|
Augster posted:Also this is an actual ad on the GOP website: I'm looking at historical data for some of these stats. They all went up during Bush's first (and second) term too. Prices on BLS web site
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Just look at all the meat...
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Augster posted:Also this is an actual ad on the GOP website: 25 meats, 5 fruits, 2 vegetables. Yes, that is certainly the Julia the Obama campaign was directed towards. Edit: Why are "Ground Beef" "Ground Chuck Beef" and "All non-steak uncooked beef" three separate items, in different areas of the list?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Julia should probably buy less beef. Edit: Also, 33 80oz sugar packets? Do people really buy sugar like that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Her list is cracking me the gently caress up for some reason. Who could have thought this was a good idea in any way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:
Yeah if wimpy rear end liberals can stop God I'm not sure how much help He will be when Dylan Klebold decides to walk in with pipe bombs and a rifle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Augster posted:Also this is an actual ad on the GOP website: Considering that the list is half beef, I'd blame cattle farmers before Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Augster posted:Also this is an actual ad on the GOP website: This thing is amazingly generic. I've never seen an item called "all sizes of sugar" or "all uncooked other beef." Are there just large, unrefridgerated bins of unidentified beef for sale in most grocery stores and I simply haven't noticed them? Why does "Julia" buy Smoked Ham and Boneless Ham & bone-in chops and boneless chops in the same grocery run? Maybe if she could just bootstrap and take the bones out herself she would save some money. Given Mitt Romney's recent grocery trip there seems to be a trend of failing to look "average." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huktADeyBqs "What did you get?" "Uh...groceries!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvJPG6KURV8 The Sean fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
It's obvious that they just went to a data source and pulled a bunch of stuff that increased significantly without bothering to create any sort of reasonable shopping list. I mean who spends $140 on groceries and doesn't buy any milk or eggs? There is nothing to drink on that list at all. The reason that all the entries are so messed up (like 'All Other Beef Uncooked') is because that's how the BLS would categorize stuff. It's pretty hilarious no one thought to work the names a little bit. Anyway I am bored as gently caress so I took the time to use the list to make this thing:  If the two largest categories in your grocery bill are 'Meat' and 'Snackfoods', you have bigger probelms than the tab! The sad this is this is probably an accurate for a certain demographic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
With how much heavily subsized food on there such as beef, milk, and HFCS I'm suprised there is fruit on there at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Augster posted:Also this is an actual ad on the GOP website: What is this 1995? duh
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
You dumb liberals You're just supposed to look at the total, not actually go through the list 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I'm more concerned about the Chicago font. Thank gun-toting Conservative Jesus I'm not the only one who noticed that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
A nearly 15% increase in just one term? You mean an average of about 3.5% per year over the span of 4 years? That sounds pretty typical to me. Try again, and use real groceries that people actually buy this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I'm more concerned about the Chicago font.  CHICAGO 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
blackmet posted:A nearly 15% increase in just one term? It's Obama's fault that wages have failed to keep up with it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
This probably isn't news to anyone else in this thread, but I just saw it because a friend of a friend was bitching out the people who posted it: Which led me to this article, with a longer list full of even more lies. Why is this poo poo not slander, again? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Which led me to this article, with a longer list full of even more lies. Why is this poo poo not slander, again? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:This probably isn't news to anyone else in this thread, but I just saw it because a friend of a friend was bitching out the people who posted it: You want me to do something every other recent presidential candidate has done? Why don't you first do 8 things that presidential candidates usually don't do first?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:Because when it's written it's libel, not slander.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:This probably isn't news to anyone else in this thread, but I just saw it because a friend of a friend was bitching out the people who posted it:
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:This probably isn't news to anyone else in this thread, but I just saw it because a friend of a friend was bitching out the people who posted it: Unironicly still asking for a birth certificate in an intentionally smug fashion. Good God people. My father in law earlier this summer was telling me about how sherrif Joe knows the birth cert is fake because blah blah blah. He's a drudge report for a homepage kind of guy but sometimes listens. I convinced him by asking. 1. Why does anyone think an arizona sherrif is an expert on 50's Hawaiin paperwork. 2. Given indipendent newspaper documentation in the births/death column. Why would anybody start setting up a conspiracy before the civil rights movement to groom a black baby to be president. He told me I was "probably right, he just likes conspiracy theories" I can't get him to stop reading drudge even by showing him that it purposly contatins untrue crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Not an email, but it fits. It's not that Obama's choosing not to enforce laws, he doesn't have that power. He can't just ignore the laws passed by Congress, he has to enforce them as president, though he can decide to not defend those laws in court if there is a challenge to their legitimacy and constitutionality. What Obama is doing is setting priorities. We simply don't have enough money, time, ICE agents, etc. to catch, process, and deport every single undocumented immigrant in the US, so we have to set priorities in enforcement based on limited resources. So, Obama is basically setting a certain group of undocumented immigrants, those who are currently in their 20s and early thirties, are in college or the military and were brought to the US as minors, as the lowest, and therefore unprosecuted, priority, because they didn't choose to violate the immigration laws, their parents forced them. This means that these people have de facto amnesty in line with that which would have existed with the Dream Act, but if by some miracle all other immigration problems get solved overnight and these people are next up to be dealt with, they will likely be next in line to be rounded up and deported (this won't ever actually happen). Windozer posted:It's also great how he implies that single mothers with multiple children shouldn't be getting any assistance. I'm sure he's also opposed to sex ed and free birth control. Don't forget the retarded assertion from the person in orange that government programs anti-poverty programs shouldn't exist because that's the Church's job. Even if you forget about all the First Amendment's Church-State separation, relying solely on private charities is loving stupid and entirely ignorant of economics. Charities rely on private contributions and government grants/subsidies. Take away the government sponsorship and preferential tax status and you left with just private contributions, but contributions are a function of overall economic health. Contributions increase in good economic times because people have more discretionary funds, but during recessions and depressions people have less money to contribute so charities are low on funds and goods. The quandary is that charity is most needed during poor economic times because more people need help, but charities have less money to spend helping people. Charities can't just take on debts and loans to tide their communities over during bad times, but government can do this to help the public and reverse economic lows through counter cycle spending. I'm not saying that private charity shouldn't exist or doesn't have a place in our society, but rather that it shouldn't be the only or primary social welfare. It should probably exist to fill any gaps and maybe modify the overall public system, like helping the terminally ill fulfill last wishes/desires or provide a religious-based environment or services to those who want it (e.g. a hospice that primarily serves Catholics or "meals on wheels" that just serves kosher or halal food to the elderly). modig posted:You want me to do something every other recent presidential candidate has done? Why don't you first do 8 things that presidential candidates usually don't do first? This is kind of my go-to example when conservatives claim there's no racism against Obama. If you're expecting the first Black president to do something or live up to a standard you've never held any white presidents, maybe there's a racist angle. I honestly can't remember any of those things being demanded of Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry, or McCain, not to mention any other Democrat or Republican that ran in presidential primaries for the past two decades. Augster posted:Also this is an actual ad on the GOP website: This is a great one because it's actually affirming that global warming is happening, which is another thing the GOP likes to lie about. Not only have we had record high temperatures, we've also had record droughts the likes of which we haven't seen anything similar since the loving Dust Bowl. Even when this poo poo is so tangible to the average person that it's impacting their grocery bills, they're still looking for a way to spin it as a jab against Obama and steer it away from any acknowledgement of man-made global warming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
A reasonable question would be "have you seen Mitt Romney's 'LONG FORM' birth certificate and college transcripts? How about George W. Bush or his dad's? Bill Clinton? If not, why are you not demanding those? If so, what is your standard of proof that they are valid? If your standard of demanding, or proof, is different than that for Obama, why?" This is a pretty simple argument in my opinion. If people are going to go off of that stupid birther spinoff argument that it's not an issue of whether Obama was born in the States, it's the fact that his dad was a foreign national that gives him divided loyalty or some bullshit than that's a whole other can of worms, but the essential issue is, why is the LEGITIMACY of this one man questioned in a way that is not done for the others, and it leads to the obvious answer rather quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:A reasonable question would be "have you seen Mitt Romney's 'LONG FORM' birth certificate and college transcripts? How about George W. Bush or his dad's? Bill Clinton? If not, why are you not demanding those? If so, what is your standard of proof that they are valid? If your standard of demanding, or proof, is different than that for Obama, why?" If Romney wins, I propose four years of referring to him as "the Mexican"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
My uncle keeps sharing Facebook posts from some Republican pages. The most recent picture said "Obamacare stalls job growth." I'm really curious how it does that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:My uncle keeps sharing Facebook posts from some Republican pages. Same way minimum wage stalls job growth. It disables companies from hiring people as working poors, technically removing them from the unemployment rolls while not actually giving them the security we normally understand as being part of having a job. With Obamacare: 100 jobs, and everyone is insured. Without Obamacare: 110 jobs, but 20 of them aren't insured
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:My uncle keeps sharing Facebook posts from some Republican pages. Taxes, raises health care costs, forces companies to pay for employee insurance, adds "uncertainty" to businesses. Those are the answers you'll get. Nevermind that the taxes aren't in effect; nor are the requirements that employers provide insurance. Or that health insurance premium increases are primarily being driven by the same poo poo that drives them up every year. And believing the argument means you also need to ignore the fact that "uncertainty" is bullshit. Any business that is "uncertain" how the law will impact them is being run by someone who is too lazy to find out. There was uncertainty back when the law was being passed, because no one could be sure, 100%, what would be in it and what wouldn't. Well, it's been the law for 2 and half years now. There's no excuse for a small business with 12 employees to not know that they're exempt from the employer mandate, and are eligible for large subsidies on their employee's insurance, and will be able to buy insurance in the SHOP Exchanges in 2014. Or that a large business with 100 full-time employees will be required to provide them with good insurance (or vouchers to buy their own insurance on the Exchanges, which is probably even better than giving them employer-based insurance) or be penalized in 2014. It's one thing for individuals to not know how it will impact their lives, but for someone running a business to not do (or have someone else do) some digging to find out how it will effect their business it is just lazy. And honestly I have a hard time believing there are lots of businesses out there going, "I would love to hire another 10 employees. There's a huge demand for my service going unfulfilled; but Obamacare." Now, if you get into a debate with your Uncle, or someone like that, and they're a little more informed than average; they'll try to bust out a CBO estimate that says tons of jobs will be lost due to Obamacare. Its true that there is a CBO estimate, but they're wrong about what it says. It doesn't say that jobs will be lost. It says that there will be a cut in how much people work. For example, someone who wants to start their own business, but still works a second job for health insurance, will quit that second job to focus on their business. Or other people who work overtime because they need the extra money because their insurance premiums are so expensive will cut back on the number of hours they work. That's what the CBO says will happen: the law will reduce the amount of labor in the market by 0.5% by the end of the decade, because people will choose to stop working jobs/extra hours they don't really want to work. But Republicans take that 0.5% and multiply it by the number of jobs and go "CBO claims Obamacare is killing 800,000 jobs!!!!" Sarion fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:This probably isn't news to anyone else in this thread, but I just saw it because a friend of a friend was bitching out the people who posted it: They could sue for libel, but generally don't. As for the content, I've never understood why they want that information. Except for the fact that they don't really want it. They just want to keep making demands for documents they'll never get to create the impression there's something to hide. But even if they got those documents, what would be the point? 1) College Transcripts - The guy is 50 years old, and has been out of college for over 20 years. No employer gives a poo poo about your college transcripts after that amount of time, because you have (presumably) years of experience that is a much better indicator. Now, they can argue Obama doesn't have enough experience, but the voters disagreed. And now he's spent 4 years a President, giving him much more Presidential Experience than anyone else in the race. So who gives a gently caress what grade he got in Calculus I 30+ years ago? 2) Thesis Paper - Again, who cares? When I was in high school, and then for a couple years of college, I was a libertarian. I didn't know that's what it was called, but looking back on my views from that time of my life its what I was. Now, less than a decade later, my views have shifted way, way, way to the left. Unless a politician comes out and says, "I stand by what I wrote in this paper/thesis from decades ago", it's completely irrelevant to me what they thought in college. People's views change, especially over 20-30 years. 3) Selective Service Registration - What? Do they think he's not registered for the draft or something? 4) Medical Records - Are they expecting it to say "Has Kenyan blood, not American blood"? Why would I care when Obama got his last tetanus shot or colonoscopy? 5) Client list - He didn't have a client list, he was only an associate, writing up briefs and doing research. He never represented anyone directly. 6) Illinois State Senate Records - Not sealed, they're public knowledge. That's why they were able to run attack ads about his Illinois voting record in 2008. This one is beyond stupid to flat out lies. And would be the dumbest thing on here if it wasn't for... 7) loving Birth Certificate - This needs to die, but it won't and it's not worth any time. 8) Fast and Furious - Do some research about what documents Issa was actually trying to subpoena. They had nothing to do with the Fast and Furious program itself. All the documents related to the actual program were handed over, literally thousands of them. Issa's demands and holding Holder in contempt was pure political grandstanding and had nothing to do with getting to the root of what happened in F&F.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
My personal favorite is the idea that Obama should deliberately commit an ethics violation by waiving his client's confidentiality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My personal favorite is the idea that Obama should deliberately commit an ethics violation by waiving his client's confidentiality. I wondered about that too. Assuming he had clients, would disclosing their names be illegal? Or just unethical, without their consent or something? Cause its not unheard of to hear, "so and so is being represented by <law firm>"; so sometimes its public knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I wondered about that too. Assuming he had clients, would disclosing their names be illegal? Or just unethical, without their consent or something? Cause its not unheard of to hear, "so and so is being represented by <law firm>"; so sometimes its public knowledge. If he represented them in court, it would certainly be public knowledge and not in any kind of conflict. But as we know, Obama wasn't that type of lawyer as to actually regularly present cases in court. He was just the research and possibly consulting guy, but some people can't see past lawyer shows to understand that. As it is, talking about anything your client talked to you about that isn't in the public record already would be a pretty huge no-no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
If people give up working because they don't need the extra job/money because of Obamacare, wouldn't that just open up those jobs for other people? I guess not every single one because it doesn't always work like that, but if a company needs a hundred widget turners and one just quit, doesn't that company hire another widget turner?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
How can I answer this question eloquently?quote:To be "redistributed" means it came from somewhere and was given to rich people. Where did it come from originally? Said in response to an image macro with a quote about tax cuts for the rich being an upward redistribution of wealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
You can either talk about Gini coefficients and how wealth distribution alters over time favouring the already rich unless it is actively prevented or go full communism and talk about the labour theory of value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Yea, I tried to give you an answer and couldn't come up with one that didn't hinge on explaining the concept of labor and exploitation. I mean, you can tell them that rich people are not magicians who summon money out of thin air - the value was originally generated by the labor of workers, and skimmed off by the wealthy out of proportion to their own labor. But I imagine that the sort of person you are dealing with is just going to decide that is communism and run away/start spitting fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
While it's not nearly as rigorous as the actual explanation, this might be more palatable to the FREE MARKET audience: You could maybe mention that the rich person's wealth, assuming they are a captain of industry, was generated by the profit from each transaction their business made. Because it's unlikely their business caters exclusively to billionaires, each such exchange transfers a little wealth from the poor to the (already) rich. When you cut taxes on the rich, you take money that was originally going to be pushed back to the bottom and instead let it float at the top, where it naturally accumulates anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Basically, wealth is stagnant, it's either going up or going down. If you don't forcibly make some of it go down through taxes that fund things most of the country uses, it will continue to go upwards since those at the top already hold all the power and leverage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Everyone knows the saying "You need money to make money", right? Well who has all the money to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:How can I answer this question eloquently? There's a lot of ways in which Republican policies are an upward redistribution of wealth. But without writing a giant essay, I think the best way to put it in a facebook discussion is this: The Republican tax plan is to lower tax rates for upper-middle and very wealthy families, who are already paying historically low tax rates. In order to afford these tax cuts, the plan is to raise taxes on middle and lower class families. I don't remember the exact figures, but under Romney's plan, a family that makes $5M a year, will pay $300k less in taxes. While a family making $50-60k will end up paying $1-2k more a year. If Obama was proposing that we raise taxes on the wealthy in order to lower taxes on everyone else, it would absolutely be called a redistribution of wealth. I see no reason not to call Romney's plan the same, but in reverse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:59
|
|