roscoe

That's funny. I'm watching it for the first time in a long while right now. I wanted to watch Less Than Zero but I can't find it anywhere.

Gammonsayswhat?

It's not hard at all. But due to the fact that stealing other people's words and aggressively mispronouncing them seems to be the official British pastime, I don't give a fuck how you pronounce it. I'll pronounce it how it's spelled, or any other way I damn well please.

There are more of us than there are of you. It's our language now, you're an anachronism.

A "yes" vote means no slavery. See my comment in reply to lanik2000.

I think you're misunderstanding them.

A "yes" vote means no slavery. This was a prop to make forced prison labor illegal. Our voter guides contain arguments for and against propositions and rebuttals to those arguments, usually. No group even bothered to make an argument against the prop or a rebuttal to the argument for. They're also saying, in general not just this prop, if no one can even be bothered to make an argument for one side, they'll probably go with the only side that did make one. In this case that would be no slavery.

This was weird. There are always arguments both ways unless it's just some editorial change to some law that for whatever reason has to go before the voters. This was totally non-controversial, or at least it seemed that way. I don't understand how it didn't pass.

I've only heard that applied to foreign diplomats. Because the parents have diplomatic immunity, they and their children aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

I've already heard "it was the war and Holocaust that were bad, not necessarily the fascism."

Scotch

Keep fighting the good fight against the unnecessary \s. I appreciate you.

As I understand it, that's some Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson shit.

Back in the 70s liberal/liberalism meant pretty much the same thing in the U.S. as elsewhere. Nixon even called his reelection something along the lines of "a victory for western liberal democracy." Part of liberalism is a focus on rights of the individual, including civil rights. Civil rights and many other liberation movements of the era used the language of that aspect of liberalism.

Enter a bunch of religious assholes of the time. They loved all the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, right to private property, greed, etc. of individual rights but had a big problem with women wearing pants and expecting to be able to go to work without being sexually assaulted, gay people existing openly and breathing, and probably the civil rights movement too but it was going out of style to be open about that. They started using liberal/liberalism in a denigrating way to describe feminists, LGBT people, and any other group that got their puritanical knickers in a twist.

After a couple decades the terms were completely divorced from their original political theory definitions which would, I think, have Republicans considered more liberal than Democrats. But I suppose that could depend on which aspects of liberalism you give more weight to.

I've heard a lot of that, I've also heard that pollsters have overcorrected because of those misses and are now overstating Trump's numbers.

I have no idea which is right. And I wouldn't know where to start. How do you separate reasoned analysis from people saying smart sounding things with lots of numbers because they're either scared what they're proposing is true, or because they hope it is?

I remember my parents civilly disagreeing about H.W. vs. Dukakis, and later H.W. vs. Clinton. There was never a problem there, just a civil discussion and a difference of opinion. But if either of them was a MAGAt, I think they would be spending their last decade or two apart, and they'd be better off that way too. Shit has been on a while different level the last 10 years, at least.