|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:Sure, it's 4chan, but it's surprising how many people approve of the idea of children bringing assault rifles to school. Last time I went to my dad's house, my six year old stepnephew was there. And my dad walked around the house with a loaded gun on his belt the entire time. Same man also insisted that I conceal-carry a pistol when I was nannying with a two year old, and later with a four year old and a grabby two year old around. Because everyone needs to carry a loaded gun everywhere. It's funny, but amid all the government shutdown poo poo, one of my Facebook friends is constantly posting up image macros with Chris Rock saying how some parents are loving crazy for letting their teenagers date or have sleepovers, or Halloween 'sexy' costumes. All because she had to add in her two cents every time how SHE was raised right and with self-respect and if she dared to dress the way the whores these days do, her mom would have exploded like a nuke, AND her twin year-old girls will never ever ever dress Like That (ie, anything remotely sexy) because that means they have low self-respect. It's scary how someone who used to be a neutral feminist/equalist is now screaming that any teenager who shows her midriff is Asking For It and clearly has self-respect issues. Or, you know, the teenager is 17, almost 18, and wants to dress up for a loving party. At this point I wonder if she will explode when she finds her husband's hidden porn stash, because clearly all women in porn are whores and have no self-respect.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I don't understand how somebody can be an economics professor and have such a dumbshit view of how the world works. Because advocating those dumbshit views gets you that sweet, sweet think tank cash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:What's a good counter-argument for this, not this analogy specifically, but this frequent application (mis-application?) of the broken window theory. The basic story is that a kid throws a rock which breaks a window. The Windowmaker then gets paid to make a new window which he uses to buy bread and so on. The question is what would have happened to the money if the kid hadn't thrown the window. Would it have been spent on other economic activity? If so, then throwing the rock didn't create economic activity, it merely changed the economic activity. But what if the money to pay the windowmaker was just sitting in a vault getting dusty? If that's the case, throwing the rock truly does improve the economy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:What's a good counter-argument for this, not this analogy specifically, but this frequent application (mis-application?) of the broken window theory. Well the obvious corollary to that line of thinking would be that returning the 10 apples to the original owner sums to zero as well. Since we're obviously talking about taxes here the implication would then be that, if the original argument is true, then it follows that cutting taxes would have no stimulative effects either. Of course this is all based on the idiotic assumption that the purpose of stimulus is to increase the supply of money and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a recession is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
The counter-argument to this dumb gently caress example is that now those ten people can loving EAT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I know about the PaulBomb, but is there something comparable for Glenn Beck? I'm spending a lot of time with my dad, and things go easier if we just talk about fishing and the military.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Pendevil posted:I know about the PaulBomb, but is there something comparable for Glenn Beck? There isn't even the slightest hint of anything good about Glenn Beck. Anyone who likes him knows about his lovely views and shares them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Knight posted:And one person owning 90 of those apples, which they store away and never eat, is good for the economy how? Apples that are going to rot if they just sit there can be actually used to feed the hungry and spread more apple trees with the seeds. Also if agricultural surpluses are so massive that more than enough food can be grown to feed everyone, wealth transfers to the poor are a great way to encourage economic activity as previously fallow orchards can now be farmed to grow those apples. The example assumes that all resources and labor in the economy are fully employed so any transfer can only move goods around. In our economy we have a large amount of idle labor and businesses flush with cash that they cannot profitably invest. Transferring that cash to the unemployed will give businesses a reason to increase production. We end up with more apples. Obviously Republicans prefer to solve that problem by paying farmers not to farm and so reduce surpluses that way because they love wealth transfers when the beneficiaries are the rich. Mornacale posted:The counter-argument to this dumb gently caress example is that now those ten people can loving EAT. Whoa hey now. If I don't get to own slaves because you won't let the free market put a price on human beings, then you don't get to say that saving lives is good for the economy. Poors are worth $0 so saving them does not increase the GDP. And we know they don't increase the GDP because if they were producers they could buy food  VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
quote:http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/07...ls-fallacy.html Because either way it's a basic misunderstand of how the food stamp program works. If the analogy is that "apples" represent food stamps then people are holding the "food stamps" indefinitely or destroying them, as you'd do with an apple. That is not how the program works in theory or practicality. He's skipping an entire step of the process. The most important step, in fact, wherein someone trades those food stamps for food. And then the person that sold the food can afford to pay workers or bills. If "apples" represent actual apples then, again, he's skipping the person who gets money for the apples and pays bills etc. It's only slightly less stupid but still a complete misunderstanding of reality. The ONLY way this analogy works is as a condemnation of actual charity and a longer, and more cruel, version of "if you give a man a fish".
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
ALLAH IS 666  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I7Q9bbunRg The entire thing is just 15 minutes of "some thing looks like another thing, clearly a connection, SATAN  " Though you should still watch it because it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
"The third character is the Greek character 'stigma', which means mark or servitude." Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
I know it's common wisdom that you shouldn't talk about politics with friends, but I've found it's a great way to determine who I need out of my life. Case in point, I've cut ties with this person:Libertarian posted:I don't relish the idea of paying for some babby-momma or other lowlife's welfare any more than I already have to. Why should I pay for the life mistakes of other people? If I want to help out, I'd rather help out the community around me instead of some way the hell out in Detroit or Baltimore who has not and will not learn a thing from their situation. Call me cold and selfish, but that's my honest opinion here. The same guy posted:If you got into six-figure debt by going to college, maybe you shouldn't have gone so soon. Does no one learn basic financial responsibility anymore? If you can't pay for something, don't spend the money. Oh my loving god posted:Nobody can ever earn the right to take what's mine, I don't care what any communist, socialist, syndicalist, or even bleeding-heart centrist says. There are places and people that will help you if you need it, without big gubbamint coming in for my taxes. No, this isn't the same guy I posted about earlier. It appears I know far too many sociopaths 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
yaoi prophet posted:"The third character is the Greek character 'stigma', which means mark or servitude." Amazing. You can find lots of poo poo like this, just type 666 in the YT search bar and go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:ALLAH IS 666 Is there some kind of software you can buy that these people use to make their insane conspiracy web series videos look like lovely BBC knockoffs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I don't understand how somebody can be an economics professor and have such a dumbshit view of how the world works. Ask an econ prof what the effect of raising the minimum wage is and nearly always you'll hear that if you raise the price of labor, employers will buy less of it, thus raising unemployment. It's completely wrong and that's a vastly oversimplified model of the impact, but the field of Economics education is run more like a religion than a science. There's people doing good, empirical work, but they're the fringes. Spouting whatever right-wing nonsense pleases rich people regardless of its veracity or sanity is the norm in the field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
The best one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chYkhlCon6E
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
I've never really got the whole 'sever cause you have different (sometimes abhorrent) political views then me' mentality. Maybe it's because I live in the deep South and would have to cut ties with about 80% of the people I know.
World Famous W fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
World Famous Whore posted:I've never really got the whole 'sever cause you have different (sometimes abhorrent) political views then me' mentality. Maybe it's because I live in the deep South and would have to cut ties with about 80% of the people I know. As someone who lives in the semi-south (Western MD) I'm going to say that cutting away the people who are racists, objectivists, and other vile philosophies is a good thing. State you case calmly, tell them the line you won't cross (i.e. brooking racist poo poo in your presence) and then follow up on it mercilessly. You don't need people like that in your life, and they don't deserve a decent friend like you. Cultivate friendships with decent people at the same time, and you'll hardly miss those cancers in your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
World Famous Whore posted:I've never really got the whole 'sever cause you have different (sometimes abhorrent) political views then me' mentality. Maybe it's because I live in the deep South and would have to cut ties with about 80% of the people I know. I like being able to open Facebook without experiencing rage and depression. This has only been possible since I instituted my "post vile poo poo, get unfriended" policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
As naive and insufferable as objectivists are, is it really fair to lump them in with racists? A lot of them seriously believe that the poor would do well for themselves if only they had enough gumption and self-esteem; they don't necessarily have any intentional malice towards them. This view is still laughably retarded, but can it really be compared to straight-up bigotry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:As naive and insufferable as objectivists are, is it really fair to lump them in with racists? A lot of them seriously believe that the poor would do well for themselves if only they had enough gumption and self-esteem; they don't necessarily have any intentional malice towards them. This view is still laughably retarded, but can it really be compared to straight-up bigotry? Considering the position Rand (and hence piles of her cultists) had on Natives, I think at best it's philosophically covered racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Anybody who believes that the primary factor in a person's economic outcomes is their virtue or hardworkingness or intelligence is by definition a racist and a sexist, unless they're so delusional that they don't know that members of racial and sexual minorities have on average less wealth than members of racial and sexual majorities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Knight posted:And one person owning 90 of those apples, which they store away and never eat, is good for the economy how? Apples that are going to rot if they just sit there can be actually used to feed the hungry and spread more apple trees with the seeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Ah hell I'll throw this in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJhlOnaiWw8 Yes, twenty minutes. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
I just want to yell, but I need something succinct and coherent to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
U.S. Barryl posted:I just want to yell, but I need something succinct and coherent to say. A nice big "gently caress YOU YOU IGNORANT oval office" isn't enough?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
EightBit posted:A nice big "gently caress YOU YOU IGNORANT oval office" isn't enough? Well, that's what I'm thinking, but saying it isn't going to get me anywhere or change any minds. This particular person has a lot of friends who seem really open to things I have to say, and I'm hoping to at least get some people questioning. I can have a friendly debate and still make her look like a moron without being a total dick. I do want to be a total dick, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
What blows me away is how many people will say something to the effect of "Well the GOP gave the Democrats everything they want except Obamacare!" as if they were within their rights to do so. The treating of the Republican position as a valid position is just mind-blowingly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Does anyone have a concise list of all the lovely compromises the Democrats had to make just to get Obamacare passed in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Right but I'm talking cash aid, which is what right-wingers typically decry as "welfare". No it isn't. They have no idea what they mean when they say "welfare." "Welfare" as used by conservatives can expand or contract as the rhetorical situation demands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
U.S. Barryl posted:I just want to yell, but I need something succinct and coherent to say. The really important thing this guy doesn't account for is that the initial clean CR is a compromise bill. The clean CR that the Democrats have passed is funding the government at levels below sequester funding. It's a compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans which Boehner, like Zeno's Paradox, decided they had to compromise on again by defunding Obamacare. The correct answer to this article isn't that it's the law of the land or anything because, yes, part of Congress's job is to repeal laws that are no longer useful or good. It's that the compromises have already taken place. The compromises on Obamacare took place when it was being written. The compromises on funding took place before the clean CR was put forward. The Republicans have taken a position of compromise and made further demands, and the only leverage they have is to provide something that both sides [in theory] want--a functioning government that can pay its bills, while what they're demanding is something that only they want, which is to get rid of Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:As naive and insufferable as objectivists are, is it really fair to lump them in with racists? A lot of them seriously believe that the poor would do well for themselves if only they had enough gumption and self-esteem; they don't necessarily have any intentional malice towards them. This view is still laughably retarded, but can it really be compared to straight-up bigotry? Objectivism is a cult that explicitly states that greed is moral and self-sacrifice is immoral. It holds up serial rapists and murderers as heroes whose disregard for the feelings and even lives of others should be aspired to. It is pure evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
U.S. Barryl posted:I just want to yell, but I need something succinct and coherent to say. There are two big problems here: 1) The ACA was passed as a mandatory program. Like Social Security, it is not dependent on annual authorizations to operate. The House isn't "leaving out" funds for the ACA like Sowell claims. It is actively repealing an appropriation that was previously made. The House is adding something to the CR that is not related. The House is trying to change an existing law. 2) The crux of his argument is that appropriations bills must originate in the House*. But he left out that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to amend those bills. Which the Senate did by stripping out the ACA provision. His argument cuts both ways: "If [the House and Boehner] refuse to accept the money required to run the government because it leaves out [repealing Obamacare], that is their right. That is also their responsiblity." Idk if either of those are short enough for you. Thomas Sowell is educated enough that it takes some effort to unpack everything and get to the bullshit sometimes. *Actually the constitution only says bills to raise revenue must originate in the House, but I'm pretty sure the House always originates appropriations bills by custom. Or maybe they contain revenue too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
World Famous Whore posted:I've never really got the whole 'sever cause you have different (sometimes abhorrent) political views then me' mentality. Maybe it's because I live in the deep South and would have to cut ties with about 80% of the people I know. I can never resist responding to people with stupid/reprehensible viewpoints, but it's mentally exhausting to engage in that kind of thing over and over. Defriending them is the facebook equivalent of an SA banme for someone that can't help but post. U.S. Barryl posted:I just want to yell, but I need something succinct and coherent to say. Whatever compromises the Democrats should have (and in fact, did) made happened while the ACA was being drafted and when it was being voted on, before it became a law and upheld by SCOTUS as constitutional. The Republicans don't get to say they don't like the law and so will shut-down the government over it. If there was a part of the law they didn't like (or indeed, if they did not like the law period), it should have been settled prior to it being signed into law. If the Republicans did not have the votes needed in the legislature to make the changes they wanted ... that's democracy at work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
PPACA originated in the House as H.R. 3590. It passed with a unanimous vote in the House in October 2009. The Senate changed it around a bit in December, passed it 60-39 and sent it back to the House to make sure they were okay with the changes. The House approved of the changes 219-212 in March. The President signed it into law two days later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
U.S. Barryl posted:I just want to yell, but I need something succinct and coherent to say. Someone posted this as an example in one of the shutdown threads: If the Senate passed a clean CR and the House refuses to pass it unless Obamacare is also defunded, would you say the Senate is to blame for the shutdown? If the House passed a clean CR and the Senate refuses to pass it unless Gay Marriage is legalized in all 50 states, would you say the House is to blame for the shutdown? If the House passed a clean CR and the President refused to sign it unless we also raise the top tax rate on businesses by 25%, would you say the House is to blame for the shutdown?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
My old Army buddy is rabidly right wing and was one of the non-essential DOD employees that was initially furloughed. I hoped that being on the receiving end of sudden government cuts would create some empathy. He'd been at work all of 4 hours before he felt the need to spout off about the Welfare queens ruining our country. Obviously D.C. gets much more Federal money than it gives but Colorado Springs has to be a strong contender for #2. Every single person I know who has settled there are government hating government employees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The Republicans have taken a position of compromise and made further demands, and the only leverage they have is to provide something that both sides [in theory] want--a functioning government that can pay its bills, while what they're demanding is something that only they want, which is to get rid of Obamacare. This is the standard Republican tactic these days too, if you remember the fight over the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Both parties wanted to make the tax cuts for the poor and middle class permanent but only the Republicans wanted to do that for the top bracket. Of course, they held the whole thing hostage and tried to blame the Democrats for wanting to raise everyone's taxes when really the Republicans would rather hike taxes on everyone if they couldn't cut them for the rich. And just like today, the media coverage at the time was to blame both sides. I'll do something we both want if you do something I want (In theory it's something they both wanted. In practice I doubt the Republicans gave a poo poo about tax cuts for anyone but the top bracket but obviously for political reasons they had to pretend to)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Obviously D.C. gets much more Federal money than it gives but Colorado Springs has to be a strong contender for #2. Every single person I know who has settled there are government hating government employees. That's NORAD and the Air Force Academy, right? They like.. barely count.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
More debt ceiling stuff, from basically the only guy who posts stuff like this anymore: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...ut-an-increase/ Not as terrible as most things, but still basically "gently caress the poor". But I get enraged when the phrase "the country's credit card" is used, like so: quote:The federal debt ceiling sets a legal limit for how much money the federal government can borrow. In other words, it places an upper limit on the national debt. It is like the credit limit on the government’s gold card. quote:I am a professor of economics at The University of Georgia and consultant on economic issues to a variety of corporations and local governments. Taking a generally free market, libertarian perspective, I use economics as the lens to analyze government policies from the local to the international level. I have a particular focus on government policies that strive to redistribute income or wealth either openly or in indirect ways. A lot of those thoughts are collected in my e-book, Ending the Era of the Free Lunch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:51
|
|
