Let's kick it off with what is obviously the most compelling issue of this entire campaign, shall we?
QuoteObama facing mounting questions over 'you didn't build that' remark
CHARLOTTE — After being pummeled for days at the Republican National Convention for his remark that business owners "didn't build that," President Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina this week facing mounting questions about how he will respond to charges that he is hostile to free enterprise.
On Sunday, senior Obama advisers suggested that they will not address the anti-business allegations directly but will instead try to turn the tables on their GOP rivals by accusing them of being dishonest about what Obama meant. David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said in an interview Sunday on ABC News that Republican Mitt Romney's campaign is engaged in a broader pattern of dishonesty and is "built on a tripod of lies." Plouffe cited accusations that Obama has gutted the work requirement for welfare and "raided" Medicare to pay for the nation's new health-care law as other examples of untruths coming from the GOP.
The Obama team thinks that it has effectively dealt with the "build that" attacks and that the issue is overblown — the "drill, baby, drill" of 2012, a rallying cry for the right but ultimately one with limited appeal in the broader electorate.
Nevertheless, there are signs that they see a vulnerability. Obama has not repeated the words that sparked the controversy, and he has toned down the broader argument — that government help is essential to business success — in the six weeks since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing. His speeches have been shorter, with fewer references to wealthy Americans. He is more cautious about portraying the choice that he quite forcefully described that night between Romney's worldview and his own.
Adviser David Axelrod, traveling with the president in Colorado on Sunday, said the public will come away from the convention "with a very clear sense" of Obama's values, including his faith in private enterprise.
"It's striking to me how enamored they are with that theme and how ineffectual it's been," Axelrod said. "You look at the polling and they've spent millions and millions of dollars on it and it may thrill their base. But it hasn't expanded their base because people understand that the view they're imputing to the president isn't his view. I don't feel like we have to respond to their dry holes." Obama campaign advisers say internal polling shows that the GOP attacks have not shifted public opinion.
The "build that" accusations reached a fever pitch last week at the Republican convention.
Obama made the comment in July in Roanoke, saying: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part — "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" — prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context. That's Obama's argument, too; his advisers cite numerous speeches with similar language about the important role government plays paying for roads and bridges and other infrastructure to help businesses grow and prosper.
Republicans say that, even in context, it's not clear whether Obama is referring to businesses or infrastructure when he states, "you didn't build that." They say the overall speech reinforces a narrative about Obama — that he places too much faith in government — that resonates with voters.
"We need a president who will say to a small businesswoman, 'Congratulations!' " said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), one of several speakers to cite the line in Tampa.
The tactic has certainly resonated with the Republican grass roots. Throughout the GOP convention, and even sporadically at Obama rallies across the country, activists have displayed "I Built That" T-shirts and signs. On Sunday, a huge banner on an airplane hangar greeted the president in Sioux City, Iowa, where the airport code is SUX: "Obama Welcome to SUX. And We Did Build This."
During the original 42-minute speech in Roanoke on July 13, Obama used no teleprompter, instead relying on notes and at times injecting lengthy and impromptu riffs about the role government has played in building this nation. He talked of an elderly veteran who relied on the G.I. Bill to go to college and a single mother who got an education with grants. He criticized Republicans for wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of government programs that benefit the middle class. But in this instance, he lingered on the point.
He blamed the GOP for what he described as undermining the American contract that allows all people to succeed if they're willing to work hard. He talked of "rich people," "millionaires" and "wealthy investors." At times he seemed to lecture his audience about the stark choice he sees in this election, waiting for the crowd to quiet so he could continue.
Obama advisers say the president did not seek to make news that night in Roanoke, and that his message has grown sharper since then because that's what happens over the course of a campaign. They say the speech came at the end of a long day — he did appear tired, and his voice was hoarse — and say if he'd intended to try out a new message, it would have happened at his first stop of the tour.
That evening, Obama spoke nearly twice as long as he has in more recent campaign rallies — a tendency, his advisers said, when he is fatigued. It was a hot, sticky night; more than 20 people in the crowd required medical attention, and at one point, even Obama noticed from the stage, advising supporters to "make sure you're drinking water."
Republicans seem to have noticed that Obama was tired, too. "They're running this guy ragged," GOP strategist Karl Rove said in an interview, adding that the president's "normal filters shut down." The implication was that the GOP will be watching for more such instances for the duration of the campaign.
Some landmines to think about this week:
QuoteDemocratic National Convention 2012: 5 landmines
The Republican National Convention in Tampa brought fresh reminders that even carefully choreographed political events don't always go according to plan.
Hurricane Isaac threatened to cancel the whole affair, Ron Paul supporters stirred up trouble on the convention floor — and Clint Eastwood stole headlines from Mitt Romney by conducting a rambling interview with an imaginary President Barack Obama.
Here are POLITICO's five potential landmines facing Obama and Democrats as they gather in Charlotte.
Hurricane Bill
Bill Clinton is starring in a new Obama campaign TV ad, but he's made it clear in the past he doesn't take his talking points from the Obama campaign — he's even said so explicitly.
Clinton's got a prime-time speaking slot on Wednesday night, but Charlotte will be full of chances for him to freelance on camera or speak just a bit too candidly about Obama. Republicans will be ready to pounce on Clinton if he credits himself instead of Obama for positives, or expresses doubts about an Obama proposal. And then there's the possibility Clinton could suggest support for a Republican plan, like he seemed to in June regarding the competing proposals over extending the Bush tax cuts.
Already, Romney's campaign has sought to stoke the old divide between the Obama and Clinton camps by pouncing on every Clinton statement remotely praising Romney. They've used a graphic featuring a red-faced Hillary Clinton with the words "Shame on you, Barack Obama" from her infamous 2008 press conference, and last week it launched a website commemorating Clinton's comment, noting Romney's "sterling business career."
Obama's team, at least publicly, is expressing confidence that Clinton won't let them down.
"Obviously, President Clinton has extraordinary credibility on these issues of how [to] build a strong economy," a senior Obama campaign adviser said. "He faced some of the same forces when he was president that President Obama is facing now, the same opposition to dealing with a fiscal challenge by asking the wealthy to pay a little more. We believe he's an important messenger and, obviously, he's going to play a significant role in our convention and beyond our convention."
Rebuilding "You didn't build that"
Republicans built a whole night in Tampa around rebutting Obama's "You didn't build that" line. Democrats are putting in prime time the woman from whom Obama cribbed the line.
That's not the only potential trouble from Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat and the woman who headed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Harvard Law professor is a political novice who will be making her debut on the national stage. And even though she'll be in Charlotte to pump up the president, her main focus will be her own election prospects, and what plays in Massachusetts — and to the Daily Kos crowd — isn't always what moves moderates around the rest of the country.
As candidates like Todd Akin and George Allen know, it takes only one on-camera slip-up to cause a fatal distraction. But Warren poses a special risk for Obama: Will she handle the flood of interviews without hijacking Obama's message to middle-class voters or alienating what remaining Wall Street donors the campaign still counts as friends?
That's not even getting into how Warren would respond to questions about her shaky campaign rollout, which for weeks was distracted by her claims of Native American heritage.
Actual class warfare
The Occupy Wall Street movement largely died out in the public eye after police departments, particularly in New York, forced them to abandon the public spaces they'd occupied.
Still, a ragtag group of anti-capitalist protestors are aiming to make noise at the Democratic convention, which could include protests out on the streets and flare-ups on the convention floor during the main speeches.
"Definitely more energy has gone into criticizing Democrats because the failure of the Obama administration is what in a sense gave rise to Occupy," said Michael Levitin, the editor of The Occupied Wall Street Journal. "Protesting at that convention is a given. But the crackdown by Democratic mayors across the country and, I think, the massive amount of security state that's developed around Charlotte show the lack of receptivity from the Democratic establishment."
There's also the danger of speakers or delegates going off the Obama campaign's all-for-the-middle-class script. Opportunities abound, from repeating the summer's initial criticism of the campaign's attacks on Bain Capital by some prominent Democrats to off-message adventures from anti-war protestors or unwanted critiques of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.
The Obama campaign insists it doesn't foresee any trouble keeping the convention's three days within pre-approved lines.
"We're talking to governors, senators, representatives, people who are not publicly elected officials, CEOs," the senior campaign official said. "And no one has really expressed an interest in talking about anything other than what is at the heart of this campaign, which is, what the middle class is fighting for, struggling for, the challenges we face and how to get out of it."
Not a sell-out audience
The Obama campaign drew 14,000 people to Ohio State University's basketball arena for the campaign kickoff in May.
The problem was, the arena seated 18,000. News reports were full of stories of college students being frantically recruited to fill the rest and a photo of the empty upper deck led the Drudge Report.
Like in 2008, the Obama team is shifting venues for his speech on the final night. And that only means more potential opportunities for cutaways and live shots of reporters standing in a section of empty seats to distract cable TV viewers from what's going on at the podium at Bank of America Stadium.
Or worse: With North Carolina Democrats giving away tickets to anyone who asks, Obama could find himself speaking to sections of Republican hecklers or other protestors, aiming to disrupt his big moment.
In recent months, Obama's campaign has been pushing tickets on North Carolinians. Before a Joe Biden rally in Durham Aug. 13, organizers offered convention tickets for a mere nine hours of campaigning. Two weeks later, the campaign was offering tickets to anyone who asked and stopped by one of Team Obama's offices. There was little vetting who could score a ticket — a state GOP operative who signed up online with his real name said he received a phone call inviting him to pick up his ticket at a Charlotte office.
At a recent background briefing with reporters, six senior Obama campaign officials pointedly declined to predict, when asked, if the president will look out at a full house when he formally accepts his party's nomination. Instead, one adviser touted the campaign's ability to receive contributions via text message and another described the milieu of people who will appear onstage.
"We don't think we're going to have turnout problems," was as close as any of them came to predicting a full house.
Can Charlotte cut it?
There aren't enough cabs. There aren't enough hotels, and the ones they do have are too far from the convention site. The biggest tourist attractions are the NASCAR Hall of Fame. The airport, though a major US Airways hub, is dank and dreary.
Charlotte is the smallest metropolitan area to host a major party convention since the 1988 RNC in New Orleans — and just on the precipice of cities large enough to stage such a major event. That's clear from the hopeful branding campaign of the region's convention and visitors bureau — "Charlotte's Got a Lot" — to the city's relative lack of hotel rooms. There are 15,000 hotel rooms within 30 minutes of the arena and stadium, a fraction of what is necessary to hold the 40,000 people expected to converge.
And that's not to mention a lack of union buy-in, a smaller corporate footprint, given the Obama campaign's ban on corporate giving to the convention – which will result in fewer big parties — and unprecedented traffic issues for convention-goers spread across the region.
Bill Ritter, who was the Colorado governor when Democrats met in Denver — a city of similar capacity to Charlotte before its convention preparations — said his city would never have been considered as a DNC host before 2008 because it didn't have sufficient hotel space.
In addition to the heavy car traffic, Ritter said his biggest regret was the security that left some people still waiting to get through magnetometers when Obama began his convention speech at Denver's football stadium.
"The lines were too long, and even with security foremost in their mind, there has to be a way to move those lines more quickly so no one is left outside listening," he said.
Plus, there's no roof at the Bank of America Stadium — and some forecasts call for rain.
They should have a senial old democrat on too, just to even things out.
Quote from: HVC on September 03, 2012, 10:37:47 AM
They should have a senial old democrat on too, just to even things out.
[derspiess]
They already have one.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcc%2FJoe_Biden_official_portrait_crop.jpg%2F220px-Joe_Biden_official_portrait_crop.jpg&hash=1805dc3405e022f77781c6a28be8a284444f3980)
[/derspiess]
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
Obama has only worked in the public sector, and as thus highly suspectible of just not having a clue about the real world
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
Just good politics on their part. It was a blunder and they're milking it.
Let's get Bill Cosby up on stage.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
They're simply following the Costanza Rule(tm).
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
the bread you ate today was not made by you. That doesn't mean that the baker is free to limit your freedom and take all your money.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2012, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
Just good politics on their part. It was a blunder and they're milking it.
:yes:
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:45:42 AM
the bread you ate today was not made by you. That doesn't mean that the baker is free to limit your freedom and take all your money.
muffinwtf?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:45:42 AM
the bread you ate today was not made by you. That doesn't mean that the baker is free to limit your freedom and take all your money.
muffinwtf?
I'd guess that makes more sense in Hungarian.
Bakers - the pariahs of Hungary.
And perhaps the biggest landmine of them all:
QuoteJobs report to nip at convention's heels
Ten hours after President Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination for reelection, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will toss a stink bomb into his post-convention party.
The August jobs numbers are due out Friday morning, just as Obama will be seeking to capitalize on his convention momentum. The timing guarantees that Obama's post-Charlotte, N.C., campaign swing to New Hampshire, Iowa and Florida will battle for headlines with the barometer of economic recovery.
It will be a moment of reality for Obama, who has spent months on the campaign trail reminding swing-state voters that he inherited an economic mess. He's warned them that GOP nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, share the tax-cutting ideas that Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, held when the economy tanked. And he's invoked the job growth that resulted when former President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy.
The jobs report will immediately turn the focus away from the forward-looking message Democrats will push in Charlotte. For a day, at least, the successes the Obama campaign has touted on health care, reproductive rights, gay marriage and immigration will go by the wayside as the jobs numbers suck up the political oxygen.
One thing is clear: No matter how many jobs the nation created in August, Republicans will say it's not good enough, turning the political conversation back to Obama's stewardship of the economy rather than extending the friendlier territory he'll seek out this week.
Obama surely will respond to the jobs figures Friday at the start of a three-day trip campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said will focus on explaining the difference between his plan and Romney's.
"The president will head right back to the campaign trail after Charlotte to continue laying out for the American people the choice in this election and the difference between his vision for moving the country forward and the Romney-Ryan plan to take us backward," she said.
She added: "We have long said we want the economic recovery to move faster, and the president has laid out steps to make that happen, but without a plan for the middle class and a sole focus on extending tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, the Romney-Ryan ticket doesn't have a lot to offer working families regardless of the jobs numbers."
But with Romney polling higher as a steward of the economy, selling Obama's economic competence is a tough challenge.
Take what happened a month ago: The July jobs figures beat expectations with 163,000 jobs created. But the unemployment rate ticked up from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent. Romney used the latter figure to blast the report as "another hammer blow to the struggling middle-class families of America."
Republicans followed his lead, as they are certain to again this week. And with Ryan on board, the GOP ticket will have twice the opportunities to blame the president.
Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said the campaign will use the jobs numbers to remind voters of Obama's economic record, including the August 2011 jobs report, which counted zero new jobs.
"Barack Obama is the first president in modern history to preside over a net job loss, and we intend to highlight the failure of his economic policies during and after the convention," Williams said.
Expectations are the August numbers won't be much different than July's, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. He predicted BLS will report August job growth was around 150,000 jobs.
"It's better than what we were getting in the spring, but it's not good enough to bring down unemployment in a consistent way," Zandi said. "The unemployment rate could dip back down to 8.2. It got rounded up to 8.3 [last month], so it's right on the bubble. ... I don't think its going to 8.4. The odds are it's going to be 8.3 or 8.2."
Obama's team will cite the 30 consecutive months of job growth and note that 150,000 new jobs is nothing to sneeze at. But Zandi said the slow recovery from the recession means far more jobs will need to be created before the unemployment rate drops.
"If the unemployment rate was 6 percent, that 150,000 would be considered fine," Zandi said. "Because we've dug ourselves a deep hole, the 150,000 is not good enough. It's not like the world's falling apart lousy; it's just not good enough given where we are."
Taylor Griffin, an economic adviser to John McCain's 2008 campaign, said "there doesn't seem to be any scenario" in which the unemployment rate falls below 8 percent before the November election. But Romney, Griffin said, won't automatically benefit from lousy jobs and unemployment figures — he'll need to explain how he will do better.
"More important is that Romney articulate a distinct vision for how he would operate the economy, how he would run the country," Griffin said. "Romney's task between now and the election is to make a convincing argument that his business experience translates into the ability to run the country better than the president."
Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Obama's top surrogate in the state where he'll hold a Labor Day event today in Toledo, said Obama shouldn't allow Romney and the Republicans to be the only ones laying blame Friday morning.
Instead, Strickland is pushing for an aggressive effort to pin ownership of the lackluster recovery on Republicans such as Ryan, who have blocked Obama's jobs plans in Congress.
"His message has got to be, 'I need help in the Congress. So you should not only reelect me and Vice President Joe Biden, but you should give me a Congress that would be willing to work with me to try and increase economic growth in the country,'" Strickland said.
"I don't think the president should or needs to apologize for the actions of the Republican Congress," Strickland added. "I think he should lay the blame where it belongs. We would be in much better position if he had gotten cooperation with his jobs plan."
Tom Perriello, the former Virginia congressman who is president and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, dismissed the jobs report as less important than voters' confidence that things are getting better.
"Certainly, economic forecasters and pundits are going to look at these reports, but for most people, the economy at their kitchen table is more important than one month's job reports," Perriello said.
The likely 2013 candidate for Virginia governor said he expects swing-state voters will look to their local economies rather than the national numbers.
"Most Americans don't need to see a jobs report to know the state of the economy," he said. "That includes some real pain and some real life. If you're a voter in Michigan or Ohio that have been helped by seeing an increase in manufacturing, you know it. I think Americans are going to look at their own economic experience more than they're going to look at a national jobs report. I think voters are smart enough to see whose got a better plan."
That writer seems confused. I don't recall any Obama successes on reproductive rights, gay marriage or immigration.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
Much like "if you're not with us, you're against us." :lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
That writer seems confused. I don't recall any Obama successes on reproductive rights, gay marriage or immigration.
I wanted to remark something but then remembered that you have joined the party which harbors people who would hang you for two separate reasons. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2012, 02:03:11 PMThat writer seems confused. I don't recall any Obama successes on reproductive rights, gay marriage or immigration.
If you did, you wouldn't be you.
I will give the DNC convention the same amount of attention that I gave the RNC convention. To be fair and all.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2012, 02:49:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2012, 02:03:11 PMThat writer seems confused. I don't recall any Obama successes on reproductive rights, gay marriage or immigration.
If you did, you wouldn't be you.
So can you list some?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
I will give the DNC convention the same amount of attention that I gave the RNC convention. To be fair and all.
I will only do that if they have George Clooney ad-libbing to a coffee table.
but on a more serious note...
Is Obamas timely release of information about his boozing habits (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9515885/US-Election-White-House-reveals-Barack-Obamas-beer-recipe.html) an attempt to prove he isn't a muslim or an attempt to point out that mitt doesn't drink beer like true red blooded 'murricans?
Will either work and will home brewers decide who to vote for based on how much they like Obamas home brew recipe?
Hairplug Joe's killer line at a Detroit rally:
"I'll tell you how we're better off now than we were four years ago:
OSAMA IS DEAD AND GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE!
OSAMA IS DEAD AND GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE!
OSAMA IS DEAD AND GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE!"
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:08:57 AM
Obama has only worked in the public sector, and as thus highly suspectible of just not having a clue about the real world
Funny, you could say the same thing about the Private sector.
Shockingly, the statement that Tamas parroted is not even true. Obama worked at law firms when he was in law school, and the university where he was a lecturer was private as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2012, 05:56:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:08:57 AM
Obama has only worked in the public sector, and as thus highly suspectible of just not having a clue about the real world
Funny, you could say the same thing about the Private sector.
I don't think anybody says that.
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:08:57 AM
Obama has only worked in the public sector, and as thus highly suspectible of just not having a clue about the real world
So you have a Presidential Candidate who believes that Magical Jews came over in an almond-shaped boat in 600 BCE and colonized Central America without leaving a trace and that a randomly chosen Utah octogenarian talks to God, and he's the one with a clue about the "real world" because he worked in the private sector 15 years ago? Even if you ignore the Mormonism (which is stupid, cause it's toxic) this is the man who said that Russia is our #1 geopolitical enemy and would outsource our Mid-East Policy to Avigdor Lieberman. He doesn't have a rat's cunthair of a clue about the "real world".
Somebody is getting defensive.
Who's our #1 geopolitical enemy, considering both power and ferocity? Whether Russia is #1 is debatable, but it being in the top 2 isn't.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Who's our #1 geopolitical enemy, considering both power and ferocity? Whether Russia is #1 is debatable, but it being in the top 2 isn't.
Russia can't police Kazan anymore. I think Alaska is safe. China and Russia aren't even remotely close.
Even the language is rediculously archaic. "#1 Geopolitical Enemy?" It's Early Reagan Manichaeism.
I see spellus getting his slavic marching orders from DG. I'm on to you two.
My Russian is shitty enough right now that it'd take 20 minutes for me to decode them.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Who's our #1 geopolitical enemy, considering both power and ferocity? Whether Russia is #1 is debatable, but it being in the top 2 isn't.
China. Russia is more obstructionist than tangible threat. They've become what the Chinese were 20 years ago: a pain in the ass in the Security Council, nothing more.*
*Unless, of course, you're a former member of the Soviet Union.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
I can't believe GOPtards are running with the "you didn't build this" remark - to anyone who saw the speech, it's obvious what he meant (i.e. that roads, infrastructure etc. which helps businesses wasn't built by the business owners). Can't they really latch on to something remotely true?
What are you talking about? Business owners pay taxes, which are used among other things to build infrastructure.
Therefore we all built that, including the business owners.
Besides, in the speech it was clear to me that he didn;t meant the infrastructures, but the business itself. He was clearing saying that success didn't belong to the business owners.
It was truly ridicoulus.
You're confused, Siege. Leave English grammar to English-speakers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 09:53:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Who's our #1 geopolitical enemy, considering both power and ferocity? Whether Russia is #1 is debatable, but it being in the top 2 isn't.
China. Russia is more obstructionist than tangible threat. They've become what the Chinese were 20 years ago: a pain in the ass in the Security Council, nothing more.*
*Unless, of course, you're a former member of the Soviet Union.
Well, nukes aside, no one can threaten us, so obstructionists move to the top of the pile. Russia has shown time and again that no piece of shit is too distasteful to support, if it means sticking it to US. The only exception is Qaddafi, and that was only because Vlad was busy taking a difficult shit when Medvedev got called up by the coalition.
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 06:10:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2012, 05:56:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:08:57 AM
Obama has only worked in the public sector, and as thus highly suspectible of just not having a clue about the real world
Funny, you could say the same thing about the Private sector.
I don't think anybody says that.
Well perhaps not on the Reservation where you live.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 10:40:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 09:53:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Who's our #1 geopolitical enemy, considering both power and ferocity? Whether Russia is #1 is debatable, but it being in the top 2 isn't.
China. Russia is more obstructionist than tangible threat. They've become what the Chinese were 20 years ago: a pain in the ass in the Security Council, nothing more.*
*Unless, of course, you're a former member of the Soviet Union.
Well, nukes aside, no one can threaten us, so obstructionists move to the top of the pile. Russia has shown time and again that no piece of shit is too distasteful to support, if it means sticking it to US. The only exception is Qaddafi, and that was only because Vlad was busy taking a difficult shit when Medvedev got called up by the coalition.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. The Chinese will fuck with us whenever it serves their interests, whereas the Russians seem to have decided to just fuck with us on everything even when it doesn't serve any of their interests. The problem is that it serves China's interests (or, rather, the interests of China's rulers) to fuck with us on pretty much everything.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2012, 11:08:57 AM
Obama has only worked in the public sector, and as thus highly suspectible of just not having a clue about the real world
So you have a Presidential Candidate who believes that Magical Jews came over in an almond-shaped boat in 600 BCE and colonized Central America without leaving a trace and that a randomly chosen Utah octogenarian talks to God, and he's the one with a clue about the "real world" because he worked in the private sector 15 years ago? Even if you ignore the Mormonism (which is stupid, cause it's toxic) this is the man who said that Russia is our #1 geopolitical enemy and would outsource our Mid-East Policy to Avigdor Lieberman. He doesn't have a rat's cunthair of a clue about the "real world".
Tribalism :rolleyes: Just because I voiced a concern regarding Obama, it doesn't automatically mean that I kiss the ground that creepy robot mormon walks on.
In America, it is one or the other. This isn't a European system where you have a dozen candidates. This is the Greens and the Blues. Simple as that. It's a line Tamas. The best you can do is stand on it and be undecided but once you step to one person's side you are by definition opposed to the other.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
You're confused, Siege. Leave English grammar to English-speakers.
Just because your guy ad-libbed and fucked up his line is not good cause to insult Seeb. And if you're going to anyway, it would help if the insults made sense.
Quote from: Jaron on September 04, 2012, 12:51:19 AM
In America, it is one or the other. This isn't a European system where you have a dozen candidates. This is the Greens and the Blues. Simple as that. It's a line Tamas. The best you can do is stand on it and be undecided but once you step to one person's side you are by definition opposed to the other.
Well, technically, you don't even vote on the candidate do you? You vote on which guy in your area will get to vote on the candidate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
You're confused, Siege. Leave English grammar to English-speakers.
Just because your guy ad-libbed and fucked up his line is not good cause to insult Seeb. And if you're going to anyway, it would help if the insults made sense.
no shit. This is the first time I saw Marty being called an English-speaker
QuoteThe Democratic convention schedule for Tuesday is out and it includes a coveted 10 o'clock slot for a certain 2016 contender:
The Honorable Martin O'Malley
Governor of Maryland
Introduction of Keynote Speaker Julián Castro
Joaquin Castro
Brother of Mayor Julián Castro
Candidate for the US House of Representatives, Texas
Keynote Address
The Honorable Julián Castro
Mayor of San Antonio, Texas
Michelle Obama Video and Remarks
Elaine Brye
Remarks
Michelle Obama
First Lady of the United States
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 09:43:52 PM
China and Russia aren't even remotely close.
Don't they share a border? :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 04, 2012, 07:31:12 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 09:43:52 PM
China and Russia aren't even remotely close.
Don't they share a border? :P
They actually share borders twice :contract:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
You're confused, Siege. Leave English grammar to English-speakers.
That's a pretty brutal thing for a hippy-flippy guy who goes around picking up languages from cultures that he proceeds to idolize above his own to say.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 05:32:51 AM
QuoteThe Democratic convention schedule for Tuesday is out and it includes a coveted 10 o'clock slot for a certain 2016 contender:
The Honorable Martin O'Malley
Governor of Maryland
:thumbsup: Is he gonna tell us we're not better off than 4 years ago and then tell us we are?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 05:32:51 AM
QuoteThe Democratic convention schedule for Tuesday is out and it includes a coveted 10 o'clock slot for a certain 2016 contender:
The Honorable Martin O'Malley
Governor of Maryland
Introduction of Keynote Speaker Julián Castro
Joaquin Castro
Brother of Mayor Julián Castro
Candidate for the US House of Representatives, Texas
Keynote Address
The Honorable Julián Castro
Mayor of San Antonio, Texas
Michelle Obama Video and Remarks
Elaine Brye
Remarks
Michelle Obama
First Lady of the United States
So they have a guy named Castro speaking in support of a guy who is named Hussein and whose last name sounds a lot like Osama? They should have gone the whole hog and find fellow speakers Mao and Stalin.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:09:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 05:32:51 AM
QuoteThe Democratic convention schedule for Tuesday is out and it includes a coveted 10 o'clock slot for a certain 2016 contender:
The Honorable Martin O'Malley
Governor of Maryland
:thumbsup: Is he gonna tell us we're not better off than 4 years ago and then tell us we are?
I know I'm not. Fucking Irish traitor.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 06:07:34 PM
Shockingly, the statement that Tamas parroted is not even true. Obama worked at law firms when he was in law school, and the university where he was a lecturer was private as well.
Oh, man. That sounds a lot like the real world so many of us can relate to.
In Obama's own words, he felt like a "spy behind enemy lines" when he briefly worked a real job for a private company.
Career politicians are becoming more and more common unfortunately. But maybe that is necessary. Government is so much bigger and complex now and none are bigger or more complex than the Executive Branch of the United States.
Still it creates a certain mentality.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
In Obama's own words, he felt like a "spy behind enemy lines" when he briefly worked a real job for a private company.
So did I.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2012, 09:17:49 AM
Career politicians are becoming more and more common unfortunately. But maybe that is necessary. Government is so much bigger and complex now and none are bigger or more complex than the Executive Branch of the United States.
Still it creates a certain mentality.
I don't like it, and if there's one thing that makes me uneasy about Ryan it's that he's a career politician. Hearing a career pol talk about their life of "public service" makes me want to vomit. I've always been against federal term limits for senators & congressmen, but I'm starting to wonder if that might help clean up our system a little.
Yes, it makes so much more sense to have amateur know-nothings running the biggest organization in the world. At least they have "real life experience". :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Yes, it makes so much more sense to have amateur know-nothings running the biggest organization in the world. At least they have "real life experience". :rolleyes:
We saw how amateurs did in the debt ceiling fight.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
Oh, man. That sounds a lot like the real world so many of us can relate to.
Yeah, we all can so relate to being a CEO of a corporate chop shop. Now that's the kind of experience that schmoes like you can relate to.
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Yes, it makes so much more sense to have amateur know-nothings running the biggest organization in the world. At least they have "real life experience". :rolleyes:
The public sector is a world in itself. It operates under different conditions than the private sector. The latter is the real world. I don't want amateurs running any country, but a career politican ends up deciding on stuff he never really experienced, precisely because he has been on the track of being the detached aristocracy of his world since college.
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2012, 09:34:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
Oh, man. That sounds a lot like the real world so many of us can relate to.
Yeah, we all can so relate to being a CEO of a corporate chop shop. Now that's the kind of experience that schmoes like you can relate to.
uh-oh! rich people! we will get cooties!
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:36:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Yes, it makes so much more sense to have amateur know-nothings running the biggest organization in the world. At least they have "real life experience". :rolleyes:
The public sector is a world in itself. It operates under different conditions than the private sector. The latter is the real world. I don't want amateurs running any country, but a career politican ends up deciding on stuff he never really experienced, precisely because he has been on the track of being the detached aristocracy of his world since college.
Okay, if this so, then why bring people from the Private sector into govern the public? They would be totally out of their element. Of course, the Private sector is not anymore real then the public. It's absurd to say so.
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:37:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2012, 09:34:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
Oh, man. That sounds a lot like the real world so many of us can relate to.
Yeah, we all can so relate to being a CEO of a corporate chop shop. Now that's the kind of experience that schmoes like you can relate to.
uh-oh! rich people! we will get cooties!
Tamas once touched a rich person. He didn't was his hands for a month.
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:37:46 AM
uh-oh! rich people! we will get cooties!
That's the one thing that disturbed me during all the speeches throughout the GOP Convention last week; everybody lauded their self-starting parents, or the businesses they built, or how AB and C started XY and Z and thrived, etc. It was all about the one-in-a-million success stories.
No mention of the rest of America's work force that didn't start a business and get rich off of it--or those that started businesses and failed miserably.
It was a celebration of all the Mittenses of the world, to the exclusion of everybody else.
There is a key relation between the private and the public sector: the former finances the latter. The latter exists to help the former. Not the other way around.
So when Obama reminds me of the public administration people who think that the private sector is just some sideattachment to the awesome civilization which is state bureaocracy (god damn that word!), I get annoyed/worried.
Also people living off government handouts or public sector jobs must STFU because they are living off of the private sector's contributions and are either hangers-by or mere administrators of society and economy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 09:49:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:37:46 AM
uh-oh! rich people! we will get cooties!
That's the one thing that disturbed me during all the speeches throughout the GOP Convention last week; everybody lauded their self-starting parents, or the businesses they built, or how AB and C started XY and Z and thrived, etc. It was all about the one-in-a-million success stories.
No mention of the rest of America's work force that didn't start a business and get rich off of it--or those that started businesses and failed miserably.
It was a celebration of all the Mittenses of the world, to the exclusion of everybody else.
they certainly seem to go overboard. But the DGullers and Razes of the world go overboard the other way
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Yes, it makes so much more sense to have amateur know-nothings running the biggest organization in the world. At least they have "real life experience". :rolleyes:
Elected representatives are not supposed to be administrators, they're supposed to be policymakers. A broad range of experience is preferable to narrow in that case.
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
Also people living off government handouts or public sector jobs must STFU because they are living off of the private sector's contributions and are either hangers-by or mere administrators of society and economy.
Wrong, you fucking fucktard; "government handouts" and "public sector jobs" are funded by the taxpayers, not the the private sector's contributions.
You're really starting to get on my nerves this morning with your bullshit. Don't make me Martify your dumb ass so early in the fucking day.
I don't think you can tell how good a president will be on the basis of his former profession let alone such a blunt instrument of whether its in the public (army general, headmaster, janitor) or private sector (CEO of car company, software engineer, factory drone) .
Most politicians seems to be have been lawyers. And a few of them have even been OK.
Quote from: Gups on September 04, 2012, 10:10:17 AM
I don't think you can tell how good a president will be on the basis of his former profession let alone such a blunt instrument of whether its in the public (army general, headmaster, janitor) or private sector (CEO of car company, software engineer, factory drone) .
Most politicians seems to be have been lawyers. And a few of them have even been OK.
So Back to the Future 2 solution and abolish all lawyers. :hmm: Worth a try.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 09:49:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:37:46 AM
uh-oh! rich people! we will get cooties!
That's the one thing that disturbed me during all the speeches throughout the GOP Convention last week; everybody lauded their self-starting parents, or the businesses they built, or how AB and C started XY and Z and thrived, etc. It was all about the one-in-a-million success stories.
No mention of the rest of America's work force that didn't start a business and get rich off of it--or those that started businesses and failed miserably.
It was a celebration of all the Mittenses of the world, to the exclusion of everybody else.
Who wants to celebrate mediocrity?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
Also people living off government handouts or public sector jobs must STFU because they are living off of the private sector's contributions and are either hangers-by or mere administrators of society and economy.
Wrong, you fucking fucktard; "government handouts" and "public sector jobs" are funded by the taxpayers, not the the private sector's contributions.
You're really starting to get on my nerves this morning with your bullshit. Don't make me Martify your dumb ass so early in the fucking day.
I am not sure what's the difference there. Tax income is from the private sector. Taxes on public sector employees? Come on, they get their salary FROM tax money to begin with. They just channel some of it back.
I don't care so much about whether a candidate has a private or public sector background.
Frankly, the decisions the POTUS has to make are such that no possible previous experience is going to be directly applicable anyway.
Being president is nothing like running Bain Capital or the Harvard Law Review.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2012, 10:40:48 AM
I don't care so much about whether a candidate has a private or public sector background.
Frankly, the decisions the POTUS has to make are such that no possible previous experience is going to be directly applicable anyway.
Being president is nothing like running Bain Capital or the Harvard Law Review.
Some executive experience does help, though.
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 10:40:21 AM
I am not sure what's the difference there. Tax income is from the private sector. Taxes on public sector employees? Come on, they get their salary FROM tax money to begin with. They just channel some of it back.
Tax income comes from private sector employees. As we know, the private sector industry itself does a fine job dodging as many taxes as possible.
I hope a public sector employee pulls you over and beats you with his channeled back nightstick, you fucking tard.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 10:47:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 10:40:21 AM
I am not sure what's the difference there. Tax income is from the private sector. Taxes on public sector employees? Come on, they get their salary FROM tax money to begin with. They just channel some of it back.
Tax income comes from private sector employees. As we know, the private sector industry itself does a fine job dodging as many taxes as possible.
I hope a public sector employee pulls you over and beats you with his channeled back nightstick, you fucking tard.
Them cheating a lot of tax money away doesn't change a god damn thing. What they end up actually paying is the real tax income, from which the public employees are payed.
Tamas, by your definition would Bismarck and Deng Zhiaoping, both career politicians, have less access to the "real world" because they never managed a McDonalds?
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 10:40:21 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 04, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
Also people living off government handouts or public sector jobs must STFU because they are living off of the private sector's contributions and are either hangers-by or mere administrators of society and economy.
Wrong, you fucking fucktard; "government handouts" and "public sector jobs" are funded by the taxpayers, not the the private sector's contributions.
You're really starting to get on my nerves this morning with your bullshit. Don't make me Martify your dumb ass so early in the fucking day.
I am not sure what's the difference there. Tax income is from the private sector. Taxes on public sector employees? Come on, they get their salary FROM tax money to begin with. They just channel some of it back.
What so Public sector employees shouldn't be taxed?
A pie chart, because I feel like it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facingup.org%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Ffacingup_revenue_sources.png&hash=66274fae22649cc924eb5bb12b6cddcf95bd7c4f)
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
What so Public sector employees shouldn't be taxed?
It does seem kinda silly. Pay them and then tax it back--too much paperwork. Just pay them less.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Yeah, living wages: true mediocrity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 11:47:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Yeah, living wages: true mediocrity.
:lol: You gonna go "take those son of a bitches [sic] out", Mr. Trumka?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2012, 11:45:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
What so Public sector employees shouldn't be taxed?
It does seem kinda silly. Pay them and then tax it back--too much paperwork. Just pay them less.
It would be more work to have a lot of people not paying taxes, and trying to figure out what their adjusted salaries should be, and more importantly, not being invested in the system in that manner.
Hell, if I didn't pay taxes, you can be sure how I would be voting on any proposed tax increases...
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Sounds like you are operating from flaw preconceptions.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:51:34 AM
:lol: You gonna go "take those son of a bitches [sic] out", Mr. Trumka?
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2012, 11:52:09 AM
Hell, if I didn't pay taxes, you can be sure how I would be voting on any proposed tax increases...
Unless, of course, it was linked to lower take home pay.
I agree though it wouldn't be a good idea / it would be basically like the gov't saying we'll set your amount of withholding for you.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:54:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Sounds like you are operating from flaw preconceptions.
In the real world of private businesses, organizations that are intelligently run WANT their employee to be successful; organizations that aren't intelligently run either want their employee to be mediocre, or just don't give a shit one way or the other. I've worked for both types.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 09:45:32 PM
Even the language is rediculously archaic. "#1 Geopolitical Enemy?" It's Early Reagan Manichaeism.
Only on Languish would someone disparage a comment as "ridiculously archaic" while also labeling it as "manichaeism." :)
Quote from: dps on September 04, 2012, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:54:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Sounds like you are operating from flaw preconceptions.
In the real world of private businesses, organizations that are intelligently run WANT their employee to be successful; organizations that aren't intelligently run either want their employee to be mediocre, or just don't give a shit one way or the other. I've worked for both types.
You know, public services are in the real world as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 05:32:51 AM
QuoteThe Democratic convention schedule for Tuesday is out and it includes a coveted 10 o'clock slot for a certain 20162024 contender:
Keynote Address
The Honorable Julián Castro
Mayor of San Antonio, Texas
Fuck all y'all. :cool:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 03, 2012, 09:45:32 PM
Even the language is rediculously archaic. "#1 Geopolitical Enemy?" It's Early Reagan Manichaeism.
Only on Languish would someone disparage a comment as "ridiculously archaic" while also labeling it as "manichaeism." :)
No, only on Languish would one worry about a Bogomilist thread hijack once these words were mentioned.
Lol-- poor choice of words.
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/04/mitt-romney-to-dnc-we-dont-belong-to-government/
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 04:46:37 PM
Quote from: dps on September 04, 2012, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:54:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
What, never heard the Peter Principle?
Yes. But that is a far cry from the medocrity that labor unions fight for, encourage, and even enforce.
Sounds like you are operating from flaw preconceptions.
In the real world of private businesses, organizations that are intelligently run WANT their employee to be successful; organizations that aren't intelligently run either want their employee to be mediocre, or just don't give a shit one way or the other. I've worked for both types.
You know, public services are in the real world as well.
I didn't say anything about public services. I have worked in the public sector, but never in position where I had to join a union, nor in a position where I had to deal with unionized subordinates.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
In Obama's own words, he felt like a "spy behind enemy lines" when he briefly worked a real job for a private company.
Preach on, brother.
But thank God there are leaders with "real-life" acumen, like George W. Bush, to guide us through the darkness.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 04, 2012, 06:19:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
In Obama's own words, he felt like a "spy behind enemy lines" when he briefly worked a real job for a private company.
Preach on, brother.
But thank God there are leaders with "real-life" acumen, like George W. Bush, to guide us through the darkness.
I miss Dubya.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 06:12:35 PM
Lol-- poor choice of words.
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/04/mitt-romney-to-dnc-we-dont-belong-to-government/
Dog whistles again. :P
Someone has been reading GOP propaganda sites religiously this week.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2012, 06:21:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 06:12:35 PM
Lol-- poor choice of words.
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/04/mitt-romney-to-dnc-we-dont-belong-to-government/
Dog whistles again. :P
I heard over the weekend that now "Chicago" is a racist word if a Republican says it.
Chicago sucks and deep dish pizza sucks.
- Stonewall Jackson
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
Chicago sucks and deep dish pizza sucks.
- Stonewall Jackson
Stonewall Jackson couldn't even get north of maryland, I doubt he would know.
Spellus sucks.
- Mithradates
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
Chicago sucks and deep dish pizza sucks.
- Stonewall Jackson
SPAWN TK LOLZ
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
Chicago sucks and deep dish pizza sucks.
- Stonewall Jackson
I had Giordano's pizza last week when I was up there and it was actually pretty good for phony Chicago 'pizza'.
I actually offended one of the HDT guys by mocking Chicago pizza and calling it fake pizza though. :blush:
Hell, I did the DA BEARS bit there once. My fellow managers didn't care for it.
A couple of visits ago I was the Rock Bottom Brewery on West Grand St, some news about the Bears came on the TV, and a bunch of the locals in there started going 'DA BEARS!' :cool:
Heh. Julian and Joaquin Castro are both there, eh? I remember when Julian was running for mayor, there were some questions about whether or not it was actually him in all of his public appearances. :D
Julian mother fuckin killed it. :cool:
I await the inevitable Castro presidency.
Only one country can have a Castro has it's head at any given time. You'll have to wait for the Cuban ones to die.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 08:16:03 PM
Hell, I did the DA BEARS bit there once. My fellow managers didn't care for it.
DA SHARKS
"STAY OUT OF DA WATER"
The government is the only thing we all belong to!
Warren/Castro '16 :wub:
Quote from: Fireblade on September 05, 2012, 08:23:31 AM
Warren/Castro '16 :wub:
Sounds like Spiess' dream ticket. Cause Warren has no shot at winning and cause he can make fun of Castro's name.
it took two seasons of Dubya insanity to get a black guy to the White House. How do you expect a guy with a hispanic name to make it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2012, 08:51:52 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on September 05, 2012, 08:23:31 AM
Warren/Castro '16 :wub:
Sounds like Spiess' dream ticket. Cause Warren has no shot at winning and cause he can make fun of Castro's name.
FB lives in a fantasy world. I remember him stating after Obama got elected that the US had become a center-left country. And don't steal my thunder :angry:
That Castro dude made a good speech. I missed Michelle, though-- how did her arms look??
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 09:56:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2012, 08:51:52 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on September 05, 2012, 08:23:31 AM
Warren/Castro '16 :wub:
Sounds like Spiess' dream ticket. Cause Warren has no shot at winning and cause he can make fun of Castro's name.
FB lives in a fantasy world. I remember him stating after Obama got elected that the US had become a center-left country. And don't steal my thunder :angry:
That Castro dude made a good speech. I missed Michelle, though-- how did her arms look??
Like a gorilla's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2012, 10:18:03 AM
Like a gorilla's.
Don't hold back on me. You know they looked FABULOUS.
I don't get the fascination with Michelle Obama's looks. I can't imagine what could be less important.
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 10:53:04 AM
I don't get the fascination with Michelle Obama's looks. I can't imagine what could be less important.
Haven't you seen her arms?!?
Too muscly.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa)
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said President Barack Obama's administration "purged" mentions of God from the Democratic Party platform Wednesday.
"I think it's rather peculiar," Ryan said on "Fox & Friends." "It's not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I'd guess you'd have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God."
Quote from: Gups on September 05, 2012, 11:31:56 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa)
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said President Barack Obama's administration "purged" mentions of God from the Democratic Party platform Wednesday.
"I think it's rather peculiar," Ryan said on "Fox & Friends." "It's not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I'd guess you'd have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God."
Do our "founding documents" reference god? The Declaration of Independence references "creator", but I don't think god comes up in the constitution.
Quote from: Gups on September 05, 2012, 11:31:56 AM
"I think it's rather peculiar," Ryan said on "Fox & Friends." "It's not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I'd guess you'd have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God."
Tweet. Woof.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthepoliticalcarnival.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fpbofamdnc2012.jpg&hash=0a7b1ddc90508bc9c218b0434071f5dfec8d84ef)
Obama and his daughters watching Michelle describe him last night:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenewage.co.za%2Fcms%2Fgall_content%2F2012%2F9%2F2012_9%2524thumbimg105_Sep_2012_091718868-ll.jpg&hash=1b1d02be9e80c6daba92d86f7e6f141f4175ea93)
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
They're amazing. Plus Michelle has amazing fashion sense.
Again, I find your fascination with her puzzling.
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
They're amazing. Plus Michelle has amazing fashion sense.
Again, I find your fascination with her puzzling.
Derspeiss spends time reading weird right wing websites where they obsess over everything about Obama does till it becomes a tiny hyper dense ball of hate. I mean, they get furious at the idea that he uses a
Teleprompter, like every President since Eisenhower.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
They're amazing. Plus Michelle has amazing fashion sense.
Again, I find your fascination with her puzzling.
Derspeiss spends time reading weird right wing websites where they obsess over everything about Obama does till it becomes a tiny hyper dense ball of hate. I mean, they get furious at the idea that he uses a Teleprompter, like every President since Eisenhower.
I'm pretty sure derspeiss thinks he is being funny and ironic - it's just I don't get it. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 12:44:30 PM
I'm pretty sure derspeiss thinks he is being funny and ironic - it's just I don't get it. :huh:
Yea, probably. I just haven't spent much time reading about her. She just doesn't matter that much to me and what she looks like matters even less.
Quick google shows many articles professing to tell you how to get arms like Michelle.
You fuckers. I go totally racist and you attack Spicy's arm comment? FUCK YOU PEOPLE.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2012, 12:57:20 PM
You fuckers. I go totally racist and you attack Spicy's arm comment? FUCK YOU PEOPLE.
Did somebody say something? :unsure: ;)
derspiess knows for a fact that Michelle Obama crushes fetal skulls with her biceps like lobster crackers.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2012, 12:57:20 PM
You fuckers. I go totally racist and you attack Spicy's arm comment? FUCK YOU PEOPLE.
Did somebody say something? :unsure: ;)
:lol: :cry:
Spicy's criticism of Michelle's dress is particularly perplexing. She wasn't Carla Bruni, but Ann looked like some random woman I might have gone to Church with in 2002.
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
They're amazing. Plus Michelle has amazing fashion sense.
Again, I find your fascination with her puzzling.
Just goin' with the flow, man.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 12:44:30 PM
I'm pretty sure derspeiss thinks he is being funny and ironic - it's just I don't get it. :huh:
The Onion I'm not :weep:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/michelle-obamas-arms-meet-with-sri-lankan-refugees,2743/
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:02:22 PM
Just goin' with the flow, man.
That would be nothing new, but you're the only person I've heard talk about them.
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:02:22 PM
Just goin' with the flow, man.
That would be nothing new, but you're the only person I've heard talk about them.
Then I envy you ;)
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:02:22 PM
Just goin' with the flow, man.
That would be nothing new, but you're the only person I've heard talk about them.
Then I envy you ;)
Self help tip. You could stop talking about it then you wouldn't have to hear about it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:12:36 PM
Self help tip. You could stop talking about it then you wouldn't have to hear about it.
No, that's impossible. If a bunch of people are doing something he must do the same. Or the opposite-- he's a man of many flavours. Or at least two.
Arrakis uber alles?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:12:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:02:22 PM
Just goin' with the flow, man.
That would be nothing new, but you're the only person I've heard talk about them.
Then I envy you ;)
Self help tip. You could stop talking about it then you wouldn't have to hear about it.
OKAY THANKS
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:43:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:12:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 01:02:22 PM
Just goin' with the flow, man.
That would be nothing new, but you're the only person I've heard talk about them.
Then I envy you ;)
Self help tip. You could stop talking about it then you wouldn't have to hear about it.
OKAY THANKS
No need to yell either.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 05, 2012, 11:31:56 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa)
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said President Barack Obama's administration "purged" mentions of God from the Democratic Party platform Wednesday.
"I think it's rather peculiar," Ryan said on "Fox & Friends." "It's not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I'd guess you'd have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God."
Do our "founding documents" reference god? The Declaration of Independence references "creator", but I don't think god comes up in the constitution.
Well apparently the Dem leaders grew concerned:
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html
QuoteEmbarrassed by Republicans, Democrats amended their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected. He called for a vote three times before ruling.
Quoteadd a mention of God
Viking just collapsed and began to froth at the mouth.
Good God! :x
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2012, 10:53:04 AM
I don't get the fascination with Michelle Obama's looks. I can't imagine what could be less important.
If we had a royal family, that factor would have been transferred to them. And since JFK Jr. died, we've lost our amateur equivalent.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
Well apparently the Dem leaders grew concerned:
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html
QuoteEmbarrassed by Republicans, Democrats amended their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected. He called for a vote three times before ruling.
That party will simply never, ever grow a fucking backbone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 05:56:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
Well apparently the Dem leaders grew concerned:
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html
QuoteEmbarrassed by Republicans, Democrats amended their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected. He called for a vote three times before ruling.
That party will simply never, ever grow a fucking backbone.
I enjoyed the climbdown however.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2012, 05:30:48 PM
Good God! :x
They even got you to add a mention of God :contract:
Apparently the President was more than a bit miffed, and got personally involved, with the Jerusalem thing.
Why the party would want to piss off Florida Jews at this point in time, go fig.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
Apparently the President was more than a bit miffed, and got personally involved, with the Jerusalem thing.
Why the party would want to piss off Florida Jews at this point in time, go fig.
So will Obama ever grow a fucking backbone? :P
I see it as completely unimportant, and don't care at all if it's in there. Seems to be a huge reward for almost no cost if it keeps the natives from getting restless.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 06:50:50 PM
So will Obama ever grow a fucking backbone? :P
I dunno; he's a bit sensitive to the charges that he's some sort of anti-Israeli President, which is all bullshit anyway. We all know that the black man is muscle for the Jew.
But the whole Jerusalem thing is a rather annoying issue, for both parties.
But, it's better than Mitt's "Well, that's the party's platform, not mine" squirm-out from the party leader.
Quote from: Gups on September 05, 2012, 11:31:56 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa)
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said President Barack Obama's administration "purged" mentions of God from the Democratic Party platform Wednesday.
"I think it's rather peculiar," Ryan said on "Fox & Friends." "It's not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I'd guess you'd have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God."
I find it disturbing that the vice presidential candidate of a major party can say something like this. What about separation of church and state and all that?
I don't see Ryan advocating a theocracy there. It was just a statement meant to score cheap points in a tight political campaign.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2012, 06:02:02 PM
I enjoyed the climbdown however.
+1
Oh and I read an article on Biden today and apparently he's one of the people who disliked Obama's dependence on teleprompters. :D
Their platform also better state that Maputo is the capital of Mozambique. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 08:03:16 PM
Oh and I read an article on Biden today and apparently he's one of the people who disliked Obama's dependence on teleprompters. :D
Right, because speaking extemporaneously works out for Joe so often. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 08:07:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 08:03:16 PM
Oh and I read an article on Biden today and apparently he's one of the people who disliked Obama's dependence on teleprompters. :D
Right, because speaking extemporaneously works out for Joe so often. :lol:
Actually the article suggested it is part of his charm with common-folk...which I can see as sometimes it is refreshing to see an old political geezer who isn't so trapped up in his image to not speak his mind. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 08:15:16 PM
Actually the article suggested it is part of his charm with common-folk...which I can see as sometimes it is refreshing to see an old political geezer who isn't so trapped up in his image to not speak his mind. :)
It is part of his charm, and it does work--until shit like "chains" gives FOX fodder, and it lands him on the Daily Show.
But he is a good, old-school retail politician.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 08:15:16 PM
Actually the article suggested it is part of his charm with common-folk...which I can see as sometimes it is refreshing to see an old political geezer who isn't so trapped up in his image to not speak his mind. :)
It is part of his charm, and it does work--until shit like "chains" gives FOX fodder, and it lands him on the Daily Show.
But he is a good, old-school retail politician.
It's a shame that those guys can't really make it on the national stage anymore, what with a national 24-hour news cycle and inoffensive empty suits.
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2012, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 08:15:16 PM
Actually the article suggested it is part of his charm with common-folk...which I can see as sometimes it is refreshing to see an old political geezer who isn't so trapped up in his image to not speak his mind. :)
It is part of his charm, and it does work--until shit like "chains" gives FOX fodder, and it lands him on the Daily Show.
But he is a good, old-school retail politician.
It's a shame that those guys can't really make it on the national stage anymore, what with a national 24-hour news cycle and inoffensive empty suits.
Though on the other hand, there'd be something a little strange about 70-year olds running the nation.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
Well apparently the Dem leaders grew concerned:
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html
QuoteEmbarrassed by Republicans, Democrats amended their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected. He called for a vote three times before ruling.
And there I was thinking this was an onion article... then I actually clicked the link and found out that this is actually a serious news story. I had noticed the story about Ryan criticizing the dems for not having god in their platform. I just though typical GOP fundy nutbags not understanding the first amendment... but then .... Poe's Law strikes again.
helvítis fökkings fökk
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
Yeah, if you like 'em manly. I wonder what she'll do with that extra ten bucks in her pocket now that her whore pills will be paid for by someone else.
:lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
eh?
oh, well you can have dibs on her.... but, while looking for pics of her speaking thinking that I might have missed something I found this
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmelaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2Ffox-criticizes-fluke-before-speech.png&hash=e1bcb93715bbfc954664293dcdd51c878a4f922a)
why am I not surprised.
Quote from: Viking on September 05, 2012, 09:19:38 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
eh?
oh, well you can have dibs on her.... but, while looking for pics of her speaking thinking that I might have missed something I found this
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmelaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2Ffox-criticizes-fluke-before-speech.png&hash=e1bcb93715bbfc954664293dcdd51c878a4f922a)
why am I not surprised.
Most speeches are released to the press ahead of time. But I'm sure the urge to make fun of Fox News is too much to resist
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 09:18:05 PM
:lol:
You knew I had to say something about whore pills in this thread. Not sure how I managed to make it 11 pages without saying it.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
Yeah, if you like 'em manly. I wonder what she'll do with that extra ten bucks in her pocket now that her whore pills will be paid for by someone else.
She's an educated, attractive, modern woman. Only way you'd have a chance is if you pumped her full of enough flunitrazepam to cause permanent brain damage.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
Yeah, if you like 'em manly. I wonder what she'll do with that extra ten bucks in her pocket now that her whore pills will be paid for by someone else.
She's an educated, attractive, modern woman. Only way you'd have a chance is if you pumped her full of enough flunitrazepam to cause permanent brain damage.
I gotta unfortunately agree with D that she does look a bit mannish. Hair is just terrible.
Besides being modern and educated doesn't really stop one for making poor choices when it comes to picking sexual partners.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 09:37:12 PM
I gotta unfortunately agree with D that she does look a bit mannish. Hair is just terrible.
She did go to a Jesuit university, not USC, you know.
QuoteBesides being modern and educated doesn't really stop one for making poor choices when it comes to picking sexual partners.
Just ask Martinus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2012, 09:38:36 PM
She did go to a Jesuit university, not USC, you know.
No excuse. A modern, educated woman should know better.
Also, my mother attended USC and she was still rocking a perm until the late 90s. :(
Bubba rocks.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 09:21:45 PM
Most speeches are released to the press ahead of time. But I'm sure the urge to make fun of Fox News is too much to resist
Most speeches are released ahead of time to help the press, however, sometimes these speeches get changed and the implied contract is that the content of the speech is not discussed until after the speech itself. If the contents are discussed they are traditionally only implied e.g "President Obama is going to make a major statement about the hunt for Bin Laden"
Fox News is full of fail. The urge to make fun of them is usually too much to resist.
I found the text here
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/05/sandra-fluke-dnc-speech/
c'mon, I don't expect Castro like endurance, but I expect the speech to last longer than the introduction of the speaker. Having read the speech I don't agree with the criticism of her, she is framing the issue as she sees it. The comments from Fox News readers below (presumably their literate viewers) are disgusting.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FFluke-500x281.jpg&hash=33bbcc2d5f12a9a7422b18074c5174f2b61f9542)
I'm sorry but she does not meet the standard* for incredibly cute. You probably just like her 'cuz you think she puts out.
* by standard I don't mean "Internet Cute", I mean just the regular "I have beer goggles and I think you are cute" standard.
Clinton makes everyone else look like amateur hour.
Billy still got it. :cool:
I'm telling you, if there were no term limits, he'd still be President.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 09:58:44 PM
I'm telling you, if there were no term limits, he'd still be President.
If FDR were a vampire he'd still be president.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2012, 09:21:45 PM
Most speeches are released to the press ahead of time. But I'm sure the urge to make fun of Fox News is too much to resist
Even so, they should wait until after the speech has been made to comment on it.
Quote from: Viking on September 05, 2012, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 09:58:44 PM
I'm telling you, if there were no term limits, he'd still be President.
If FDR were a vampire he'd still be president.
I don't think he'd be able to connect with baby boomers.
Quote from: Viking on September 05, 2012, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 09:58:44 PM
I'm telling you, if there were no term limits, he'd still be President.
If FDR were a vampire he'd still be president.
Nope. Eisenhower would have done him in.
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2012, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 05, 2012, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 09:58:44 PM
I'm telling you, if there were no term limits, he'd still be President.
If FDR were a vampire he'd still be president.
Nope. Eisenhower would have done him in.
Ike was a good soldier and knew how to follow orders.
GOP will be shitting Clinton's santorum for months.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 05, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Sandra Fluke is incredibly cute.
I don't know about "incredibly", but I'll back you on the judgment call. :thumbsup:
Just caught video of the dude botching the oral vote twice on the revised platform. Hilarious.
I just watched about the first half hour of Clinton's speech. Damn. Pretty good. And this from a guy who wanted both Bush 41 and Dole to win in their respective elections.
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 12:15:06 AM
I just watched about the first half hour of Clinton's speech. Damn. Pretty good. And this from a guy who wanted both Bush 41 and Dole to win in their respective elections.
Everyone likes Clinton these days. I watched clips of the speech and the one part that bugged me was the defensive bit about how nobody could have turned the economy around in four years. Seemed like he was making excuses for Obama-- I would have just avoided that entirely.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 12:15:06 AM
I just watched about the first half hour of Clinton's speech. Damn. Pretty good. And this from a guy who wanted both Bush 41 and Dole to win in their respective elections.
Everyone likes Clinton these days. I watched clips of the speech and the one part that bugged me was the defensive bit about how nobody could have turned the economy around in four years. Seemed like he was making excuses for Obama-- I would have just avoided that entirely.
Don't you? Balanced budgets? Welfare reform?
Hell - I'll even say kind words about Jean Chretien I never thought I would say. He may have been a thieving, corrupt crook, but at least he balanced the budget.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 05, 2012, 11:31:56 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80731.html#ixzz25bHPABQa)
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said President Barack Obama's administration "purged" mentions of God from the Democratic Party platform Wednesday.
"I think it's rather peculiar," Ryan said on "Fox & Friends." "It's not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I'd guess you'd have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God."
Do our "founding documents" reference god? The Declaration of Independence references "creator", but I don't think god comes up in the constitution.
Well apparently the Dem leaders grew concerned:
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html
QuoteEmbarrassed by Republicans, Democrats amended their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected. He called for a vote three times before ruling.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Quote from: Viking on September 05, 2012, 09:43:31 PM
You probably just like her 'cuz you think she puts out.
This. She's a hard 6.
Maan, clinton done styled on em
thats rough, RNC
200k jobs added. If Obama gives a good speech, it could open up.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 06, 2012, 08:56:48 AM
200k jobs added.
I'm seeing 135k, but anyway I wonder what the number will be once it's revised downward next week :P
QuoteIf Obama gives a good speech, it could open up.
Dunno. There are very few undecideds at this point. Romney got a microscopic bounce from the GOP convention. Obama may get a bounce after this week, but I wouldn't count on it opening up.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 09:09:16 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 06, 2012, 08:56:48 AM
200k jobs added.
I'm seeing 135k, but anyway I wonder what the number will be once it's revised downward next week :P
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/ecb-news-jobs-data-drives-stocks-higher-at-the-open---us-commentary-20120906-00911
201K with July's fugure's revised upwards.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 09:09:16 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 06, 2012, 08:56:48 AM
200k jobs added.
I'm seeing 135k, but anyway I wonder what the number will be once it's revised downward next week :P
ADP's saying 201K, and they're usually right on the money enough for Wall Street to gamble on it, it's still not enough.
Quote from: Gups on September 06, 2012, 09:22:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 09:09:16 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 06, 2012, 08:56:48 AM
200k jobs added.
I'm seeing 135k, but anyway I wonder what the number will be once it's revised downward next week :P
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/ecb-news-jobs-data-drives-stocks-higher-at-the-open---us-commentary-20120906-00911
201K with July's fugure's revised upwards.
Whoops, serves me right for reading that in USA Today.
I say 200.5k
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 12:59:58 AM
Don't you? Balanced budgets? Welfare reform?
What kind of question is that? After 3.5 years of Obama, of course I miss Clinton. I'd say just about any sane person would prefer Clinton over Obama.
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2012, 09:28:33 AM
I say 200.5k
It could be 850,000. Still doesn't change the fact that I'm not one of them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 09:24:40 AM
ADP's saying 201K, and they're usually right on the money enough for Wall Street to gamble on it, it's still not enough.
What would be good?
Quote from: Gups on September 06, 2012, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 09:24:40 AM
ADP's saying 201K, and they're usually right on the money enough for Wall Street to gamble on it, it's still not enough.
What would be good?
+1: Me.
Clinton gave a great speech, but does this really matter? Who's going to be watching it who wasn't already going to vote Dem?
Quote from: Gups on September 06, 2012, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 09:24:40 AM
ADP's saying 201K, and they're usually right on the money enough for Wall Street to gamble on it, it's still not enough.
What would be good?
That is probably just a bit over the level to keep up with population growth. With a smaller population base, the Clinton administration averaged over that number.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 06, 2012, 10:09:23 AM
Clinton gave a great speech, but does this really matter? Who's going to be watching it who wasn't already going to vote Dem?
As I understand it the conventions are all about energising the base and getting the donations in.
Quote from: Gups on September 06, 2012, 10:19:25 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 06, 2012, 10:09:23 AM
Clinton gave a great speech, but does this really matter? Who's going to be watching it who wasn't already going to vote Dem?
As I understand it the conventions are all about energising the base and getting the donations in.
Historically each party's convention generates a certain bounce in the polls. That seems to be a bit less so in recent years, but there is still considerable effort by both to reach out to undecided voters.
:D
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/even-jon-stewart-finds-tolerance-at-the-dnc-doesnt-extend-to-conservatives-nazis-and-evil/
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:24:34 AM
:D
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/even-jon-stewart-finds-tolerance-at-the-dnc-doesnt-extend-to-conservatives-nazis-and-evil/
Meh =- I said it was wrong to judge the GOP by the actions of a few individual delegates, and I'll say the same about the Democrats.
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Meh =- I said it was wrong to judge the GOP by the actions of a few individual delegates, and I'll say the same about the Democrats.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-29-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-republican-platform
At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Samantha Bee learns that government is meant to protect the individual liberties of everyone lacking a uterus.
I can't see the vid, but I enjoyed this comment:
"what is interesting, is that when you look at murders in this nation, the mass majority are committed by people on the left. Just of the top, we know that black Americans (12% of the population) commit 50% of the murders, and 98% of them voted for Obama.
If we held presidential elections in our prison systems, republicans would never get a vote."
Awesome. 98% of half the nations' murderers voted for Obama. Shame they didn't bring that little nugget up in Tampa last week.
Quote from: Gups on September 06, 2012, 10:39:23 AM
I can't see the vid, but I enjoyed this comment:
"what is interesting, is that when you look at murders in this nation, the mass majority are committed by people on the left. Just of the top, we know that black Americans (12% of the population) commit 50% of the murders, and 98% of them voted for Obama.
If we held presidential elections in our prison systems, republicans would never get a vote."
DISREGARD THE COMMENTS
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Meh =- I said it was wrong to judge the GOP by the actions of a few individual delegates, and I'll say the same about the Democrats.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-29-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-republican-platform
At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Samantha Bee learns that government is meant to protect the individual liberties of everyone lacking a uterus.
That was also funny. See, I can laugh at people on my side. You lefties apparently can't.
Quote from: Gups on September 06, 2012, 10:39:23 AM
Just of the top, we know that black Americans (12% of the population) commit 50% of the murders, and 98% of them voted for Obama.
I suspect white murderers are less likely to get caught, so more likely to keep their vote. :hmm:
I, after a full nights sleep, can now give an opinion on whore pill girl:
Spellus can have her. I bet she nags during sex.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2012, 10:54:03 AM
I, after a full nights sleep, can now give an opinion on whore pill girl:
Spellus can have her. I bet she nags during sex.
And probably lectures you on reproductive & gender issues afterward, when she should be making you a sandwich :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:48:54 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Meh =- I said it was wrong to judge the GOP by the actions of a few individual delegates, and I'll say the same about the Democrats.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-29-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-republican-platform
At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Samantha Bee learns that government is meant to protect the individual liberties of everyone lacking a uterus.
That was also funny. See, I can laugh at people on my side. You lefties apparently can't.
Yes, you are a barrel of laughs.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:57:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 06, 2012, 10:55:43 AM
Yes, you are a barrel of laughs.
:huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamcarolla.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2F2012-01-31-larry-miller%2F03-yakov-smirnoff.jpg&hash=52fec8d22d4529c31905e51fdb790b8a9c9edcc9)
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:55:35 AM
And probably lectures you on reproductive & gender issues afterward, when she should be making you a sandwich :angry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1e%2FGag-overthemouth-lorelei-kibf903.jpg%2F220px-Gag-overthemouth-lorelei-kibf903.jpg&hash=0bffb439e463ec3caea6f3fa261a4eddf4599603)
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:48:54 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Meh =- I said it was wrong to judge the GOP by the actions of a few individual delegates, and I'll say the same about the Democrats.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-29-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-republican-platform
At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Samantha Bee learns that government is meant to protect the individual liberties of everyone lacking a uterus.
That was also funny. See, I can laugh at people on my side. You lefties apparently can't.
I don't recall you doing a laughing during the Bush administration.
He was busy oppressing the darkies.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 11:08:01 AM
I don't recall you doing a laughing during the Bush administration.
Are you kidding me? I did many laughings during Bush administration. I've had his blooper reels saved as favorites on Youtube for years, right up there with Biden's.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 11:08:01 AM
I don't recall you doing a laughing during the Bush administration.
Doing a laughing? Did Guller hijack your account? :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2012, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:55:35 AM
And probably lectures you on reproductive & gender issues afterward, when she should be making you a sandwich :angry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1e%2FGag-overthemouth-lorelei-kibf903.jpg%2F220px-Gag-overthemouth-lorelei-kibf903.jpg&hash=0bffb439e463ec3caea6f3fa261a4eddf4599603)
Damn right.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:24:34 AM
:D
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/even-jon-stewart-finds-tolerance-at-the-dnc-doesnt-extend-to-conservatives-nazis-and-evil/
What I love about Stewart. He is unapologetically left wing, but perfectly willing to poke fun at his own side and expose their silliness when appropriate.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:48:54 AM
That was also funny. See, I can laugh at people on my side. You lefties apparently can't.
I only laugh at abortions.
Man, for some reason every time I see your avatar I think it's Ed.
I'm on a children's TV theme.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2012, 11:25:13 AM
I'm on a children's TV theme.
You might have to have kids to recognize your avatar.
Which means I identified it immediately. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkUbds.jpg&hash=1b8a48c77a013142c7173dcbcb6fe6b69895cdb2)
My girl Debbie is starting to look pudgy. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 11:24:00 AM
Man, for some reason every time I see your avatar I think it's Ed.
Mine is actually Emperor Gupta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5ay6C8oy2w&feature=youtu.be
:lol:
Allen West is awesomer than Alan Keyes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 11:24:00 AM
Man, for some reason every time I see your avatar I think it's Ed.
Mine is actually Emperor Gupta.
I STILL HAVE HAIR*
*down below
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2012, 11:14:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 11:08:01 AM
I don't recall you doing a laughing during the Bush administration.
Doing a laughing? Did Guller hijack your account? :unsure:
Yo, WF?
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 11:28:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2012, 11:25:13 AM
I'm on a children's TV theme.
You might have to have kids to recognize your avatar.
Which means I identified it immediately. :(
Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper.
And then he runs off.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2012, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 11:28:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2012, 11:25:13 AM
I'm on a children's TV theme.
You might have to have kids to recognize your avatar.
Which means I identified it immediately. :(
Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper.
And then he runs off.
WTF version of Dora are you watching? :wacko:
And Dora is at least better than fucking Fireman Sam.
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2012, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2012, 11:28:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2012, 11:25:13 AM
I'm on a children's TV theme.
You might have to have kids to recognize your avatar.
Which means I identified it immediately. :(
Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper, Chipper arrete de Chipper.
And then he runs off.
WTF version of Dora are you watching? :wacko:
And Dora is at least better than fucking Fireman Sam.
The one on TV. Chipper is the stealing dog(i think it's a dog).
French - English and sometimes it's French - Spanish.
Quote from: Berkut on September 06, 2012, 11:18:48 AM
What I love about Stewart. He is unapologetically left wing, but perfectly willing to poke fun at his own side and expose their silliness when appropriate.
Maybe its because I haven't watched regularly, but this seems like a relatively new phenomenon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2012, 12:33:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 06, 2012, 11:18:48 AM
What I love about Stewart. He is unapologetically left wing, but perfectly willing to poke fun at his own side and expose their silliness when appropriate.
Maybe its because I haven't watched regularly, but this seems like a relatively new phenomenon.
No, it's definitely not a new phenomenon. I remember him doing that regularly when I was watching, and I stopped watching years ago.
Quote from: DGuller on September 06, 2012, 12:36:06 PM
No, it's definitely not a new phenomenon. I remember him doing that regularly when I was watching, and I stopped watching years ago.
I do remember him busting on Clinton when he launched all those cruise missiles in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/06/sandra_fluke_at_the_dnc_angry_reaction_from_the_right_wing_is_good_for_obama_.html
conservitards lose their shit..
my personal favorite
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Ftodd-fluke.png&hash=ee1744931e019e2ba9bb10db086c4f83acd7e87b)
Just reminds me who the Dawkins haters really are, what values they have and to what lows they are willing to stoop to shout down their opponents.
Hey Ed, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is looking pretty damned good tonight.
Gabbie Giffords doing the Pledge of Allegiance. Stumbled over "indivisible".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 06:59:27 PM
Hey Ed, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is looking pretty damned good tonight.
Gabbie Giffords doing the Pledge of Allegiance. Stumbled over "indivisible".
Getting shot in the head can do that to you.
Quote from: Viking on September 06, 2012, 07:01:59 PM
Getting shot in the head can do that to you.
Bless her little heart.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 06:59:27 PM
Hey Ed, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is looking pretty damned good tonight.
I still ain't gonna watch it. But I'll put her picture up on the monitor screen and beat off to it.
Caught some excellent footage of white people dancing to Mary J. Blige. :)
Quote from: Viking on September 06, 2012, 06:57:35 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/06/sandra_fluke_at_the_dnc_angry_reaction_from_the_right_wing_is_good_for_obama_.html
conservitards lose their shit..
my personal favorite
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Ftodd-fluke.png&hash=ee1744931e019e2ba9bb10db086c4f83acd7e87b)
Just reminds me who the Dawkins haters really are, what values they have and to what lows they are willing to stoop to shout down their opponents.
You just don't when to stop do you?
Doesn't beat Ann Coulter's, though. What a classy fascist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 06:59:27 PM
Hey Ed, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is looking pretty damned good tonight.
Gabbie Giffords doing the Pledge of Allegiance. Stumbled over "indivisible".
They tried to do something with her poodle hair but it idoesn't look a whole lot better. That woman is an embarrassment and I'm glad she's on your side. Her attempts to explain the platform change and mishandled voice vote even made me cringe.
Anderson Cooper had it dead on. That woman is living in an alternate universe.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 08:17:57 PM
They tried to do something with her poodle hair
:lol: I think it was a fresh perm.
:lol: Only Joe Biden would take the stage to a Jackie Wilson song.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 07:52:49 PM
You just don't when to stop do you?
To quote Bibi, "it's a nuclear duck".
Obama has some chuztpah criticizing someone else's speech for being long on platitudes and short on specifics.
Citizenship = receiving government cheese.
Quote from: Kleves on September 06, 2012, 09:48:52 PM
Obama has some chuztpah criticizing someone else's speech for being long on platitudes and short on specifics.
His specifics keep getting cockblocked on the Hill the last two years. 19 straight jobs bills and counting.
Quote from: Viking on September 06, 2012, 06:57:35 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/06/sandra_fluke_at_the_dnc_angry_reaction_from_the_right_wing_is_good_for_obama_.html
conservitards lose their shit..
my personal favorite
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Ftodd-fluke.png&hash=ee1744931e019e2ba9bb10db086c4f83acd7e87b)
Just reminds me who the Dawkins haters really are, what values they have and to what lows they are willing to stoop to shout down their opponents.
Any death threats from them yet? Like this one?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secret-service-were-aware-of-dnc-delegates-threat-to-kill-romney/
I'm strapping on a suicide vest of whore pills.
He dnint say the blessing right!!!
He didnt say America!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I knew it!!!!!
"Teh path is harder"?????
Fuk you!
Bidden grl is kind of hott, isnt she?
Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2012, 10:08:00 PM
Bidden grl is kind of hott, isnt she?
:lol: She's like 9. With pointy elbows.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 10:03:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 06, 2012, 06:57:35 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/06/sandra_fluke_at_the_dnc_angry_reaction_from_the_right_wing_is_good_for_obama_.html
conservitards lose their shit..
my personal favorite
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Ftodd-fluke.png&hash=ee1744931e019e2ba9bb10db086c4f83acd7e87b)
Just reminds me who the Dawkins haters really are, what values they have and to what lows they are willing to stoop to shout down their opponents.
Any death threats from them yet? Like this one?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secret-service-were-aware-of-dnc-delegates-threat-to-kill-romney/
Sure, check the Comments section from that Breitbart site. Every time I look there are death threats and calls for an army mutiny.
ok. rong girl.
I didn't know you were Korean.
Quote from: Kleves on September 06, 2012, 09:52:36 PM
Citizenship = receiving government cheese.
I haven't been a good citizen since I was seven.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 10:46:27 PM
I didn't know you were Korean.
He's posting drunk again. :P
Quote from: Viking on September 06, 2012, 06:57:35 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/06/sandra_fluke_at_the_dnc_angry_reaction_from_the_right_wing_is_good_for_obama_.html
conservitards lose their shit..
my personal favorite
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Ftodd-fluke.png&hash=ee1744931e019e2ba9bb10db086c4f83acd7e87b)
Just reminds me who the Dawkins haters really are, what values they have and to what lows they are willing to stoop to shout down their opponents.
And talk about losing your shit...
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/07/liberals-cuss-out-archbishop-timothy-cardinal-dolan/
Are going to go through Yahoo comments next in search of the next impolite expression of belief?
Quote from: Kleves on September 06, 2012, 09:52:36 PM
Citizenship = receiving government cheese.
No, Citizenship is helping the government provide cheese to those who need a bit of help until they can earn their own cheese; and it's acknowledging that you have eaten government cheese too.
Smal govemint, low taxes, strong military.
Riule the fuking woldQQQQ!!!!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 06, 2012, 11:31:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 10:46:27 PM
I didn't know you were Korean.
He's posting drunk again. :P
Fuk yuo bitch!
I am listenijgnt ot music: v http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mIzBH8oAYw&feature=autoplay&list=ALYL4kY05133oqckmZepudyeJpcuFYbTe0&playnext=2
What us my reason to live?
Quote from: Siege on September 07, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
Smal govemint, low taxes, strong military.
Riule the fuking woldQQQQ!!!!
Strong military = government cheese for Siegy
... but he doesn't want it for anyone else.
Lyrics to If I Never Wake Again :
There must be something I could say
And if I never wake again
Remember me just as I'm breathing before you
The same as all along
I'll hold you from sorrow
It's better off this way and
If I die tomorrow
What of me follows you forever?
Unforgiven sins
And all that lies beneath my skin
All these things I never told you
There must be something I could say
And if I never wake again
Remember me just as I'm breathing before you
The same as all along
Here I am in color
No luster, glamour or gold
I hope you'd remember me
Dressed in shadows, black and white
To flatter the faulted soul
You never witnessed me unfold !
All these things I never told you...
Go sleep it off you boob.
Fuck off, gaf!
Quote from: katmai on September 07, 2012, 01:06:59 AM
Go sleep it off you boob.
fuck you I am flying out sunmday@
I goy teo drinking nights lefty@@@@
Drink+Israeli accented English=Korean. Good to know.
Gratest band ever" http://www.youtube.com/user/halestormrocks?blend=1&ob=4
Quote from: Siege on September 07, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
Smal govemint, low taxes, strong military.
Riule the fuking woldQQQQ!!!!
I never got this thinking at all. Surely the military is the biggest contributer to big government and big taxes there is?
Anyroad. It seems the democrats thoroughly won the conferences. Clinton owned.
Between Siege's drunken ramblings and the the other nonsense I didn't see any talk of Obama's speech last night. I didn't see it and this is the only place I get any political news.
Opinions?
Quote from: Siege on September 07, 2012, 02:42:41 AM
Gratest band ever" http://www.youtube.com/user/halestormrocks?blend=1&ob=4
Halestorm?
Try Alestorm (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alestorm&oq=alestorm&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.1800.4069.0.4296.8.6.0.2.2.0.77.432.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.CpvXgLwnTy4).
Yes, they do a great job live. Or maybe I was drinking too much that day. :P
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 04:54:06 AM
Between Siege's drunken ramblings and the the other nonsense I didn't see any talk of Obama's speech last night. I didn't see it and this is the only place I get any political news.
Opinions?
Good speech, very inspirational in-an-Obama-kinda-way, if a bit light on the details, but the crowd would've gone crazy if he just read from the phone book. Didn't pull any punches with Mittens and Ryan on some issues, had a couple zingers, hit most of the traditional Democratic issues. Had a nice close. A very conventional Convention speech. Summation: we've gotten some things done, we need more time. Had a few more details than Mittens did in his speech, but not many. It was targeted specifically at hitting at the lack of enthusiasm on the left, not a policy speech. In that sense, it worked.
If John Kerry had performed in 2004 like he did last night, who knows what his numbers could've looked like. He was the most alive since Vietnam. Also a good speech on foreign policy. "Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago." I LOL'd.
Biden had a bit of trouble when he ad libbed, as he usually does, but it was endearing. He's such a sweetie pie.
John Lewis had without a doubt the best speech of the day, however, on civil rights and the new Voter ID initiatives. Shame it wasn't broadcast nationally.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 12:08:46 AM
And talk about losing your shit...
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/07/liberals-cuss-out-archbishop-timothy-cardinal-dolan/
You keep citing this site as though it had any cred with anyone but you. To me, it looks like the web version of Fatso's radio show, or the Penthouse forum that featured letters written by the staff of the magazine.
But, hey, if that kind of thing gives you a stiffy, go for it. Just don't share it.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 08:17:57 PM
They tried to do something with her poodle hair but it idoesn't look a whole lot better.
If black broads can get that shit straightened, why can't she? :hmm:
You people leave Debbie alone. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 12:54:56 AM
No, Citizenship is helping the government provide cheese to those who need a bit of help until they can earn their own cheese; and it's acknowledging that you have eaten government cheese too.
By this definition half of Americans citizens aren't citizens.
96,000 new jobs in August. Unemployment drops from 8.3% to 8.1%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 07:32:02 AM
96,000 new jobs in August. Unemployment drops from 8.3% to 8.1%.
Apparently not a good news story for the President.
QuoteThe U.S. economy added 96,000 jobs in August, a disappointing result that could prompt an aggressive response from the Federal Reserve and complicate President Barack Obama's bid for re-election.
America's unemployment rate declined to 8.1 per cent, a level that nonetheless far exceeds the Fed's unofficial target of jobless rate closer to 5.5 per cent. Unemployment of that scale also will force Mr. Obama to test history, as rarely is an incumbent returned to the White House without economic momentum at his back.
The Labor Department's latest jobs survey, released Friday in Washington, suggests the economy is sputtering. The U.S. economy needs to create about 100,000 jobs a month simply to keep up with new entrants to the labour force.
The government said non-farm payrolls grew by 141,000 in July, a downward revision from the original estimate of 163,000. The U.S. economy created an average of about 73,000 jobs a month in the second quarter, and an average of about 226,000 a month in the first quarter.
Economists have a tendency to shrug off monthly data, preferring to gauge the economy's strength by following the trend. However, Friday's report will receive an unusual amount of scrutiny because it comes on the heels of Mr. Obama's speech Thursday at the Democratic convention – and less than a week ahead of the next meeting of the Federal Reserve's policy committee.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke expressed deep concern with a "painfully slow" recovery, calling the employment situation "grave."
Many Wall Street economists are convinced the Fed will deploy new stimulus measures next week; the debate only is which weapons policy makers will take from the armoury.
At a minimum, it appears likely the Fed will extend a conditional promise to leave its benchmark interest rate near zero until at least the end of 2014. Less certain is whether the Fed will opt to go bigger and resume creating money to buy financial assets, a strategy know as quantitative easing, or QE. The Fed has done this twice since 2009, and some policy makers have said publicly in recent weeks that it is time to do so again.
"The employment report is seen as key, if not decisive, for the QE3 at next week's meeting," said Marc Chandler, global head of currency strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman in New York.
At the start of the year, the U.S. unemployment rate was 8.3 per cent, and it was widely thought that if the jobless rate fell to 8 per cent Mr. Obama would likely be assured of a return to the White House. The economy would now need to generate close to 300,000 jobs a month between now and November to achieve that mark, according to Hamilton Place Strategies, a Washington-based consultancy.
The Democratic Party spent the last three days at its nominating convention in Charlotte, North Carolina attempting to create the impression that the economy, while far from satisfactory, still is better than it was four years ago when Mr. Obama took office.
A stagnant labour market will make that argument more difficult. Mr. Obama can say that private sector employers have added in excess of 4.5-million positions over his term. Yet governments have cut payrolls deeply, leaving the president with a net loss in total employment.
"The report underscores President Obama's failed promises to get our economy moving again," John Beohner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, said in a statement Friday.
According to various surveys, Wall Street analysts were expecting a payrolls increase of about 130,000. The disappointment could weigh on stock markets, which surged Thursday after the European Central Bank unveiled new measures meant to calm the region's debt crisis.
Factory employment declined by 15,000 positions in August after a gain of 23,000 in July. Service companies kept hiring last month, but at a slower pace than previously. Total hours worked were little changed. Average hourly earnings declined by a cent, to $23.52, and were 1.7 per cent higher than a year ago – a growth rate that is just enough to keep up with inflation.
On the surface, the unemployment rate's drop to 8.1 per cent is positive. However, the decline from 8.3 per cent in July was largely the result of Americans leaving the labour force.
"The data may be viewed as increasing the chance of decisive Fed action next week," Andrew Grantham, an economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto, said in a note to clients. "We are still on track for more QE," Matthieu Arseneau, an economist at National Bank Financial, advised his clients.
The prospect of new measures by the Fed will stir controversy.
A vocal minority on Wall Street is hostile to further monetary policy, arguing that central bankers only risk stoking inflation and debasing the currency. Mr. Bernanke also would face charges that he is interfering with the election, although such charges are unlikely to deter him.
There also is an argument that the election itself is holding back the U.S. recovery.
"American businesses are like thoroughbreds waiting at the starting gate," Mike Whalen, president of Heart of America Group, a Moline, Ill.-based hotel and restaurant operator, said in a statement. "The gate to recovery will open on Election Day, and we'll continue to see disappointing jobs numbers until the election is resolved."
Mr. Whalen has an opinion about how the election should go, reflecting the struggle that awaits Mr. Obama between now and November. Mr. Whalen argues U.S. companies are staying on the sidelines because of the White House's penchant for regulation. "Should President Obama get re-elected, businesses and consumers will continue to remain hunkered down until the next race in four more years," he said.
Quote from: grumbler on September 07, 2012, 06:25:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 12:08:46 AM
And talk about losing your shit...
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/07/liberals-cuss-out-archbishop-timothy-cardinal-dolan/
You keep citing this site as though it had any cred with anyone but you. To me, it looks like the web version of Fatso's radio show, or the Penthouse forum that featured letters written by the staff of the magazine.
But, hey, if that kind of thing gives you a stiffy, go for it. Just don't share it.
I usually try to find a source more acceptable to you guys, but I was posting from my phone, so :blurgh:
Anyway, what's your specific beef with the article? All they did was post tweets from people who were apparently pissed off at Cardinal Dolan.
Yeah, anything less that 6 figures is bad news.
re: workers leaving the job force: lot of people returning to school, and one Wall Street wonk this morning mentioned how 15K left the manufacturing sector, but this is the time of year that the auto industry retools its lines, and should see a bump back up next month.
But, companies are simply not hiring. They don't want to hire, they don't need to hire. And they're not going to hire until the electoral smoke clears.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 05:49:27 AM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 04:54:06 AM
Between Siege's drunken ramblings and the the other nonsense I didn't see any talk of Obama's speech last night. I didn't see it and this is the only place I get any political news.
Opinions?
Good speech, very inspirational in-an-Obama-kinda-way, if a bit light on the details, but the crowd would've gone crazy if he just read from the phone book. Didn't pull any punches with Mittens and Ryan on some issues, had a couple zingers, hit most of the traditional Democratic issues. Had a nice close. A very conventional Convention speech. Summation: we've gotten some things done, we need more time. Had a few more details than Mittens did in his speech, but not many. It was targeted specifically at hitting at the lack of enthusiasm on the left, not a policy speech. In that sense, it worked.
I watched a tiny bit before my wife made me turn it off. Didn't see enough to make a judgment for myself, but the fact that nobody is talking about it seems a bit odd.
QuoteIf John Kerry had performed in 2004 like he did last night, who knows what his numbers could've looked like. He was the most alive since Vietnam. Also a good speech on foreign policy. "Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago." I LOL'd.
His "yell from the diaphragm" speaking style still seems odd to me, but yeah it was way better than his cringe-worthy "reporting for duty" acceptance speech in 2004.
QuoteBiden had a bit of trouble when he ad libbed, as he usually does, but it was endearing.
I like where he said his dad respected Obama. Then corrected himself and said his dad would have respected Obama had he been around :huh:
QuoteHe's such a sweetie pie.
He's kind of a jerk in person, and he has become a liability to your side, but whatevs.
QuoteJohn Lewis had without a doubt the best speech of the day, however, on civil rights and the new Voter ID initiatives. Shame it wasn't broadcast nationally.
Most networks cut away early from the benediction, so we'll call it even :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 08:41:56 AM
A stagnant labour market will make that argument more difficult. Mr. Obama can say that private sector employers have added in excess of 4.5-million positions over his term. Yet governments have cut payrolls deeply, leaving the president with a net loss in total employment.
Dang. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 09:07:25 AM
I usually try to find a source more acceptable to you guys, but I was posting from my phone, so :blurgh:
Anyway, what's your specific beef with the article? All they did was post tweets from people who were apparently pissed off at Cardinal Dolan.
The beef is the complete lack of newsworthiness. You can find an idiot citizen spouting off any retarded thing you want, if you look hard enough (though luckily for Languish, for 80% of the retarded things, we can just turn to you).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 09:10:05 AM
Yeah, anything less that 6 figures is bad news.
re: workers leaving the job force: lot of people returning to school, and one Wall Street wonk this morning mentioned how 15K left the manufacturing sector, but this is the time of year that the auto industry retools its lines, and should see a bump back up next month.
But, companies are simply not hiring. They don't want to hire, they don't need to hire. And they're not going to hire until the electoral smoke clears.
Why is it bad news that people are getting so prosperous that they don't need to work anymore? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 07:08:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 12:54:56 AM
No, Citizenship is helping the government provide cheese to those who need a bit of help until they can earn their own cheese; and it's acknowledging that you have eaten government cheese too.
By this definition half of Americans citizens aren't citizens.
Half of America pays zero taxes or otherwise contributes nothing to society?
Yikes.
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2012, 09:22:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 09:10:05 AM
Yeah, anything less that 6 figures is bad news.
re: workers leaving the job force: lot of people returning to school, and one Wall Street wonk this morning mentioned how 15K left the manufacturing sector, but this is the time of year that the auto industry retools its lines, and should see a bump back up next month.
But, companies are simply not hiring. They don't want to hire, they don't need to hire. And they're not going to hire until the electoral smoke clears.
Why is it bad news that people are getting so prosperous that they don't need to work anymore? :huh:
The fuck you talking about, Ivan?
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 09:43:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 07:08:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 12:54:56 AM
No, Citizenship is helping the government provide cheese to those who need a bit of help until they can earn their own cheese; and it's acknowledging that you have eaten government cheese too.
By this definition half of Americans citizens aren't citizens.
Half of America pays zero taxes or otherwise contributes nothing to society?
Yikes.
It wouldn't surprise me if half of Americans paid no taxes. If you consider children, stay at home parents, unemployed, disabled, and elderly, I wouldn't be surprised if that added up to 50% of the population.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 09:43:22 AM
Half of America pays zero taxes or otherwise contributes nothing to society?
Yikes.
Half of Americans pay no income tax but do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. In theory the last two don't help buy big bricks of cheese for those who are struggling.
How many of those do productive work that enable others to pay income tax? How many are developing their human capital enabling themselves to pay more income taxes in the future? I could go on, but the point is just because one isn't paying income tax doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the cheese.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 09:10:05 AM
But, companies are simply not hiring. They don't want to hire, they don't need to hire. And they're not going to hire until the electoral smoke clears.
My company is hiring like crazy. I just interviewed a guy yesterday, in fact. He worked in Abu Dhabi for three years... man did he have some funny 'those crazy Arabs!'-type stories. :cool:
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
How many of those do productive work that enable others to pay income tax? How many are developing their human capital enabling themselves to pay more income taxes in the future? I could go on, but the point is just because one isn't paying income tax doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the cheese.
Well, that's not a very good point. Cheese costs money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 11:11:41 AM
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
How many of those do productive work that enable others to pay income tax? How many are developing their human capital enabling themselves to pay more income taxes in the future? I could go on, but the point is just because one isn't paying income tax doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the cheese.
Well, that's not a very good point. Cheese costs money.
How are these two sentences related?
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:12:52 AM
How are these two sentences related?
The linkage is tax revenue and expenditure. If you're developing your human capital you're not paying for any cheese. In the future you will probably be paying for cheese.
Then that future cheese has an expected present value.
However, how about the other example. Someone working for 9 bucks an hour in a factory while supporting 3 kids is probably not paying income tax. Assuming no hijinks, however, they are contributing to their employers earnings and the employer is paying taxes on those earnings.
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:24:12 AM
Then that future cheese has an expected present value.
Though to what extent is it meaningful insofar as I know individuals who went to Stanford which would suggest they'd later contribute a lot but then became layabouts after school (or generously some became teachers). Expected present value would leave you with quite a shortfall. Unless you want to say something about how the teachers are increasing the potential of their students but doesn't that get really fuzzy?
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:24:12 AM
Then that future cheese has an expected present value.
You can't buy present cheese with expected future cheese.
QuoteHowever, how about the other example. Someone working for 9 bucks an hour in a factory while supporting 3 kids is probably not paying income tax. Assuming no hijinks, however, they are contributing to their employers earnings and the employer is paying taxes on those earnings.
Profit is the return on the employer's capital.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 11:27:45 AM
Though to what extent is it meaningful insofar as I know individuals who went to Stanford which would suggest they'd later contribute a lot but then became layabouts after school (or generously some became teachers). Expected present value would leave you with quite a shortfall. Unless you want to say something about how the teachers are increasing the potential of their students but doesn't that get really fuzzy?
In theory at least, expected present value takes into account the actual probability that the student is increasing their income.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
You can't buy present cheese with expected future cheese.
Sure you can. I can go to the store with a credit card and buy cheese with expected future income.
Quote
Profit is the return on the employer's capital.
If the employee isn't contributing to the employer's profit, why is the employer paying him?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:24:12 AM
Then that future cheese has an expected present value.
You can't buy present cheese with expected future cheese.
QuoteHowever, how about the other example. Someone working for 9 bucks an hour in a factory while supporting 3 kids is probably not paying income tax. Assuming no hijinks, however, they are contributing to their employers earnings and the employer is paying taxes on those earnings.
Profit is the return on the employer's capital.
Which the employer cannot obtain without that worker earning a mere 9 bucks per hour. If labour costs rise his profit evaporates. Also, for larger employers most often it is not the employers capital but the capital of the shareholders of the employer which often includes those very employees. And in almost every case the capital is largely provided by lending institutions.
The world is not mittens blue blood where anyone can borrow from their parents to become an "employer" :P
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 11:27:45 AM
Though to what extent is it meaningful insofar as I know individuals who went to Stanford which would suggest they'd later contribute a lot but then became layabouts after school (or generously some became teachers). Expected present value would leave you with quite a shortfall. Unless you want to say something about how the teachers are increasing the potential of their students but doesn't that get really fuzzy?
In theory at least, expected present value takes into account the actual probability that the student is increasing their income.
Yeah but then if they never actually achieved anything then they didn't actually contribute to cheese.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 11:18:15 AMThe linkage is tax revenue and expenditure. If you're developing your human capital you're not paying for any cheese. In the future you will probably be paying for cheese.
It's a great cheese ecosystem.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 11:18:15 AMThe linkage is tax revenue and expenditure. If you're developing your human capital you're not paying for any cheese. In the future you will probably be paying for cheese.
It's a great cheese ecosystem.
I don't know. The hordes of individuals with newly minted law degrees don't seem to be helping the system much or not as much as one would have expected several years ago.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 11:48:11 AM
Yeah but then if they never actually achieved anything then they didn't actually contribute to cheese.
Again, assuming you have a good probability model, that is accounted for.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 11:55:34 AM
I don't know. The hordes of individuals with newly minted law degrees don't seem to be helping the system much or not as much as one would have expected several years ago.
I don't think the population explosion of MBAtards help, either.
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 12:02:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 11:48:11 AM
Yeah but then if they never actually achieved anything then they didn't actually contribute to cheese.
Again, assuming you have a good probability model, that is accounted for.
Are there probability models that take into account things like x field will be over-saturated 7-10 years from now when said person has a degree?
My point in all this is that I think it is a mistake to say that said people are still contributing as there is so much that is fuzzy around individual and societal circumstances. I know that actuaries would take a different approach but we aren't actuaries. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 11:55:34 AM
I don't know. The hordes of individuals with newly minted law degrees don't seem to be helping the system much or not as much as one would have expected several years ago.
I don't think the population explosion of MBAtards help, either.
Agreed. Though I understand that at some places not having one locks you out, it seems for a lot of schools (especially the top ones) that it makes little sense to get one if you are going to be paying for it by yourself - as the ROI can't be favorable.
Here is an interesting opinion piece from a Globe & Mail columnist saying a pox on both parties (but mainly the Republicans) - they both want to avoid the hard choices regarding taxation and expenditures.
QuoteThe flight from reality of so many Americans into the nether worlds of ideology is discouraging when it's not frightening.
Last week, we witnessed the blending of libertarian economics with social conservatism that is the contemporary Republican Party. This week, the restless coalition that is the Democratic Party has been on display.
Each party, for different reasons, has convinced itself (and will try to convince the country) that America's doleful fiscal situation – one that will sap the country's economic might and international influence and distort its domestic economy for years to come – can be remedied without meaningful tax increases. This change goes beyond not just rescinding tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000, as the Democrats propose, but tax increases across a wide swath of American society.
The flight from reality is easy to diagnose. Neither party wants to axe the sacred military budget. Neither wants to raise taxes. By definition, therefore, the restoration of fiscal health has to come exclusively from spending cuts to domestic programs.
These cuts, savage as the Tea Party and Paul Ryans of the Republican Party propose, are not what Americans tell pollsters they want – notwithstanding what the fire-breathers in the Republican world believe. Democrats are reluctant to cut almost anywhere, and Republicans want to cut almost everywhere. Neither are remotely realistic in their ambitions.
U.S. taxes aren't what they seem on paper – rather steep in some areas and redistributive in others. When you glance below the surface, however, the tax code is shot full of complications and loopholes, tilted to the rich and the very rich, producing less revenue than any other OECD country (except Mexico and Chile) as a share of the total economy and, critically, relying less on consumption taxes than other countries. Were the Americans to impose a 5-per-cent national sales tax on themselves (the Canadian rate, and the lowest among countries with national sales taxes), the country's fiscal crisis would be on the way to resolution.
Such a tax is unthinkable in a climate where Americans feel themselves overtaxed, despite the evidence that, in 2009 (according to the OECD), Americans paid the third-lowest share of their national income in tax within that organization.
Republicans whine about high corporate taxes and, on paper, these taxes are high – a top rate of 39 per cent. Yet, so many exemptions, credits and other loopholes – many resulting from ubiquitous corporate lobbying on Capitol Hill – pockmark the corporate tax code that U.S. business pays one of the lowest effective tax rates in the advanced industrial world.
Lobbying, too, is among the reasons why the tax code favours the rich. (See the small rate of personal income tax paid by millionaire presidential candidate Mitt Romney.) Republican tax proposals in this election would offer even more tax advantages to the rich.
Paul Ryan, the Republicans' vice-presidential candidate, proposed a draconian budget-cutting plan that would have given those earning more than $1-million a tax cut of $265,000, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
It's one of the enduring mysteries of American politics why so many people with some dependence on government and modest personal incomes fervently support a Republican Party whose policies would be so inimical to their personal welfare – but then Karl Marx had it wrong from the start when he said economic self-interest axiomatically leads to political choices. Maybe he was right, though, in analyzing the phenomenon of "false consciousness."
There are compromise positions to grapple with the country's fiscal situation. Two bipartisan commissions combined tax increases and spending cuts. Mr. Ryan, however, bolted from one of those commissions because it dared to mention tax increases. His party's official position is to reject any new taxes.
President Barack Obama never got behind either of the compromises, because he sensed that the Republicans weren't interested in compromises. Nor were many of his own party's members.
Today, Republican candidates for the Senate and the House are campaigning on not making any compromises if they're elected. Even if Mr. Obama is re-elected, the gridlock and ideological entrenchment that define contemporary American politics will continue, and one key to solving the country's fiscal dilemma – tax increases – will remain as remote as ever.
I'm not sure I understand that paragraph given its overly large 2nd sentence.
Is it saying that taxes are tilted towards the rich funding most or that the loopholes are tilted to the rich? The latter makes sense via national feeling but doesn't make sense when the idea is putting in a 5-percent sales tax which would mainly affect the poor. Only conclusion I can draw is that the rich pay more than everyone else but that is not sufficient.
At my company you definitely do need to have an MBA to advance beyond a certain point (all of the C-level guys have them).... but they will pay for you to get one if they consider you to be on track for filling one of those positions one day. So if they don't offer, then it seems illogical to go off and get one on your own with your own money.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
I'm not sure I understand that paragraph given its overly large 2nd sentence.
The product of an underfunded Californian education system. :console:
QuoteSuch a tax is unthinkable in a climate where Americans feel themselves overtaxed, despite the evidence that, in 2009 (according to the OECD), Americans paid the third-lowest share of their national income in tax within that organization.
We've spent well over 200 years convincing ourselves that taxes are evil and contrary to the myth of American self-sustainability.
Hell, grade schoolers' first exposure to the concept of "taxes" is with the Boston Tea Party and as the (simplistic) root cause of the Revolution. Can't fix a broken culture.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
I'm not sure I understand that paragraph given its overly large 2nd sentence.
The product of an underfunded Californian education system. :console:
Yes, we aim for clarity over verbosity.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
Only conclusion I can draw is that the rich pay more than everyone else but that is not sufficient.
Of course you do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:34:57 PM
QuoteSuch a tax is unthinkable in a climate where Americans feel themselves overtaxed, despite the evidence that, in 2009 (according to the OECD), Americans paid the third-lowest share of their national income in tax within that organization.
We've spent well over 200 years convincing ourselves that taxes are evil and contrary to the myth of American self-sustainability.
Hell, grade schoolers' first exposure to the concept of "taxes" is with the Boston Tea Party and as the (simplistic) root cause of the Revolution. Can't fix a broken culture.
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that our government doesn't seem to be very good at using its tax revenues? I wouldn't have issues with taxes if I thought my money was being spent wisely. Hard to feel that way when I get a taxpayer funded mailer for Nancy Pelosi.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
Only conclusion I can draw is that the rich pay more than everyone else but that is not sufficient.
Of course you do.
Which to me is a nonsensical conclusion (insofar as the solution is to raise taxes on the destitute) and why like I said I don't really get that paragraph.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:36:06 PMYes, we aim for clarity over verbosity.
I'll give you that you have the low verbosity thing down pretty well, but you have a lot of work to do on clarity.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 12:39:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:36:06 PMYes, we aim for clarity over verbosity.
I'll give you that you have the low verbosity thing down pretty well, but you have a lot of work to do on clarity.
Can you provide an example?
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:37:46 PM
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that our government doesn't seem to be very good at using its tax revenues? I wouldn't have issues with taxes if I thought my money was being spent wisely. Hard to feel that way when I get a taxpayer funded mailer for Nancy Pelosi.
The only time you worry about a taxpayer is when he stops bitching.
Don't like franking privileges? Take it up with the First Continental Congress. And since you no long live in Nancy's district, quit bitching about her.
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 11:38:32 AM
Sure you can. I can go to the store with a credit card and buy cheese with expected future income.
Then I guess if you hand over that cheese bought on credit to an unemployed person you meet Jacob's definition of citizenship.
Quote
If the employee isn't contributing to the employer's profit, why is the employer paying him?
This is silly semantics. If the employee gets to claim partial credit for the taxes the employer pays on his profits, then the employer gets to claim partial credit for the taxes the employee pays on his wages and it all washes out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
It's one of the enduring mysteries of American politics why so many people with some dependence on government and modest personal incomes fervently support a Republican Party whose policies would be so inimical to their personal welfare – but then Karl Marx had it wrong from the start when he said economic self-interest axiomatically leads to political choices. Maybe he was right, though, in analyzing the phenomenon of "false consciousness."
God helps those who help themselves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:41:41 PM
The only time you worry about a taxpayer is when he stops bitching.
And you know this how? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:41:41 PMAnd since you no long live in Nancy's district, quit bitching about her.
It was an illustrative example about how one can have negative feelings about paying taxes but not think taxes are inherently bad.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:41:41 PM
The only time you worry about a taxpayer is when he stops bitching.
And you know this how? :unsure:
It's an American tradition to bitch about taxes.
Besides, when taxpayers don't bitch about their taxes, it's because they're no longer paying them and have started building fertilizer bombs in Ryder rental trucks instead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:41:41 PM
The only time you worry about a taxpayer is when he stops bitching.
And you know this how? :unsure:
It's an American tradition to bitch about taxes.
Besides, when taxpayers don't bitch about their taxes, it's because they're no longer paying them and have started building fertilizer bombs in Ryder rental trucks instead.
Oh that was a rhetorical you. Not really sure then how that was germane to the notion that taxes might be perceived as awful as they might be perceived as wasted by politicians.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 12:22:00 PMQuote
It's one of the enduring mysteries of American politics why so many people with some dependence on government and modest personal incomes fervently support a Republican Party whose policies would be so inimical to their personal welfare – but then Karl Marx had it wrong from the start when he said economic self-interest axiomatically leads to political choices. Maybe he was right, though, in analyzing the phenomenon of "false consciousness."
I don't think it's much of a mystery, it's clever politics. Overheat the rhetoric on the social issues, and those who agree with your social issues will find a way to rationalize economic policies that fuck them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2012, 12:46:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
It's one of the enduring mysteries of American politics why so many people with some dependence on government and modest personal incomes fervently support a Republican Party whose policies would be so inimical to their personal welfare – but then Karl Marx had it wrong from the start when he said economic self-interest axiomatically leads to political choices. Maybe he was right, though, in analyzing the phenomenon of "false consciousness."
God helps those who help themselves.
I have to admit, this is one of the things I have never understood about American politics. Over the years people here have tried to explain the phenomenon but I still dont get it. For example why would so many people who need good health care coverage think a single payor system is evil.
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2012, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 12:22:00 PMQuote
It's one of the enduring mysteries of American politics why so many people with some dependence on government and modest personal incomes fervently support a Republican Party whose policies would be so inimical to their personal welfare – but then Karl Marx had it wrong from the start when he said economic self-interest axiomatically leads to political choices. Maybe he was right, though, in analyzing the phenomenon of "false consciousness."
I don't think it's much of a mystery, it's clever politics. Overheat the rhetoric on the social issues, and those who agree with your social issues will find a way to rationalize economic policies that fuck them.
That works in a polarized political system. But that doesnt answer the question of how so many poor and middle class folks became rabid Republicans to create your current polarized condition.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 01:05:26 PM
That works in a polarized political system. But that doesnt answer the question of how so many poor and middle class folks became rabid Republicans to create your current polarized condition.
:pope: / :ph34r:
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2012, 01:09:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 01:05:26 PM
That works in a polarized political system. But that doesnt answer the question of how so many poor and middle class folks became rabid Republicans to create your current polarized condition.
:pope: / :ph34r:
Yeah, I guess I keep underestimating that.
The thing is that the people you are referring to in this are so obsessed with social issues like gay marriage (IT THREATENS MAH MARRIAGE SOMEHOW) and abortion that they'll vote Republican without caring about anything else either party stands for. My mother in law is a good example of this. She is your typical hardcore Christian voter who is so threatened by gay marriage and abortion rights that she probably doesn't bother to listen to what either side says about economic policies/healthcare/etc. Also, I'm sure the fact that the President is black bothers her though she'd never dare admit to that fact. Same goes for the majority of voters around here I'd wager. :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
Only conclusion I can draw is that the rich pay more than everyone else but that is not sufficient.
Of course simple math would have led you to that conclusion decades ago. Americans want the government to do all this stuff but not pay for it. Entitlement at its worse.
Quote from: garbon on September 07, 2012, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 12:34:57 PM
QuoteSuch a tax is unthinkable in a climate where Americans feel themselves overtaxed, despite the evidence that, in 2009 (according to the OECD), Americans paid the third-lowest share of their national income in tax within that organization.
We've spent well over 200 years convincing ourselves that taxes are evil and contrary to the myth of American self-sustainability.
Hell, grade schoolers' first exposure to the concept of "taxes" is with the Boston Tea Party and as the (simplistic) root cause of the Revolution. Can't fix a broken culture.
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that our government doesn't seem to be very good at using its tax revenues? I wouldn't have issues with taxes if I thought my money was being spent wisely. Hard to feel that way when I get a taxpayer funded mailer for Nancy Pelosi.
Doesn't seem to be very good at using it's tax revenues compared to what?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2012, 02:11:40 PM
Doesn't seem to be very good at using it's tax revenues compared to what?
Private sector?
Quote from: Caliga on September 07, 2012, 01:51:19 PM
The thing is that the people you are referring to in this are so obsessed with social issues like gay marriage (IT THREATENS MAH MARRIAGE SOMEHOW) and abortion that they'll vote Republican without caring about anything else either party stands for. My mother in law is a good example of this. She is your typical hardcore Christian voter who is so threatened by gay marriage and abortion rights that she probably doesn't bother to listen to what either side says about economic policies/healthcare/etc. Also, I'm sure the fact that the President is black bothers her though she'd never dare admit to that fact. Same goes for the majority of voters around here I'd wager. :ph34r:
Guns are another one. I know a handful of people who vote straight GOP, because the Democrats want to take their guns away, despite that being contrary to the best interests of their pocketbook.
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 02:24:22 PM
Guns are another one. I know a handful of people who vote straight GOP, because the Democrats want to take their guns away, despite that being contrary to the best interests of their pocketbook.
Yeah, how dare they not vote government handouts for themselves.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 02:24:22 PM
Guns are another one. I know a handful of people who vote straight GOP, because the Democrats want to take their guns away, despite that being contrary to the best interests of their pocketbook.
Yeah, how dare they not vote government handouts for themselves.
:huh:
I got my absentee ballot shit from Husted today. :)
None of the Dems I have the option of voting for on the local or state level want to take my guns away.
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 02:24:22 PM
Guns are another one. I know a handful of people who vote straight GOP, because the Democrats want to take their guns away, despite that being contrary to the best interests of their pocketbook.
Yeah, how dare they not vote government handouts for themselves.
:huh:
Well that's the odd piece that is missing in this analysis. Dems aren't really a party of the balanced budget either so while it would be in people's short term to vote for Dems - you're eventually going to run into a problem where you don't have money to fund all the freebies.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 07, 2012, 02:28:33 PM
None of the Dems I have the option of voting for on the local or state level want to take my guns away.
I don't know of many Dems anywhere that want to take anyone's guns away. You can't convince the derspiesses of the world that though.
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 02:24:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 07, 2012, 01:51:19 PM
The thing is that the people you are referring to in this are so obsessed with social issues like gay marriage (IT THREATENS MAH MARRIAGE SOMEHOW) and abortion that they'll vote Republican without caring about anything else either party stands for. My mother in law is a good example of this. She is your typical hardcore Christian voter who is so threatened by gay marriage and abortion rights that she probably doesn't bother to listen to what either side says about economic policies/healthcare/etc. Also, I'm sure the fact that the President is black bothers her though she'd never dare admit to that fact. Same goes for the majority of voters around here I'd wager. :ph34r:
Guns are another one. I know a handful of people who vote straight GOP, because the Democrats want to take their guns away, despite that being contrary to the best interests of their pocketbook.
That cuts both ways. Plenty of champagne socialist types who vote NDP or Democrat despite the fact that economically, they'd be better off with Conservative or Republican policies.
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2012, 02:24:22 PM
Guns are another one. I know a handful of people who vote straight GOP, because the Democrats want to take their guns away, despite that being contrary to the best interests of their pocketbook.
I'm curious how you think their pocketbooks would be served by voting Democrat. Serious question.
Diverting money from our overlarge and misused military to pay for national health care would help most people's pocketbooks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 07, 2012, 02:28:19 PM
I got my absentee ballot shit from Husted today. :)
I got my Wednesday. And since I plan to be in Argentina in November, I'll have to do the absentee thing for the first time evah.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 07, 2012, 02:28:19 PM
I got my absentee ballot shit from Husted today. :)
I got my Wednesday. And since I plan to be in Argentina in November, I'll have to do the absentee thing for the first time evah.
I plan on being in my lazy boy chair. :)
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
I got my Wednesday. And since I plan to be in Argentina in November, I'll have to do the absentee thing for the first time evah.
I hope they can tell from the absentee ballot that you're white, so you don't have to worry about producing ID.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 07, 2012, 02:28:33 PM
None of the Dems I have the option of voting for on the local or state level want to take my guns away.
Sherrod Brown wants to take mine away. No clue about the Democrat running for the seat in my House district, but the district is so solidly GOP it doesn't matter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
I got my Wednesday. And since I plan to be in Argentina in November, I'll have to do the absentee thing for the first time evah.
I hope they can tell from the absentee ballot that you're white, so you don't have to worry about producing ID.
I might go ahead & just vote early. In which case I'll proudly show my very-difficult-to-obtain state-issued ID.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
Sherrod Brown wants to take mine away.
I thought mental competency requirements were already part of the gun laws? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2012, 03:16:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
Sherrod Brown wants to take mine away.
I thought mental competency requirements were already part of the gun laws? :huh:
Stop stalking me.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:10:41 PM
I might go ahead & just vote early. In which case I'll proudly show my very-difficult-to-obtain state-issued ID.
I find it rather pathetic the supposed small government party wants to force everybody to get a government ID in this way. Ah well.
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2012, 03:40:22 PM
I find it rather pathetic the supposed small government party wants to force everybody to get a government ID in this way. Ah well.
Nobody's being forced to get an ID.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2012, 03:40:22 PM
I find it rather pathetic the supposed small government party wants to force everybody to get a government ID in this way. Ah well.
Nobody's being forced to get an ID.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:45:08 PM
Nobody's being forced to get an ID.
Heh. Just another thing you cannot do in society without one. You might as well be.
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 03:47:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2012, 03:40:22 PM
I find it rather pathetic the supposed small government party wants to force everybody to get a government ID in this way. Ah well.
Nobody's being forced to get an ID.
:lol:
Well, he's correct in that regard; after all, you don't
have to vote.
But that's the whole point, now isn't it?
There are countries where you have to vote. We call those Belgium and North Korea.
I am decided who to vote for. Trumpets will sound and rivers will turn to blood.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 07, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
I am decided who to vote for. Trumpets will sound and rivers will turn to blood.
Wait, don't tell me-- for Senate you're voting for Scott Rupert, the Independent candidate who apparently has $389 in campaign funds and works by day as a truck driver!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Ohio,_2012#Candidates_2
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 07, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
I am decided who to vote for. Trumpets will sound and rivers will turn to blood.
Wait, don't tell me-- for Senate you're voting for Scott Rupert, the Independent candidate who apparently has $389 in campaign funds and works by day as a truck driver!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Ohio,_2012#Candidates_2
:lol:
I have more money in my couch cushions. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 12:43:11 PM
Then I guess if you hand over that cheese bought on credit to an unemployed person you meet Jacob's definition of citizenship.
Am I to take from this that you're not interested in arguing in good faith?
Quote
This is silly semantics. If the employee gets to claim partial credit for the taxes the employer pays on his profits, then the employer gets to claim partial credit for the taxes the employee pays on his wages and it all washes out.
Yes, one might say that both are contributors.
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 04:53:10 PM
Am I to take from this that you're not interested in arguing in good faith?
I am interested in arguing in good faith. Jacob defined citizenship as buying cheese for people who are down on their luck. I disagree with that. But it's also true that half of Americans make no net contribution to discretionary federal spending.
Wait, what? Half of Americans make no net contribution to discretionary federal spending?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 04:59:59 PM
I am interested in arguing in good faith. Jacob defined citizenship as buying cheese for people who are down on their luck. I disagree with that. But it's also true that half of Americans make no net contribution to discretionary federal spending.
As it happens I also disagree with Jacobs definition, but I also disagree with your apparent assertion that no direct contribution means no contribution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 04:59:59 PMI am interested in arguing in good faith. Jacob defined citizenship as buying cheese for people who are down on their luck. I disagree with that. But it's also true that half of Americans make no net contribution to discretionary federal spending.
As a serious definition of citizenship, I'm going to walk that one back.
I do not think that the definition of citizenship can be adequately described using cheese as a metaphor, and my comment was a response to MiM's (I think it was his) comment that "citizenship = getting government cheese." The point was - in as flippant and broad focused way as the comment I was responding to - that contributing to the good of the nation and the wellbeing of its citizens is good citizenship; it was not intended as an accountant accurate analysis of the +/- revenue contributed in taxes as the definition of good citizenship.
This discussion is like a cheese that was left out in 100 degree weather for a week.
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2012, 05:20:47 PM
This discussion is like a cheese that was left out in 100 degree weather for a week.
Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
As it happens I also disagree with Jacobs definition, but I also disagree with your apparent assertion that no direct contribution means no contribution.
What about people who work for nonprofits? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
As it happens I also disagree with Jacobs definition, but I also disagree with your apparent assertion that no direct contribution means no contribution.
What about people who work for nonprofits? :hmm:
Suckers, right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
As it happens I also disagree with Jacobs definition, but I also disagree with your apparent assertion that no direct contribution means no contribution.
What about people who work for nonprofits? :hmm:
Autoworkers are just weird.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 05:34:03 PM
Suckers, right?
Not necessarily. Depends on the nonprofit.
Just seems unfair to me that workers at profitable companies get credited for their contribution to corporate taxes in a way that employees at nonprofits don't.
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 02:32:01 PM
That cuts both ways. Plenty of champagne socialist types who vote NDP or Democrat despite the fact that economically, they'd be better off with Conservative or Republican policies.
Champagne socialists are easier to understand. They'd rather be a little poorer, but live in a more fair and equal society where their children aren't kidnapping targets. Once you're rich enough, other considerations take over. I can't understand moonshine capitalists, though.
I'm still curious about Yi's statement that half of all Americans make no net contribution to federal discretionary spending.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2012, 05:51:23 PM
I'm still curious about Yi's statement that half of all Americans make no net contribution to federal discretionary spending.
Something like half of income earners pay no income tax, if my memory serves. Or maybe half of income tax filers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
What about people who work for nonprofits? :hmm:
:hmm: I said nothing about them. It probably depends on the organization.
No one is an island. If you buy anything you're probably contributing to the income that someone is paying taxes on, which is really the point.
Some contribute more than others, obviously. And fiscal contribution isn't the only kind there is.
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 06:55:19 PM
And fiscal contribution isn't the only kind there is.
Can you tell me some others?
Military service, working in certain nonprofits.
Gouda God! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:39:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2012, 05:34:03 PM
Suckers, right?
Not necessarily. Depends on the nonprofit.
Just seems unfair to me that workers at profitable companies get credited for their contribution to corporate taxes in a way that employees at nonprofits don't.
Not necessarily. :rolleyes:
Employees at nonprofits do pay state and federal taxes too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:39:28 PMJust seems unfair to me that workers at profitable companies get credited for their contribution to corporate taxes in a way that employees at nonprofits don't.
Who assigns credit like that?
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2012, 07:00:31 PM
Military service, working in certain nonprofits.
The problem with things like miliitary service and other government jobs is that people get paid to do them. So you'd have to argue that their contribution to the public good is not fully captured by their compensation. Which was maybe plausible back in the 70s and 80s but less so now.
This is different than a tax payment because when you pay your taxes you're receiving no direct benefit in return. You're contributing to the common good by giving up something that has value and someone else is receiving the benefit.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 07:17:48 PM
Who assigns credit like that?
Max.
I think Canuck does too, but I paid less attention to his post and can't swear by it.
Yi, you are the only one in this thread who's reducing the concept of citizenship to purely dollar value.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 07:19:35 PM
Yi, you are the only one in this thread who's reducing the concept of citizenship to purely dollar value.
No, that's your language. I'm talking about contributions to the common good. I'm saying half of Americans don't help to buy the cheese.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 07:19:35 PM
Yi, you are the only one in this thread who's reducing the concept of citizenship to purely dollar value.
He reduces free speech to a dollar value, why not citizenship?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:57:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2012, 05:51:23 PM
I'm still curious about Yi's statement that half of all Americans make no net contribution to federal discretionary spending.
Something like half of income earners pay no income tax, if my memory serves. Or maybe half of income tax filers.
You are aware that are more taxes then just income tax, right?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
You are aware that are more taxes then just income tax, right?
Yes.
Good. Perhaps you can walk back your statement then.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2012, 07:47:41 PM
Good. Perhaps you can walk back your statement then.
Perhaps, but most likely not.
Feel free to explain how Social Security and Medicare taxes contribute to the common good though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 07:18:00 PM
So you'd have to argue that their contribution to the public good is not fully captured by their compensation.
Indeed you would.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 07:50:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2012, 07:47:41 PM
Good. Perhaps you can walk back your statement then.
Perhaps, but most likely not.
Feel free to explain how Social Security and Medicare taxes contribute to the common good though.
I think he was talking about state sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 05:39:28 PM
Just seems unfair to me that workers at profitable companies get credited for their contribution to corporate taxes in a way that employees at nonprofits don't.
Care to expand on this? How do employees get credited for their "contribution" to corporate taxes? How do employees of a nonprofit differ from employees at a profit-making company running in the red?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2012, 07:50:19 PM
Feel free to explain how Social Security and Medicare taxes contribute to the common good though.
I would have thought this to be rather obvious. Social Security taxes pay disabled people enough that they don't have to resort to begging or crime to obtain their daily needs. Medicare taxes reimburse healthcare providers so that those in locales with large numbers of old folks don't get driven out of business by being forced to provide emergency care for old people who cannot afford to buy medical care and drugs on their own.
Feel free to explain why you didn't realize this.
Disabled people getting away with crimes? :huh:
Its quite possible. It doesn't have to be a bank heist.
It can be stealing from loved ones, enticing others to steal to feed/clothe them, or computer crimes.
And if they don't get away with the crime, the state ends up paying even more.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2012, 11:37:53 AM
Disabled people getting away with crimes? :huh:
Disabled people cannot commit crimes? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2012, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2012, 11:37:53 AM
Disabled people getting away with crimes? :huh:
Disabled people cannot commit crimes? :huh:
Nope. It's against the law.
They can, if their victims are ADA-compliant.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2012, 10:40:44 AM
Care to expand on this? How do employees get credited for their "contribution" to corporate taxes? How do employees of a nonprofit differ from employees at a profit-making company running in the red?
I could repeat that it's Max and Crazy Canuck's argument, not mine, but I doubt that will do much good.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2012, 10:48:11 AM
I would have thought this to be rather obvious. Social Security taxes pay disabled people enough that they don't have to resort to begging or crime to obtain their daily needs. Medicare taxes reimburse healthcare providers so that those in locales with large numbers of old folks don't get driven out of business by being forced to provide emergency care for old people who cannot afford to buy medical care and drugs on their own.
Feel free to explain why you didn't realize this.
I concede the point about Social Security Disability. Medicare is not a contribution to the common good for the same reason the bulk of Social Security is not--in return for payments into the system you obtain a claim against the system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 04:34:06 PMI concede the point about Social Security Disability. Medicare is not a contribution to the common good for the same reason the bulk of Social Security is not--in return for payments into the system you obtain a claim against the system.
So? If you contribute to medicare you contribute to the health of your fellow citizens.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 04:42:51 PM
So? If you contribute to medicare you contribute to the health of your fellow citizens.
The so is the part I already mentioned. If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 04:42:51 PM
So? If you contribute to medicare you contribute to the health of your fellow citizens.
The so is the part I already mentioned. If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.
You know full well that it doesn't really work that way. First of all, SS and Medicare are effectively pay-as-you-go systems, even if for political reasons they are not classified as such. Second of all, even taking the classification of such programs at face value, there is still a redistributive element to them. While your benefit payouts scale with the contributions you made, they don't scale linearly.
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2012, 04:53:22 PM
You know full well that it doesn't really work that way. First of all, SS and Medicare are effectively pay-as-you-go systems, even if for political reasons they are not classified as such. Second of all, even taking the classification of such programs at face value, there is still a redistributive element to them. While your benefit payouts scale with the contributions you made, they don't scale linearly.
Agreed, they don't scale linearly and there is a redistributive element. But that just compounds my existing argument; Social Security redistributes money from the top of the income distribution to the bottom.
There is also a gigantic redistributive component from singles to marrieds, but that's a whole nuther discussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 04:51:06 PM
The so is the part I already mentioned. If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.
Medicare and Medicaid are defined-benefit programs, I believe. They are insurance programs in that sense, not savings accounts. One can argue that redistribution is bad, but one can't argue that contributions equal paybacks for the participants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 05:29:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2012, 04:53:22 PM
You know full well that it doesn't really work that way. First of all, SS and Medicare are effectively pay-as-you-go systems, even if for political reasons they are not classified as such. Second of all, even taking the classification of such programs at face value, there is still a redistributive element to them. While your benefit payouts scale with the contributions you made, they don't scale linearly.
Agreed, they don't scale linearly and there is a redistributive element. But that just compounds my existing argument; Social Security redistributes money from the top of the income distribution to the bottom.
There is also a gigantic redistributive component from singles to marrieds, but that's a whole nuther discussion.
SS transfers wealth from the young to the old more than it does from the rich to the poor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 04:51:06 PMThe so is the part I already mentioned. If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.
Ah, I think I see the disconnect.
You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 10:26:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 04:51:06 PMThe so is the part I already mentioned. If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.
Ah, I think I see the disconnect.
You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.
:yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 05:29:05 PMAgreed, they don't scale linearly and there is a redistributive element. But that just compounds my existing argument; Social Security redistributes money from the top of the income distribution to the bottom.
... and that is bad because? Society is better off if poor people too old to work cannot pay for food, housing, medicine and care?
QuoteThere is also a gigantic redistributive component from singles to marrieds, but that's a whole nuther discussion.
I don't think your allies in the religious right are going to want that to change.
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2012, 09:28:33 AM
I say 200.5k
That's good enough to keep him where he's at now (in a slight lead), not good enough to improve it.
EDIT: And it turns out reading further into the thread that it was only 96k. Not nearly good enough.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 10:26:20 PM
Ah, I think I see the disconnect.
You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.
Of course. And that's what this discussion is about: what is the situation in which it is appropriate to give, and which it is appropriate to take.
I think only half the people giving is inappropriate. Others might think it would be appropriate that only 1% give, and about half take.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 10:29:30 PM
... and that is bad because? Society is better off if poor people too old to work cannot pay for food, housing, medicine and care?
It's good for the reason all redistributive policies are good: it channels money to people who need it the most.
It's bad for the reason all redistributive policies are bad: it disincentivizes work and saving.
QuoteI don't think your allies in the religious right are going to want that to change.
Don't join the retards Jake.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2012, 09:38:16 PM
SS transfers wealth from the young to the old more than it does from the rich to the poor.
Yes and generally the young are poorer than the rich so in fact it does just the opposite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 11:14:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 10:29:30 PM
... and that is bad because? Society is better off if poor people too old to work cannot pay for food, housing, medicine and care?
It's good for the reason all redistributive policies are good: it channels money to people who need it the most.
It's bad for the reason all redistributive policies are bad: it disincentivizes work and saving.
QuoteI don't think your allies in the religious right are going to want that to change.
Don't join the retards Jake.
Okay and okay.
For a discussion triggered by a response to an offhand comment about cheese, it seems like you're deliberately driving at a very specific point. I'm not quite sure what it is, however.
You're not interested in playing the usual languish partisan posture games it seems; which is cool.
Do you have some notions about what the ideal balance of redistribution in today's America, how this balance may be changed depending on the outcome of the upcoming election, and consequently which candidates are to be preferred?
Is it part of the scrum where we define or redefine what Obama meant by the concept of "citizenship" as part of a semi-partisan attempts to shape the debate (which the conversation started IMO)? If so, what's your play?
Are you primarily interested in refining a common set of definitions, vocabulary and understandings of economical process when we speak of various redistribution approaches as a precursor to a more practical discussion?
Where are you going Yi?
I'm interested in a system that broadly distributes the tax burden so that discussions about spending are on the terms of "do we as a people want this and are we as a people willing to pay for it." I'm afraid of a Roman system in which "we" tax "those people over there" and then fight over the best seats in the Colliseum.
Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2012, 02:58:16 AM
Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?
It's nearly as bad as fraud and corruption.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2012, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2012, 10:26:20 PM
Ah, I think I see the disconnect.
You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.
Of course. And that's what this discussion is about: what is the situation in which it is appropriate to give, and which it is appropriate to take.
I think only half the people giving is inappropriate. Others might think it would be appropriate that only 1% give, and about half take.
You are still going with the "half don't pay taxes thing"?
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2012, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2012, 11:37:53 AM
Disabled people getting away with crimes? :huh:
Disabled people cannot commit crimes? :huh:
Doubtful to the extent that it is a compelling reason for why we should take care of them.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2012, 02:58:16 AM
Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?
Yes.
Has anyone seen Hansie in the last month? Every time I remember his "Romney, by a landslide" prediction I break out in giggles.
I just saw on the Daily Show how the DNC "voted" to amend the platform to include God and Jerusalem. How fucking pathetic. :lol:
If I was an American, I would not go to vote at all after that.
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
I just saw on the Daily Show how the DNC "voted" to amend the platform to include God and Jerusalem. How fucking pathetic. :lol:
If I was an American, I would not go to vote at all after that.
So, how many political parties in Poland endorse gay marriage?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2012, 02:58:16 AM
Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?
With the unemployment the way it is, we should redouble our efforts to disincentivize work.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2012, 01:32:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2012, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2012, 02:58:16 AM
Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?
Yes.
Oh, do you have proof?
To be fair, the way you phrased the question, even derspiess can't help but be right by saying "yes", even if he was merely intending to recite Republican sound bites. Disincentives to work will always be a problem in societies with social safety net, just like insured houses are always going to suffer higher losses on average compared to uninsured houses.
The interesting question is whether such inefficiencies are made up by the benefits of social safety net. Reasonable people will say yes, but idiots will disagree.
Those who are only qualified to work in menial jobs are highly susceptible to that -- standing up in Walmart for 9 hours, or sitting at home and collecting a government check ? Those without self respect and uninterested in the pride that labor can bring to your soul are disinclined to pursue that kind of labor.
I doubt people who are able to obtain non-entry level jobs experience the same feeling.
The trick is to have a safety net for those who need it, but not for those who just want it.
A number of you seem to operating under the incorrect assumption that disincentives have to be all or nothing.
Quote from: Jaron on September 09, 2012, 02:24:04 PM
Those who are only qualified to work in menial jobs are highly susceptible to that -- standing up in Walmart for 9 hours, or sitting at home and collecting a government check ? Those without self respect and uninterested in the pride that labor can bring to your soul are disinclined to pursue that kind of labor.
I doubt people who are able to obtain non-entry level jobs experience the same feeling.
The trick is to have a safety net for those who need it, but not for those who just want it.
Meh. If enough people are doing that, it will drive up the cost of menial labor and thus make it more worthwhile to do it. No reason to deny people basic necessities. And honestly, menial labor should pay at a high enough rate that it still looks attractive. Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
I don't think there is any shortage in labor supply at that tier. Person A can walk in off the street and apply. If they balk at the offered wages, person B or C or D will take it.
And you pay more for skills or experience. The problem with blue collar labor jobs...your Walmarts, your JiBs, your McDonalds is that there are no skills required - it takes about a day to learn to operate a cash register, or how to wait for a timer to beep before flipping a hamburger patty.
And experience isn't particularly valuable in those lines of work because a worker who has been at their post for two years isn't going to be significantly better at stocking the shelves with toilet paper than employee B who has been there two months.
It's funny. My brother spent months trying to get one of those jobs without success.
Quote from: Jaron on September 09, 2012, 03:24:06 PM
I don't think there is any shortage in labor supply at that tier.
So why should the government be setting policies to encourage people to take those jobs?
Because working trumps not working. And some people need some prodding just to take care of core responsibilities beneficial to their own welfare.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Meh. If enough people are doing that, it will drive up the cost of menial labor and thus make it more worthwhile to do it. No reason to deny people basic necessities. And honestly, menial labor should pay at a high enough rate that it still looks attractive. Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
A truth that is often forgotten, especially by adherents of "someone needs to be around to do the shit work" theory.
Quote from: Jaron on September 09, 2012, 03:24:06 PM
I don't think there is any shortage in labor supply at that tier. Person A can walk in off the street and apply. If they balk at the offered wages, person B or C or D will take it.
Then disincentives to work don't really exist in this example. Everyone except the one person who takes the job will have to be on the dole anyway.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
:huh:
The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 06:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
:huh:
The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.
Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 06:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
:huh:
The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.
In Peter's example there will either be more menial workers working, or they will be making more which should offset the rise in groceries.
Wouldn't the rise in their wages be offset by the rise of the cost of goods?
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2012, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 06:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
:huh:
The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.
Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.
That's not logic, that's just something dumb. Yes, menial workers would probably pay more for goods and services if they were paid more. That is true. To suggest that it's a bad trade-off is where it gets mind-numbingly stupid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 09, 2012, 02:11:37 AM
I'm afraid of a Roman system in which "we" tax "those people over there" and then fight over the best seats in the Colliseum.
I do not see how this is a characteristic of the Roman system at all.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 09, 2012, 03:24:06 PM
I don't think there is any shortage in labor supply at that tier. Person A can walk in off the street and apply. If they balk at the offered wages, person B or C or D will take it.
Then disincentives to work don't really exist in this example. Everyone except the one person who takes the job will have to be on the dole anyway.
It is not about disincentives in this case, but just highlighting why it is silly to raise the minimum wage to make those jobs more attractive. Spend a few months living off pennies and whatever food you can scrape by on and suddenly working at Walmart for minimum wage looks mighty attractive.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2012, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 06:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
:huh:
The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.
Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.
That's not logic, that's just something dumb. Yes, menial workers would probably pay more for goods and services if they were paid more. That is true. To suggest that it's a bad trade-off is where it gets mind-numbingly stupid.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the lives of poor people. Maybe you should think more and be less of a stupid fucking faggot.
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2012, 07:01:48 PM
You seem to have a hard time understanding the lives of poor people. Maybe you should think more and be less of a stupid fucking faggot.
I don't need to understand anything about the lives of the poor people to demolish this argument. To claim that higher wages for menial labor would be at least fully offset by higher cost of goods and services is incredibly stupid regardless of how much you understand about the lives of poor people (as a matter of fact, I think I do understand something about it, having been poor in the past). The stupidity of such argument is on par with Laffer Curve argument, or "Henry Ford paid his workers a lot so that they could buy his cars and increase his profits" myth.
The general fallacy behind all those arguments is that the mere existence of the secondary effect that works in the opposite direction leads to the giant logical leap that ends in the conclusion that the side-effect at least fully cancels out the original obvious effect.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2012, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 06:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.
:huh:
The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.
Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.
That's not logic, that's just something dumb. Yes, menial workers would probably pay more for goods and services if they were paid more. That is true. To suggest that it's a bad trade-off is where it gets mind-numbingly stupid.
I don't think I said it was a bad trade-off (though that would really depend on just what exactly the increase in wage was relative to the increase in price for goods and services). I was suggesting that however you slice it, a rise in price in consumer goods is more likely to have significant effects on those in menial or lower positions - especially those who did not see their wages rise (unless we are discussing a scenario where everyone from the destitute to lower middle class sees an increase in income) rather than on the white collar professionals that Peter has maligned.
Really it'd be the middle class who'd feel the biggest pinch.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 07:34:00 PM
I don't think I said it was a bad trade-off (though that would really depend on just what exactly the increase in wage was relative to the increase in price for goods and services). I was suggesting that however you slice it, a rise in price in consumer goods is more likely to have significant effects on those in menial or lower positions - especially those who did not see their wages rise (unless we are discussing a scenario where everyone from the destitute to lower middle class sees an increase in income) rather than on the white collar professionals that Peter has maligned.
Really it'd be the middle class who'd feel the biggest pinch.
Unskilled labor is more or less a commodity. If the wages for it rise in one sector, they have to rise in all sectors due to competitive pressures.
As for who's "hardest hit", it makes no sense to talk about it in gross terms. If Congress passes an act tomorrow that awards me $10 million, I would probably not be the hardest hit person by that act, even though my tax bill would increase the most as a result of it.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 07:41:10 PM
Unskilled labor is more or less a commodity. If the wages for it rise in one sector, they have to rise in all sectors due to competitive pressures.
It wouldn't be immediate but rather a slow painful process and not necessarily one that guarantees a positive outcome.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 07:41:10 PMAs for who's "hardest hit", it makes no sense to talk about it in gross terms. If Congress passes an act tomorrow that awards me $10 million, I would probably not be the hardest hit person by that act, even though my tax bill would increase the most as a result of it.
I don't think I follow this at all.
Well, sleep on it.
No, I don't think I will spend additional time thinking about your scenario about hardest hit not being an applicable label when you are awarded money.
Sigh, it's really a drag to engage in conversations with people who totally lack abstract thinking skills. Ok, I'll elaborate for willfully obtuse.
The hypothetical and hugely implausible act that will award me $10,000,000 million would cost an average taxpayer a couple of cents. However, I personally would pay around $3,000,000 more in taxes because of that act, since that award will be part of my income. Ergo, I would be "hardest hit".
The logic is greatly exaggerated for illustrative purposes, but it is identical in structure to the logic that claims that poor people would be the hardest hit if they would be paid more for work.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 08:15:20 PM
The logic is greatly exaggerated for illustrative purposes, but it is identical in structure to the logic that claims that poor people would be the hardest hit if they would be paid more for work.
I don't see how it is identical in the least. Even if wages were to increase across the board (as you stated), that increase would be slow and gradual. Those who currently had not received the increase would be pinched hard by the increase in basic goods - much more so than the terrible white collar workers. And really a similar story for the unemployed. It isn't really the direct menial workers so much but everyone around their class who doesn't get to reap the same benefits.
Though also, I don't really see why prices on said goods wouldn't increase beyond the simple increase needed to cover the increase in pay for the menial workers. If everyone is making more money, why wouldn't business charge more as everyone would be able to afford more. Much in the same way that if I buy liquor at 6th and 8th, I'll pay a significant premium over a purchase of the same liquor at 6th and 23rd (and more dramatically over said purchase in BedStuy) in one part because people in the village can afford to pay more.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 07:34:00 PM
rather than on the white collar professionals that Peter has maligned.
Where?
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 07:34:00 PM
Really it'd be the middle class who'd feel the biggest pinch.
Well, kinda. As this hypothetical was based on the impact of government safety nets, it's the doctors and lawyers and other professionals in the 36% bracket who are contributing the most. Any effect on labor costs and thus prices is dwarfed by the amount of welfare spending it would take to make government welfare have such an effect.
Love it. Love him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6EIKM.jpg&hash=c8de56cb8d35af61f335e7b396c7b0c87c6b8d4c)
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 01:41:29 PM
The interesting question is whether such inefficiencies are made up by the benefits of social safety net. Reasonable people will say yes, but idiots will disagree.
Actually, reasonable people will say "it depends on the particulars, of course" while idiots will insist they don't matter, the answer is "yes".
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 12:45:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2012, 01:41:29 PM
The interesting question is whether such inefficiencies are made up by the benefits of social safety net. Reasonable people will say yes, but idiots will disagree.
Actually, reasonable people will say "it depends on the particulars, of course" while idiots will insist they don't matter, the answer is "yes".
I was not 100% serious there. However, upon further reflection, I will retroactively stand behind the sentiment. I can't think of one country that's worse off with social safety net than it would be without one. Yes, even Greece. Some safety nets are far more economically efficient than others, but all of them that actually exist in the real world are better than any system with no "disincentives to work".
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2012, 06:59:33 PM
I do not see how this is a characteristic of the Roman system at all.
It would be characteristic of a hypothetical Roman system in which the plebes got to vote on the amount of the transfer.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 09, 2012, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
I just saw on the Daily Show how the DNC "voted" to amend the platform to include God and Jerusalem. How fucking pathetic. :lol:
If I was an American, I would not go to vote at all after that.
So, how many political parties in Poland endorse gay marriage?
Out of six parties in the Parliament, two endorse it, two are split and two oppose it.
What does it have to do with falsifying "vote" results on national tv, though, you fucking faggot?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2012, 01:09:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2012, 01:05:26 PM
That works in a polarized political system. But that doesnt answer the question of how so many poor and middle class folks became rabid Republicans to create your current polarized condition.
:pope: / :ph34r:
Yeah, I guess I keep underestimating that.
And here are some money quotes to perfectly illustrate how economic issues can be restated in more understandable terms:
QuoteIf Obama has fed class resentment with attacks on Romney's taxes and his mixed record at Bain Capital, the GOP is tapping into a different strain of white middle-class rancor -- one directed toward low-income recipients of government aid.
A Romney ad asserts that "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you a welfare check." Independent fact-checkers say the ad distorts the administration's plan to give states more flexibility on work rules -- a request that came from Republican governors.
In Lynchburg, however, it resonates with some white conservatives. At the Modern Barber Shop on Main Street, where the Ten Commandments are displayed in the window, a group of retirees chatted about the election on a recent morning.
"I don't believe in free handouts," said Robert McCanna, a former accountant. "Obama is pitting blacks against whites."
Retired truck driver Lyle Campbell interjected, "If I was black, I would get anything I want."
http://news.yahoo.com/southern-whites-troubled-romneys-wealth-religion-050312040.html
Thank God Romney ain't courting the racist vote.
Well they live in Lynchburg what do you expect?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2012, 02:21:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2012, 06:59:33 PM
I do not see how this is a characteristic of the Roman system at all.
It would be characteristic of a hypothetical Roman system in which the plebes got to vote on the amount of the transfer.
Ah ok. That was a very abstract point you were making there.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 04:53:24 PM
Well they live in Lynchburg what do you expect?
Not to mention they're old men at a barber shop. Cause having a woman cut your hair is indecent or something.
Lolz http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2012, 11:20:30 AM
Lolz http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112
It doesn't mean anything, but still :lol:
Quote from: YahooDNC apologizes for using image of Russian warships at convention
The organizers of the Democratic National Convention apologized on Wednesday for accidentally using an image of Soviet-era Russian warships in its backdrop during a tribute to veterans at last week's convention in Charlotte, N.C.
The ships were shown on a screen behind 50 veterans assembled onstage Sept. 6 during a presentation by retired Adm. John Nathman.
"Due to vendor error, incorrect images appeared briefly on screen behind fifty-one veterans during the convention and the DNCC apologizes for this mistake," a Democratic National Convention Committee spokeswoman said in a statement to the Navy Times. "This error should not distract from the words of Admiral Nathman and others who spoke to President Obama's strong record on issues that impact those who have served our nation."
The DNC also took the opportunity to take a swipe at Mitt Romney's speech at last month's Republican National Convention.
"We're proud of the service and sacrifice of our veterans and military families," the DNC said. "And while they were an important and active part our of convention, Mitt Romney failed to even mention them in his speech in Tampa."
The warships—believed to be part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet—were first spotted by Rob Barker, a former naval electronics warfare technician, who notified the Navy Times.
Naval historians solicited by the Navy Times confirmed the background showed four ships "with radar designs not used" in the U.S. fleet.
"The ships are definitely Russian," naval author Norman Polmar told the Navy Times on Tuesday after reviewing photos from the event. "There's no question of that in my mind."
More from the Navy Times:
For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as "Flat Screen" for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of "Combat Fleets of the World."
Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 "Head Net" air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it's hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.
This is why you don't let interns do google searches for multimedia presentations. Sheesh.
On the other hand, if it had been at the RNC, something would've been spelled wrong.
Love the comments about it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2929961/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2929961/posts)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
This is why you don't let interns do google searches for multimedia presentations. Sheesh.
On the other hand, if it had been at the RNC, something would've been spelled wrong.
You say potato they say potatoe.
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
On this forum, I'd wager the majority of us.
Oh and good going trying to channel the SirHockney meme, but I think someone did it better a couple of weeks back. :P
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
Price?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
See my above post.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams,
:unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
:lol: EUOT 2003 SHOUTOUT
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
Old joke.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
Much in the same way that if I buy liquor at 6th and 8th, I'll pay a significant premium over a purchase of the same liquor at 6th and 23rd (and more dramatically over said purchase in BedStuy) in one part because people in the village can afford to pay more.
:secret: (You say the street first, avenue second.)
Oh, dropping the NYC etiquette! :P
I didn't know that either.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 11:10:57 PM
Oh, dropping the NYC etiquette! :P
I didn't know that either.
Yeah never thought about that before, but I guess it makes perfect sense, the most descriptive element comes first.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 12, 2012, 11:08:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
Much in the same way that if I buy liquor at 6th and 8th, I'll pay a significant premium over a purchase of the same liquor at 6th and 23rd (and more dramatically over said purchase in BedStuy) in one part because people in the village can afford to pay more.
:secret: (You say the street first, avenue second.)
Pretty sure I say whatever I please. :P
And in fact, google confirms that such rules have taken a tumble with the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and NYPD doing whatever they damn well please. :D
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:39:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
See my above post.
I'm confused. I know the ships were russian and not american. I just want to hear from the Uke how the T-72 is superior in any way to any version of the Abrams as he claims.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:30:55 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:39:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
The ship thing is an easy mistake to make. How many of you would actually be able to spot that mistake on your own? It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
I'm a bit curious, how, in any metric is the T-72 superior to any version of the Abrams?
See my above post.
I'm confused. I know the ships were russian and not american. I just want to hear from the Uke how the T-72 is superior in any way to any version of the Abrams as he claims.
It's not, it's a joke, On SirHockey, from 2003.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 07:12:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
It's not like with tanks, where most lay people would know that a T-72 tank is not Abrams, even if they wouldn't understand why T-72 is superior.
:lol: EUOT 2003 SHOUTOUT
ah, oh... meh... I thought the claim was that the T-80 and T-90 were better than the Abrams?
Most old Soviet tanks have a hitch on the front so they can be towed into battle by teams of oxen. Western Tanks lack this capability.
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:14:46 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 12, 2012, 11:08:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
Much in the same way that if I buy liquor at 6th and 8th, I'll pay a significant premium over a purchase of the same liquor at 6th and 23rd (and more dramatically over said purchase in BedStuy) in one part because people in the village can afford to pay more.
:secret: (You say the street first, avenue second.)
Pretty sure I say whatever I please. :P
Well, you can pronounce Houston Street like the city in Texas if you want, too, doesn't mean it's right. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2012, 07:46:06 AM
Most old Soviet tanks have a hitch on the front so they can be towed into battle by teams of oxen. Western Tanks lack this capability.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:33:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 07:12:41 PM
:lol: EUOT 2003 SHOUTOUT
ah, oh... meh... I thought the claim was that the T-80 and T-90 were better than the Abrams?
IIRC, it was the reactive armor of the T-62 that was superior to Abrhams chobham plating.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 08:18:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:33:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 07:12:41 PM
:lol: EUOT 2003 SHOUTOUT
ah, oh... meh... I thought the claim was that the T-80 and T-90 were better than the Abrams?
IIRC, it was the reactive armor of the T-62 that was superior to Abrhams chobham plating.
That was the dprk claim that Juche powered tanks from WWII could turn ROK K1 tanks into mincemeat.
BTW, that K2 seems to be a monster.. it's fascinating what you can do when you have a large economy and no need to airlift tanks.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 13, 2012, 07:48:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:14:46 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 12, 2012, 11:08:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
Much in the same way that if I buy liquor at 6th and 8th, I'll pay a significant premium over a purchase of the same liquor at 6th and 23rd (and more dramatically over said purchase in BedStuy) in one part because people in the village can afford to pay more.
:secret: (You say the street first, avenue second.)
Pretty sure I say whatever I please. :P
Well, you can pronounce Houston Street like the city in Texas if you want, too, doesn't mean it's right. :P
Actually I can't a woman asked me how to get to Houston (with Tex pronunciation) and all I could think was I guess you should go to JFK. :blush:
Anyway, like I pointed out after that post - consistency seems to have died if those 3 institutions that I pointed out now are haphazard about what they say. :P
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:30:55 AM
I'm confused. I know the ships were russian and not american. I just want to hear from the Uke how the T-72 is superior in any way to any version of the Abrams as he claims.
:lol: again.
@ you.