|
People don't realize yet that for a rich person, "doing bad" means "My wealth only increased arithmetically, not geometrically."
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Check out from the gbs thread what these workers were supposed to accept I'm not union, and if my company were to come to me and offer me such a shitacular package, i would either walk out or be immediately looking elsewhere. It's not like the company has long to go at that point. Sort of like the airplane company in KS that wanted their employees to take a 10% pay cut with a freeze for 7 years, despite being profitable. Could you get me to do that for a year? Maybe, in a bad economy, if proven it was absolutely vital to the company's survival. But freezing me for 7 years? I'm better off taking my chances with unemployment. (I'd find a link, but phoneposting)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
So, my crazy aunt's good-for-nothing other daughter is now on Facebook. She has been divorced 3 times, is on disability, TANF, SNAP, and unemployment. She has 4 kids in her mid-20's, the first born when she was 18. She is on all kinds of drugs. Apparently, she still 100% absorbed her mom's psychopathic conservativism. I didn't realize a simple troll would piss her off so much. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
So we shouldn't be LIKE them, we should just adopt their policies!  Based on your description I was waiting for the anti-entitlement while on entitlement. "Only moral welfare is my welfare". I guess 'I don't work, but Mexicans take our jobs' is close...but still. You disappoint me Sir. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Well she only just got Facebook. Considering her mom's utter batshit lunacy, I'm fully expecting a flood of "Lazy 47%!" poo poo. I'll let you know if I see "Drug test for welfare."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Well she only just got Facebook. Considering her mom's utter batshit lunacy, I'm fully expecting a flood of "Lazy 47%!" poo poo. I'll let you know if I see "Drug test for welfare." I do look forward to it. Key word now-a-days is 'free stuff' I believe.  oh America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Those illegal immigrants she wants to shoot or something are funding her welfare queen self through payroll, sales, and income taxes they'll never get anything out of Seriously though, she's on the trifecta of welfare, plus one, that's hard to achieve in America. Illegal immigrants are literally helping to fund that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
The disability was by declaring one of her daughters mentally challenged. Given that she "home schools" her, I can see why someone might think that. And the way she got unemployment was when she got fired from her fast food job, she called the corporate office and said that she was fired because her black boss is racist against white people, and rather than deal with that whole mess, they just gave her the unemployment (which they almost never do). I really try to never deal with her at all, but now she's on Facebook and she friended me, joy of joys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Your pain is our gain, and we thank you for it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:So, my crazy aunt's good-for-nothing other daughter is now on Facebook. She has been divorced 3 times, is on disability, TANF, SNAP, and unemployment. She has 4 kids in her mid-20's, the first born when she was 18. She is on all kinds of drugs. I feel like you wanted someone to ask, so I'll do it: what's the first worst argument?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
I reorganized my thoughts a little before hitting enter, but you'll notice that at the end of the last line I say her stupid slippery slope is the worst argument ever. Originally, I had that first, but then I thought it better to address the "second worst argument" first. It doesn't flow as well, but seriously, I don't think it matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
The first worst argument involves something about "Ted Rall" and "loneliness"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:So, my crazy aunt's good-for-nothing other daughter is now on Facebook. She has been divorced 3 times, is on disability, TANF, SNAP, and unemployment. She has 4 kids in her mid-20's, the first born when she was 18. She is on all kinds of drugs. I was hoping they'd use China, like they do sometimes. Also, if you cross illegally into North Korea, they make you a movie star! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Dresnok
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
The rich have such a burden! (I'm green. I really need to just keep myself from getting involved with this stuff...) Also, did the GOP seriously get that congressional report redacted based on the grounds of it used the words "Bush tax cuts" and "tax cuts for the wealthy"? Laminator fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:So, my crazy aunt's good-for-nothing other daughter is now on Facebook. She has been divorced 3 times, is on disability, TANF, SNAP, and unemployment. She has 4 kids in her mid-20's, the first born when she was 18. She is on all kinds of drugs. I think a productive approach would be to point out that they're not "taking our jobs." If they were, then the mass exodus of immigrants, illegal and otherwise, from states like Georgia and South Carolina wouldn't have resulted in literally tons of produce rotting in the fields. If they were taking our jobs, then we should have seen Americans take their place in the fields, picking strawberries and harvesting tomatoes. And we didn't. Laminator posted:The rich have such a burden! (I'm green. I really need to just keep myself from getting involved with this stuff...) Your use of stats there is awful. The best way to put it would have been that the top 10% own 80-85% of the total wealth in this country, while the remaining 15-20% is owned by the bottom 90%. As a consequence, it's entirely appropriate that 85% of the taxes in this country are paid by the people who own 85% of the wealth. If y'all intend to response to these stupid posts on Facebook, you need to learn from the chain messages that are posted here. You don't make long-winded responses with nuanced details. You drop a well-worded, concise (but factually accurate, if not necessarily detailed) bomb, and get out. That's what these idiots respond to. Not replies that force them to think. This is gut reaction territory, not pondering the subtleties of political action. Most of these people aren't capable of critical thinking beyond the length of a Twitter post. Imagine that you have roughly 140 characters to get through to them, and tailor your replies accordingly. Walter fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Walter posted:I think a productive approach would be to point out that they're not "taking our jobs." If they were, then the mass exodus of immigrants, illegal and otherwise, from states like Georgia and South Carolina wouldn't have resulted in literally tons of produce rotting in the fields. I agree with your idea of not making nuanced posts and appealing to emotion (I've made that argument myself numerous times in this thread), but A) the person I'm responding to is not interested in intellectual discourse, so I'm just trolling. I was already aware of this going in; she even says she will not change her mind, and B) the guy above actually did very well, I thought. The red person he was talking to was using actual statistics and operating on more than the emotional level. I don't know about pink, but judging by the fact that pink didn't veer off into a diatribe makes me think that person's not just a crazy either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
For a troll to be effective with that kind of target, it should be concise, or at least have a concise payload.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I've never done any sort of formal debating and I know that my skills are definitely not up to par with some other people. I'm pretty analytical so I like to see statistics and numbers, and I honestly feel bad about myself if I try to use an emotional appeal. But perhaps you guys are right... eek my paint colors are all screwy. red square is the same dude from above and pink square is same from above as well. Yup, high corporate profits and low wages = working tax code, also poor people have it too easy because of fridges and microwaves. I'm confused by pink's post - is she saying that we should tax and regulate corporations more while providing tax benefits to small business? Laminator fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Holy gently caress poo poo, Red's last line makes me genuinely angry. I don't usually get angry easily at stupid talking points either. Jesus Christ. The dude has a grasp of statistics, logic, and reason, and then says "Yeah, I think the poor need to be more punished." gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Gotta hit that with a wages VS profits graph, show them, no Wages will not loving follow soon since profits have been climbing since the 80s and wages loving havent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I have no idea how to respond except to call him a loving monster
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
So that $60,000/person claim is just patently false. I found this article about California public assistance (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/?print&page=all) stating that maximum payments are $640/month (7500/year). 60k is just loving bullshit - any other approaches I could take to that? The business insider I liked to originally compares wages to profits and you can clearly see that wages have dropped since the 80s while profits continue to rise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Laminator posted:So that $60,000/person claim is just patently false. I found this article about California public assistance (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/?print&page=all) stating that maximum payments are $640/month (7500/year). 60k is just loving bullshit - any other approaches I could take to that? The "red" person included education grants and healthcare. I still doubt it's 60k, but they're including more than just actual payments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
Im sure he can show that math or site a source on that, its totally not just a talking point he heard on Rush about how awesome the poors have it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Originally I was going to say ignore Pink, because she's doing that dumb thing where they bring in a million different topics and she outright admits "I don't care what models you show me, I still think we're going in the wrong direction." When they admit they will not listen to facts, leave. At first I thought Red could be reasoned with, but after literally "I hope the poor suffer more," walk away, man. Pink has her opinions/views incorporated into who-she-is, and you can't change that, and Red's a monster and I'd re-evaluate why you know them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
I saidquote:Wow dude. Read the article - wages have been dropping since the 80s and profits have been rising. If freaking Business Insider says, "our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs" then something isn't working. You may want to evaluate your opinion on an entire group of people in this country when you think that having a fridge and microwave means that people aren't suffering. jesus gently caress. I didn't even want to attempt to argue anymore because they're not going to listen. Thank god I don't know the red person, he's friends with the guy who posted the original image. From looking at their profiles they all appear to go to the same LDS church.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Holy gently caress poo poo, Red's last line makes me genuinely angry. I don't usually get angry easily at stupid talking points either. Jesus Christ. The dude has a grasp of statistics, logic, and reason, and then says "Yeah, I think the poor need to be more punished." gently caress him. I hate that people are saying the poor have it too easy, nothing says privilege like poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
So this just showed up in my facebook feed from a guy who seemed alright and rather intelligent when I met him in person but then his posts claiming to be an undecided / centrist who didn't get what the issue was with Romney's 47% comment, the binders comment, et al started showing up. Even when people explained the issue he'd just side step it and spout libertarian / republican talking points. At this point I'm pretty sure I'm just wasting my time. This seems like it'd be pretty easy to rebut, especially considering the specifics of Hostess' liquidation; considering that the company was already doing so poorly yet raised the salaries of upper management and then demanded significant wage and benefit cuts and seemed more interested in avoiding negotiating in good faith, but those silly unions not helping the economy by standing up for its members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:So this just showed up in my facebook feed from a guy who seemed alright and rather intelligent when I met him in person but then his posts claiming to be an undecided / centrist who didn't get what the issue was with Romney's 47% comment, the binders comment, et al started showing up. Even when people explained the issue he'd just side step it and spout libertarian / republican talking points. I think seeing the Willy Wonka image macro posted is a pretty solid indicator to move on. Hasn't really let me down yet!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
Oh, for gently caress's sake, I never thought it would come to this. My dad is now forwarding me articles from Infowars...quote:Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts This is followed by lists of precincts in which Romney got exactly one or two votes. So yes, the numbers are real, and without looking too much into it, it does appear strange that a precinct with 400 votes counted would go 400 - 0 for Obama. However, I know next to nothing about the demographics of Cleveland, and if there are large swaths of impoverished, minority neighborhoods in there, then maybe these results start to make sense. But it looks fishy, and that's enough for my dad, who by the way isn't implying anything, he "just found this interesting!" and "is just asking questions!" How can I respond to this? I'd like to spend this Thanksgiving sleeping off a turkey binge instead of rubbing my temples and praying for death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I hate that people are saying the poor have it too easy, nothing says privilege like poo poo like that. Why not just ask him if he should take a pay cut? His argument is the bottom 80% have way too much stuff, well tell him to put his money where his mouth his since I doubt he's a job creator. I mean, there's someone that will probably do his job for cheaper if need be and I'm sure if they reduced say his health care benefits, maybe his boss can create more jobs. The best part about the whole "Waaaah the poor have cell phones" is the average sub Saharan African also has a cell phone 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Clint Howard posted:So yes, the numbers are real, and without looking too much into it, it does appear strange that a precinct with 400 votes counted would go 400 - 0 for Obama. However, I know next to nothing about the demographics of Cleveland, and if there are large swaths of impoverished, minority neighborhoods in there, then maybe these results start to make sense. I live in Cleveland, and actually I work at the BoE right now but that's unrelated. It's exactly what you described. Ward 5 is where those "VOTER FRAUD IS A FELONY" billboards went up.  Wards 5-9 correlate pretty heavily with the reddest areas on this map.  The white gap along the lake in the first map is Bratenahl on the second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Clint Howard posted:Oh, for gently caress's sake, I never thought it would come to this. My dad is now forwarding me articles from Infowars... I don't see the harm in just admitting that it looks odd at first glance, but that the places where Romney failed to earn even a single vote were places where the entire population is Obama's demographic, more or less. I can't speak for you, but personally, I would say that nothing would make me angrier than undermining an election, even if it's in my guy's favor, and I would want whoever is responsible to come to justice - BUT, there is no proof that there was fraud, and until there is, I won't jump to any conclusions. Here's a CBS article that discusses the demographics of the area. Edit: ^^^ Those maps are great, Nevvy Z. ^^^ vez veces fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Just flip it around on them. I'm sure there are plenty of small 300 people towns in bumblefuck Wyoming where not a single person voted for Obama. Hence, obviously it's voter fraud. It's not rural, white voters in very conservative states are a demographic that is overwhelmingly going to go for Mitt Romney or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Clint Howard posted:But it looks fishy, and that's enough for my dad, who by the way isn't implying anything, he "just found this interesting!" and "is just asking questions!" Find an article like this one from Philly where the numbers were 19,605 to 0 and the reporter set off in finding a single person that voted for Romney. They couldn't find said person. "i hate are government" I didn't know this was really a thing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's exactly what you described. Ward 5 is where those "VOTER FRAUD IS A FELONY" billboards went up. Empire State posted:I don't see the harm in just admitting that it looks odd at first glance, but that the places where Romney failed to earn even a single vote were places where the entire population is Obama's demographic, more or less. That's kind of what I suspected and what I feared. My parents have lived in rural areas their entire lives, and don't venture outside their bubble. They assume they're witnessing real poverty by watching their nightly episode of COPS. The argument that an impoverished, minority demographic could easily vote exclusively democrat requires an awareness of something they've never witnessed and can't imagine. Thanks a lot for the responses. Maybe I'll be able to turn them into an argument that resonates with my dad. Clint Howard fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Halo_4am posted:Find an article like this one from Philly where the numbers were 19,605 to 0 and the reporter set off in finding a single person that voted for Romney. They couldn't find said person. Has anyone suggested that Bush should go to jail every time a soldier in Iraq got killed in an IED attack?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes. As the article notes, it's entirely possible, demographically, for that to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Just flip it around on them. I'm sure there are plenty of small 300 people towns in bumblefuck Wyoming where not a single person voted for Obama. Hence, obviously it's voter fraud. It's not rural, white voters in very conservative states are a demographic that is overwhelmingly going to go for Mitt Romney or anything. Obama got less than 2 votes in some of these precincts in Montana's fabulous East Coast. VOTER FRAUD!!!! http://electionresults.sos.mt.gov/resultsPREC.aspx?type=FED&rid=450001349&cty=17&osn=100 Amusingly, I had to go to Montana because Wyoming and Utah don't report out precinct level results. Good on you elected Democratic SoS Linda McCulloch!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
XyloJW posted:In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 19:44
|
|
