Would it have been okay in Politics Unchained? Could it have been moved there? I did kind of want a serious discussion on what's happened in the past month.

Thanks for answering my question btw. I don't want to step on any toes.

Dude in Georgia is to be executed tonight. This is the first execution since Oklahoma's pathetically botched execution in April. Georgia, like Oklahoma, refuses to disclose details about the mystery cocktail of who-knows-what that will be pumped into this guy.

"In 2013, Georgia’s governor signed into law a bill that classified all information about people or entities who manufactured, supplied and compounded drugs as a “confidential state secret” that could not be disclosed even under judicial process."

Disgraceful.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashr...uesday-evening

Emergency appeal filed is the latest news.

If you want to discuss bad presidents and your bottom 3 are Bush, Carter, and Obama while ignoring a solid century or so of history that's jam packed with some terrible guys, you're going to have a bad time.

Serious discussions are tough to have when you kick off with clearly hyperbolic language, it encourages flippancy and trolling. I don't mod politics unchained but I assume it would've been ok over there.

Fair enough.

I was really more interested in discussing Obama's legacy and how his policies have led to the terrible news we've heard this past month.

Considering the seriousness of other posts in the forum by certain posters, for example Fly and Ikes, I really didn't think my post was anywhere out of line. But my bad.

Not trying to argue with you guys, but it's not like I just went on a crazy drunken rant. I did post links supporting all the facts that I stated. From mainstream news sources I might add.

For the record OPs are generally judged more strictly than posts in a thread (at least by me).

RC: You're probably going to get less rope than regulars as a new guy.

In fairness to TD, I didn't see your OP; it may have been terrible.

Ok. I appreciate you answering my questions Tomdemaine, will try to make OPs better.

Are we talking about the poll about whether Obama, 43, or Carter is the worst President of all time because of like, the VA waiting list thing and also the failure to do world peace?

That was a silly and hyperbolic OP but I think it should be allowed to remain as like, a monument to TIWRWAB

What the **** are you on? I have tons of facts. Dvaut has a resume that literally thousands of people have, coupled with 'influence' that was used for something.... but no one seems to know or want to say what.

So again, if HRC wielded sick influence bro, what the hell did she use it for?

RowCoach doing a really good early seattlelou imitation it seems

I like his civility and tone. With time, his subtle trolling can perhaps surpass the most seattle of lous.

RC: If you're ever in a jam, just add that you're just asking questions. Plausible deniability and all.

Holy ****, some dude literally tried to find out how many five year olds.

https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/06/1...-beat-instead/

Cliffnotes: lol not many

Btw, let's please not ever move ****ty threads to unchained. We already have a problem with dip**** mods moving OOT threads here, let's not give them any excuse to think there is an official dump for their garbage.

Go for it in unchained row coach. Watch out! There is a mob of hecklers on the loose.

So no, then. You didn't watch last night.

You can only really stand back and admire the chutzpah

Didn't Georgia kill a man for a crime another man admitted to? Troy Davis, I think.

Probably the Fifth Estate, this ****'s stranger than fiction.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/201...rob-ford-story

Troy Davis was only probably innocent. Texas killed Cameron Todd Willingham because his house accidentally burned down with his kids inside, though. Anyway, the point is

Small Sample size.

If you go through every episode of the daily show in the last month and compare it to the main story of the nightly newscasts of the three major networks, you'll see the bias I'm talking about. For a whole two weeks, it was like they were purposely going out of their way to avoid the day's biggest story. And even when they do go after democrats, it's usually short and done reluctantly, as if it pains them to do so. Like a parent disappointed with their child. When he goes after Republicans it's with enthusiasm and joy.

I agree that HRC got a big advantage from having a President as her husband, but how does that mean she's "not a good politician"? It's not mutually exclusive that she could be a good politician and still assisted a lot. Is there some kind of apples-to-apples comparison we can make with other, supposedly "good" politicians, to control for the effect of having a President for a husband?

Like even Bill himself didn't rise to the Presidency out of sheer merit, he was helped immensely by the fact that GHWB's high approvals scared away all the top tier Democrats, but fell a lot by the time of the election. If Saddam Hussein woke up in a different mood one day and decided not to invade Kuwait, Mario Cuomo would quite probably be the Democratic nominee and then President, while Bill Clinton would be a footnote in history as the guy who made a widely heckled speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention.
The point being: if you can discount factors like who you're married to, why not all the other factors, like run-good?

you watch an awful lot of the daily show