Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Hmm... yeah, you're right.  There is "Condi," though.

Dunno, gotta think more and talk less out of my ass.

[Reelyanoob]

Generally I think they get media nicknames based on what's most easily recognizable / differentiable

E.g.

Rush Limbaugh => "Rush"
Glenn Beck => "Beck"
Condoleeza Rice => Condi (because "Rice" is just to ambiguous)

[G-Flex]

Hmm... yeah, you're right.  There is "Condi," though.

Dunno, gotta think more and talk less out of my ass.

Might this be because her first name is unusual? I know that happens in other domains (see: "Elvis").

I wouldn't be surprised if what you're saying is statistically true, but I'd need to see more evidence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Condoleeza Rice => Condi (because "Rice" is just too ambiguous delicious.)

FTFY. You can't be reminding people of delicious, delicious rice when you're talking politics. It might cause association bias.


God I wish I had some rice right now.

[GlyphGryph]

Unless her first name was something REALLY mundane. Rice is sort of middling as a name, really. Not nearly as good as Condi, especially since there are other Rice's active in the government, but not common enough or with notable enough competition it couldn't stand on its own.

[olemars]

I still can't believe he has a fucking Nobel prize.

What did he get that for again?

The generally accepted explanation is that the then freshly appointed Nobel committee chairman just wanted to have his picture taken shaking the hand of a president. The reaction at the announcement was a mixture of stunned silence and facepalming, and now everyone is trying to pretend it never happened. It was technically justifiable but still a cringeworthy decision.

At least they came to their senses the year after and gave it to someone controversial yet deserving, although the Chinese government has pretty much disappeared the recipient.

[G-Flex]

Barack Obama himself seemed pretty surprised that he got it. You could tell he didn't even think he deserved it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Then he should have said so.

[G-Flex]

He basically did.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html

Read the second and third paragraphs, especially.

[Leafsnail]

I don't see the Pharyngyla post as sexist - it seemed to just be drawing a humorous comparison between an animal he'd been talking about and a rather unfortunate picture of Bachmann.  There obviously is a sexist way to spin that picture, but he didn't seem to be pushing it that way.

[Starver]

...some of my family members thought he was the third "second coming"( For those Atheists out there its the re-ressurectionn/reincarnation of Jesus).

Just a note that someone might well identify themselves with atheism (capital 'A' or not), but there's a good chance they understand perfectly the phrase "second coming".  Ditto for all those in non-Christian religions but living in sufficiently 'western' society (and others).  Like I'm more a cricket person (actually, not my favourite sport, but YGTI) than baseball, but perfectly understand what a home-run is.

(Some might have actually seen so many second-comings being alleged that they've lost count of what number we should be up to by now if all of them are true...)

Anyway, just a point of note.  Apologies if you were being scathingly sarcastic or making some other point and I didn't read it correctly.

edited to correct a bad grammatical switch, mid-sentence, and tidy up some other bits

[counting]

...some of my family members thought he was the third "second coming"( For those Atheists out there its the re-ressurectionn/reincarnation of Jesus).

Just a note that someone might well identify themselves with atheism (capital 'A' or not), but there's a good chance they understand perfectly the phrase "second coming".  Ditto for all those in non-Christian religions but living in sufficiently 'western' society (and others).  Like I'm more a cricket person (actually, not my favourite sport, but YGTI) than baseball, but perfectly understand what a home-run is.

(Some might have actually seen so many second-comings being alleged that they've lost count of what number we should be up to by now if all of them are true...)

Anyway, just a point of note.  Apologies if you were being scathingly sarcastic or making some other point and I didn't read it correctly.

edited to correct a bad grammatical switch, mid-sentence, and tidy up some other bits

So who is supposed to be the Antichrist then?

And from personal knowledge, since I am nor westerner, neither in christian believe, I am safe to say that a lot of people around me DO NOT know about what second coming is. At least for those who don't speak English(or other foreign western languages) very well, they probably never even understand what Christianity should be. (A lot DO lost in translation).

[G-Flex]

(A lot DO lost in translation).

You (and a lot of Christians and other non-Christians) would be surprised how true this is of Christianity itself.

[mainiac]

As far as spending money on superficiality - anyone remember the botox thing from a couple cycles ago?

What possible issue could a third party have that would help these issues and that doesn't already have a place on our two party axis?  Legalize drugs?  Left wing democrat.  Stop immigration?  Right wing republican  Stimulate the economy?  Left wing democrat.  Cut federal spending?  Right wing republican?  Some sort of 'moderate'?  Obama and maybe Huntsman fit that bill for ya.

First of all, neither party supports any actual drug legalization. That's certainly one of them. Individuals in the party (on both sides) may, sure! But neither party supports it as part of their platform.

But the left wing of the party does.  If you actually had a majority of the votes that it would take to get your idea, then you would be able to make that wing become the mainstream of the party.  Furthermore, this actually works in practice.  The left wing in California has continued to push the envelope on drug legalization, getting medical marijuana passed and getting a referendum on legalization.  So saying it doesn't work is just wrong.

As for getting individuals.  Ever heard of a primary?  They do exist you know.  If you aren't willing to put in the work to play the game, then how the hell are you going to build an entire organization from scratch?  That's just crippling yourself from the start.

[G-Flex]

But the left wing of the party does.  If you actually had a majority of the votes that it would take to get your idea, then you would be able to make that wing become the mainstream of the party.

For what it's worth, the more libertarian wing of the Republican party would support at least some drug legalization as well, probably.