I find it interesting that you capitalize that word. I might say I tend to hold liberal policy positions, but I wouldn't use Liberal in the manner you used Conservative. Little "c" conservative isn't a party, it's supposed to describe a general approach to policy, and historically was associated with Republicans and specific policy positions. They were for states' rights, balanced budget / reducing debt, personal property rights, fair trade, etc. The current Republican party has abandoned all of this, but its members still refer to themselves as "conservatives" somehow. Maybe that capitalization is what I had been missing - they're Conservatives now, not conservatives. They can define that proper noun form of the word in whatever way they want.

Traitor McCain
Should have been KIA not DOA.
Defending Obama is the least of Conservative gripes.

Before you all get pissy and go ape shit and try banning me , piss off. All entitled to opinion.

At least I'm fair and balanced I said about the same about Ted Kennedy passing.

Yeah, it's fair and balanced to say the sun rises in the east and the sun rises in the west.

If the two are opposites it's not fair and balanced. One is wrong and one is right (as in this case) or, perhaps, both are wrong.

Neither scenario is fair or balanced.

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.

@newtboy,
without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?

I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...

I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.

You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.

1) Yes, but that's much more easily said than done, and many people disagree too. I feel that it's far cheaper to pay to educate other people's children (I have none) and have them become far more productive citizens than it is to insist (despite all evidence to the contrary) that hard work overcomes all obstacles, and everyone is capable of doing the work required for success. This theory removes responsibility to help others and puts blame squarely on those who've failed. Convenient, but just wrong.

2) In a vacuum, that makes sense, but not in real life. The refusal to acknowledge the disparities in opportunity to prepare for that singular performance is where the racism lies.
It's actually illegal to use just race over performance merit in most places as I understand it. Ethnicity/gender are usually only one small part of the equation. If they could be replaced with a numerical opportunity score, used to modify performance scores,
I would support that, but good luck figuring that one out to anyone's satisfaction.

3) Yes, people always resent being forced from a position of power. I do think it's important to constantly revisit the issue to insure policy doesn't foster inequities, particularly since that's the point of the policies, eradicating inequities.

4) Predicting the naive would be suckered by a professional con man telling them platitudes, sure, but predicting so many of the educated would go along for short sighted, purely tribal reasoning, that's tougher.

5) Certain groups of people have been claiming white men are the downtrodden powerless whipping boys since the 60's. It's getting closer to true, but we aren't near there yet, it just seems that way to those less socially powerful than their fathers. Sure, there are outliers where the white male gets the shaft due to race, but we still come out well ahead in the balance by any objective set of criteria..

The basic action is, but not the mechanism.
My idea....think spiral channels inside the tube with the cog shown attached to a piston that rides in the spiral channels. As you turn it and force is transferred, it forces the piston forward because the spiral turns rotational force into linear force. With a spring, you apply an opposing linear force so the piston only moves when those forces are unbalanced. This spring could be tunable so you select where the balance point of those forces is, thus selecting the maximum force you could apply before it changes gears for you. When there's more force applied, it "lowers" the gear, when less it automatically goes up a gear. No electronics or battery required.

@Ickster
"That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is."

This is the fundamental point. I DON'T equate the two at all.

But as soon as we open this door, we have to deal with the permutations of it.

Let's say that for the sake of argument, gender identity and sexual orientation are now protected classes (legally, they're not, but let's assume they are).

Ok, you can't discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ. Great, that is obviously correct.

But we're making the argument here that you CAN discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation. Would you be ok with someone refusing service to Obama? Hillary? Bernie? What about an employer in a Republican town who finds out their employee is a prominent local democrat?

I get the argument and honestly, I agree with most of what you've said. If any of Trump's cronies had shown up in my (completely imaginary) restaurant, I'd probably have turfed them out with a lot less civility than SHS was shown.

But I'm just not sure that the world following my example is a good idea....

Until you've argued that black is white, the sun rises in the west, that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and are perfectly willing to fuck over most of the world for your own self-aggrandizement, you have come nowhere near to sinking to Trump's level.

SHS was politely asked to leave a restaurant because of her role as a willing and eager mouthpiece for policies that physically and emotionally have hurt (at a minimum) thousands of people. That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is.

People making the civility argument in good faith (i.e., not Fox talking heads) are making it because they actually have a moral compass and know that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, what was done to SHS isn't a wrong--no harm was done to her other than embarrassment, which is exactly what she should be feeling about her role in the world. When people are being terrible, whether it's a child, the president, or one of his enablers, they need to be told politely but firmly that it's not OK.

Think of this less as pouring gasoline on a fire and more like a controlled burn to help control the blaze.

Agreed and double thank you my friend. My day began learning of the demise of my newest favorite YT cat in a most horrific way. I'm still devastated and cry at the drop of a hat. This video has been the only thing to tip the balance slightly back toward center. So ... I needed a pick me up

"Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…"

okay

"(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces."

okay.

"(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media."

I mean, with reports of social media "shadow banning" conservative accounts (and other one sided controlling of content), it troubles me too.

"(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first."

True statement. Remember this: https://youtu.be/WhHAPsXhbR8

"(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control “exactly what people think” … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy."

aka opinion as fact. also bad.

"(B) At KOMO it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically “left nor right.” Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."

so, they pledge to do their job. okay.

"(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you."

when they screw up, we have a way to tell them. how is this bad?

"(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual. … We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day."

again, they pledge to do their job.

"(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback."


I don't see the big deal.

Hmmmm...I stand corrected and change my position.

You're correct, occupation is not a protected class, so I think the black bakery could legally refuse the police for being racist dicks.

If they want to be totally fair and balanced, they shouldn't refuse them, but I think the law allows it. The extreme of that 'slippery slope' ends with red and blue businesses (here in the US) and political affiliation identification required for service anywhere, so I don't recommend discriminating against customers for any non essential/personal reason....also, duh, money is money...dolla dolla bills yall!

The entire thing is bias, not factual, or at best misleading because of intentional omission of fact. I can't say what fact is false if there's no fact. Opinion about perceived/alleged bias isn't factual.
A lie by omission is a lie. The whole thing is that kind of lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/05/devin-nunes/nunes-memo-twists-james-comeys-words-steele-dossie/

The "unverified and salacious" (not wrong or debunked, mind you) part was personal accusations, you know, the golden showers with Russian hookers part, which was NOT used to get a warrant. He was clear that was not his opinion about the entire thing.

Yes, as I've told you at least twice now, I read it twice before commenting on it looking for anything in it and found nothing but biased whining. "Steele said bad things about Trump, so he's an untrustworthy liar" is hardly even an honest accusation, much less evidence he lied about anything, and farther from proof that this one piece in the puzzle of evidence against Trump's administration was key. One statement by one person taken out of context and misrepresented is not even an indication, much less proof that this was THE key bit of evidence, without which there was no case, but that's what this is all about. it was likely the most damning bit that tipped the scales from 'could just look bad' to 'this is something that needs investigation today'.
Recall, the continuing investigation already actually found criminal activity PROVEN, ADMITTED, AND CONVICTED.

As I've told you repeatedly, they (democrats , the fbi, and the DoD) tried to block it because 1) they wouldn't let the FBI screen it for secrets/classified information/pure lies and 2) republicans blocked (and continue to block) releasing the full story because it paints a completely different picture from the memo. Don't pretend to be so dumb you don't understand that.

Just keep saying bombshell, that will make it real...Jebus Christ.

I'm sure it is just the tip....of the ass fucking the Republicans are giving our democracy and system of checks and balances. What it's not is the tip of some insane conspiracy iceberg between liberals and top law enforcement.

Get your head out of your ass. No one is ever going after Obama or Clinton, as they committed no crimes, they've both been investigated with pure malice and bias for years and Republicans found nothing, this is just more nothing. It's almost funny you would even consider that, but it's actually sad you are that deluded you could keep thinking such nonsense after so many disappointments.

Really? A pure bias opinion piece from ' the hill' is your evidence? It was factless, logic free garbage that actually referenced Benghazi as one of Obama's prosecutable crimes, I'm dumber for having read it. You should feel shameful.

Clearly you don't recall that Obama's administration had zero convictions for misuse of power, zero indictments, how many has Trump's had already? 5? 6? 10? At least 4 high ranking members have been convicted or plead guilty already before year one or the first investigation is complete. Only Nixon's record was worse, and that only after he left office after Watergate.
Trump has by far the worst criminal conviction record for sitting administrations on record....by FAR!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees

Of course, there's a line.

If some dude patted my behind, I probably wouldn't take it as sexual.

It's about context. I am not generally in a situation where there is a power dynamic working against me.

If a mate jokingly patted my behind, I probably wouldn't care.
If my boss patted my behind, I'd certainly tell him that's not ok.

But if I felt it WAS creepy and especially if I felt whoever it was a) might do it again and b) was frequently in a position to do so to vulnerable people... yeah, I'd report it.

I wouldn't try to have them convicted of rape because that's not what they did.

I still want to know whose life is being "ruined" over "nothing".

Weinstein? Spacey? It's certainly not nothing and their lives are far from ruined. They're still incredibly wealthy people living (admittedly a little less now) comfortable lives. Are their reputations sullied? Yep, and deservedly so. They've certainly gotten off easier than their victims.

Aziz? Ok, that's a bit more nuanced.

First, is his life "ruined"? Eh, not really. His reputation has taken a hit, but plenty of people have actually come out in support of him.

Second, was what he did "nothing, or at most an innocent misunderstanding not corrected"? Well, it wasn't Weinstein-level harassment and it certainly wasn't rape. We can all agree on that. But was it "nothing"? Would you be ok with someone treating you like that? Do you really think what he did was acceptable behaviour?

He shouldn't go to jail for it, definitely. And there are far worse people out there... one of them is in the white house.

In all honesty, I think he's been unlucky to end up as the cautionary tale of how not to treat your date. Maybe "Grace" could have handled it better.

But on balance, if I have to choose between his actions and her actions, I think his are worse.