kimmy

I really don't care. Your crew got their asses beaten-- resoundingly-- in large measure because young voters and single women rejected them. Going forward, you've got two options. You can hope that those groups decide not to vote on election night-- as was often the case in the past-- or you can come up with some way of explaining how conservative and Conservative policies will help those groups. So sure, be petty, be butt-hurt, if you wish... but don't be betting the farm that young voters and single women aren't going to bother voting next election. For reasons that I won't bother going into, I'm on on mailing lists for the College Republican National Committee and the Young Republicans. The College Republicans are always sending out these fundraising letters that all start the same way: "did you know that if the voting age was 30, Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 Presidential election? We need to get our message to young voters! Donate today to help us reach out!" And if I donate I can get some Reagan socks. What message is it that they actually have for young voters? They never actually say what it is they're so excited to tell young voters. After the 2012 election dust had settled, they were doing the autopsy on the Republican corpse and it became apparent how badly they had been whipped among young voters. So Bill O'Reilly brought a young lady from the Young Republicans on his show to explain why Republicans had failed so spectacularly among young voters. She talked about things like how the Republican stance on gay rights is extremely unpopular among young voters, and how young voters felt that the Republicans didn't have any answer to astronomical tuition fees. And Bill would have none of it. He berated her. "You want Republicans to change to appeal to you? Why don't you just call yourself a Democrat? These aren't Republican values!" Well, he asked why the Republicans failed with young voters. He didn't like the answers he got. He didn't actually want to know why Republicans didn't connect with young voters. He wanted to know how to make young voters vote Republican. It's two different questions. I get kind of the same feeling from this thread. It seems like the Conservative supporters here are less interested in actually choosing a direction that more people will embrace, and more interested in figuring out how to con people into buying in to the same-old-same-old. -k

I'm a Google Music subscriber. Sometimes they recommend stuff for me based on stuff I like. A couple that recently turned up in my recommendations that I quite liked: Raven-Eye - Hey Hey Yeah ... Not quite sure what grabbed me about this... I guess it's just very rhythmic, propulsive knocking-stuff-over rock. Greenleaf - Highway Officer. This is a Swedish "stoner rock" band. I really liked the instruments in this song. You can hear Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden influences in the guitar and bass sound, and the organ adds just a touch of Deep Purple to it too. The instrumental play-out starting at around 2:30 is really great. -k

So despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, it's fiction invented by the media to appeal to gullible people? Boring or not, I want to hear positions on these issues. "A good economy" is a matter of opinion. Case in point: the Temporary Foreign Worker program. It was GREAT for franchise operators!! But pretty much a disaster for people in the service industry. So who do you side with? The Restaurants Canada lobby group, or people whose wages are being undercut by Filipino workers being brought in and stacked 12-deep in 2-bedroom apartments? I gather the Liberals invented the program, so they're not blameless, but it really blew up under the Conservatives, where "cutting red tape" meant you could get your Filipinos without any sort of labor market assessment. Jason Kenney belatedly stepped in and implemented some limits, after the issue blew up in the media. So what does a "strong economy" mean to you, Argus? Happy franchise operators? Because if that's the case, the working poor-- the people whose bottom line gets gutted by the foreign workers-- end up poorer. "A strong economy" doesn't necessarily mean the poor become less poor. It could mean just the opposite. Does "a strong economy" mean that a Canadian company like Royal Bank can improve its bottom line by offshoring more jobs? Again, that might be great for Royal Bank shareholders, but not great for working Canadians. Mitt Romney said in 2012 that "a rising tide raises all boats", but that's not really true. The kind of "rising tide" that the Romnoid America envisioned would have turned a lot of boats into submarines. -k

To me, campaign issues like the Niqab and the Barbaric Practices Hotline were exactly that: a desperate attempt to energize the Vapid Idiot segment of the electorate. -k

Like I said: Go ahead, insult away if you wish. But it's not going to convince any of the people who rejected the Conservatives last election to change their mind next time around. Do you really think acting like a bunch of crybabies is going to make your party more attractive to millenial voters and women? -k

I'm with Smallc here. I've voted Conservative in the past, and considered it in October, but if "people who don't support us are stupid" is all you guys have to bring to the table, it's going to be a long time before I'll consider voting CPC again. Keep insulting people who didn't vote CPC if you wish, but it's not going to help you win the next election. Quite the opposite. It makes the CPC and its supporters look like a bunch of butt-hurt children sulking. -k

Maybe they have to wait for winter before they march south? -k

Peoples' rights and freedoms should not be subject to the prevailing preferences of a majority. As you've written a number of times about the danger of pandering to mass hysteria regarding certain types of crimes, I'd have expected you to grasp that better than most. -k

I was thinking it would be very GoT-ish if things worked out to a happy ending in King's Landing-- a fair new King, a more just society, Mountain slain, Cersei banished or executed, and so on... just in time for all of it to be crushed under Dany's heel as she arrives to Bring Freedom ™ to Westeros. Soooo... Margaery, is she brainwashed by the Sparrow, or is it an act? This might be a huge power move that makes Margaery the real power in King's Landing. It gives her a way to get Cersei, Jaime, and the other Lannisters out of Tommen's life. She knows she can wrap Tommen around her finger. It gives her powerful allies, provided she maintains a good relationship with the Sparrow. She might have just pulled off one of the best stratagems we've ever seen on this show. -k

oooh! Good point! I didn't pick up on the significance of that. She can go Daredevil style on that punk-ass little snitch! Well, that's a good point too. The waif can't really be "no one" if she still harbors feelings like that, can she? However, I can't see Arya staying with the Faceless Men... if she has to leave behind all the Stark drama to become a Faceless Man, she doesn't really have a role on the show anymore, does she? If she truly becomes No One, then she has no further need of that list of hers. -k

I looked over a few recaps today, and one of them thought that the casual mention of the Brothers Without Banners in the Frey scene might be a hint that we could actually see the Lady Stoneheart angle on TV after all. I'm not sure if that's good or not-so-good. Book-readers seemed very disappointed that it was left out of the show in season 4, but to me it didn't sound that great. Plus, we already have Zombie Mountain, Zombie Dondarrion, and Zombie Jon Snow running around Westeros. Add in Zombie Cat Stark and it'll start seeming more like iZombie than Game of Thrones. Resurrections seem a lot less miraculous if everybody's doing it. Another recap I read made note of the parallels between the play Arya was watching and the dilemma she faced. Watching Lady Crane portray a mother's grief after King Joff gets poisoned brings home to Arya the significance of what she's about to do. It was also mentioned that when Arya points at Fake Sansa and tells Fake Cersei "Watch out for that one, she wants you dead!" the same could be said of Real Sansa and Real Cersei. I wonder if Real Sansa will ever have the chance to give Real Cersei what she has coming... or if somebody else will do it first? A third recap mentioned that deciding to do the "right" thing instead of the "smart" thing might be Arya's fatal mistake, as with her father and brother. Maybe welching on her agreement with the Faceless Men just gets her killed. What if she duels the waif ... and gets killed? After spending this long with Arya's story, I can't see it ending like that... but how Game Of Thronesish would it be if that's what happened? -k

I was writing my post as you were writing yours! I was thinking the exact same thing. House Frey and House Bolton both got promoted via their agreement with King Joffrey in exchange for their help in ending Robb Stark's rebellion. King's Landing owes them bigtime favors, and they appear to be calling in that debt. On the surface it looks like House Lannister, House Frey, House Bolton, and Northern Traitors vs House Stark, House Tully, and Northern Loyalists. And of course we still don't know how Littlefinger and The Vale will play into it, and I'm not 100% sure that Jaime will be all that excited about helping Walder and Ramsay. Jaime's heart clearly isn't in this, and he and Brienne had a unique bond that I can't help but think might change his mind. It was Not Too Subtle how Lord Tarley casually mentioned that it was a Valyrian Steel ™ sword. They could have put flashing neon arrows above it and sign above it that said "QUEST OBJECT". -k

The final scene got me all riled up. It made me want to grab my sickle and mount up too! Our girl Dany sure knows how to work a crowd. Finally! The long-awaited return of Walder Frey! uh, I mean, Finally! The long-awaited return of Benjen Stark! So ... he's apparently a ... half-white-walker, half-human hybrid with a flaming morning-star and a direct hotline to the Three Eyed Raven? Not much take-away from the Sam and Gilly subplot other than that Sam now has his very own Valyrian steel sword. Characters with Valyrian steel swords now include Sam, Jon, Brienne, and possibly Tommen (assuming he got Joffrey's sword when Joffrey died.) The Tarley estated looked pretty swank; House Tarley must be pretty loaded. Speaking of loaded, House Tyrell marches into the capital and ... gets pwned by the Sparrow. That old dude is just too crafty. At least they got Margie out of jail. With Tommen and Margie clearly not on board with military action against the Faith... does that mean the Tyrell troops just march back to Highgarden? Jaime has been kicked out of the Kings Guard and is being sent north to help Walder Frey recapture Riverrun from the Tully insurgency. And other houses are rising up against Frey as well. Jaime got captured trying to seige Riverrun once already. I can't help think he should just head west instead. Go back home and be the Lord of Casterly Rock, meet a nice girl and have some kids, bring Cersei back home when her trial by combat has been won by the Mountain. Wouldn't that make too much sense? I wonder if the purpose of his trip north is a reunion with Brienne. And Arya has decided she doesn't want to be "no one" after all. She wants to be Arya, she's reclaimed Needle, and presumably she is going to head west and start crossing some names off her list. It looks like she will have to survive "the waif". If she does, will the Faceless Men just let her go? -k

Making Warren his VP pick could go a long way towards winning over the Bernie Bros and Bernadettes and restoring party unity. -k

The heat death of the universe is a long way off. I wouldn't worry too much about it. -k

Betsy's claim is that it was written using knowledge received direct from God himself. Viewed from that perspective, the idea that the earth and the lands and seas and plants and animals came along before the sun and the stars is a major screw-up. -k

The Freys may not ever find out what really happened to Roose's wife. They may believe she was assassinated by the same Stark loyalists Ramsay claimed assassinated Roose. Stark loyalists would bear a grudge towards the Freys, after all. The other problem is, I can't see the Tully and Frey houses uniting for any cause, ever. There's as much Tully blood on Walders' hands as Stark blood. I anticipate Arya will give Walder the Meryn Trant treatment before the end of the series, unless Blackfish gets to Walder first. Withered old creep is going to get it. -k

None of this invalidates the "watchmaker" concept. However, that's not what Betsy is arguing in this thread. Reread her opening post if you're unclear on that point. What she's arguing is that science has proven the Bible to be scientifically accurate. I have nothing at all to say about the premise of a watchmaker, in general. But the premise that's being proposed by Betsy is a load. -k

As I pointed out earlier, it doesn't say the land was "created" at the later point, it says that it was exposed when God moved the waters together to form oceans. Taken at face value, it seems apparent that the first thing God created was a water-covered planet with no air. Air came later (when God took some of the water and put it above the roof!) and land shortly after (when God took the water that was beneath the firmament and pushed it together to form oceans.) -k

Betsy started this thread off claiming that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, practically authored by God himself, and that science corroborates that fact. Given such bold claims, falling back to using "oh, this part's allegorical" and "that part isn't meant to be taken literally" and "if you think about it creatively it kind of makes sense..." seems like serious backtracking. I already pointed out a swath of stuff right from the first page that's not possible to reconcile with any scientific account of the creation of the universe, so I think Betsy's claim is already pretty much DOA. -k

Just a quick note: Betsy is not ducking questions. She has received a short vacation for a rules violation, but when her suspension is up I am sure that she will be back ready to take on all comers! -k

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. So in line 1 clearly we've got "the earth", in some vague description, existing before "the light". In line 2 we've got "the waters" also clearly existing before "the light". "The light" arrives in line 3. Since the sun and stars won't be created for 11 more lines, we can only imagine what the source of this light may be. In lines 4 and 5 we've got day and night being created before the sun or stars. In lines 6 and 7 God creates the sky, which holds some water "up". Still no sun or stars at this point. Line 8, we have morning, although clearly a morning without a sunrise. In lines 9-10 dry land arrives for the first time. It says God made dry land appear by moving the water away, so it seems the land was there already, but submerged. In lines 11-12 God creates plants! Trees bearing fruit! Herbs bearing seed! Grass! It's gotta be 4:20 somewhere! In lines 14-16, God gets around to creating the sun and moon! Which is lucky, because now the plants he created can photosynthesize! Now, while I am neither a geologist nor a cosmologist, I am pretty sure that none of this bears even a faint resemblance to the actual order in which these things arrived, and I don't think even the most creative interpretation of those verses can spin it into something that jives with the information we have. -k