|
Gyges posted:No that's time traveling Reagan. Reagan's Corpse conveniently moves it jaw in time to what ever idea you say it does. As is so often the case, Saint Kreider (pbuh) has beat you to the punch. 
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Okay, I'm 99.99999% certain this has already been pointed out before, but why has no one photoshopped one of those giant $20 cheeseburgers into his hands for this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Okay, I'm 99.99999% certain this has already been pointed out before, but why has no one photoshopped one of those giant $20 cheeseburgers into his hands for this? something something low-hanging
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Okay, I'm 99.99999% certain this has already been pointed out before, but why has no one photoshopped one of those giant $20 cheeseburgers into his hands for this? When you try it immediately disappears into the mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
SatansOnion posted:something something low-hanging He ate all of those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icz6xCzKz4
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Well, that is certainly creepy. It was also a little startling until I realized which thread this was. I am seriously considering putting that image into the rotation to see how it affects votes. If anyone is interested, I have added a bunch of front-runners who were previously missing from http://www.pickaprez.com/ Hillary is there, now, along with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Rubio, and several others I should have had in the first batch. The stats page is also up and running, now. There's not much on it, but I will be adding things over the next few days. I am open to suggestions for data-mining people would like to see done.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
I read this piece today: http://time.com/2826277/the-myth-of-inevitability/quote:"I recently asked Webb what he saw when he looked at America a year after he left the Senate. “Groundhog Day,” he said. Nothing had changed. In his book I Heard My Country Calling, Webb writes about a country “governed by a club of insiders who manipulate public opinion in order to serve the interests of hidden elites who hold the reins of power.” That could be a call to arms for Democratic populists and Tea Partyers alike. It is a bit over the top–hidden elites?–but it is a voice to be reckoned with in a ticked-off America. I hate Joe Klein.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Dystram posted:I read this piece today: http://time.com/2826277/the-myth-of-inevitability/ I stopped paying attention to him after he theorized during the extended Obama vs. Hillary 08 primary that the "party elders" would instead select Al Gore to run again at the Democratic National Convention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Nate Silver is the only pundit I pay attention to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
"Itchy to file grievances after 50 years of remarkable progress" sounds like something southern anti-integration bigots would have said in 1958.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I stopped paying attention to him after he theorized during the extended Obama vs. Hillary 08 primary that the "party elders" would instead select Al Gore to run again at the Democratic National Convention. Isn't he the guy that wrote a novel about "totally not Clinton, honest" being a pedophile? Don't imagine he has many friends amongst the Clinton machine these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:So, this thread inspired me to do something. Holy poo poo, this is a great way to introduce politicians to people. I'd never read up on Tim Scott before, but, welp quote:In March 2011, Scott co-sponsored a welfare reform bill that would deny food stamps to families whose incomes were lowered to the point of eligibility because a family member was participating in a labor strike. He introduced legislation in July 2011 to strip the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of its power to prohibit employers from relocating to punish workers who join unions or strike. The rationale for the legislation is that government agencies should not be able to tell private employers where they can run a business. Scott described the legislation as a common sense proposal that would fix a flaw in federal labor policy and benefit the national and local economies. The NLRB had recently opposed the relocation of a Boeing production facility from Washington state to South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
sullat posted:Isn't he the guy that wrote a novel about "totally not Clinton, honest" being a pedophile? Don't imagine he has many friends amongst the Clinton machine these days. Dunno; he did write a novel about a not-Clinton's presidential campaign (and he's portrayed as an amoral, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win scumbag) but reading the Wiki article there doesn't appear to be any pedoing involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either. The food stamp thing is him trying to weaken his political opponents by starving them. Sounds pretty bad to me. I don't think anyone should starve, regardless of circumstance, and especially not as a political move to lower the already rock bottom power of the working class. Second part is "the only moral government spending is my government spending."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:The food stamp thing is him trying to weaken his political opponents by starving them. Sounds pretty bad to me. I don't think anyone should starve, regardless of circumstance, and especially not as a political move to lower the already rock bottom power of the working class. The second one is about abuse of asymmetrical power in labor relations. Capital can move easier than workers can, and companies moving their businesses solely to thwart unionization is an an unfair assertion of that power. There's nothing to stop Boeing building a plant in South Carolina, so long as union-busting isn't the only reason they're doing it. Scott's NLRB bill position is a two-fer. He gets more jobs in his state, and he gets to help destroy unions all over the country as a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either. It sets a precedent of the government telling a worker they should accept any job that comes along no matter how little it pays. The facts remain that the people were making less money than they were before, and he advocated for policy that would have restricted their access to food. The government should be supportive of welfare recipients striking for better wages. The higher the wages those welfare recipients receive the less government assistance they will need. A striking worker might be a net negative for a month or two, but in the long term that very well could be a net positive for the budget of the government if the strike is successful. It is completely against the interest of the state to penalize a striking worker like that, and the only reason it would do so is if it was partnering with business interests in order to squash coordinated activities by labor. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's literally the history of the labor movement in the United States. It's more subtle than bringing in the national guard to kill strikers, but the sentiment there is definitely, "gently caress you, get back to work for those pennies, you should be grateful."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Dunno; he did write a novel about a not-Clinton's presidential campaign (and he's portrayed as an amoral, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win scumbag) but reading the Wiki article there doesn't appear to be any pedoing involved. I don't remember if it was in the book but in the movie Primary Colors it was implied that Cill Blinton had sex with a 15 year old girl. He sends in a false sample for a paternity test when she ends up pregnant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The second one is about abuse of asymmetrical power in labor relations. Capital can move easier than workers can, and companies moving their businesses solely to thwart unionization is an an unfair assertion of that power. Short of a smoking gun email/recording/etc., what is the threshold needed to show that union-busting is the only reason for moving a plant? It seems to be one of those things, like racism, where as long as you don't explicitly say your motive you will always get the benefit of the doubt from the right people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either. Agreedo it's totally ethical and moral to literally tell people if you strike the government will let you loving starve, that won't create a chilling effect that directly benefits him and his political allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either. Present a modicum of proof that this isn't a despicable right wing talking point meant to gin up resentment of the poor. Are you really stupid enough to believe that food stamps are some kind of luxury that people CHOOSE to be on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Present a modicum of proof that this isn't a despicable right wing talking point meant to gin up resentment of the poor. Are you really stupid enough to believe that food stamps are some kind of luxury that people CHOOSE to be on? We are talking about striking workers so yes, every single one of them is choosing not to work, baring cases of lockouts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:We are talking about striking workers so yes, every single one of them is choosing not to work, baring cases of lockouts. "Choosing not to work" is the only leverage workers have against the employer. Giving them food stamps and other welfare benefits during a strike allows them to exercise that leverage. This is a matter of theory versus reality. The workers have no actual power in their relationship with the company if they are incapable of using it due to being human beings who need to eat to survive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:We are talking about striking workers so yes, every single one of them is choosing not to work, baring cases of lockouts. So in your mind, workers are only striking because they would rather not work and still get to eat. Is your contention that the law as we have it today is too generous to striking low wage workers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So in your mind, workers are only striking because they would rather not work and still get to eat. Is your contention that the law as we have it today is too generous to striking low wage workers? They are striking for better wages/maintaining the same wages in the face of pressure to accept cuts. The company is doing the opposite. The government shouldn't be favoring either side. It was bad in the old days when they would send in the police to attack strikers, its bad when they go out and favor the other side as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Short of a smoking gun email/recording/etc., what is the threshold needed to show that union-busting is the only reason for moving a plant? It seems to be one of those things, like racism, where as long as you don't explicitly say your motive you will always get the benefit of the doubt from the right people. I suppose to show that union busting is not the motive, you would give employees at the new facility a chance to unionize in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either. Sociopathic much? People go on strike to demand better working conditions. People don't strike just because they want a free ride. Life is not fun while on strike. While they are on strike, they are making NO money, and thus cannot buy food unless they have a lot saved up. If you're streaking because you aren't making enough to generally make ends meet and the company is more than capable of accommodating but chooses not too (see McDonalds), that becomes even more difficult. If they don't have food, they will die. Cutting the bare minimum for human dignity just because those people had the gall not to be pushed around is disturbing. If you seriously cannot see why this is inherently wrong, I don't think this conversation can really go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:They are striking for better wages/maintaining the same wages in the face of pressure to accept cuts. The company is doing the opposite. The government shouldn't be favoring either side. It was bad in the old days when they would send in the police to attack strikers, its bad when they go out and favor the other side as well. Please tell me how the government is "going out and favoring the other side."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:They are striking for better wages/maintaining the same wages in the face of pressure to accept cuts. The company is doing the opposite. The government shouldn't be favoring either side. It was bad in the old days when they would send in the police to attack strikers, its bad when they go out and favor the other side as well. The government provides food stamps to low-income people regardless of cause just like they give giant deductions to businesses regardless of how they treat their workers. The system works 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:They are striking for better wages/maintaining the same wages in the face of pressure to accept cuts. The company is doing the opposite. The government shouldn't be favoring either side. It was bad in the old days when they would send in the police to attack strikers, its bad when they go out and favor the other side as well. I think what you're missing is that, in its base state, the Labor v Capital playing field is not level (except maybe in highly specialized or super-high skill fields), especially in a Labor saturated (high unemployment) market. Labor can threaten Capital with 'You'll have to find a new employee, potentially disrupting your projects'. This is a non-threat in a high unemployment market (except to very small margins businesses), since Capital can easily find potential replacements (except, again, in highly specialized fields). Capital can, on the other hand, threaten Labor with 'You'll have to find a new job, and will not have income with which to purchase food, clothing, housing, transportation until that time'. Not to mention that the new job must provide enough income to cover the debts and mortgages that the employee made while employed, based on the income from that employment. Outside of very high demand, low saturation fields, such jobs may be difficult to come by. Basically, businesses can threaten to collapse an employee's life, while a single employee cannot meaningfully threaten anything but the smallest of businesses (which is why unions perform organized strikes, as a balancing factor). If necessities (food/clothing/housing/transportation/energy/communications) were provided to the employee, and the employee was instead working to earn money for non-necessities (entertainment/fancy cars, clothes, houses, food/travel/prestige items), then the playing field would indeed be balanced, and hell, we wouldn't even need a minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The government shouldn't be favoring either side. They're not. If the corporate executives have to forgo their salaries because the company isn't making enough money due to the strike, they would also be eligible for food stamps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:They're not. If the corporate executives have to forgo their salaries because the company isn't making enough money due to the strike, they would also be eligible for food stamps. In Bizarro-world CEOS give themselves huge bonuses while their company actually loses mon--- oh wait, that's this world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:They are striking for better wages/maintaining the same wages in the face of pressure to accept cuts. The company is doing the opposite. The government shouldn't be favoring either side. What's the basis for that claim? Why on earth is that a sort of dispute the government must remain neutral in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What's the basis for that claim? Why on earth is that a sort of dispute the government must remain neutral in? Because freedom (markets). 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Besides giving people not making money food stamps is no way morally equivalent to hiring Pinkertons to infiltrate and murder unionists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Please tell me how the government is "going out and favoring the other side." Well they aren't sending out the National Guard to shoot the strikers, sooooo....
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:They are striking for better wages/maintaining the same wages in the face of pressure to accept cuts. The company is doing the opposite. The government shouldn't be favoring either side. It was bad in the old days when they would send in the police to attack strikers, its bad when they go out and favor the other side as well. How on earth did you manage to put union-busting and food stamp programs on the same level of morality? Seriously, I wanna know what mental gymnastics it required in order for your brain to go "giving food stamps to people who don't make enough money to afford basic necessities = just as bad as strike breakers".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Mother Jones has helpfully compiled all the Hillary conspiracies. Which is your favorite? Mine is the Clinton-hired cat murdering jogger. (Yes the Reptilians also make an appearance)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 21:35
|
|
