Thread Rating:

Poll

57 votes (48.3%)
32 votes (27.11%)
12 votes (10.16%)
10 votes (8.47%)
4 votes (3.38%)
3 votes (2.54%)

118 members have voted

SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 2927
January 11th, 2017 at 3:53:43 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

That doesn't even come close to comparing to Donald's attacks on the media (just today). So, in conclusion, Tom Brokaw was right and you were wrong.

Yup, that's correct. The DOJ under Holder and Lynch have not amounted to diddly squat when it comes to the press, especially on the painfully rare instances when the press takes one step outside the party line. Keep up the enforcer work!
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 131
  • Posts: 3213
January 11th, 2017 at 3:53:48 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

That doesn't even come close to comparing to Donald's attacks on the media (just today).

So, in conclusion, Tom Brokaw was right and you were wrong.



It that is wrong, I don't want to be right!

Bet the poor little CNN guy is crying somewhere knowing he was called out by the soon to be President of the United States. Somehow he didn't expect that to happen with his liberal college education. Or maybe he thinks it makes him some hero in the coffee shops of American where liberals like him gather and discuss issues instead of actually working. F Van Jones, Jim Acosta, Wolf and all the others at CNN like them. At least MSNBC admits their bias. CNN tries to act like they play it down the middle. But when you give someone like Jones airtime, you make it clear to everyone your a far left fringe, beyond even liberal, network.

Van Jones slipping and falling in a puddle of AIDS would be a good thing for America, and perhaps for CNN's ratings.
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 769
January 11th, 2017 at 7:21:14 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

Poor MaxPen. I feel for you.

Turns out those warm liberal tears you've been drinking for the past two months were something else entirely....



You're brainwashed. The simple fact that you buy into the whole left vs. right arguments proves it. Left, left, left, right, left is how you march troops down the trail. When you are incapable of formulating your own opinions, utilizing your own brain housing group, you tend to believe whatever is sold to you based on your bias. Keep up the fight against your own though. LOL

MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 11th, 2017 at 7:59:06 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

Left, left, left, right, left is how you march troops down the trail.

I want to see a video of troops marching like this...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 769
January 11th, 2017 at 8:06:48 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I want to see a video of troops marching like this...




Just Google "military marching cadence videos" and watch away.

Last edited by: MaxPen on Jan 11, 2017
rainman
rainman
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1112
January 11th, 2017 at 10:30:35 PM permalink
I'm neither left nor right. I find subscribing to any one party's doctrine absurd both sides are equally
full of self serving power mongering lying criminal ego maniacs.

This one is for the righties. I bumped into it you may get a chuckle I did, but I despise Maddow she's right
up there with Hannity as far as the top plastic people in the news media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0TaegQ-kw
Last edited by: rainman on Jan 11, 2017
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 3616
January 12th, 2017 at 2:19:05 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs


If you are a caricature, you are one worthy of emulation. I am also a caricature, but belief structures and personal ethos tend to hang together, one leading to another. We are both products of.our environments, resources, and the consequences of our actions.



Thanks you, dear Babs.

But to clarify, since we're trying to do just that, I'm not anti-giving. My personal preference on that is time, usually helping to do what those who cannot do need. I love stopping the truck to get the bitch pile some plow left for a lil old lady, or putting an arm around a kid and telling him great hit but you're not to checking age yet, and taking the time to explain why it was wrong and how he could do it better, instead of just binning him for 2min. Or any of the many random acts of kindness, whether retrieving a blown about garbage can or buying a vet lunch on the sly. Paying it forward is rewarding on many levels.

I just can't be arsed on a macro level. ME believes the benefit of many outweighs the abuse of the few. I'll admit both that I lack the ability to see things in a macro sense, and also that EMOTION flat out overrides my logic in this case. It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free, because the emotion of anger overrides it, thinking back to that day standing in line with two items while a bunch of able bodied teens come up with arms full of junk with their EBT. I know it's "wrong", a fault of my person. But I can't yet break it. It's gotta be like 7 years since that day happened, and I STILL feel that mf'er owes me a cut lawn and a raking. Money ain't but a tangible form of time. That mf'er shorted my life with no compensation to me. I can't get passed it.

Quote: ME

And to interject, since I look at the world as a probabilist, the distribution of societal outcomes is superior when you tilt the needle toward "more social spending, less likely for an individual to fail, more likely for an individual to scam the system" than "less social spending, more likely for an individual to fail, less likely for an individual to scam the system." It's never going to be black or white and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. We just need to find the strategy that optimizes EV. (Just...)



I think we have real info regarding the latter. Surely there are or has been a sort of "fend for yourself" society. I'd imagine any monarchy / patriarchy / dictatorship type place would fit, and I'd agree it's a poor system. But is there any real example of your former? Is there a place that's pulled off your version? My lack of education / experience leads me to think you're speaking of communism, and I don't mean Red China - USSR - anti-American buzzword communism, but just ideological communism (please correct if wrong). And I think it has never flown because it's one of those "on paper" ideas. An idea that for reasonable ME makes total sense and is the supreme choice, but when put into practice with one ME and five hundred thousands whack jobs, money grubbers, psychopaths and sycophants, the whole house of cards goes fluttering to bits.

I sort of get it, don't let my opposition fool you. I see people on this very thread describe their days, and more often than not, I sit here thinking "That dudes one SESSION at the table would have FED me for the entire YEAR". Some of y'all blow my entire YEARLY entertainment budget on ONE HAND OF CARDS. How many of them do you think would skip an hour of rolling dice, just give it right up including the money they'd need, and just hand it to me so I can get out of this level7 pain and get this tooth popped out? Surely my health trumps their entertainment. Surely addressing it now will cost much, MUCH less than waiting until I have thefunds. For sure the overall status of society will increase if that "miserable f#$%", which is what I am when in pain, suddenly becomes a genuine, decent member of society. But ain't none of 'em gonna do it. And most of these folks like me lol.

I guess I said all that to say I agree with, and laugh at, you at the same time =)

Quote: MathExtremist

I give my kids money and resources for no reason. Well, not for no reason, it's because I care about their well being and development. But they didn't earn it in the economic sense. They're barely able to clean up their own dishes. You may have seen an economic analysis recently that says the cost of raising kids is over $230k each. But I'm incurring that expense because I know it's an investment that will pay off. My parents' investment in me paid off, now I'm paying it forward to their grandkids. Their investment contributed to my economic success, and I expect that mine will contribute to my kids'.

It's not much of a stretch to conclude that similar investments that don't happen to fall along blood lines would reap similar returns. But just as you can make good and bad investments, you can implement good and bad social policy. If I send my kids to college, that's a good policy. If I just give them $200k (the ballpark cost of that college education), that's less good. Sure, they might figure it out, but not necessarily. I'd note that there is some research indicating that a universal basic income is not bad social policy, but $200k is not "basic income", so there's obviously a line to be drawn.



Hey, man, if I can go down to the projects and round up the poors and make them do my dishes and yardwork AND also have them be my fishing buddy AND have them responsible for my end-of-life care, then sure. Otherwise, randoms =/= your/my personal children ;) Jokes aside, I get it and agree on paper. My counter to this is already posted above.

Quote: ME

What if they don't? What if it's entirely voluntary? What if the folks who want to live in a mutual-benefits society agree to pay the tax, and the libertarian folks don't, and we divvy up social benefits accordingly? We could either do that with a tiered government system or with a basic, minimalist government and non-profit corporations taking up the slack.

If you could join a corporation as an employee where you worked zero hours, and the terms of your employment were that you sign a contract that for the next 20 years, you would either (a) fork over 75% of your actual job's income or (b) work for a small salary within the corporation, in exchange for "corporate benefits" including food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation, education, and all other basic needs, would you? Would you fault someone else who did?



This, as well as some previous postings you've made about corporations being involved in what is now seen as more of a government function, is a little beyond me. I'm having trouble putting together what you're saying to the point I can "see" it, but I'll throw a few things out nonetheless.

I'd have a real problem putting my welfare on the line when my "shield" as it were was a profit generating entity. It's one thing to be denied something because there is no money for it (like a park). It's another to be denied when that thing is amoxicillan. And then it's a whole 'nuther thing entirely when you're denied "because shareholders". I dunno what you got cooking in that dome of yours, but it seems you're gonna have to change the entire game for this one.

I'd also have, because I damn sure HAVE HAD, a real problem with "Too Big To Fail". A handful of asshats screw the pooch, now we gotta pay 11 figures to clean it up? Not cool, but it's the choice we made. But under your system, would it even be a choice? What if "fail" didn't mean the loss of X,XXX jobs, but the loss of XXX,XXX jobs, houses, healthcare, meals, cars, and schools? No choice there, it's an insta-pay. Who's paying? And from what purse? Walmart hiccups now, your 401k just depreciated by $14. It hiccups in your world,.... I don't even know. Doubt it'd be pretty, though.

And this is kind of an aside, but plays into my resistance for these things. An in depth look at the recession of 2004 ain't something I've looked into too hard, because I know I'd be on the news that night. I KNOW them sumbitches played a game they knew they would lose, I KNOW they were aware of the damage they were causing, I KNOW this was no "mistake". That's OK. Scumbags exist, and scumbags gonna scumbag. But how in seven hells can these mf'ers KEEP their jobs, CONTINUE to receive bonuses, and RETAIN their goddamn freedom? I don't know if it's right or wrong, but who I am as a person cannot tolerate that. It's s#$% like this exactly that's turning me into the cynical misanthrope that reveals himself in threads like these. It's s#$% like that that's got me in the streets chanting "BURN IT DOWN!". And it does have a bit, not entirely but a bit, to do with my "leave me the f#$% alone" stance. ANYTHING to do with .gov has to pass through this filter, and that filter is fiiiiiine indeed. Yet you'd ask me to remove the filter entirely, and put my whole BEING in their trust?

You're ahead of your time, ME. You might got it all figured out. The welfare of a 340mm people, 3.79mm square mile country and you done got the cure. Now all you gotta do is explain it, and explain it well, to 250mm country dumb idiots like myself.

I'm 36. I speak country dumb fluently. So again, if you need a running mate, I ain't too proud to play second fiddle =)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 485
January 12th, 2017 at 2:59:35 PM permalink
Quote: Face

But to clarify, since we're trying to do just that, I'm not anti-giving. My personal preference on that is time, usually helping to do what those who cannot do need. I love stopping the truck to get the bitch pile some plow left for a lil old lady, or putting an arm around a kid and telling him great hit but you're not to checking age yet, and taking the time to explain why it was wrong and how he could do it better, instead of just binning him for 2min. Or any of the many random acts of kindness, whether retrieving a blown about garbage can or buying a vet lunch on the sly. Paying it forward is rewarding on many levels.

I just can't be arsed on a macro level. ME believes the benefit of many outweighs the abuse of the few. I'll admit both that I lack the ability to see things in a macro sense, and also that EMOTION flat out overrides my logic in this case. It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free, because the emotion of anger overrides it, thinking back to that day standing in line with two items while a bunch of able bodied teens come up with arms full of junk with their EBT. I know it's "wrong", a fault of my person. But I can't yet break it. It's gotta be like 7 years since that day happened, and I STILL feel that mf'er owes me a cut lawn and a raking. Money ain't but a tangible form of time. That mf'er shorted my life with no compensation to me. I can't get passed it.


Very reasonable explanation of your position.

Here's what I'll say ...

Bill Clinton passed welfare reform in '96 which did several things that may surprise you:

       Limited the lifetime cash assistance of any individual to 60 months
       Restricts welfare for most legal immigrants
       Requires recipients to find a job within 24 months of receiving aid

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

"Welfare" is a very broad term, and not all of it is cash assistance like people imagine. States have a huge amount of latitude as to how they spend federal welfare funds. Several states spend 10's of millions of this money on "non-core" services such as marriage counseling. That money often ends up in the hands of private corporations.

      http://features.marketplace.org/yourstateonwelfare/

Quote:

It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free


I understand this sentiment, but it's too much the case for people who have been convicted of felonies. Once you have that on your record, it can be super difficult to get a job, lease, mortgage, or even a bank account. A felony is really a life sentence, and I personally think that is wrong. When you are convicted, you are sentenced to prison as your punishment, and that should be your punishment - not 1,000 additional caveats that prevent you from doing anything else in life once you're released. It's part of the reason why so many criminals re-offend.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 73
  • Posts: 539
January 12th, 2017 at 3:57:33 PM permalink
Quote: Face



It is very hard for me to think of a struggling poor doing all they can and needing just a crumb to break free




A crumb can be the difference between life and death.
Between eternal misery and future happiness.
For example the opioid addicts who don't have the resources to pay for rehab.
Why should I bother to go to work? I can just look for hot shooters at craps tables. PARLAY PARLAY PARLAY. Laughing all the way to the BANK.. Life is Sweet. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 12th, 2017 at 5:34:54 PM permalink
Quote: Face

I think we have real info regarding the latter. Surely there are or has been a sort of "fend for yourself" society. I'd imagine any monarchy / patriarchy / dictatorship type place would fit, and I'd agree it's a poor system. But is there any real example of your former? Is there a place that's pulled off your version? My lack of education / experience leads me to think you're speaking of communism, and I don't mean Red China - USSR - anti-American buzzword communism, but just ideological communism (please correct if wrong).

Sure, look toward the Scandinavian countries, or Ireland. They have far higher taxes, far higher social spending, and are ranked better for both doing business (by Forbes) and personal freedom (by Cato) than the United States. Denmark, for example, ranked #6 for business, #5 for freedom. Ireland is #4 on both rankings, while the US ranks #23 on both:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/12/21/sweden-heads-the-best-countries-for-business-for-2017/#50cc051e1cdc
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016.pdf


Quote:

I'd have a real problem putting my welfare on the line when my "shield" as it were was a profit generating entity. It's one thing to be denied something because there is no money for it (like a park). It's another to be denied when that thing is amoxicillan. And then it's a whole 'nuther thing entirely when you're denied "because shareholders". I dunno what you got cooking in that dome of yours, but it seems you're gonna have to change the entire game for this one.

No, I'm not talking about a for-profit entity owned by shareholders. I'm talking about a non-profit, mutual-benefit corporation owned by its employees that basically serves as a secondary government, but for the services that die-hard libertarians don't want to "coerce" out of all citizens. If the members voluntarily accept the terms of the contractual association, including the obligations to contribute and the right to receive benefits, there's no coersion. The "leave-me-alone" crowd gets to be left alone. The people who want to collaborate and pool resources can. It will lead to a stratified society but we've already got that. The difference here is it will be along philosophical lines, members vs. non-members, rather than economic ones based on the whims of the free market like we've got now.

Are you watching "Incorporated" on Syfy? If you're not, check out a few episodes, but that society is entirely the opposite of what I'm talking about.
Quote:

Scumbags exist, and scumbags gonna scumbag. But how in seven hells can these mf'ers KEEP their jobs, CONTINUE to receive bonuses, and RETAIN their goddamn freedom? I don't know if it's right or wrong, but who I am as a person cannot tolerate that.

Right now, you have no choice but to tolerate it: there's only one government. With the approach of voluntary mutual-benefits association on top of a libertarian-type government, you can live your way, not tolerating it, and others can choose differently.

Quote:

You're ahead of your time, ME. You might got it all figured out. The welfare of a 340mm people, 3.79mm square mile country and you done got the cure. Now all you gotta do is explain it, and explain it well, to 250mm country dumb idiots like myself.

See, that's just it. I'm not trying to address the welfare of 340mm people. Just the ones who want to join. I know we've got the resources to pull it off for all of the 340mm of they so choose, but I also know that millions don't choose and I don't want to force anyone. If someone really wants to live in the woods, hunt, fish, make their own house out of logs, go for it. They don't consume much government, they shouldn't pay much. Just the externalities and national bits -- army, infrastructure, the stuff that benefits everyone, etc. Same for someone who lives in New York City and already has a bazillion dollars. They can interact with people and businesses that are part of The Company the way they do now: by spending money. But if you're not independently wealthy, not financially self-sufficient or otherwise want to join The Company, agree to the terms of the employment contract and The Company will provide basic needs to the extent internal economics allows. With enough critical mass, those basic needs benefits will cover everything, even if you decide you want to take a few weeks off and just play Xbox.

Do I think there will be cheaters? Of course. But I also think that the ratio of cheaters to productive members won't be greater than the ratio of children to adults in the typical household, yet families still manage to make it work. This is the same thing, just to scale. Our society expects that once kids leave the house, they're productive until they retire. That's not a realistic expectation anymore, not with the velocity of business change and increasing income inequality, and it's empirically true that many adults do not see their productivities (or incomes) increase uniformly for decades. I've collected unemployment before and so have many of my friends -- tech companies are volatile like that. What I'm proposing is a way to smooth out the variance in individual outcomes by pooling resources so the group can help the unlucky ones back on their feet. We all don't get unlucky at the same time, after all. I think the mean individual outcome will be higher too, but even if it isn't, that's okay. People willingly pay money to hedge against risk - that's what insurance is. This is basically a social insurance proposal structured in a non-coercive way, managed by a non-government entity but acting like one.

I don't think the biggest risk is that it won't work. I think the biggest risk is that the statist conservatives in government will outlaw it for fear of being made to look bad.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

  • Jump to: