|
Armyman25 posted:I'd think the sheep probably out compete the penguins for the resources or the land. Maybe a space issue? Like the sheep take up too much space for the penguins to make a nest on the land that is now a minefield? Sheep tend to destroy areas if left to their own devices, and overgraze all the local vegetation until it's basically gone. It's why shepherds have to have multiple fields and rotate sheep through them - otherwise the sheep will eat everything until there's nothing left. So yes, it's a resources thing.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Well, this apparently is viral http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Radio-ad-refuses-service-to-Obama-supporters-Muslims-132748178.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:31
|
|
|
Crocket Keller posted:I just will not teach these people," said Keller. "If I see them on the road, I'll wave at them if they wave at me. If I meet them on the street, I'll be polite as they are to me, that's my nature; I believe in being polite and honest and matter of fact. gently caress concealed carry lessons, I want to know about psychic ability and how I, too, can use it to deny people my services!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Non Christian Muslim. I love it See though now he will lose his lisence to teach this course and it will just ad to the "evil oppressive government trampling the free speech of Christian"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Captain Filth posted:Non Christian Muslim. I love it Good. Dude can convince him and his of whatever he wants, doesn't change the fact that he lives in America not GOP-fantasy land, and I'm not going to trouble myself over it at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Captain Filth posted:Non Christian Muslim. I love it Non Christian Arab, not the same
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
Here are a few recent gems from my Facebook wall, following the posts of my ultra-conservative lab partner, Sally. I'm John.       Here's the link to the article she posted. Power Line appears to be a conservative blog. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/help-wanted.php
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Here are a few recent gems from my Facebook wall, following the posts of my ultra-conservative lab partner, Sally. I'm John. So she thinks income correlates with the amount of 'hard work' done and the rich are rich because they just plain worked harder than everyone else? Ask her if she works harder than a sweatshop worker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
God, so many things wrong. Here's another lie, I mean statistic; Federal Income Taxes, that are predominantly paid for by the top 40% only account for 42% of the total tax revenue the Federal Government collects. Another 40% are Pay Roll taxes, which the extremely wealth pay only a tiny portion of because SS taxes cap at the first $106K of income. The bottom 80% pay most of those taxes. Their employers technically pay half, but really the employee pays it, because if their employer didn't have to, they could give that money to the employee (I don't actually believe this, but Conservative Sally likely would). So yes, those other 47% do play an important role in supporting the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Here are a few recent gems from my Facebook wall, following the posts of my ultra-conservative lab partner, Sally. I'm John. Congrats, your lab partner is pretty fantastic at repeating talking points. Better hope that your lab was explained word for word in class, with your professor tying in conspiracy theories involving College Democrats into the labs instructions, which he drew out in nonsensical graphs and diagrams on the chalkboard, in between bouts of crying because he "loves this class so much", but "fears for it."; because if your lab is in anything less than this format there is no way your partner will remember.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
ClosedBSD posted:Congrats, your lab partner is pretty fantastic at repeating talking points. Better hope that your lab was explained word for word in class, with your professor tying in conspiracy theories involving College Democrats into the labs instructions, which he drew out in nonsensical graphs and diagrams on the chalkboard, in between bouts of crying because he "loves this class so much", but "fears for it."; because if your lab is in anything less than this format there is no way your partner will remember.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Maybe you should point out that the wealth in this country has been redistributed to the rich for the last 40+ years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
Z-Magic posted:So she thinks income correlates with the amount of 'hard work' done and the rich are rich because they just plain worked harder than everyone else? Ask her if she works harder than a sweatshop worker. They don't live in AMERICA, idiot. downout posted:Maybe you should point out that the wealth in this country has been redistributed to the rich for the last 40+ years. Because they work harder, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
The best part of that is: "First it is IMMORAL, because it involves taking money away from the group that earned them - read AYN RAND ON that subject- she's a well known philosopher." Well known for being a complete hack, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
Z-Magic posted:So she thinks income correlates with the amount of 'hard work' done and the rich are rich because they just plain worked harder than everyone else? Ask her if she works harder than a sweatshop worker. Whenever somebody brings that up I always ask them why our government isn't led by Mexican roofers. You ever seen those dudes hop a ladder while holding a 20' gutter section up by hand? INSANE. Tons of respect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 10:00
|
|
|
This site is like dozens of these emails all put together: http://the53.tumblr.com/quote:I am 34 years old This guy blows my mind. His entire life could have been a thousand times better under more liberal policies. There is no reason for anyone to owe $230,000 in medical bills, ever. The people who benefit from his hard work sit on top of trillions of dollars, and he thinks its totally reasonable to pay several years of his salary just for chemotherapy. Chemotherapy that was not created by private drug companies, but by government research. Also, over 33% of his income taken by taxes? There's no reason for a married couple making $90K to pay more than 9% of their income in Federal Income Taxes. That assumes only standard exemptions and deductions. Even with FICA and State Income taxes it wouldn't come close to exceeding 33%. I can understand people being confused by various political issues. But people should at least have a good handle of their own personal situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
Not a chain letter, but to kinda show with what regard business-people hold people who lose their homes: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/what-the-costumes-reveal.html?_r=2
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Where did people get the idea that a government functions economically identically to a nuclear family? I've never understood that. The same place that the idea that a rocket can't work because it has nothing to push against. Many people cannot think in terms that are not useful in their daily lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:Not a chain letter, but to kinda show with what regard business-people hold people who lose their homes: In that first picture, are they seriously mocking people who rented a home and lost it because the owner didn't pay their mortgage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Are sheep naturally penguin predators or something? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article146406.ece myron_cope posted:Isn't the DMZ between the Koreas the reason the US won't sign the land mine treaty? I learned that on the West Wing No, the US won't sign because gently caress YOU THAT IS WHY.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:No, the US won't sign because gently caress YOU THAT IS WHY. Is it a conservative thing? I don't know enough about the treaties, but it seems like any sort of agreement like these gets the whole "the rest of the world can't control us - WAAAAGH!!" treatment from the right, no matter how reasonable and unobtrusive it is. But it might just be a US thing in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article146406.ece At least Somalia seems to be in agreement with us most of the time. Isn't that supposed to be unironically libertopia right now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Is it a conservative thing? I don't know enough about the treaties, but it seems like any sort of agreement like these gets the whole "the rest of the world can't control us - WAAAAGH!!" treatment from the right, no matter how reasonable and unobtrusive it is. But it might just be a US thing in general. Partly, but not entirely - I mean the Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol 95-0. Democrats aren't that big on multilateralism either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Partly, but not entirely - I mean the Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol 95-0. Democrats aren't that big on multilateralism either. Yeah, I was worried that was the case 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:At least Somalia seems to be in agreement with us most of the time. Isn't that supposed to be unironically libertopia right now? Somolia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child after that was made, leaving the US alone in not signing it. Think about that for a second. A state that essentially has no government ratified it before us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
To be fair, we probably have a better track record following those treaties than a lot of the countries that signed them- the problem is that we have the worst system for signing treaties in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
quote:Editor, This showed up just a few pages back, but it just appeared in my own Facebook feed and I'm trying to write a fairly nonconfrontational take-down of it. I need a little help with this part though. quote:We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work I remember seeing statistics that a huge portion of those on welfare work full-time, in the order of 90%, but I can't find a source on anything along those lines right now. Don't suppose anyone has one handy? I'm probably going to be wasting my time beating my head against a wall, and fully expect to have my comment deleted, but I still feel like it needs the effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:I remember seeing statistics that a huge portion of those on welfare work full-time, in the order of 90%, but I can't find a source on anything along those lines right now. Don't suppose anyone has one handy? I'm probably going to be wasting my time beating my head against a wall, and fully expect to have my comment deleted, but I still feel like it needs the effort. Depends on what sort of Welfare you are talking about; most people when they think of welfare think food stamps (SNAP). A few facts about SNAP: Requirements to Qualify: Own less than $2,000 in countable resources (home is not countable, primary vehicle value varies by state), have a gross monthly income below $2,422 for a family of four, and most able bodied adults must have employment or actively seek and accept employment opportunities. Benefit: The maximum benefit for a family of four is $668, but the actual received benefit is reduced by 30% of the families net income. Example: If your family of four makes $1,500 in net income, you receive only $218 in monthly benefits ($668 - 450 = 218). Benefits do carry over into the following month if not spent, however 47% of recipients exhaust all their benefits by the end of each month. Who Benefits How Much: 49% of participants are children. The average household size is 2.3 persons. The average gross income of recipients is $673 per month. The average amount of monthly benefits is $101 per person or $227 per household. 28.4 million people are covered at a cost of $34.6 billion. Additional Information: 70% of benefits receivers are expected to buy some of their food with their own money (this is why restricting food stamp usage on sugary drinks is stupid as hell because they will just spend their cash on it and now you have more rules to enforce through administrative overhead). There is no strong research to suggest that recipients choose worse foods than other consumers; in fact they are less likely to buy sweets (61.6% vs. 72.1% publicly) or salty snacks (29.6% vs. 36.5% publicly). From 2004 to 2006, half of all new SNAP recipients got benefits for 10 months or less, and 58% left the program within one year. Of those that left, 42% returned within a year. ---- This shits all publicly available information gathered in like an hour of searching Google (a search I did prompted by one of my coworkers saying people on food stamps got $500 per individual  ). If people want to rail against a program great, but if they can't spend an hour to search for basic information tell them to blow it out their rear end because they are literally against feeding children, a number of which are probably among the 1.5 million children who are homeless in the United States. Not even to mention the disabled and elderly. And the plain old destitute.The really mind boggling part for me is the $2,000 in countable assets limit. It's a huge gently caress you to struggling families: we'll help you out, but only to the point where you are barely surviving, then you are on your own again so good luck and hope you don't get sick because you probably don't have health insurance. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
Thanks a bunch. I'm still trying to find those statistics linking jobs and welfare, but that was more than enough for me to go ahead and respond.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Good stuff This is all cool, though I wish you'd posted the sources just to save me some legwork. Do you know if there's any info out there on when benefits of welfare programs get "extended"? My mother agrees with most of the things you said but has some weird belief that people constantly get extensions and that people are using these to live for years and years on welfare. She also simply didn't believe that other countries have more progressive welfare systems ("Maybe on paper, but they don't constantly cave and extend benefits for people like we do.").
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:She also simply didn't believe that other countries have more progressive welfare systems ("Maybe on paper, but they don't constantly cave and extend benefits for people like we do."). What we need for that is some Dane or Swede or something to volunteer to email these people with personal stories, documentation and sources regarding their welfare programs, along with pictures of themselves holding up signs of the recipient's choosing near some identifiable landmark proving they are where they say they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Kavak posted:To be fair, we probably have a better track record following those treaties than a lot of the countries that signed them- the problem is that we have the worst system for signing treaties in the world. So how does the US treaty ratification work? They follow them (some, not all obv.) but they dont ratify?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:So how does the US treaty ratification work? They follow them (some, not all obv.) but they dont ratify? 2/3rds of the Senate have to approve the treaty for it to be ratified and apply as law. If there is a requirement to spend money on something, the House of Representatives can block it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 09:24
|
|
|
Sarion posted:This site is like dozens of these emails all put together: http://the53.tumblr.com/ I'm going to take a wild rear end guess and say that that letter is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Kavak posted:2/3rds of the Senate have to approve the treaty for it to be ratified and apply as law. If there is a requirement to spend money on something, the House of Representatives can block it. Most treaties also have some sort of limited functions for when a state signs it but doesn't ratify. I can't remember which one of those it was, but there was at least one that Clinton signed, then it didn't get ratified before he left office and George W. Bush "un-signed" it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
rscott posted:I'm going to take a wild rear end guess and say that that letter is bullshit. I think so too. But there's not an easy way to call him out on it on tumblr, there doesn't seem to be a way to leave a comment. He claims to have had $230,000 in medical debt, plus tons of student loans (government subsidized of course) and he's managed to pay it down to only $19,000 at age 34? Nothing about his story adds up. Though if his story about his childhood is accurate that's pretty  but doesn't make up for the bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:I can't remember which one of those it was, but there was at least one that Clinton signed, then it didn't get ratified before he left office and George W. Bush "un-signed" it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:This is all cool, though I wish you'd posted the sources just to save me some legwork. Do you know if there's any info out there on when benefits of welfare programs get "extended"? My mother agrees with most of the things you said but has some weird belief that people constantly get extensions and that people are using these to live for years and years on welfare. She also simply didn't believe that other countries have more progressive welfare systems ("Maybe on paper, but they don't constantly cave and extend benefits for people like we do."). For programs like TANF (cash assistance for needy families) there is a hard cap that varies from state to state on how long you can receive benefits over a lifetime. Once you reach that limit, there is (afaik) no way to extend that benefit at all. You've run up to your lifetime allotment and can never receive TANF again (unless the timeline for eligibility is extended). What your mom is probably going on about is unemployment benefits, which can and have been extended to people in last 2 years. However, unemployment comes with very strict work search requirements and still has a hard limit to how much you can draw over your lifetime. If you're interested in these kinds of things, I'd recommend The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a good source for information on how these programs are run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Info readily available that no one ever reads I had to get SNAP when I moved out for the first couple of months. This jives pretty much exactly with my experiences, got dropped after 3 months (When the renewal time was) because I had a job paying $9 an hour in an area where most rents are $400 a month for a tiny shitbox. This doesn't change the fact that everyone around me still and will always believe that everyone who gets benefits gets massive amounts, and that they sell the food stamps off to go buy drugs/booze/cigs. Mind you only thing I got for using the SNAP benefits was a card to swipe that was the same card month to month and was also used for medicaid so I'm not about to give it someone else. Also fun fact, getting SNAP made me stop going to Price Chopper (Grocery store chain) because when I went to use self-checkout it basically loudly announces for me to swipe my food stamp card to everyone around that area. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
ArchRanger posted:Thanks a bunch. I'm still trying to find those statistics linking jobs and welfare, but that was more than enough for me to go ahead and respond. There aren't any, at least not exactly. This is as close as I can get, but it only applies to true welfare: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0046.html#Tab1 The important part for working and on welfare are these rows: code:Non-Parents: 59% on welfare also work Married Couples: 81% on welfare also work Single Parents: 53% on welfare also work So most households on TANF also work. It's not entirely surprising that Single parents are not only the most common recipients but also the least likely to both work and be on TANF, since many low income jobs don't pay enough to justify putting kids in daycare since it eats most of your take home pay. But also important is that many people on welfare were on it for less than a year, not more than half, but still common. And welfare has maximum lifetime limits (usually 4 years total I think), and TANF requires you to get a job after X months or you lose benefits (varies by state). All told, the idea that welfare recipients simply refuse to work is total bullshit; how quickly conservatives forget Welfare Reform under Clinton (or maybe they figure it doesn't count coming from Clinton). Other types of welfare don't have as easy to find data, but it is very easy to get SNAP and Medicaid while working. A single mother of two working 50 hours a week at two jobs for $9 an hour will qualify for SNAP and Medicaid*. It's hard work being a welfare queen in America. *Varies by state The only "welfare" that gets extended, is unemployment insurance, which you and your boss paid into when you were working, like other kinds of insurance. And by definition you had to have been working to get it. Calling unemployment insurance welfare is like saying its welfare when your homeowner's insurance pays to have your house rebuilt after a fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 23:24
|
|