|
https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720890542884671488 heh https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720886196021239809 https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720887900427005952 https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720888721134845952 https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720889200522833920 https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720889379766411264 https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720889811918172161 https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/720890238529175554 I would blow Dane Cook fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Apr 15, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
PSA: Katering show season 2 has started on iview.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:PSA: Katering show season 2 has started on iview. Test result: it was good
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Test result: it was good Not as good as last season so far, still good though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
 quote:Talking Point: The best six happen to be men
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
If the Liberals adopt a quota that might mean unqualified people get selected
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Not as good as last season so far, still good though. Oh there's more than one ep out? Back to it then
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Oh there's more than one ep out? Back to it then Nah, just the one so far. Just don't think it's on par with the first seasons episodes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Nah, just the one so far. Just don't think it's on par with the first seasons episodes. Nope. I have watched 3 eps so far today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Nope. I have watched 3 eps so far today. Yeah, ep 2 was intense. Nothing's ever going to top the sugarless song though
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
episode two was the closest i've come to vomiting in months
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Higsian posted:If the Liberals adopt a quota that might mean unqualified people get selected
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:And how is that any different to the current system? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Episode 2 was ... well, lets just say that it's comparable to some of the people I've met in the past who won't shut the gently caress up abut how good placenta tastes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
if Bill Shorten becomes prime minister i will move to cambodia (he is not going to become prime minister)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
tithin posted:Episode 2 was ... well, lets just say that it's comparable to some of the people I've met in the past who won't shut the gently caress up abut how good placenta tastes. Did these people ever bisect themselves and sprout wings? If so it sounds like you're dealing with a Manananggal
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
After that Baileys gag, all is forgiven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Anyone know what their policy on nuclear is? Could be a game changer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Anyone know what their policy on nuclear is? Could be a game changer. I imagine their position is contingent on whether it lowers their power bill or not. They would likely support waste generated power using the bodies of newstart recipients if it would cut $10 off their quarterly bill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:I imagine their position is contingent on whether it lowers their power bill or not. They would likely support waste generated power using the bodies of newstart recipients if it would cut $10 off their quarterly bill. We should look into this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:After that Baileys gag, all is forgiven. GF and I marathoned the series last night and by the end I'm of the opinion that it is even better than the first season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
I like both Cruz and Trump. I’m not as passionate about them as some; I’m merely pragmatic: I like anyone who can stop America’s descent into socialism or, better yet, reverse the course entirely. I also realise that America has come to a point when having big ideas is no longer enough; in order to shake up the system and get the economy moving the next president must also be a bigger-than-life mover and shaker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:I like both Cruz and Trump. I’m not as passionate about them as some; I’m merely pragmatic: I like anyone who can stop America’s descent into socialism or, better yet, reverse the course entirely. I also realise that America has come to a point when having big ideas is no longer enough; in order to shake up the system and get the economy moving the next president must also be a bigger-than-life mover and shaker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:GF and I marathoned the series last night and by the end I'm of the opinion that it is even better than the first season. We're torn; they're both awesome and I can't wait till season three, assuming they don't kayfabe kill each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Imagine being someone alive today who thinks neoliberalism isn't doing well enough. Imagine living in this world and thinking socialism has gone too far. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Imagine Justin Trudeau's dreamy face ... unf
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Greens plan to raise refugee intake to 50,000quote:The number of asylum seekers resettled in Australia would rise dramatically under a new Greens proposal. This certainly won't hurt jobs and encourage people smugglers, resulting in more deaths at sea. How many terrorists will this bring into the country?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidLeyonhjelm/status/721191805392277505
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
While the dude in my av is growing on me I really want my Leyonhjelm's Cat av back
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Greens plan to raise refugee intake to 50,000 Greens supporting a big Australia always strikes me as a bit strange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:This certainly won't hurt jobs and encourage people smugglers, resulting in more deaths at sea. How many terrorists will this bring into the country? Come on, man, you can do better than regurgitating the playbook. I'll grant that pulling the 'jobs' card is a new one for this, but it really is irrelevant since much of the detention center employment comes from the local area (or is part of Transfield, which I'm sure can find other places to put them since they're a huge company). As for a potential increase in terrorists coming here? Unlikely. People smuggling is loving hard and has too low a chance of success, especially given our penchant for offshore detention, our reputation for which wouldn't go away overnight. Then we've got the increase in refugee intake by 26k, which is a decent increase--more than double. We'd be increasing our chance of terrorism from this by over 100%! ...Which would be a compelling increase if it weren't for the fact that our count of refugee terrorists so far is approximately zero. The only terrorist we've had in recent history at all is Monis, who was a very long-term problem person who got radicalized. So logically, we're actually more at risk of terrorism by radicalized citizens than refugees by a factor of approximately infinity%. So what we need to be wary of is radicalization, and finding ways to curb it... and as it happens, we know that treating people who might potentially be radicalized like actual human beings substantially reduces the chance of them becoming radicalized. It's almost like, if you don't treat people like poo poo, they won't turn to people who offer a horrible way out. So, to answer your question: No, no, very no, you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
I meant the increase in skilled migration. Why? It's not like we have massive skills shortages any more. The boom is over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
remember, friendsLibertyCat posted:I am not kidding when I say I was more moved during the events of the Mass Effect series than I ever was by the works of Beethoven or Leonardo da Vinci.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:remember, friends I can't disagree with this. Rage and frustration are emotions I felt very strongly about Mass Effect 2, moreso than any emotion I've felt while looking at artwork and listening to music. I wouldn't say that's a positive for Mass Effect 2, though, because it's part of a very exclusive club of things I can talk your ear off about why they suck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:I meant the increase in skilled migration. Why? It's not like we have massive skills shortages any more. The boom is over. The free market will sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Greens plan to raise refugee intake to 50,000 lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
get the two kates to host
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:While the dude in my av is growing on me I really want my Leyonhjelm's Cat av back
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Economic Inequality Complaints Are Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice It’s not fair to blame individuals for other people’s wrongdoing. Yet we let envy-peddlers get away with it when unfairly attacking rich people. APRIL 14, 2016 By Don Watkins In the wake of the endless controversies surrounding Donald Trump’s campaign, it’s easy to forget that most of us rightfully pride ourselves on our opposition to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of unjust discrimination. But we rarely even discuss another prevalent form of prejudice: the demonization and dehumanization of the successful. This prejudice is central to today’s chief economic concern: the campaign against economic inequality. Not everyone worried about our economic challenges is bigoted, of course. There are real problems we all should be concerned about, whether it’s declining opportunity (especially for those starting at the bottom), slowing economic progress, the pitiful state of education, or the political favors bestowed on some businesses. In our new book on inequality, “Equal Is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality,” my co-author Yaron Brook and I address those problems and many others. But whatever one’s view of our challenges, nothing can justify the way many—including presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders—are treating those who have achieved economic success. The Double Standards for Rich People Consider just a few of the behaviors that inequality critics apparently consider acceptable when dealing with wealthy Americans. Collective Judgments. Virtually everyone agrees we should judge people by their actions and the content of their character, not by the (real or manufactured) sins or shortcomings of other members of whatever group they happen to belong to. Replace ‘the rich’ with ‘Hispanics’ or ‘women’ or ‘Jews’ in that sentence, and ask yourself: isn’t this precisely the sort of prejudice we object to when it is targeted at other groups? Regarding businessmen, for example, we should condemn those who lie, cheat, and steal. But we should condemn them as individuals for their dishonest and predatory actions. By the same token, we should praise individuals who earn their wealth through ingenuity and effort—not make them pay for other people’s sins. Yet what we hear from today’s inequality critics is across-the-board denunciations of successful businessmen. Sanders contends “the business model of Wall Street”—which employees hundreds of thousands of productive Americans—“is fraud.” A headline for a Sean McElwee article in Salon tells us “Rich white people are ruining the planet.” Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett write in their popular book “The Spirit Level” that “Rather than adopting an attitude of gratitude toward the rich, we need to recognize what a damaging effect they have on the social fabric.” Replace “the rich” with “Hispanics” or “women” or “Jews” in that sentence, and ask yourself: isn’t this precisely the sort of prejudice we object to when it is targeted at other groups? Dehumanization. Prejudice encourages dehumanization—it encourages demonizing “the other” so they are seen as less than human and therefore unworthy of respect. This is precisely what inequality critics are trying to do to “the 1 percent.” To take just one example, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has claimed that rich Americans are “less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder”—they are, in short, “spoiled egomaniacs.” Well, if so, what concern should we have for their rights and their dignity? The Wealthy Are People, Too A common myth is that you cannot be a victim of injustice unless you are powerless or disadvantaged, or that an injustice is okay if it’s aimed at someone who isn’t powerless or disadvantaged. But those are nothing more than crude rationalizations for injustice. Isn’t it an indictment of our society when good people are treated like villains? We need to ask ourselves: Do we really think of rich individuals as human beings? Or do we view them as cartoon villains—one-dimensional stereotypes not dissimilar to the caricatures propagated by racists, misogynists, and Jew-haters? When I discuss unfair treatment of successful businessmen, I almost always hear comments like, “Oh, boohoo. What do the rich have to complain about? Look at everything they have!” This reflects a crass materialism, which amounts to the notion that money solves everything, and that no one can be hurt by or object to mistreatment unless he’s poor. But have we ever stopped to ask ourselves: What if a rich individual’s dreams mean as much to him as my dreams do to me? What if he wants to be respected for his achievements the way I want to be respected for mine? What if he has made himself into a moral human being—doesn’t he deserve respect and admiration, and isn’t it an indictment of our society when good people are treated like villains? A Cynical Justification for Government-Sponsored Injustice Exploitation. When prejudice gets injected into the political system, it leads to the government inflicting tremendous injustices on the victims. All of it is aimed at erasing the knowledge that economically successful individuals are human beings and that exploiting other human beings is wrong. More and more, our political system treats economically successful Americans as resources for “society’s” desires rather than as sovereign individuals with an inalienable right to their own pursuit of happiness. Witness, for example, the plans Democratic candidates have for this country. Free health care—paid for by “the rich.” Free college—paid for by “the rich.” Larger Social Security payments—paid for by “the rich.” Of course, these demands are supported by the claim that “the rich” aren’t paying their “fair share.” Set aside the fact that affluent Americans bear the vast, vast majority of the tax burden. Do we ever so much as ask: Did they honestly earn their money? Did they gain it by dealing voluntarily with other people, through an incalculable number of win-win trades? Don’t they have a right to use their wealth to pursue their own hopes and dreams—the same way we each have the right to use our wealth to pursue our hopes and dreams? No, we don’t ask those questions. Preventing us from asking those questions is the goal of the demonization and dehumanization of “the rich.” Whether it’s President Obama dismissing individual achievement when he declares “you didn’t build that,” or Sanders claiming it is immoral for some people to prosper while others are struggling, or Barbara Ehrenreich arguing that “To the extent that any demonization is going on, one can’t help thinking that the rich have been, perhaps inadvertently, asking for it”—all of it is aimed at erasing the knowledge that economically successful individuals are human beings and that exploiting other human beings is wrong. Stripping the Rewards of Virtue This is prejudice, plain and simple. What’s worse, it is not directed toward traits that have no bearing on a person’s character, it is directed at something that is in fact a moral achievement. Business success—that is, making a profit through productive achievement, not special favors from Washington—is something that deserves our respect and admiration. As we argue in “Equal Is Unfair,” this kind of success is enormously difficult, and it is profoundly virtuous. We live in an advanced technological society, and enjoy a level of wealth, health, comfort, and opportunity that our ancestors could not have dreamed of. What made it possible? The effort of producers, on every level of ability, but with the most credit going to the men and women of extraordinary ability: the inventors, entrepreneurs, and investors who drive progress—and earn a fortune in the process. It’s time we stopped saying “screw you” and started saying “thank you.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Anidav posted:Economic Inequality Complaints Are Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice neoliberalism is super loving good
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 08:47
|
|