etc). But we have to stop making incomplete statistical citations like this.
  6. Because it tries to say too much. The key part in the sentence is "at all." At best right now, it simply says there could be additional factors, such as some personal quarrel between them. But that doesn't preclude the racial aspects of it. The personal quarrel (if that's what it was) could also have a racial aspect to it. Plus, you have three other officers involved in this who do not have the work relationship with Floyd yet participated in this situation and didn't stop Chauvin or even attempt to stop him.
  7. It would help me to take this guy's dot-connecting a bit more seriously if he wasn't committing factual errors about Bubba Wallace's situation right out the gate. The fact is Bubba didn't discover the 'noose' or 'mistake' it as such as the writer above puts it. He wasn't even in the garage when it was found. To my knowledge he hadn't even been to the garage by that point. A person on his team saw it in Bubba's garage, then walked up and down the looking at the other garages to see if any of the others had a rope pull looking like that and noticed none of the other garages nearby had anything like it (not even a knot of any kind on the others - just straight ropes), took a photo and alerted NASCAR officials to it. After NASCAR looked into it they then notified Bubba Wallace and told him there would be an investigation. Whether Wilfred Reilly was similarly sloppy in his accounts of the other incidents he's comparing this one to, I can't say, but his recounting of the Wallace situation doesn't inspire confidence.
  8. Actually, those are good responses, even if I disagree with the underlying rationale for abortion in the first place. I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your rebuttal.
  9. Shooting the messenger doesn't address what she said. The parts I quoted above were particularly interesting to this case, especially the highlighted parts. Let's stick to either showing where her facts are wrong, or her logic as those facts pertain to this decision are wrong. Or alternatively, if she's right, then what are the implications of that?
  10. This is an interesting discussion on Roberts' decision to side with the liberals on the court in this case and some things that distinguished LA's law from the TX law that Roberts pointed to in his stare decisis argument. Some excerpts: Read the rest here
  11. Not even five years later and the first shot across the bow is here: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/massachusetts-city-recognizes-polyamorous-civil-partnerships-38000
  12. Lest ye think it's fake news, you can order the t-shirt directly from his site: https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/america-first-tee-1
  13. Nah. Let 'em say whatever they want. The crazies won't be protected by a closed primary that caters to each party's extreme wings.
  14. Honestly, I'd be down with this. Ditch the primary system and the party set up. Dump all the candidates into one big heap and let them go at it. Do an initial voting round and narrow the field using some threshold of minimum support to move on. If you have more than 2 left after that, do a runoff to decide the top two. Those two proceed to the general election in November.
  15. Maybe. But people are complicated and will surprise you.