Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
Those episodes of Extra Credits were indeed quite awesome, and underscore the issue that people see in the Call Of Duty/Battlefield franchises.
As for Gitmo, there's another big reason - Not in My Backyard!. If you think prisons make living locations bad now, imagine the outcry if a suspected and/or known terrorist gets locked up in one. And if you can't imagine it, here's The Daily Show on the topic
. And bonus points to Rep. Steve King for taking the Slippery Slope Fallacy to a new extreme by positing that Kalidh Shikh Mohammed might get Off on a Technicality, apply for asylum in the US, and be granted it.
edited 15th Dec '14 8:30:25 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Resident Bollywood Nerd
![]()
And admit to themselves and everyone else that every US citizen is theoretically subject to torture at the will of the government? It'd be honest, and honesty is a tough virtue. I don't see a lot of it in Republicans.
Also, what technicality? If there is no proof except for repugnant speech, he has no right to enter the country (hell, I know the kind of torture it takes to get a student visa for the US), but the US also has no right to imprison him. Also, asylum candidates must be processed quickly? And their applications must be granted? Because given what kind of pricks (excusez mon francais) are in the visa department for students, I don't think their asylum listing is particularly more efficient and more understanding.
Heaven forbid male lawmakers decide to be sensitive about their ogling their coworkers or something.
I can understand just not allowing casual wear on the whole — I don't like it, but that's the employer's discretion. But they shouldn't have to go into too many specifics.
edited 15th Dec '14 11:53:57 AM by Pykrete
North Carolina mother believes her son's alleged suicide by hanging was a lynching.
He was dating a 31 year old white woman at the time,the age of consent in North Carolina being 16. The community and and even his mother,though in her case it was due to the age difference, disapproved. It seems like their would be a motive. Also it doesn't help that a week after he was buried a local teen was arrested for defacing his grave.
edited 15th Dec '14 12:14:09 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.If we want true equality, then if women can wear low-cut tops and skirts at work, men should be allowed to wear shorts and t-shirts. That said, so many of these laws do seem to consist of men (always men, note!) deciding how much of a woman is allowed to be visible before they just can't help themselves from staring.
edited 15th Dec '14 12:13:10 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I worked in an office once where the management was so worried about offending women that they didn't actually have a dress code for women. Men had to wear a suit and tie, but the woman who was nominally my boss (temp situation) wore jeans and a t-shirt all the time. After complaints (because that is a big double standard) they settled on "Everyone has a choice of wearing a suit and tie or a dress skirt."
Yeah. "Hey guys, you have a thing, it's called a neck. You are fully capable of looking away." Personally, I don't think jeans and a t-shirt are appropriate for a corporate office, but I could do without the tie.
edited 15th Dec '14 12:20:52 PM by Zendervai
NASA, to the surprise of NASA
, got a budget increase in the of the C Romnibus.
edited 15th Dec '14 12:31:19 PM by Parable
It would be a much simpler issue if they just didn't make formal officewear with low cuts or high skirts. Instinctively that does seem to go against the point of formal office dress code for exactly the reason shorts would. I mean, making your shorts out of ruffled black French terry with pocket squares or whatever the fuck doesn't make it office-formal either. Hilarious, maybe, but not office-formal.
The perils of avoiding double standards of your own when already dealing with wider pre-existing double standards. I suppose things would also have been much easier if the pioneers of office fashion didn't spend so much time ogling their secretaries.
edited 15th Dec '14 12:41:39 PM by Pykrete
I could wear a V-neck shirt, letting everyone see the glory of my chest hair, but I won't, for reasons beyond simply getting sent home to change.
Seriously, though, this conversation belongs in the various gender issues threads. The only reason it was brought up here was because of relevant legislation.
edited 15th Dec '14 1:39:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Honestly, with that particular bit of legislation, it makes me think of a 4-panel comic I've got saved somewhere. Guy glances down at his co-worker's cleavage and earns a disapproving glare - next day, he comes in sporting his own (down south) and glares back.
And while I don't quite get why office clothes are cut in such a manner, I also don't have breasts, so there may be legitimate issues with wearing shirts that go all the way to the neck for some women.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"AFAIK, the state isn't supposed to mandate dress codes for state office jobs unless it's a bona fide occupational requirement. So the House's dress code probably wouldn't hold up in court if anyone cared to challenge it. I can go to the legislature wearing nothing but a bikini and a cowboy hat if I want!
Insofar as pulling someone over for a broken taillight, I agree with the decision. That is something that varies across the country, and regardless of whether it's illegal, it's still hazardous. So that would be a reasonable good-faith cause to pull someone over. And as it's such a legal mess across state lines, it's also a good reason not to ticket them for it.
(Many states will also have the ability to issue fix-it tickets, which are dismissed once the issue is fixed.)
What I want to know is, what "reasonable" grounds were there to search the car?
edited 15th Dec '14 5:06:41 PM by Pykrete

If congress really doesn't want to close Gitmo, then they should just all agree to create a constitutional amendment saying that Gitmo is constitutional.