|
That's really the point. There was nothing mandatory about it. Michelle Obama isn't even "the government". This is what First Ladies do dammit. Really though it's just another excuse for conservatives to call Michelle Obama fat.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
myron_cope posted:
And this is really what blows my mind...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
myron_cope posted:That's really the point. There was nothing mandatory about it. Michelle Obama isn't even "the government". This is what First Ladies do dammit. Considering the first 10 comments all said "fat rear end" in one way or another I'm inclined to agree. Edit: More of the STAY OUR OF OUR LIVES (unless its about gays or contraception or abortion, then gently caress everyone who disagrees with me. Make a law)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
blackmet posted:Anybody think Mars is really only doing this because it increases their profits? You're actually pretty close. Just a few minutes ago, I bought what I initially thought was a king size Milky Way (made by Mars), and it turned out to actually be two bars, advertised as "2 To Go" on the package. The health info on the side calls each bar a single serving, and each is noticeably smaller than a regular Milky Way. So instead of Michelle's lobbying being the most intrusive government meddling ever, it's actually the most meaningless ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
myron_cope posted:From facebook: I was reading the comments to this, and holy poo poo. some crazy rear end grandma posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
And furthermore THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT CONSERVATIVES SAY THEY WANT. It was the "free market" that decided this. They made a calculation that it's better for their business to have smaller "healthier" ( ) candy bars, because they thought it would be better for their sales.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
This came across my Facebook page today: I'm trying to think of a better counter than "Wants government out of people's lives, unless they're gay" or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Christians are so persecuted in America. I feel so bad for them  Especially white male Christians 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
I've met men who unironically believe that white males are the most discriminated against in the country.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
'Disproves' Liberalism in an internet macro, doesn't exist Edit: Actually you probably can't beat: Opposes carbon emissions, is made of carbon namesake fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Feb 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
llama_arse posted:This came across my Facebook page today: It's a lazy retarded image macro troll. If you really want to you could just make a Republican version and troll him back, as the people who make/post this kind of garbage are usually immune to rational discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:It's a lazy retarded image macro troll. If you really want to you could just make a Republican version and troll him back, as the people who make/post this kind of garbage are usually immune to rational discussion. Yeah, there's a Stupid College Republican image macro/meme that's been floating around for even longer, if you feel like countering low-effort internet wankery with more low-effort internet wankery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Are Michael Moore and most movie stars really even that rich? I mean, yeah, they all get paid several million to make a movie, but for the most part, they really only make 1-2 a year, and they don't get any money from the box office or anything. Yeah, they're paid ridiculously well for what they do, but much like professional athletes, they're not really "wealthy," and they still get poo poo on by the people in charge of their industry (just not as much as broke people, because hey, athletes and actors have really powerful unions).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I've met men who unironically believe that white males are the most discriminated against in the country. Even white males don't feel sorry for white males. Lets face it, if you're posting on SA you're probably a white male.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Even white males don't feel sorry for white males. Lets face it, if you're posting on SA you're probably a white male. ...Are you new to the internet? White males feel sorry for themselves all the time. See http://www.mgtowforums.com/ Just pick anything there.  MRA are the low hanging fruit here, but by no means the only ones. Wasp's whining about persecution and the war on Xmas comes to mind as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:...Are you new to the internet? I'll admit that SA only recently introduced me to the whole MRA thing. On a serious note though, it's a very small subset of whiners. Most white males aren't going around worried about how bad we have it, that's what makes those who do seem so at odds with common thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:Are Michael Moore and most movie stars really even that rich? I mean, yeah, they all get paid several million to make a movie, but for the most part, they really only make 1-2 a year, and they don't get any money from the box office or anything. They may be rich, but they're ultimately paid to produce a product. Michael Moore (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) mainly makes his money by making movies. He didn't hire someone to make movies for him while pocketing the profit. It's the same with pro athletes. They may be making millions of dollars per year, but they only get paid if they perform. In the strictest sense, they don't profit off of anyone else's labour but their own. Basically, this whole "but Michael Moore is rich!" is pretty much missing the point. The problem isn't making money, but making money off of someone else's back and then not giving them their fair share. myron_cope posted:Christians are so persecuted in America. I feel so bad for them Maybe even some day, one of them will even become the President (let alone the first through the forty-third).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:They may be rich, but they're ultimately paid to produce a product. Michael Moore (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) mainly makes his money by making movies. He didn't hire someone to make movies for him while pocketing the profit. This is a very important point. The issue isn't even people getting rich off the work of others, it's how the person getting rich compensates the people they're getting rich off of. But as to the original question. To be in the top 1% your household income needs to be around $350,000+ So yes, athletes and actors absolutely fall into this category, many of them are in the top 0.5% or higher. Of course, both are kind of risky professions. If you're an actor who just hit it big, starts earning all kinds of money, and all of a sudden can't find parts, it can be a massive financial hit. People like Mitt Romney on the other hand pretty much don't have to worry. He made $21M in 2010, a year he jokes that he was "unemployed". He's practically guaranteed to make just as much, if not more, this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:Are Michael Moore and most movie stars really even that rich? I mean, yeah, they all get paid several million to make a movie, but for the most part, they really only make 1-2 a year, and they don't get any money from the box office or anything. Michael Moore made $19.8 million from Fahrenheit 9/11, which grossed $222 million worldwide (the most successful documentary ever released) And the funny thing is, if you believe Michael Moore's Twitter, he not only pays the people working for him a nice livable wage but he also pays for their healthcare. So arghhh you have rage against the guy who is doing the thing you want just because he is rich and you are an envious lazy bum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Didn't that one disgusting youtube video guy (Firewall?) say that Moore didn't hire union employees and was thus a terrible hypocrite? I also remember something similar to the phrase, "Set that mendacious quivering mountain of hypocrisy to the side" if that helps
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Why do people keep asking me that!? Fair, but that's why I point out the general groups of white protestants that run around every year whining that there is a war on Christmas and subsequently their religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:It's the same with pro athletes. They may be making millions of dollars per year, but they only get paid if they perform. In the strictest sense, they don't profit off of anyone else's labour but their own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I'm not sure I agree with that. Granted that it's a lot harder to quantify the labor value of a game of b-ball, but there is a trade-off between the stupendous salaries of pro athletes and the much smaller pay afforded to, say, ticket-takers and janitors at the stadiums. I think you could make a fair case that the athletes are taking a good portion of the latter group's 'cut' due to the relative replaceability of each.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
nm posted:Remember though that especially in football there are extremely short careers, generally with significant long term medical costs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Didn't that one disgusting youtube video guy (Firewall?) say that Moore didn't hire union employees and was thus a terrible hypocrite? Union stagehands were available for Capitalism: A Love Story, but he went with non-union hands instead: quote:"For all of the different jobs on the movie that could have used union labor, he used union labor, except for one job, the stagehands, represented by IATSE," said a labor source unauthorized to talk about Moore's decision not to hire members of The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/michael-moore-snubs-union-workers-making-capitalism-love/story?id=8715559
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Yes, and they frequently make more in one year of that career than many people do over an entire lifetime. There may be more 'work' involved than there is in investment, but the scale of pro athlete pay is still a product of scarcity, not 'work.' Bloomberg gives interesting figures on NFL players, for one -- http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b4214058615722.htm The average NFL player makes $770K annually and plays for 3.5 years. That's good money but is nowhere near the astronomical figures many people think of. But you're absolutely right, I think -- pro athletes make so much money because so few people can be pro athletes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
Kim Jong III posted:Bloomberg gives interesting figures on NFL players, for one -- Well, to put it in perspective, 3.5 years at 750k is equivalent to about 65 years of the median household income. Whether or not they *deserve* that is a different discussion, but it's certainly an incredibly high amount of money compared to the average person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Well, to put it in perspective, 3.5 years at 750k is equivalent to about 65 years of the median household income. Whether or not they *deserve* that is a different discussion, but it's certainly an incredibly high amount of money compared to the average person. Certainly; pro athletes are definitely making way more than the average person, and I wouldn't argue that. My only point is that if you compare the average NFL compensation to that of an upper class individual, it's closer than I'd expect. I mean, ~$700K over 3.5 years would be like $100K over 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Kim Jong III posted:Certainly; pro athletes are definitely making way more than the average person, and I wouldn't argue that. Current NFL retirees maintain their health benefits for life (something the older retirees are trying to make retroactive), maintain several forms of disability insurance, most likely had a free ride through college and will have career opportunities open to them that are not open to the typical person beyond their football career. Even at league minimum, it is not difficult for a pro player to exit their career with over a million in net worth while in their 20s, something nearly impossible for others who are not born into a wealthy family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Current NFL retirees maintain their health benefits for life (something the older retirees are trying to make retroactive), maintain several forms of disability insurance, most likely had a free ride through college and will have career opportunities open to them that are not open to the typical person beyond their football career. Even at league minimum, it is not difficult for a pro player to exit their career with over a million in net worth while in their 20s, something nearly impossible for others who are not born into a wealthy family. Interestingly, ~75% of them also go bankrupt within 2 years of retirement. They definitely have access to a level of wealth that most don't, but they don't get access to the financial resources and education that someone who grew up with wealth does. edit: sourcing if anyone was interested: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Why-do-so-many-NFL-players-go-bankrupt-?urn=nfl,190555 Pead fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Pead posted:Interestingly, ~75% of them also go bankrupt within 2 years of retirement. They definitely have access to a level of wealth that most don't, but they don't get access to the financial resources and education that someone who grew up with wealth does. Also there is a risk associated with trying to become a professional athlete. The majority of people who get say Division 1 Football Scholarships and play for 4 years will not make the NFL. I have no idea what the job prospects for a good college player who misses out on the NFL is, but I would guess that they make significantly less than even an average college student (though I could be wrong). College ball is a full time job or more, and despite NCAA rules my understanding is that they are generally not encouraged to actually get a good education in addition to that job. It takes too much time, especially when you travel all the time and miss tons of classes. I heard a radio story about Baseball players playing in B leagues or whatever trying to get into MLB, and if I remember right, they make less than 25K per year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
My very pro-life, anticontraception sister posted this link http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share#commentsContainer I've looked at the Guttenmacher numbers and they hold up--this pretty much hurts my long-held assumption that increased access to contraception=lower abortion rates. I checked to see if this was a result of high abortion rate states having more of a certain demographic that is likely to seek abortion (by education, age, etc) but I can't find anything else to explain it, except that abortion rates are highest where abortion laws are relaxed. Unless my foggy mommybrain is missing something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
^^^ You're a mom? Then why do you have that avatar? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
LuckyDaemon posted:My very pro-life, anticontraception sister posted this link http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share#commentsContainer Ross douthat is a piece of poo poo FYI. This particular column involves him throwing around lots of words like "because" when he has no way of backing up his assertions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
The comparisons in the article aren't very good, is part of the trouble. Comparing California to Alabama without looking at demographic and cultural differences isn't going to give good results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
The avatar is someone paraphrasing my well-intentioned advice a few years back  And I know off the bat that this article is drawing causation from correlation but I feel like I just can't post "hurr fallacy" without an example of a confunding factor (which haven't jumped out at me from the Guttenmacher pdf). Oh well, I should probably go play with my kid outside instead of arguing on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
LuckyDaemon posted:The avatar is someone paraphrasing my well-intentioned advice a few years back Maybe I can help? Go look at abortion statistics for most of Europe. They have better sex education, which is the key here. In america we teach sex education way WAY to late (It should be taught around 11 - 12 years old.) And the sex education we do get is really really lovely. It's a really basic (think Psyc 101) thing here. If you teach that sex is a horrible thing, kids will still want to have sex, they just won't plan for it. So yes, the article is kind of right. The abortions weren't because the women didn't have access to contraception, it's because our whole sex education system is horrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
A family friend posted this on Facebook: http://www.mrconservative.com/2012/02/1995-poor-american-families/ How the hell can someone read this and come away with the idea that it supports conservatism? Out of all the bullshit I've seen, this one confuses me the most. The comments underneath her post mostly consist of one guy trying to calmly inform her and her conservative friends about some actual facts and correct a problem in the article, and they respond by literally just telling him to shut up and "go away" over and over again, ending in what seems like that guy getting blocked and everyone somehow deciding that that is a victory for their side. I feel tired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
modig posted:I heard a radio story about Baseball players playing in B leagues or whatever trying to get into MLB, and if I remember right, they make less than 25K per year. It depends. I think the minimum salary for a AAA player is about $2,000 a month. So the average is going to be a bit higher. There are levels below AAA (AA, A) which make less and less. It's really the allure of the minimum contract that does it. If you get a major league contract, you are guaranteed to make at least $414,000 a year provided you don't some how void it. The discrepancy is because minor league baseball basically has no union. Conversely, the MLBPA who represents players on the major league rosters is probably the strongest of the 4 major USA sports. This mainly deals with MLB not wanting to get involved in the courts over their status as a monopoly. (For the last hundred years or so, they are not actually a monopoly under federal law because they do not compete in interstate commerce. They do not want this changed)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Yes, and they frequently make more in one year of that career than many people do over an entire lifetime. There may be more 'work' involved than there is in investment, but the scale of pro athlete pay is still a product of scarcity, not 'work.' Agent provocateur! The players, janitors, food workers, and ticket sellers are all producers. Do not set the laborers against each other while there is still an ownership class. LuckyDaemon posted:My very pro-life, anticontraception sister posted this link http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share#commentsContainer "For all the times I've heard men say that abortion makes women careless about having sex because it's an easy fix, I've never heard a single one of them say that having fire extinguishers in restaurants leads to more fires."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 20:27
|
|
