61–70 of 106 posts
There are quite a few redditors at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... Your tax dollars at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why on Earth would he go touch marijuana legalization with a 10-foot pole? He's not Ron Paul; he's actually trying to win the election. The average swing voter is a middle-aged mom, and you want him to talk about marijuana legalization? You can either be a frank politician who addresses all questions honestly, or you can be a politician who wins elections.
Because that's one of the promises he made during his first election campaign, and he broke it.
What a disappointing AMA. He answers stupid questions about his favorite basketball player and the white house beer recipe, but completely ignores the important ones about decriminalization of marijuana. Fuck him. I'm not voting for him. He's a mild and more sociable version of Romney.
I don't really see what you're getting at. Do you think the Whitehouse policy on drugs has changed since the last time they addressed legalizing marijuana [1]? If not, how is anyone served by hearing the same answer rehashed? [1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legalize-and-regul...
There are quite a few redditors at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... Your tax dollars at work.
This is a dismayingly flippant comment, and I'm particularly disappointed that you of all people should have made it. Would you be more relieved if our executive branch were entirely composed of people who are completely disengaged from the internet at a social level?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, he answered top voted questions at the time, all of which were generic questions that he's answered time and time again. What exactly would you expect? There weren't any different or insightful questions actually asked [and voted to the top where he'd see them]. I mean, I wonder how many times he's been asked "What was the most difficult decision that you had to make during this term?". Probably quite a lot. He…
>Okay, he answered top voted questions at the time Well, for example, he was asked if he'd consider raising the budget for NASA, his answer didn't directly respond or answer the question, just re-quote his campaign piece on the issue. He didn't answer if he'd consider raising the budget, he just gave some purposefully vague reply about the notion that "we should stay at the forefront of space exploration." >There wer…
Someone else's complaint is going to be, why is the POTUS wasting his time and our tax dollars with reddit?
Someone else's complaint is going to be that reddit's lucky POTUS gave them any of his time and that reddit was not appropriately prepared for the server load.
Etc.. Can't please everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fourth Turning", eh? Your Strauss and Howe is showing. Sadly, they are kooks and so are you. http://seekingalpha.com/article/167253-the-fourth-turning-sh... > Among quants there is a saying that goes “don’t torture the data until it talks”, which is another way of saying don’t over-fit the data. While Howe & Strauss’ analysis is very intriguing, I find many disturbing signs of data fitting that make me uncomfortable…
No, they are not "kooks", nor am I, and far from unintentionally making the reference I am pointing it out. It is a perfectly rational phenomenon that history depends on generational cycles. No, there is no magic claimed, or involved, and this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisi…
Then why isn't it taught in mainstream history courses?
> If generations are "arbitrary constructs" then I take it you do not think "boomer" means anything?
Not really, no. To begin with, you'll never find a full agreement on when that generation (or any other) begins and ends.
> this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisis" is pure, unfounded name-calling.
Actually, it's a place where you could rebut me with solid evidence that disproves my statement, if you actually had such evidence.
Instead, how about this: What predictions did Strauss and Howe make that have actually come true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's by far the least of the objections raised. 10 interesting, insightful answers that offered new information would have been fascinating. But we got 10 canned answers that told us nothing we already knew. That was the real problem here, although nobody should have been surprised.
"But we got 10 canned answers that told us nothing we already knew." What do you mean?
What a disappointing AMA. He answers stupid questions about his favorite basketball player and the white house beer recipe, but completely ignores the important ones about decriminalization of marijuana. Fuck him. I'm not voting for him. He's a mild and more sociable version of Romney.
"What a disappointing AMA. He answers stupid questions about his favorite basketball player and the white house beer recipe, but completely ignores the important ones about decriminalization of marijuana." This. Do not vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed http://mises.org/document/1092/Myth-of-National-Defense-The-...
Wonderful way to be lazy while pretending to take a moral stand: Claim they're all crooks, that you can't see any difference between them, and that you refuse to participate.
It's laziness mixed with condescension and moral outrage. Perfect!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "the internet has some pretty unsavory corners." Average voters actually use the internet and understand it. There's porn and stuff "out there", but most people don't run into it when they're visiting facebook, yahoo, espn.com, and other mainstream sites. The average voter isn't going to question the judgment of someone who "uses the internet" because it doesn't seem seedy to them. The average voter doesn't know wh…
I've recently been wondering why they don't move away from the 'default subreddits' model homepage and to a splash page: "Welcome to Reddit, a place where you can share links and talk about your favourite subjects. What are you interested in?", with a big search box, and a list of suggested subreddits that you can subscribe to. It gets users to create an account, and can allow for a friendlier experience for new peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they are not "kooks", nor am I, and far from unintentionally making the reference I am pointing it out. It is a perfectly rational phenomenon that history depends on generational cycles. No, there is no magic claimed, or involved, and this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisi…
> It is a perfectly rational phenomenon that history depends on generational cycles. Then why isn't it taught in mainstream history courses? > If generations are "arbitrary constructs" then I take it you do not think "boomer" means anything? Not really, no. To begin with, you'll never find a full agreement on when that generation (or any other) begins and ends. > this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meiste…
Perhaps because mainstream history teachers don't know everything? Perhaps because knowledge grows?
"a place where you could rebut me"? What are you talking about? "woo-meisters or just plain frauds" IS name-calling, refute that.
"What predictions did Strauss and Howe make that have actually come true?"
Well, how about I just refer you to the Amazon page, since you OBVIOUSLY haven't read their book?