|
Dr. Tough posted:George Soros: a modern day Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Wow the really needed to put a face to every crazy right wing theory out there didn't they? I guess no one should be suprised it landed on the mysterious Jewish finaceer.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 18:09 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:12 |
|
quote:After Barack Hussein Obama suddenly cast-off his Muslim roots, rejected his mother’s disbelief in God, turned tail on the Islam of his early life I like how he apparently thinks that Muslim roots and Islam are two different things.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 19:24 |
|
quote:Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Did Wal-Mart's Mexican subsidiary pay bribes, in 2005 and earlier, to the Mexican officials who grant permits for stores like Wal-Mart? And did Wal-Mart cover up these actions for several years, after an internal investigation discovered the bribes, before finally reporting the internal investigation to the Department of Justice and the SEC last December? Half credit for agreeing that prosecuting Wal-Mart is a good idea, minus five credits for thinking that allowing companies to bribe their way into countries is a good thing because it will, "...diminish the impact of excessive government". It's almost as though companies might bribe their way out of good laws too. Jhoge fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Sep 29, 2013 |
# ? Apr 26, 2012 19:29 |
|
So, bribes are bad, but professional bribers have an unfair advantage, so we should legalize this immoral thing in order to create a level playing field. But also, bribes are OK if they're used to circumvent laws that get in the way of a giant multinational corporation setting up shop, driving down wages and bankrupting small local businesses. Makes perfect sense.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 19:57 |
|
quote:The act is also harmful, especially when it reduces bribes, because much bribery is an attempt to get around laws that make little sense in the first place. I love this logic. This is basically saying that,if you feel the law doesn't make sense, you should be entitled to pay money to the government to circumvent it. Asbestos in the walls? Screw it, bribe the inspector, wouldn't want to shut down business for well-intentioned but foolish ideas like "health concerns". Farm operation dangerously close to poisoning the nearby river due to improper containment of animal waste? Screw it, bribe time, wouldn't want to impose extra safety costs on industry. Free Market Principles at their finest!
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 20:52 |
|
Well the dude that wrote that bribery piece works for the Cato Institute so of course it's completely insane.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 21:50 |
|
Saw this in the Denver Post today:Mike Rosen posted:No More Furloughs swimgus fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 27, 2012 |
# ? Apr 27, 2012 04:02 |
|
I imagine it would be hard to argue that laying off older teachers would be expensive because you would have to give them severance pay and such when the response would be, "gently caress them, we shouldn't pay for that poo poo."
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 05:16 |
|
swimgus posted:Saw this in the Denver Post today: I really, really hope that the author of this letter isn't self-employed or owns their own business, so that their boss can tell them that they have to work for free. Seriously, how insane and stupid do you have to be to think that employees, private sector or public sector, would and should ever simply work for free because their employer couldn't pay them? Conservatives really don't understand anything about business or economics. Edit: That letter kind of reminds me of Goodfellas Henry Hill posted:Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? gently caress you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? gently caress you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? gently caress you, pay me. but instead, it's "Got a pay cut you didn't agree to? gently caress you, get back to work. Not getting paid at all? gently caress you, get back to work. Union contract violated? gently caress you, get back to work." Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Apr 27, 2012 |
# ? Apr 27, 2012 05:34 |
|
Mike Rosen seems to have confused employment with indentured servitude.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 05:42 |
|
colonelslime posted:Mike Rosen seems to have confused employment with indentured servitude. I don't think it's really "confusion," it's that many employers in the US do treat their employees like indentured servants and simply fire them if they complain.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 05:49 |
|
People call me crazy when I call wage labor an authoritarian relationship, and yet.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 08:25 |
|
Pope Guilty posted:People call me crazy when I call wage labor an authoritarian relationship, and yet. It very much is, but so many Americans are obsessed with the idea that they themselves will one day become one of those rich authoritarians that they don't want to do anything about it (e.g. enact a living wage, "card check" legislation, decouple healthcare coverage from employment, etc.) because it would work against them later when they want to oppress their employees. This is not to say that all businesses treat their employees like poo poo, but rather that those employees only enjoy their privileges because their employers feel like giving them. Without any kind of codified regulations, employees are at the whims of their employers and all it takes is a personnel change in the organizational leadership for employees to lose all those privileges.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 11:25 |
|
swimgus posted:Saw this in the Denver Post today: "Why didn't the economy improve when we keep cutting people's pay?" And as if they'll fight for more teacher pay when the economy improves. What loving bullshit.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 15:54 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It very much is, but so many Americans are obsessed with the idea that they themselves will one day become one of those rich authoritarians that they don't want to do anything about it (e.g. enact a living wage, "card check" legislation, decouple healthcare coverage from employment, etc.) because it would work against them later when they want to oppress their employees. I was listening to a podcast today about the lottery and they said that 40 percent of Americans see the lottery as their only chance at wealth. So not only do they think they are going to be rich, they think it's going to happen overnight. That's why the state lottery is hugely profitable - it's a voluntary tax on the stupid and delusional. People are shaping their entire outlook on circumstances that have less than a one in a million chance of panning out.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 09:06 |
|
T Zero posted:That's why the state lottery is hugely profitable - it's a voluntary tax on the stupid and delusional. Gee, I wonder why so many members of the working class vote against their own economic self-interest. If only they'd see that their true interests demand that they unite in a voting bloc with educated liberals and their sneering contempt. I'm not a socialist, but the lottery is definitely one of the masses' opiates.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 09:40 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Gee, I wonder why so many members of the working class vote against their own economic self-interest. If only they'd see that their true interests demand that they unite in a voting bloc with educated liberals and their sneering contempt. Maybe the way T Zero put it was a bit extreme (on par with atheists calling religious people "stupid" or "retarded"), but you have to admit that viewing the lottery as "your only chance at wealth" at least requires you to be very ignorant of how probability works. It's a huge part of why people keep coming back to casinos, in addition to prospect theory, framing effects, and aspects of the psychology of decision making.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 11:02 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Maybe the way T Zero put it was a bit extreme (on par with atheists calling religious people "stupid" or "retarded") Yeah, this is my essential point. Yes, buying a lottery ticket is a terrible, and therefore stupid, bet. Certain people are all too happy to make the inference "Joe made an idiotic wager, therefore Joe is 'stupid and delusional.'" Simply put, anyone who knows anything about gambling knows that this is not a valid inference...but it says a lot about the person who makes it.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 11:21 |
|
T Zero posted:I was listening to a podcast today about the lottery and they said that 40 percent of Americans see the lottery as their only chance at wealth. So not only do they think they are going to be rich, they think it's going to happen overnight. That's why the state lottery is hugely profitable - it's a voluntary tax on the stupid and delusional. This is a totally invalid chain of reasoning. You're assuming that 40% think winning the lottery is likely, and then because that idea which you ascribed to them is stupid, you are calling them stupid. It's possible that these people are so cynical that they believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than advancing in society. I don't know if they believe that, so I'm not going to assume they do, but it's one of many alternatives to your "they must be stupid because I imagine they have stupid beliefs" chain of thought.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 12:45 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is a totally invalid chain of reasoning. You're assuming that 40% think winning the lottery is likely, and then because that idea which you ascribed to them is stupid, you are calling them stupid. It's possible that these people are so cynical that they believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than advancing in society. I don't know if they believe that, so I'm not going to assume they do, but it's one of many alternatives to your "they must be stupid because I imagine they have stupid beliefs" chain of thought. You're right and I concede the point. The program is here incidentally: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/04/26/lottery-loopholes-and-deadly-doctors-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ The stat was 40 percent of people making less than $25k see the lottery as their only chance at wealth. The stats is 1 in 5 overall. The discussion was in the context of gambling versus saving money. However, by delusional I meant the idea that people think they will become wealthy, not necessarily the lottery. I meant the Joe the Plumbers who want to ensure low tax rates for rich so that the tax bracket is nice and warm for them once they get there. T Zero fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Apr 29, 2012 |
# ? Apr 29, 2012 17:15 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is a totally invalid chain of reasoning. You're assuming that 40% think winning the lottery is likely, and then because that idea which you ascribed to them is stupid, you are calling them stupid. It's possible that these people are so cynical that they believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than advancing in society. I don't know if they believe that, so I'm not going to assume they do, but it's one of many alternatives to your "they must be stupid because I imagine they have stupid beliefs" chain of thought. But why can't it be both? Why can't these people be cynical about the myth of upward mobility in American society while simultaneously having poor understandings of probability to the degree that they think they have realistic chances at winning the lottery?
|
# ? Apr 30, 2012 03:26 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It very much is, but so many Americans are obsessed with the idea that they themselves will one day become one of those rich authoritarians that they don't want to do anything about it (e.g. enact a living wage, "card check" legislation, decouple healthcare coverage from employment, etc.) because it would work against them later when they want to oppress their employees. I'd love to know the money making schemes of each one of these people. Do they really think they'll squeak into the richest 10 percent or so by scrimping and saving? Or be lucky enough to be noticed by some big shot who drops in on them out of nowhere and is impressed by their industriousness a la Ragged Dick? The only common idea I remember is a lot of people were looking on getting in on the house investing craze before Stuff Happened in 2008 (even my otherwise skeptical pop was considering it), or even dumber people investing in Beanie Babies back in the 90s, thinking they would appreciate in value forever.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2012 04:20 |
|
It's almost like poverty fucks up your judgment and your ability to evaluate and manage money, to the point that it damages your ability to provide for yourself and others.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2012 06:10 |
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:I'd love to know the money making schemes of each one of these people. Do they really think they'll squeak into the richest 10 percent or so by scrimping and saving? Or be lucky enough to be noticed by some big shot who drops in on them out of nowhere and is impressed by their industriousness a la Ragged Dick? The only common idea I remember is a lot of people were looking on getting in on the house investing craze before Stuff Happened in 2008 (even my otherwise skeptical pop was considering it), or even dumber people investing in Beanie Babies back in the 90s, thinking they would appreciate in value forever. I think it was Cal Thomas who recently wrote in praise of the Horatio Alger Society. Fuckwit. Here's an actual good opinion piece, by Stephen King for the Daily Beast. Excerpt: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html quote:At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2012 19:47 |
|
Saint Sputnik posted:I think it was Cal Thomas who recently wrote in praise of the Horatio Alger Society. Fuckwit. But they already pay their fair share! quote:Sometimes, it's all just too much to take. It's those 58 million people not paying any income taxes that are the problem, those poor bastards! At least some of the comments to the article aren't terrible: quote:Lewis is sticking to the old right-wing canard: "if you think taxes should be higher, no one's stopping you from paying more." That is pure BS and they all know it. The issue isn't having those who are willing pay more while the greedy keep more. It's about people who make millions doing nothing paying a fraction of the percentage of those who get up and work every day. Mitt paid 13% on $22 million while I paid 25% on the money I actually worked for. I'm fine with paying 25%. Mitt should be paying 38% or more. As should everyone else on every dollar above $1 million. The rich are the beneficiaries of a system that punishes the middle class and rewards those with huge portfolios but no job and no jobs being created in the U. S. That's just wrong, and so is Jason Lewis.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2012 22:09 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But why can't it be both? Why can't these people be cynical about the myth of upward mobility in American society while simultaneously having poor understandings of probability to the degree that they think they have realistic chances at winning the lottery? The point is that it could be anything; I illustrated that by making up my own explanation. It could be both, neither, something different altogether, or all of those things. With that much information you simply can't draw any conclusion, which is why the first post was unfair. Any speculation on the point has exactly as much merit as something you just made up out of thin air, so it's quite unfair to attack someone for a position you just imagined they had. For example: "Obama cancelled the Constellation program because he doesn't want us to find out what he's been doing on the moon! Therefore it's clear that he constructing moon lasers to conquer the world for the Muslim Kenyan Communist Party!" Take a real thing and make a non sequitor conclusion from it, and you can make up anything you want. This one only sounds more fantastical because the non sequitor is more obvious, but there was one present in post I quoted. edit: at "effective tax rate of 29.5%" for the 1%. I wonder how exactly they define "effective" considering we know Mitt Romney paid 13% on his income this year. Jesus how does he even manage that, you would think it would be somewhere above the 15% for capital gains. (I don't understand the carried interest loophole but I'm guessing that has something to do with it?) Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 11:50 on May 1, 2012 |
# ? May 1, 2012 11:46 |
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:Jim Goad is human trash Jim Goad is a national treasure and does not belong in this thread.
|
# ? May 1, 2012 18:12 |
|
No, Goad is the sort of person who has confused "controversial" with "interesting".
|
# ? May 2, 2012 04:05 |
|
Here's a winner from my local paper today.quote:Obama is a foe of religious freedom George Washington didn't want no
|
# ? May 3, 2012 14:19 |
|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:Here's a winner from my local paper today. Being Pro-Islam in a Christian country makes you an enemy of religious freedom.
|
# ? May 3, 2012 14:52 |
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:Being Pro-Islam in a Christian country makes you an enemy of religious freedom. It's only cognitive dissonance if you accept religions other than Christianity as valid. Must say, I do like the idea that Obama has personally caused sugarcane prices to skyrocket over the past 3 years. Have these people never heard of inflation? Do they assume he's just going around burning the cane fields to make kids healthy or something?
|
# ? May 3, 2012 15:47 |
From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, by Naomi Schaefer Riley:The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations. posted:You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them. EDIT: forgot the URL - http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-most-persuasive-case-for-eliminating-black-studies-just-read-the-dissertations/46346 a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 19:49 on May 3, 2012 |
|
# ? May 3, 2012 19:41 |
|
-The person trying to convince us she knows more about the black experience than black people.
|
# ? May 3, 2012 19:48 |
|
a foolish pianist posted:From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, by Naomi Schaefer Riley: Oof, what an rear end in a top hat. "Hey let me tell you scholars what you should really be writing about." And she pulls the Fox News tactic of putting words in people's mouths through questions. "The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism?" Nope. You cherry-picked one sentence out of an entire dissertation, and it didn't even say that.
|
# ? May 3, 2012 19:55 |
|
PostNouveau posted:Oof, what an rear end in a top hat. "Hey let me tell you scholars what you should really be writing about." The worst part is that racism actually played a part in the subprime crisis. Banks would rail road minority customers into subprime mortgages (with higher interest) even when they qualified for regular loans.
|
# ? May 3, 2012 19:57 |
|
colonelslime posted:It's only cognitive dissonance if you accept religions other than Christianity as valid. For some reason, people act like the government is actively covering up inflation. Every time a relative of mine comments on prices going up she says "But there's no inflation, right *wink*".
|
# ? May 3, 2012 21:36 |
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:The worst part is that racism actually played a part in the subprime crisis. Banks would rail road minority customers into subprime mortgages (with higher interest) even when they qualified for regular loans. Do you have a source that it was racially motivated? I can understand if minorities suffered as a result of the disproportionate representation of poverty level families looking for houses, but it would be pretty troubling if banks specifically targeted minorities within poor areas instead of just poor people. Not that banks loving over poor people isn't aggravating enough mind you.
|
# ? May 3, 2012 21:43 |
|
Sadly, there is a source for that awful stuff.quote:The banks shady dealings include setting up a special unit to target "mud people" with outrageously expensive "ghetto loans;" targeting black churches leaders because they "had a lot of influence and could convince congregants to take out subprime loans;" and offering cash bounties to loan officers who issued subprime loans to minority communities. Clicking on the link to the affidavits on the top of the article introduces a whole slew of other racial motivations and, well, straight up racism. Obviously not the only cause of the whole subprime crisis, but it'd be negligent to ignore the impact of race on it.
|
# ? May 3, 2012 21:51 |
|
The banking system has a long history of "redlining," systematically denying access to minority neighborhoods. This was especially bad in the '80s:quote:As part of a five-month examination of compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act, the Journal-Constitution used lenders' reports to track home-purchase and home-improvement loans made by every bank and savings and loan association in metro Atlanta from 1981 through 1986 -- a total of 109,000 loans. The study focused on 64 middle-income neighborhoods: In the white areas lenders made five times as many loans per 1,000 households as in black areas. http://powerreporting.com/color/1a.html
|
# ? May 3, 2012 22:02 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:12 |
|
a foolish pianist posted:From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, by Naomi Schaefer Riley: I followed the link because the piece by Lastasha B. Levy sounded very interesting and the name seems familiar but either the site is getting hammered to poo poo or they took the entire website down out of embarrassment. I did find this response to Riley's article though, it's great. http://tressiemc.com/2012/05/02/the-inferiority-of-blackness-as-a-subject/ An excerpt form the link posted:I want to talk about how Schaefer Riley constructed her argument. Everybody go give it some love. e: better link SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 04:42 on May 4, 2012 |
# ? May 4, 2012 04:34 |