PDA

View Full Version : The official Election 2012 discussion thread...


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 02:31 PM
There are a lot of leaps taken in there. I don't think you can necessarily offset the increased labor supply with consumerism. In my mind our consumer economy is half our problem nowadays.

I don't know about all the details, but there certainly has to be a decrease in spending and some increase in taxes. Duh, right?

There's gonna have to be some hard choices made in the next ten-twenty-thirty years. The debt is out of control, we still pay interest on debt from every Administration since the 60's. Every Federal administration has increased the national debt for the past 40 years, every single one.

And those Federal deficits are AFTER raiding the Social Security surplus every gotdang year through all the Administrations, GOP or Dem.

Entitlements will have to be cut, starting with COLA. There can't be a COLA every year on everything related to the Federal Government. Taxes will have to increase. Every little bit of fiscal efficiency will have to be applied across the board.

I'm curious how the politicians will get it done. There's gonna have to be give and take, and everybody is gonna have to take a hit. I'm prepared to get my Social Security check delayed until I'm 68 years old, I can see that coming, and it's a smart way to go. Everybody has to take a hit.

They might want to increase the enforcement budget to go after Medicare fraud and tax frauds also, those frauds are about $500 billion a year.

Eh, I got on the soapbox a little bit there, but it felt good. I could go on, but that's enough for now.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 02:33 PM
The easy way to define middle class would be to take the mean income and include everyone who is within 25% of that income level (this would work extremely nicely in countries with high income parity, however as disparaty grows the mean income will deviate significantly from the median income).

If people know what they have, what is available and are truly happy, I am pleased for them. However if the only reason people are happy with what they have is that they are told over and over again that they can lose it, you get into servitude problems. To draw a parallel, women who wear burkhas and are happy to do so are not oppressed (unless the reason they are happy to wear them is that not wearing them will get them ostrasized).

The middle class has seized to be an actual social stratification, today it is an empty bit of nomenclature.

And see.. this is where I start to take issue. IF we're basically saying Middle Class = comfortable existence then you have to base it off the standard of living. I know middle class has the word "middle" in it but that's an outdated concept. It comes from an era people must be nostalgic with where some people didn't have enough and middle class was where they aspired to be. Nowadays, middle class still implies the same thing but those below middle class don't have the same issues. In many cases, you can live a perfectly comfortable and adequate life below middle class.

So if you define middle class as just dealing with finances that makes sense, I guess, but the emphasis, I think, should be on class. In my opinion, it's the people that are between wiping their asses with $100 bills and not having food to put on the table or clean clothes every day. I think through technological innovations, the "middle class" concept should include probably 90%+ of Americans. Somehow, it's still terrifying to exist outside the protective walls of the "middle class" to too many people.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 02:35 PM
I don't know about all the details, but there certainly has to be a decrease in spending and some increase in taxes. Duh, right?

There's gonna have to be some hard choices made in the next ten-twenty-thirty years. The debt is out of control, we still pay interest on debt from every Administration since the 60's. Every Federal administration has increased the national debt for the past 40 years, every single one.

And those Federal deficits are AFTER raiding the Social Security surplus every gotdang year through all the Administrations, GOP or Dem.

Entitlements will have to be cut, starting with COLA. There can't be a COLA every year on everything related to the Federal Government. Taxes will have to increase. Every little bit of fiscal efficiency will have to be applied across the board.

I'm curious how the politicians will get it done. There's gonna have to be give and take, and everybody is gonna have to take a hit. I'm prepared to get my Social Security check delayed until I'm 68 years old, I can see that coming, and it's a smart way to go. Everybody has to take a hit.

They might want to increase the enforcement budget to go after Medicare fraud and tax frauds also, those frauds are about $500 billion a year.

Eh, I got on the soapbox a little bit there, but it felt good. I could go on, but that's enough for now.

My problem is that as this problem gets pushed down the road, folks die and never have to face the consequences for it. If we push it 30 years down the road before it actually gets dealt with, they could still be worrying about debt from their grandparents. It'll be tough, some folks will go hungry, but I'd rather we see the consequences while those who made the decisions are around to deal with it. If not, people will keep thinking of it as magical money and not see the consequences of it.

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 03:09 PM
And see.. this is where I start to take issue. IF we're basically saying Middle Class = comfortable existence then you have to base it off the standard of living. I know middle class has the word "middle" in it but that's an outdated concept. It comes from an era people must be nostalgic with where some people didn't have enough and middle class was where they aspired to be. Nowadays, middle class still implies the same thing but those below middle class don't have the same issues. In many cases, you can live a perfectly comfortable and adequate life below middle class.

So if you define middle class as just dealing with finances that makes sense, I guess, but the emphasis, I think, should be on class. In my opinion, it's the people that are between wiping their asses with $100 bills and not having food to put on the table or clean clothes every day. I think through technological innovations, the "middle class" concept should include probably 90%+ of Americans. Somehow, it's still terrifying to exist outside the protective walls of the "middle class" to too many people.

So are you saying the great unwashed should be happy to have an adequate life? Sounds kind of medieval to me, I thought the GOP was about the tide lifting all boats, the trickle-down theory and all that . . . .

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 03:19 PM
So are you saying the great unwashed should be happy to have an adequate life? Sounds kind of medieval to me, I thought the GOP was about the tide lifting all boats, the trickle-down theory and all that . . . .

This is like saying Tim Tebow is a nice guy and deserves to be an NFL QB just as much as the next guy.

Why should we care about his stats? He's trying. So he should just get paid.

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 03:20 PM
My problem is that as this problem gets pushed down the road, folks die and never have to face the consequences for it. If we push it 30 years down the road before it actually gets dealt with, they could still be worrying about debt from their grandparents. It'll be tough, some folks will go hungry, but I'd rather we see the consequences while those who made the decisions are around to deal with it. If not, people will keep thinking of it as magical money and not see the consequences of it.

Agreed. Make the blood-suckers pay now.

Who the blood-suckers were in the past and are now is the big issue between the GOP and the Dems. They can't bicker about it forever, they have to admit both sides of the argument were wrong and try to meet somewhere in the middle. And that's a long process, starting with admitting neither side Left nor Right has all the solutions exclusively to themselves.

So we'll see if this two party system we have can create movement in a positive direction. Stagnation with entrenched positions is not a good situation.

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 03:23 PM
This is like saying Tim Tebow is a nice guy and deserves to be an NFL QB just as much as the next guy.

Why should we care about his stats? He's trying. So he should just get paid.

I'm not seeing the allegory there Beavis.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 03:31 PM
I'm not seeing the allegory there Beavis.

For Tim Tebow to ultimately succeed, he has to prove that his performance is worth what he's paid (and everything else the team invests in him)

We're no different. Although on a macro-scale there are obviously exceptions.

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 03:57 PM
For Tim Tebow to ultimately succeed, he has to prove that his performance is worth what he's paid (and everything else the team invests in him)

We're no different. Although on a macro-scale there are obviously exceptions.

Agreed. There's always been in human society some lines drawn to decide who is a freeloader and who produces. Where those lines are drawn and how you deal with the opposite end of the spectrum is the big deal. You can't swing way out to one side or the other, IMO, there has to be a strong center.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 07:23 PM
So are you saying the great unwashed should be happy to have an adequate life? Sounds kind of medieval to me, I thought the GOP was about the tide lifting all boats, the trickle-down theory and all that . . . .

I don't know who the "great unwashed" are but I do think anyone fortunate enough to have an adequate life should be thankful for what they have rather than lament what they don't.

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 07:46 PM
I don't know who the "great unwashed" are but I do think anyone fortunate enough to have an adequate life should be thankful for what they have rather than lament what they don't.

Sure, but what happened to the Reagan promise that all boats will rise with the tide? What happened to Reagan's trickle-down theory?

Explain the total failure of both premises.

I can explain why it failed. You tell me how it will all of a sudden succeed.

lonestar
02-02-2012, 08:08 PM
Sure, but what happened to the Reagan promise that all boats will rise with the tide? What happened to Reagan's trickle-down theory?

Explain the total failure of both premises.

I can explain why it failed. You tell me how it will all of a sudden succeed.

Actually the theory worked well tax revenues were never higher and had congress done the right thing and spend it all on pork, we would have been setting pretty with no debt and loads of surpluses and a chance of reducing the tax burden even more..

NOW I do have to say that infrastructure at least the interstate highway system and all of its bridges did need to be fixed but that would have been about the only thing I would have spent money on other than rebuilding the military that carter decimated..

The rest are state issues and frankly plenty of money should have been available to fix other roads with the tax on gas and diesel that is collected at the pumps..

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 08:41 PM
Actually the theory worked well tax revenues were never higher and had congress done the right thing and spend it all on pork, we would have been setting pretty with no debt and loads of surpluses and a chance of reducing the tax burden even more..

NOW I do have to say that infrastructure at least the interstate highway system and all of its bridges did need to be fixed but that would have been about the only thing I would have spent money on other than rebuilding the military that carter decimated..

The rest are state issues and frankly plenty of money should have been available to fix other roads with the tax on gas and diesel that is collected at the pumps..

The thing is every Administration since the 1960's has run a deficit.

And every Administration has taken the Social Security surplus to offset the Federal spending deficit. We have a 14 trillion dollar deficit today.

I remember some idiots 20 years ago were saying, "Yeah, but that defecit is in 1980 dollars, 20 years from now it won't matter, because inflation will make those dollars worthless. It won't matter" The economists really said that 20 years ago. The Reagan economists.

That's not working out so well. What happened to the Reagan promise that all boats will rise with the tide? Why didn't the trickle-down theory work?

And most importantly, why is it supposed to work now since the trickle-down theory has not worked since 1980?

houghtam
02-02-2012, 08:45 PM
The thing is every Administration since the 1960's has run a deficit.

And every Administration has taken the Social Security surplus to offset the Federal spending deficit. We have a 14 trillion dollar deficit today.

I remember some idiots 20 years ago were saying, "Yeah, but that defecit is in 1980 dollars, 20 years from now it won't matter, because inflation will make those dollars worthless. It won't matter" The economists really said that 20 years ago. The Reagan economists.

That's not working out so well. What happened to the Reagan promise that all boats will rise with the tide? Why didn't the trickle-down theory work?

And most importantly, why is it supposed to work now since the trickle-down theory has not worked since 1980?

Because they said so?

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 09:17 PM
Sure, but what happened to the Reagan promise that all boats will rise with the tide? What happened to Reagan's trickle-down theory?

Explain the total failure of both premises.

I can explain why it failed. You tell me how it will all of a sudden succeed.

Goes back to what I said about one person magically fixing all America's problems. He was in office 30 years ago. Most people thought he did a pretty good job of improving the situation he was given. The 80's and 90's were an improvement on the late 70's

Nothing he did could last forever though. Its a process.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 09:44 PM
Sure, but what happened to the Reagan promise that all boats will rise with the tide? What happened to Reagan's trickle-down theory?

Explain the total failure of both premises.

I can explain why it failed. You tell me how it will all of a sudden succeed.

I get my politics from some things I read but I ponder a lot. I'm quite proud to be an independent thinker. So when people make references to things the Rs did years ago (and in many cases, before I was born), I feel no obligation to defend what they said. I didn't say it, I have no vested interest, and in many cases I don't even understand the lingo.

That said, have the boats not all risen from 30 years ago? Do we not all enjoy a better standard of living than folks did then?

Cito Pelon
02-02-2012, 10:12 PM
Goes back to what I said about one person magically fixing all America's problems. He was in office 30 years ago. Most people thought he did a pretty good job of improving the situation he was given. The 80's and 90's were an improvement on the late 70's

Nothing he did could last forever though. Its a process.

Yeah I can't dispute the improvement, Reagan brought a positive message and leadership when we were down. The rebuilding of the Statue of Liberty, the goal of a 600 ship Navy, and increasing the base pay of all grades in the military was a shot in the arm. "It's Morning in America!" was his campaign theme.

Reagan sure did break the Soviet Union, that was a big deal. Broke that myth. Along with Mathias Rust. Mathiast Rust was the final nail in the coffin of the old Soviet regime. Landed a Cessna on Red Square.

SoCalBronco
02-02-2012, 11:10 PM
I don't know about all the details, but there certainly has to be a decrease in spending and some increase in taxes. Duh, right?

There's gonna have to be some hard choices made in the next ten-twenty-thirty years. The debt is out of control, we still pay interest on debt from every Administration since the 60's. Every Federal administration has increased the national debt for the past 40 years, every single one.

And those Federal deficits are AFTER raiding the Social Security surplus every gotdang year through all the Administrations, GOP or Dem.

Entitlements will have to be cut, starting with COLA. There can't be a COLA every year on everything related to the Federal Government. Taxes will have to increase. Every little bit of fiscal efficiency will have to be applied across the board.

I'm curious how the politicians will get it done. There's gonna have to be give and take, and everybody is gonna have to take a hit. I'm prepared to get my Social Security check delayed until I'm 68 years old, I can see that coming, and it's a smart way to go. Everybody has to take a hit.

They might want to increase the enforcement budget to go after Medicare fraud and tax frauds also, those frauds are about $500 billion a year.

Eh, I got on the soapbox a little bit there, but it felt good. I could go on, but that's enough for now.

I agree with this. There are no sacred cows, everyone's ox is going to get gored a little bit, as Obama said earlier. There needs to be changes in the inflationary formulas for Medicare and SS to slow the growth there as well as incremental increases in the eligibility ages as well. Hopefully these two incremental steps will be enough to seriously rein in the future shortfalls anticipated, but if its not, they need to keep going from there towards more aggressive plans like maintaining the program for current seniors but providing a less costly voucher or some hybrid that's just cheaper and less of a benefit. Hopefully, the incremental stuff works, though, but definitely it needs to get reined in. There's just no way around it, those two belts need to be tightened, its just fiscally unsustainable at present. Defense as well and that's already started with the administration's new programs on that front, which is good. I think we can definitely make sure we have a strong defense by focusing spending on R&D, intelligence and qualitative advantages in weaponry and defenses over our enemies rather than focusing on quantitative advantages (number of rockets, tanks etc.), there's alot of duplication in procurement and there's diminishing returns on the quantitative side. The technology is the key, not the physical numbers.

On the tax side, I think they need to let the Bush tax cuts expire. It will create some difficulties short term in making it harder to get out of the recession, but that's ok, I'm willing to sacrifice that in order to obtain long term deficit reduction and if you let those cuts expire, it shoudl net us around 3 trillion long term, which would be a huge gain. They can replace it with something like Bowles-Simpson which still reduces rates and promotes growth, its just that it will be much less expensive and more suitable for the budget situation. I think Obama's health care program needs to be scaled back. This is not the proper time for expansion of benefits. This is not to say that there isn't a need, there are millions of people who need these health benefits, and I know the left is upset that the bill was already scaled down as it was, but this is simply not an appropriate time for expansion of benefits, its a time for consolidation. I dont think the program is a deficit reducer either, the CBO indicated that after the doctor fix it was a net loser revenue wise. There are some positives in this program, such as the insurance exchanges across state lines, that promotes competition which is good and perhaps a smaller benefit voucher can be provided to the poor to help with health costs, but not a whole lot more.

Both sides need to make sacrifices. The deficit issues are single most important thing out there right now. It is difficult to get people to understand that as there really isn't a constituency for deficit reduction as interest groups and people generally are interested in getting a piece of some pie, not reducing a pie, but we have to look beyond that. The pie has to get smaller, it just has to.

Cito Pelon
02-03-2012, 12:12 AM
We have to REDUCE the national debt over the next 30 years. Pay off the bonds, we can't leave our kids saddled with that to take care of.

The two parties recognize that, they can't make a consortium. Too much bickering, like little kids.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 12:21 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_OV8RSgCr2g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lonestar
02-03-2012, 12:23 AM
Yeah I can't dispute the improvement, Reagan brought a positive message and leadership when we were down. The rebuilding of the Statue of Liberty, the goal of a 600 ship Navy, and increasing the base pay of all grades in the military was a shot in the arm. "It's Morning in America!" was his campaign theme.

Reagan sure did break the Soviet Union, that was a big deal. Broke that myth. Along with Mathias Rust. Mathiast Rust was the final nail in the coffin of the old Soviet regime. Landed a Cessna on Red Square.

IIRC the prime rate under Carter was just a shade over 20%. RR kicked that to the curb and as I said before we had record tax revenues. After the tax cuts.

Had congress not spent every dime of it and more ther would have not Been deficits.

You pointed out many great things he did/accomplished by barreling over congress they did not want to do this he went to the people and they in turn called congress to prod them along.

He had a mandate after kicking the dems ass in his elections. Congress knew he could force their hand.

But again they overspent and blew the money also on their pork/pet projects.

We had a better standard of living overall.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 05:09 AM
And see.. this is where I start to take issue. IF we're basically saying Middle Class = comfortable existence then you have to base it off the standard of living. I know middle class has the word "middle" in it but that's an outdated concept. It comes from an era people must be nostalgic with where some people didn't have enough and middle class was where they aspired to be. Nowadays, middle class still implies the same thing but those below middle class don't have the same issues. In many cases, you can live a perfectly comfortable and adequate life below middle class.

So if you define middle class as just dealing with finances that makes sense, I guess, but the emphasis, I think, should be on class. In my opinion, it's the people that are between wiping their asses with $100 bills and not having food to put on the table or clean clothes every day. I think through technological innovations, the "middle class" concept should include probably 90%+ of Americans. Somehow, it's still terrifying to exist outside the protective walls of the "middle class" to too many people.


You mean like.... 99%?

:)

alkemical
02-03-2012, 05:13 AM
I get my politics from some things I read but I ponder a lot. I'm quite proud to be an independent thinker. So when people make references to things the Rs did years ago (and in many cases, before I was born), I feel no obligation to defend what they said. I didn't say it, I have no vested interest, and in many cases I don't even understand the lingo.

That said, have the boats not all risen from 30 years ago? Do we not all enjoy a better standard of living than folks did then?

Not necessarily. But you're going to equate it to "stuff", and not to things that actually measure quality of life.

I'm going to bring up things like the GPI again - but because it's not an iphone people won't understand it.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 05:16 AM
I don't think the standard of living here is necessarily better than 30 years ago.

having an iphone doesn't trump some of the real problems we have.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 05:56 AM
I don't think the standard of living here is necessarily better than 30 years ago.

having an iphone doesn't trump some of the real problems we have.

I think its pretty easy to overlook the real problems people had 30 years ago.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 06:05 AM
I think its pretty easy to overlook the real problems people had 30 years ago.

You mean the ones that were off-put and keep biting us in the ass today? Or is this a way, of deflecting the problems of today?

Hard to keep forgetting those issues, when their impact is seen consistently. Unfortunate though, moment you try to hold accountability, people freak out.

Spider
02-03-2012, 07:20 AM
just heard on the news Unemployment dropped ,243thousand jobs added in January .......Good Job Obama

That One Guy
02-03-2012, 07:50 AM
I would say food accessibility, housing conditions, and medical care and technology have all increased over the last 30 years. What's the metric that makes standard of living worse?

alkemical
02-03-2012, 07:55 AM
I would say food accessibility, housing conditions, and medical care and technology have all increased over the last 30 years. What's the metric that makes standard of living worse?

Food Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security) is in the ****ter right now. Which makes me pretty much suspect your POV that things are "better" now. If you're poor, you don't have access to fresh healthy food(s).

How is housing better today than 30 years ago? I want facts, not some anecdote on how technology makes houses "better".

Technology doesn't mean ****, beyond how it's used. Right now, technology is choking your libraries with heavy handed DRM compliance. Which means, that your "bonus" - is really a negative when you start looking at the big picture in certain sectors.

Spider
02-03-2012, 08:00 AM
Food Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security) is in the ****ter right now. Which makes me pretty much suspect your POV that things are "better" now. If you're poor, you don't have access to fresh healthy food(s). yes and no , I would say the quality of who gets what is a bigger factor , for example how many people shop at Wal mart for meat compared to the Butcher shop ? veggies at Wal mart and a farmers market ?

How is housing better today than 30 years ago? I want facts, not some anecdote on how technology makes houses "better".

Technology doesn't mean ****, beyond how it's used. Right now, technology is choking your libraries with heavy handed DRM compliance. Which means, that your "bonus" - is really a negative when you start looking at the big picture in certain sectors.

Agreed

houghtam
02-03-2012, 08:18 AM
Food Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security) is in the ****ter right now. Which makes me pretty much suspect your POV that things are "better" now. If you're poor, you don't have access to fresh healthy food(s).

How is housing better today than 30 years ago? I want facts, not some anecdote on how technology makes houses "better".

Technology doesn't mean ****, beyond how it's used. Right now, technology is choking your libraries with heavy handed DRM compliance. Which means, that your "bonus" - is really a negative when you start looking at the big picture in certain sectors.

I'd be willing to take this a step further and say simply that no one has as good of access to fresh/healthy foods as the did 30 years ago, because they simply don't exist in the quantity that they once did.

The food industry (particularly the fast food industry) has little meaningful regulation, and is a direct cause of our nation's health problems. But the minute you start talking about food regulation, you get people waiving their guns/Jesus/American flag and telling you that you shouldn't be able to regulate what they eat.

Nevermind that rising health care costs (borne by everyone) are a direct result of this. Nevermind that you are required to have auto insurance, and while your specific rate is determined a lot by how you drive, it's set mostly by how others drive.

I'm all for food regulation based on how we as a nation eat. The worse you eat, the more you pay. And the worst of the worst just need to go. Don't need that crap in our lives anyway. Bring it on.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 08:25 AM
You mean the ones that were off-put and keep biting us in the ass today? Or is this a way, of deflecting the problems of today?

Hard to keep forgetting those issues, when their impact is seen consistently. Unfortunate though, moment you try to hold accountability, people freak out.

Without getting specific, it's very easy to idealize the past. It's just human nature. When you dig deeper, often things weren't nearly as rosy as people like to remember.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 08:28 AM
I'd be willing to take this a step further and say simply that no one has as good of access to fresh/healthy foods as the did 30 years ago, because they simply don't exist in the quantity that they once did.

The food industry (particularly the fast food industry) has little meaningful regulation, and is a direct cause of our nation's health problems. But the minute you start talking about food regulation, you get people waiving their guns/Jesus/American flag and telling you that you shouldn't be able to regulate what they eat.

Nevermind that rising health care costs (borne by everyone) are a direct result of this. Nevermind that you are required to have auto insurance, and while your specific rate is determined a lot by how you drive, it's set mostly by how others drive.

I'm all for food regulation based on how we as a nation eat. The worse you eat, the more you pay. And the worst of the worst just need to go. Don't need that crap in our lives anyway. Bring it on.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Modern transport has brought at least the opportunity for much healthier diets to the masses. I live in Montana and can get reasonably fresh produce all year. Not as good as summer produce, mind you. Wasn't all that long ago that if it was winter, any fruit or veggies you ate came out of a can.

houghtam
02-03-2012, 08:29 AM
Without getting specific, it's very easy to idealize the past. It's just human nature. When you dig deeper, often things weren't nearly as rosy as people like to remember.

This. Every time I hear someone (usually happens with the right, but both sides do it) refer to the 40's and 50's as "the golden age", it's always funny to see the look on their face when you say "oh you mean the golden age when blacks had to drink at different drinking fountains? You mean that golden age?"

houghtam
02-03-2012, 08:31 AM
See, this is what I'm talking about. Modern transport has brought at least the opportunity for much healthier diets to the masses. I live in Montana and can get reasonably fresh produce all year. Not as good as summer produce, mind you. Wasn't all that long ago that if it was winter, any fruit or veggies you ate came out of a can.

What's cheaper? We don't mean available as in "you can buy it". If that's what we meant, well, yachts are "available" to the poor, as well.

Spider
02-03-2012, 08:32 AM
See, this is what I'm talking about. Modern transport has brought at least the opportunity for much healthier diets to the masses. I live in Montana and can get reasonably fresh produce all year. Not as good as summer produce, mind you. Wasn't all that long ago that if it was winter, any fruit or veggies you ate came out of a can.

it isnt modern transportation , still petty much the same , the difference is the technologically that has slowed the aging of fresh veggies .......
Packaging , gas etc ........

alkemical
02-03-2012, 08:58 AM
Without getting specific, it's very easy to idealize the past. It's just human nature. When you dig deeper, often things weren't nearly as rosy as people like to remember.

It's interesting how those that have "been there", have allowed us to repeat some of the same mistakes/not addressed the ones pertinent to their day to day life.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:09 AM
I'd be willing to take this a step further and say simply that no one has as good of access to fresh/healthy foods as the did 30 years ago, because they simply don't exist in the quantity that they once did.

The food industry (particularly the fast food industry) has little meaningful regulation, and is a direct cause of our nation's health problems. But the minute you start talking about food regulation, you get people waiving their guns/Jesus/American flag and telling you that you shouldn't be able to regulate what they eat.

Nevermind that rising health care costs (borne by everyone) are a direct result of this. Nevermind that you are required to have auto insurance, and while your specific rate is determined a lot by how you drive, it's set mostly by how others drive.

I'm all for food regulation based on how we as a nation eat. The worse you eat, the more you pay. And the worst of the worst just need to go. Don't need that crap in our lives anyway. Bring it on.


Then you have the complicity shown between Corp & Gov't when you have people sitting on the FDA that have ties to the industries they "stamp" approval too. (Or maybe that is what is represented in your statement above: "lack of meaningful regulation".)

I totally agree with you as well, that the COST is enormous as to what we're eating and doing to ourselves. I agree that you should have the freedom to choose what you want...as as a former smoker - i CHOSE to smoke...I also think we should levy a $2 tax on fast food items to help with health care costs. I also don't think you should be able to market fast food to kids. If it's seriously addictive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm), you should have some regulations on it.

I believe that you and I are probably closer to the same page on this subject. I have been learning/working at a hydroponics shop and have been evangelizing the virtues of indoor gardening so you can escape GMO foods, and extend your growing season (year round food production).

If more people grew food, there wouldn't be a problem with food. It's really that simple. People who own yards and down grow some of their own food...it just doesn't make sense to me. Sustainability is a philosophy - not a buzz word.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:13 AM
See, this is what I'm talking about. Modern transport has brought at least the opportunity for much healthier diets to the masses. I live in Montana and can get reasonably fresh produce all year. Not as good as summer produce, mind you. Wasn't all that long ago that if it was winter, any fruit or veggies you ate came out of a can.

It's not sustainable though, it's part of the problem. You'd be better off building a greenhouse and growing your own food, than supporting a subsidized industry who is feeding you GMO poison food - and supporting inefficient transportation.

The whole model is a failure in many ways. Centralized food production is a wasteful industry.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:16 AM
it isnt modern transportation , still petty much the same , the difference is the technologically that has slowed the aging of fresh veggies .......
Packaging , gas etc ........

Combination of many things, but the modern highway system is definitely a big one of them. Good luck getting veggies up North on time with the highway system we had in the 1940's/50's. Not to mention that freight trucks that could go 60mph at that time were virtually nonexistent. And pre-war, refrigerated trucks basically didn't exist in the US.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:19 AM
It's not sustainable though, it's part of the problem. You'd be better off building a greenhouse and growing your own food, than supporting a subsidized industry who is feeding you GMO poison food - and supporting inefficient transportation.

The whole model is a failure in many ways. Centralized food production is a wasteful industry.

I'll go ahead and guarantee you that freighting veggies to Montana is much cheaper than operating winter greenhouses in -20 temperatures with 9 hours a day of sunlight.

People like to make money. If these greenhouses were more efficient, they would get built. In reality, trucking it in from warmer climates makes more sense.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:20 AM
Combination of many things, but the modern highway system is definitely a big one of them. Good luck getting veggies up North on time with the highway system we had in the 1940's/50's. Not to mention that freight trucks that could go 60mph at that time were virtually nonexistent. And pre-war, refrigerated trucks basically didn't exist in the US.

You also realize that much of that produce (unless you specifically are buying USA grown) is coming from South America.

Which means it's picked very early, meaning the fruit hasn't developed very well...meaning it has less nutrition in it also.

Kinda f*cked up in a way.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:24 AM
You also realize that much of that produce (unless you specifically are buying USA grown) is coming from South America.

Which means it's picked very early, meaning the fruit hasn't developed very well...meaning it has less nutrition in it also.

Kinda ****ed up in a way.

Yay for me. It's fruit. In January. In Montana.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:27 AM
I'll go ahead and guarantee you that freighting veggies to Montana is much cheaper than operating winter greenhouses in -20 temperatures with 9 hours a day of sunlight.

People like to make money. If these greenhouses were more efficient, they would get built. In reality, trucking it in from warmer climates makes more sense.

Oh, don't worry...localized food production is returning (http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/through_hydroponics_a_potential_paradigm_shift_for _agriculture/17250/).

Inefficient farming methods are going to have to change, the reason you think the foods are "cheap" is because they are subsidized and sub-standard. Once you start factoring in the cost that traditional AG uses beyond fuel cost for the truck to drive it to the store, and the cost it takes you to drive to the store and drive back with it...also doesn't include the petrol use involved in the diesel fuel that's dumped on your vegetables.

So then you have an increased cost in business, due to killing the soil (inefficient commercial AG practices), with by products of mutating insects & weeds (GMO side effects) - as well as animal abortions caused by GMO alfalfa in Europe - the quality of your food is very poor.

the whole AG model is unsustainable, and once the real cost starts trickling in - you'll start to see more greenhouses.

I mean hell, there's already several hydroponic stores located in MT. That alone tells me more people there are doing food production year round.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:30 AM
Yay for me. It's fruit. In January. In Montana.

Grow your own, inside...your hut.

(I have tomatoes, strawberries, pineapple, herbs, wheat grass, peppers going..and i have a few coffee plants cloned and going to move them into some greenhouses)

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:31 AM
Oh, don't worry...localized food production is returning (http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/through_hydroponics_a_potential_paradigm_shift_for _agriculture/17250/).

Inefficient farming methods are going to have to change, the reason you think the foods are "cheap" is because they are subsidized and sub-standard. Once you start factoring in the cost that traditional AG uses beyond fuel cost for the truck to drive it to the store, and the cost it takes you to drive to the store and drive back with it...also doesn't include the petrol use involved in the diesel fuel that's dumped on your vegetables.

So then you have an increased cost in business, due to killing the soil (inefficient commercial AG practices), with by products of mutating insects & weeds (GMO side effects) - as well as animal abortions caused by GMO alfalfa in Europe.

the whole AG model is unsustainable, and once the real cost starts trickling in - you'll start to see more greenhouses.

I mean hell, there's already several hydroponic stores located in MT. That alone tells me more people there are doing food production year round.

Yeah, there are lots of people in MT (mostly in the more temperate West) who think the way you do. Then there are the 90% who'll buy it at the grocery store because they can afford it.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:33 AM
Yeah, there are lots of people in MT (mostly in the more temperate West) who think the way you do. Then there are the 90% who'll buy it at the grocery store because they can afford it.

Nah, it's just because the're conditioned to be consumers & lazy about it. they don't understand the big picture of cost.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:38 AM
Nah, it's just because the're conditioned to be consumers & lazy about it. they don't understand the big picture of cost.

Half the 'costs' you listed are already built into the price I pay. They already use fertilizer. They already truck it to me. I pay their price. They turn a profit.

Real world sustainability isn't in question. Only when you bring in production factors you'd like to phase out because you don't like them does 'sustainability' become a question.

Spider
02-03-2012, 09:43 AM
Combination of many things, but the modern highway system is definitely a big one of them. Good luck getting veggies up North on time with the highway system we had in the 1940's/50's. Not to mention that freight trucks that could go 60mph at that time were virtually nonexistent. And pre-war, refrigerated trucks basically didn't exist in the US.
alot of them only do 65 , and yes the older ones could do 60 , just took em longer to get to 60 mph ,and the reefers still are not the end all , they are more problems then the dry ice they used to use , what is better is the insulation in the trailers , but 70% of the time you are breaking the law to get the the goods to a warehouse, The docs will test your pulp temp , as for the roads , If you are talking Garbage ( trucker slang for Produce) to Maine then yes you got a point , but if you are talking from Texas to N.Dakota , not so much ......Now any kind of Berry , forget it , I once went from Brighton Colorado to San Antonio Texas non stop to get Strawberrys there before they pulped to high .....

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:43 AM
Grow your own, inside...your hut.

(I have tomatoes, strawberries, pineapple, herbs, wheat grass, peppers going..and i have a few coffee plants cloned and going to move them into some greenhouses)

Where do you live? (Generally speaking)
How many people do you feed?

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:44 AM
Half the 'costs' you listed are already built into the price I pay. They already use fertilizer. They already truck it to me. I pay their price. They turn a profit.

Real world sustainability isn't in question. Only when you bring in production factors you'd like to phase out because you don't like them does 'sustainability' become a question.

If you understood the science behind why those AG principles aren't sustainable, you'd understand why it's important to change. Or else you'll go back to not having substandard fresh fruit and veggies...in January...in Montana.

You want to increase food safety, you aren't going to do it with an inefficient centralized food production system, that's subsidies are written by the companies who use them to put other companies out of business.

alkemical
02-03-2012, 09:46 AM
Where do you live? (Generally speaking)
How many people do you feed?

In an apartment...I feed myself, and i give the extras out to neighbors & friends.

gyldenlove
02-03-2012, 09:52 AM
And see.. this is where I start to take issue. IF we're basically saying Middle Class = comfortable existence then you have to base it off the standard of living. I know middle class has the word "middle" in it but that's an outdated concept. It comes from an era people must be nostalgic with where some people didn't have enough and middle class was where they aspired to be. Nowadays, middle class still implies the same thing but those below middle class don't have the same issues. In many cases, you can live a perfectly comfortable and adequate life below middle class.

So if you define middle class as just dealing with finances that makes sense, I guess, but the emphasis, I think, should be on class. In my opinion, it's the people that are between wiping their asses with $100 bills and not having food to put on the table or clean clothes every day. I think through technological innovations, the "middle class" concept should include probably 90%+ of Americans. Somehow, it's still terrifying to exist outside the protective walls of the "middle class" to too many people.

The notion of middle class is still very much the 2-car 2-kid family with their own house and at least 1.5 full-time jobs and annual vacations in the stationcar to Florida. That vision is of course entirely antiquated and doesn't exist as a class anymore.

What always gets me is the lack of self-awareness of social strata in the US. You see families with multiple children living at home with 1 unskilled full-time job to support the household looking out the interests of the upper middle class - you see people from homes with 2 unskilled full-time jobs who prefer tax cuts for incomes over 100k (which they don't have) to expenses on infrastructure and education (both of which they do use).

Living comfortably is relative - Paris Hilton couldn't live comfortably in a 3 million dollar house in Arizona, I live comfortably off my student salary. It is about self awareness and self preservation based on realistic notions of your social strata and today the lower your social strata the less aware of it you are, if you tell people they are part of the middle class they will behave as part of the middle class and they will protect the interests of the middle class even if that means opposing their own actual best interest.

DBruleU
02-03-2012, 09:52 AM
just heard on the news Unemployment dropped ,243thousand jobs added in January .......Good Job Obama

Very misleading, as usual. Not you I'm saying this about, but these numbers in general when they are released. They never take into account those who have given up altogether looking for work, or those who are working part time. If it did, then the jobless rate jumps a whole percentage point higher.

The CBO also cautioned that these numbers that everyone waits for at the beginning of each month to be taken with a grain of salt, they are quite misleading. The CBO released their projections for unemployment for the next few years. The rate didn't go down, it continues to go up towards the end of this year and into next year. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 09:58 AM
In an apartment...I feed myself, and i give the extras out to neighbors & friends.

I was actually thinking location as in what part of the country.

Otherwise, let's just say when you have a household of 5 including 2 growing boys that eat more than you can imagine, along side our jobs and many other child-related responsibilities, the romance (and cost) of greenhousing your own winter produce up here in the great white North doesn't sound nearly as appealing as you might think.

I garden in the summer. Because it's practical. I can't possibly grow enough, even then, for everything I need. In the winter? Yeah right.

Spider
02-03-2012, 10:01 AM
Very misleading, as usual. Not you I'm saying this about, but these numbers in general when they are released. They never take into account those who have given up altogether looking for work, or those who are working part time. If it did, then the jobless rate jumps a whole percentage point higher.

The CBO also cautioned that these numbers that everyone waits for at the beginning of each month to be taken with a grain of salt, they are quite misleading. The CBO released their projections for unemployment for the next few years. The rate didn't go down, it continues to go up towards the end of this year and into next year. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf
No way in hell would our government ever lie about this ...............:~ohyah!: Ok I couldnt keep a strait face

alkemical
02-03-2012, 10:18 AM
I was actually thinking location as in what part of the country.

Otherwise, let's just say when you have a household of 5 including 2 growing boys that eat more than you can imagine, along side our jobs and many other child-related responsibilities, the romance (and cost) of greenhousing your own winter produce up here in the great white North doesn't sound nearly as appealing as you might think.

I garden in the summer. Because it's practical. I can't possibly grow enough, even then, for everything I need. In the winter? Yeah right.

Mid-atlantic/North-East.


I have some customers that are in the navy - and they are doing aquaponic food production in their spare bedroom. They are able to feed 4 people - with some grocery store - but they estimate they provide 88% of their food.

That One Guy
02-03-2012, 01:16 PM
I just did a quick search and depending on which study and in which year it was conducted, the figure appears to be between 85%-90% of families in the US had adequate food for the entire year.

Do you really think that number would be better in the 80s? I'll give you a hint, I found figures for the 90s and it wasn't. I can't imagine things got severely worse from the 80s until the study in the 90s.

Paladin
02-03-2012, 01:19 PM
Very misleading, as usual. Not you I'm saying this about, but these numbers in general when they are released. They never take into account those who have given up altogether looking for work, or those who are working part time. If it did, then the jobless rate jumps a whole percentage point higher.

The CBO also cautioned that these numbers that everyone waits for at the beginning of each month to be taken with a grain of salt, they are quite misleading. The CBO released their projections for unemployment for the next few years. The rate didn't go down, it continues to go up towards the end of this year and into next year. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf

Don't worry. Be happy, Obama is going to win again!!!!

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 02:31 PM
I just did a quick search and depending on which study and in which year it was conducted, the figure appears to be between 85%-90% of families in the US had adequate food for the entire year.

Do you really think that number would be better in the 80s? I'll give you a hint, I found figures for the 90s and it wasn't. I can't imagine things got severely worse from the 80s until the study in the 90s.

For the core of the argument, you only need to look at median income adjusted for inflation. At the heart there's a fundamental issue in the way people think.

Real (adjusted for inflation) median income is up probably 10% or so from 30 (give or take) years ago.

The 'problem' as some define it is that the top 5%'s average income has risen at a much faster rate.

To an outsider, looking at probably the richest country on planet earth have it's median income rise 10% would look like a pretty sweet deal.

But from the inside, seeing those above you get further ahead can give some people a different perspective on their own success.

That One Guy
02-03-2012, 02:38 PM
For the core of the argument, you only need to look at median income adjusted for inflation. At the heart there's a fundamental issue in the way people think.

Real (adjusted for inflation) median income is up probably 10% or so from 30 (give or take) years ago.

The 'problem' as some define it is that the top 5%'s average income has risen at a much faster rate.

To an outsider, looking at probably the richest country on planet earth have it's median income rise 10% would look like a pretty sweet deal.

But from the inside, seeing those above you get further ahead can give some people a different perspective on their own success.

Agreed but I think that's a terrible way of thinking. You'll never win with such a mentality. Others will always have more. If both have more but one side has substantially more, noone has lost anything.

BroncoBeavis
02-03-2012, 02:54 PM
Agreed but I think that's a terrible way of thinking. You'll never win with such a mentality. Others will always have more. If both have more but one side has substantially more, noone has lost anything.

I lean towards thinking that way myself. But there's a fundamental ideological split on that very point. In some ways it helps describe what currently divides this country roughly in half.

Some people value perceived 'fairness' more than others.

Rigs11
02-03-2012, 03:26 PM
Very misleading, as usual. Not you I'm saying this about, but these numbers in general when they are released. They never take into account those who have given up altogether looking for work, or those who are working part time. If it did, then the jobless rate jumps a whole percentage point higher.

The CBO also cautioned that these numbers that everyone waits for at the beginning of each month to be taken with a grain of salt, they are quite misleading. The CBO released their projections for unemployment for the next few years. The rate didn't go down, it continues to go up towards the end of this year and into next year. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf

I love this argument.so when dubya handed Obama a 7.7% unemployment rate it was actually higher by your standards right?

lonestar
02-03-2012, 03:40 PM
I love this argument.so when dubya handed Obama a 7.7% unemployment rate it was actually higher by your standards right?

considering that hundreds of thousands maybe even millions have flat given up looking for work or have exhausted unemployment I suspect that the numbers we are seeing today are just the tip of the ice berg..

I know I stopped looking for work a couple of years ago ( although I never was on unemployment) and flat retired so I guess you could say there are quite of few folks like I am that just retired and gave up..

SO add us to that unemployment list also..

Tombstone RJ
02-03-2012, 03:41 PM
I love this argument.so when dubya handed Obama a 7.7% unemployment rate it was actually higher by your standards right?

love the BO apologists. Always point the finger back to the previous administration, never accept responsibility for the current crappy economy. Blame shift, always blame shift.

these numbers are unimpressive, period. At best it reflects a step in the right direction, but little more.

Rigs11
02-03-2012, 05:17 PM
love the BO apologists. Always point the finger back to the previous administration, never accept responsibility for the current crappy economy. Blame shift, always blame shift.

these numbers are unimpressive, period. At best it reflects a step in the right direction, but little more.

Love the closet repugs,they fail to notice that the rightwing talk show hosts and the elected officials to this day point out that when Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.7%.so according to the argument that the unemployment numbers are skewed because people stopped looking for jobs,it was actually higher correct?Or does that argument only apply to Obama?

houghtam
02-03-2012, 05:21 PM
Love the closet repugs,they fail to notice that the rightwing talk show hosts and the elected officials to this day point out that when Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.7%.so according to the argument that the unemployment numbers are skewed because people stopped looking for jobs,it was actually higher correct?Or does that argument only apply to Obama?

Meh, the job numbers have improved for what, 16 straight months? I wonder how long they're going to be fake or inflated. Probably until a Republican gets in office.

Rigs11
02-03-2012, 05:28 PM
Meh, the job numbers have improved for what, 16 straight months? I wonder how long they're going to be fake or inflated. Probably until a Republican gets in office.

Exactly, the GDP declined by 8.9 percent the fourth quarter of 2008, during the fourth quarter of 2011 it increased by 2.8 percent.when Obama took office we were losing on average 700,000 jobs per month,now we are adding jobs.these right wing idiots have their heads buried up their asses.

Drek
02-04-2012, 05:08 AM
love the BO apologists. Always point the finger back to the previous administration, never accept responsibility for the current crappy economy. Blame shift, always blame shift.

these numbers are unimpressive, period. At best it reflects a step in the right direction, but little more.

Yes, because the previous administration didn't leave a steaming pile of **** behind them when they left office.

Nevermind the nearly two years of positive economic growth we've seen under the current president. Or that when he took over people were talking about a full blown depression, then a double dip recession, and neither of those actually happened.

The previous pilots had this plane aimed at a full on nosedive into the ground when they strapped on their parachutes and jumped out the escape hatch. The new pilot pulled us out of the nosedive and got us headed back towards our destination. But you're bitching about the new pilot because we're going to touchdown an hour late.

houghtam
02-04-2012, 08:24 AM
Yes, because the previous administration didn't leave a steaming pile of **** behind them when they left office.

Nevermind the nearly two years of positive economic growth we've seen under the current president. Or that when he took over people were talking about a full blown depression, then a double dip recession, and neither of those actually happened.

The previous pilots had this plane aimed at a full on nosedive into the ground when they strapped on their parachutes and jumped out the escape hatch. The new pilot pulled us out of the nosedive and got us headed back towards our destination. But you're b****ing about the new pilot because we're going to touchdown an hour late.

Haven't you heard? The real world is just like the NFL where you can make a 180 degree turnaround in one year. 8 years of failed policy is no excuse.

lonestar
02-04-2012, 01:21 PM
Nevermind the nearly two years of positive economic growth we've seen under the current president. .


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Not sure work rock you have been hiding under but your so full of crap it is funny..

lonestar
02-04-2012, 01:24 PM
Explaining Obama’s Fake Job Numbers
Posted on February 3, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Don’t ask me about seasonal adjustment. I’ve been trying to figure this out all morning, and I can’t. But the raw numbers, 130 million jobs in December, 128 million jobs in January, give or take a couple hundred thousand either side. But when the seasonal adjustments take place, there is a gain of 200, whatever they’re reporting, 33,000 jobs. Now, what’s happening is the labor force is shrinking. There are fewer jobs. Even the Drive-Bys, so excited, they can’t wait to report the good news, but even they are reporting that the labor force participation rate, number of jobs out there, is continuing to dwindle, and most of the jobs being created are low wage.

But none of that’s gonna matter. None of it’s gonna matter. I don’t want to be an “I told you so,” but way back last year, even recently toward the end of last year, this being an election year, I predicted. But you knew. You knew what was gonna happen when this year started. You knew that the statistics are that no president has ever been reelected when the unemployment rate’s over 8%. So guess what it’s gonna be by the time we get to Election Day? It’s just that simple.

I’m trying to get to the bottom of this, this seasonal adjustment business. Stick with me on this, folks. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “What is seasonal adjustment? Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month. Over the course of a year, the size of the labor force, the levels of employment and unemployment, and other measures of labor market activity undergo fluctuations due to seasonal events including changes in weather, harvests, major holidays, and school schedules. Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year, their influence on statistical trends can be eliminated by seasonally adjusting the statistics from month to month.”

So seasonal adjustment includes adjustment for the size of the labor force. I didn’t know that. Seasonal adjustment is not just what the guess is about the number of jobs from month to month. It also includes adjustment for the size of the labor force. And that’s how they’re able to play games with the labor force participation rate. So that might account for a big chunk of the difference here. One-point-two million — and this is their number — from December to January, 1.2 million people left the workforce, just left it. That’s the labor force participation rate, and they left. That’s half the number, or half the difference right there. If you take the number 132.9 jobs in December, 130.4 million in January, that’s 2.5 million fewer jobs, 1.2 million, about half of that that they just threw out in a seasonal adjustment of people that left the workforce.

I don’t know how they get the 1.2 million. They say it’s statistical. But what they did is reduce the overall number of jobs possible by 1.2 million. So fewer jobs is gonna bring down the unemployment rate because… If the labor force were what it is, or what it was when Obama was inaugurated 2009, the unemployment rate would be close to 10%. It’s only 8.3 because they have used seasonal adjustment to just say that last month, 1.2 million people gone from the workforce. No jobs anymore.

So the Bureau of Labor Statistics looks at the loss of 2.5 million jobs, and they say, “Well, we think 1.2 million have just decided to give up looking for work so we won’t count half of them, just to make things more accurate.” And even with that major cheat, that still leaves more than a million-and-a-half lost jobs unaccounted for. Fewer people looking for jobs brings down the jobless rate. In this case, not more people finding jobs brings down the jobless rate. Fewer people looking for jobs is what’s bringing the unemployment rate down. There isn’t job creation going on. Not to the tune the regime wants you to believe it. It just isn’t happening.

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/02/explaining-obamas-fake-job-numbers/

houghtam
02-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Conservative Byte - "Take A Byte out of Liberalism"

That's all I needed to read before I stopped.

It must be the heist of the century for the Obama administration to falsely inflate the numbers for a year and a half straight. Wow uss'n reg'ler folks muss'n be so stoopid to believe dis.

Meanwhile I love to read the comments at the bottom from people with names like "Liberty Bob", "True Patriot" and "Que Dub", who says "nobbamma is a muslim, and we know what muslims are up to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s evident about every day some place in the world !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Great find! Hilarious!

Drek
02-04-2012, 06:24 PM
Explaining Obama’s Fake Job Numbers
Posted on February 3, 2012 by Conservative Byte

I love it. Can't argue the real facts then assume that 1. the presidency has the Bureau of Labor cooking the books 2. ignore your own lack of evidence and just keep saying "I think" and "I feel" a lot in an op-ed. 3. get a bunch of mouthbreathers to parrot your ****.

I love quotes like this:
"I don’t know how they get the 1.2 million."

Just ignore that line when the entire next paragraph is him making up **** on how he thinks they cooked the books. He already admitted to having no ****ing clue. But I'm sure it makes you feel real good to hear the rest of the message so why concern yourself with stupid things like "facts" and "statistics".

Best of all, Wall St. sure seemed to be fans of the new labor report. So I guess a bunch of independent, very wealthy, very fiscally conservative investors all decided to swallow the Labor department's numbers hook line and sinker huh? Thats got to be why market confidence is up and why the Dow is at a 4 year high and the NASDAQ is at an 11 year high (yep, pre-GWB high right there champ). They're all buying the smoke Obama is blowing up their asses, nothing to do with the hundreds of millions they spend doing their own market analysis.

Paladin
02-04-2012, 09:22 PM
Mittens wins Nevada with 42% of the votes, and the majority of those were Mormons. That means 58% did not vote for him and are still looking. Toast. He is Toast. Ginger blabbers valiantly but he may have to wait for the Southern Strategy to work a bit. Saw Paiul talking. He blathers a lot and sounds really serious but makes liittle and incosistent sense . He is a terrible orator. Sanrorum should have stayed in bed......

The Clown Car keeps on rolling........What a waste of air......

broncocalijohn
02-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Mittens wins Nevada with 42% of the votes, and the majority of those were Mormons. That means 58% did not vote for him and are still looking. Toast. He is Toast. Ginger blabbers valiantly but he may have to wait for the Southern Strategy to work a bit. Saw Paiul talking. He blathers a lot and sounds really serious but makes liittle and incosistent sense . He is a terrible orator. Sanrorum should have stayed in bed......

The Clown Car keeps on rolling........What a waste of air......

He ran against 3 other candidates! Just because he doesnt get the majority of votes with 3 other candidates running for the same party nomination doesn't mean those 58% will not vote for him if he wins the nomination. If you go back to Obama, he didnt get the full 50% of the vote but did that mean anything in the long run? I have not made up my mind on who to back but looking at these numbers as something bad is completely baffling.

enjolras
02-04-2012, 09:45 PM
He ran against 3 other candidates! Just because he doesnt get the majority of votes with 3 other candidates running for the same party nomination doesn't mean those 58% will not vote for him if he wins the nomination. If you go back to Obama, he didnt get the full 50% of the vote but did that mean anything in the long run? I have not made up my mind on who to back but looking at these numbers as something bad is completely baffling.

Completely agree. I don't think Romney has a shot (he's John Kerry part 2 from what I can see), but it has little to do with these victories.

lonestar
02-04-2012, 10:10 PM
I love it. Can't argue the real facts then assume that 1. the presidency has the Bureau of Labor cooking the books 2. ignore your own lack of evidence and just keep saying "I think" and "I feel" a lot in an op-ed. 3. get a bunch of mouthbreathers to parrot your ****.

I love quotes like this:
"I don’t know how they get the 1.2 million."

Just ignore that line when the entire next paragraph is him making up **** on how he thinks they cooked the books. He already admitted to having no ****ing clue. But I'm sure it makes you feel real good to hear the rest of the message so why concern yourself with stupid things like "facts" and "statistics".

Best of all, Wall St. sure seemed to be fans of the new labor report. So I guess a bunch of independent, very wealthy, very fiscally conservative investors all decided to swallow the Labor department's numbers hook line and sinker huh? Thats got to be why market confidence is up and why the Dow is at a 4 year high and the NASDAQ is at an 11 year high (yep, pre-GWB high right there champ). They're all buying the smoke Obama is blowing up their asses, nothing to do with the hundreds of millions they spend doing their own market analysis.


Wall street? Investors react to numbers but I suspect when they stop and digest them corrections willbe made.

Anyone thinking that the BLS is not cooking the books is nuts. After all who do they report to?
Nobama is gone so are the appointments he made to that area.
Please do not be that naive to believe they do not have a vested interest in seeing him get re-elected.

****ing liberals that do not have a clue, there should be a law..

houghtam
02-04-2012, 11:35 PM
Wall street? Investors react to numbers but I suspect when they stop and digest them corrections willbe made.

Anyone thinking that the BLS is not cooking the books is nuts. After all who do they report to?
Nobama is gone so are the appointments he made to that area.
Please do not be that naive to believe they do not have a vested interest in seeing him get re-elected.

****ing liberals that do not have a clue, there should be a law..

Still no proof. Cooking the books for a year and a half? Puh-lease. You're a toolbag and a half.

Drek
02-05-2012, 02:20 AM
Wall street? Investors react to numbers but I suspect when they stop and digest them corrections willbe made.

Anyone thinking that the BLS is not cooking the books is nuts. After all who do they report to?
Nobama is gone so are the appointments he made to that area.
Please do not be that naive to believe they do not have a vested interest in seeing him get re-elected.

****ing liberals that do not have a clue, there should be a law..

Wall Street investors apparently haven't stopped to digest the phony numbers from the BLS in a long time then, because the market just keeps rallying back week after week. Hell, we saw steady gains over the last few months even with Europe still in crisis mode. When and if the EU finally gets its house in order the market will have even more reason for optimism.

It all comes down to your assumption that Obama and is staff are completely devoid of ethics despite all evidence to the contrary, obviously because the ideologues you worship have shown themselves to be completely devoid of any real set of guiding morals or ethics. Instead of actually pointing out factual inaccuracies you just assume the BLS is lying and post an article from a far right nutjob website that literally consists of an editorial that repeatedly says "I feel" and "I think" instead of giving real numbers.

There are independent oversight groups, both private and public, that fact check almost all government issued data. The employment figures have always gotten extra special scrutiny and that is especially true today. Yet somehow you think the BLS is fooling everyone at Obama's behest. This is the very epitome of delusion, if you are unaware of your own condition.

BabyTO
02-05-2012, 02:28 AM
ron paul is the only guy who should get any votes. the other punks are just the next bushes, obamas. nothings going to change, theres a lot more wars going to come with our dear friends (jews) hunting down whoever has a drop of oil in the middle east. unfortunately the people in this country are still too dumb to realize that. the women are idiots, they're voting for whoeve looks the best (not that guys wouldnt do that if women ran...) and the guys just vote for the guy that says the dumbest things and looks closest like somebody who could run the federal reserve. i guess it makes them feel better voting for a guy with a suit on and a smile that says im gonna make you rich once im elected.

Bronx33
02-05-2012, 08:44 AM
ron paul is the only guy who should get any votes. the other punks are just the next bushes, obamas. nothings going to change, theres a lot more wars going to come with our dear friends (jews) hunting down whoever has a drop of oil in the middle east. unfortunately the people in this country are still too dumb to realize that. the women are idiots, they're voting for whoeve looks the best (not that guys wouldnt do that if women ran...) and the guys just vote for the guy that says the dumbest things and looks closest like somebody who could run the federal reserve. i guess it makes them feel better voting for a guy with a suit on and a smile that says im gonna make you rich once im elected.


Fact is American voters are morons until that changes (nothing else changes)

Bronco Yoda
02-05-2012, 09:01 AM
No one should underestimate the Religious right. The Catholic church has already openly declared war on Obama because of his health care (covered contraception measures in the plan) . The Mormons and Protestants will follow suit. The droid army will get it's marching orders from the pulpit and unite under one flag. It won't matter how ridiculous the leaders are that they shove out there in front. The mindless hordes will do what they are told without question. Watch and see...

ChrisToker
02-05-2012, 09:23 AM
VOTE OR DIE!!!!!!!

Paladin
02-05-2012, 09:31 AM
Obama/Biden 2012

Bronx33
02-05-2012, 09:37 AM
insane

peacepipe
02-05-2012, 10:23 AM
Fact is American voters are morons until that changes (nothing else changes)hey dumbass, don't go putting all americans in the same tent as the tea baggers.

Bronx33
02-05-2012, 10:25 AM
hey dumbass, don't go putting all americans in the same tent as the tea baggers.


And you wonder why nobody cares what you say :~ohyah!:

Rigs11
02-05-2012, 10:26 AM
Gingrich/Palin 2012

Bronco Yoda
02-05-2012, 10:29 AM
Gingrich/Palin 2012

Would that all fit on the side of a Nascar?

Bronx33
02-05-2012, 10:30 AM
WERE/ALL ****** as usual 2012

Paladin
02-05-2012, 01:10 PM
Gingrich/Palin 2012

Hilarious!

Dream ticket! /end thread



:strong: Hilarious!

Rigs11
02-05-2012, 01:10 PM
Would that all fit on the side of a Nascar?

You betcha!

Paladin
02-05-2012, 01:16 PM
And it would be historical, too.....

First woman to lose consecutive VP races with two differnent men...........

Lots of gags for John Stewart there, boy.....

Rigs11
02-05-2012, 01:22 PM
And it would be historical, too.....

First woman to lose consecutive VP races with two differnent men...........

Lots of gags for John Stewart there, boy.....

John stewart is a socialist,Muslim loving,communist,American hating bastardHilarious!

Paladin
02-05-2012, 01:42 PM
Ya know, I understand why the tightie whutie righties would hate him,, He just pillorys them with absolute truithiness.

That One Guy
02-05-2012, 01:50 PM
Ya know, I understand why the tightie whutie righties would hate him., He just pillorys them with abasotute truithiness.

Tsiguy could teach you some things about spelling and grammar.

Seriously, that was a post that I could type with my wife's nipples while blindfolded.

Bronco Yoda
02-05-2012, 01:59 PM
:worthless:

Paladin
02-05-2012, 07:30 PM
Tsiguy could teach you some things about spelling and grammar.

Seriously, that was a post that I could type with my wife's nipples while blindfolded.

Right, but I just had eye surgery, and I am trying to type more from memory than by sight. If I used the two finget method like you do, I might have fewer mistakes, but my thoughts would stil be richer and moire clever......

Go hide your face in shame.

alkemical
02-06-2012, 06:02 AM
I just did a quick search and depending on which study and in which year it was conducted, the figure appears to be between 85%-90% of families in the US had adequate food for the entire year.

Do you really think that number would be better in the 80s? I'll give you a hint, I found figures for the 90s and it wasn't. I can't imagine things got severely worse from the 80s until the study in the 90s.

"Adequate" food, does not mean good healthy food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security

When you start factoring the rising cost for food - without the rising income - you will start to see rising disparity on whom can eat food, while depending on the current platform of production & transportation.

You have to understand - that decentralization in this instance, is a GOOD thing. This actually provides opportunities for employment in local/regional areas.

I understand that the Idea of "making something" and "changing the way we do things" is sometimes a hard thing to understand. We've not really had to focus on that for, what - the last 30 years?

I mean, it's fine - you don't see the "vision" i do - but this is about an opportunity that I see - and we're about 5 years out before it becomes a "bigger deal".

Drek
02-06-2012, 06:14 AM
No one should underestimate the Religious right. The Catholic church has already openly declared war on Obama because of his health care (covered contraception measures in the plan) . The Mormons and Protestants will follow suit. The droid army will get it's marching orders from the pulpit and unite under one flag. It won't matter how ridiculous the leaders are that they shove out there in front. The mindless hordes will do what they are told without question. Watch and see...

Obama is pro-choice and pro-civil unions. He already lost the votes of anyone who takes their orders from a pulpit.

Meanwhile 98% of all women have taken birth control at some point in their life and I'd bet a damn near similar percentage of men have gotten to ride bareback thanks to that same birth control. Most people are big fans of BC and completely understand why it needs to be an option in all healthcare plans.

Paladin
02-06-2012, 09:01 AM
Drek, I told you before. Stop being so damm logical. It burns the tightie whitie righties.....

Paladin
02-06-2012, 10:54 AM
Seriously, that was a post that I could type with my wife's nipples while blindfolded.



I want you all to know that I did not need his wife's nipples to type this messge. Althought I must say they are very .....talented.....



Hilarious!

dumbarse......

houghtam
02-06-2012, 01:53 PM
Obama is pro-choice and pro-civil unions. He already lost the votes of anyone who takes their orders from a pulpit.

Meanwhile 98% of all women have taken birth control at some point in their life and I'd bet a damn near similar percentage of men have gotten to ride bareback thanks to that same birth control. Most people are big fans of BC and completely understand why it needs to be an option in all healthcare plans.

Yeah and just to add, the Catholic Church can declare war on all they want, it doesn't mean Catholics will follow suit. Good example is religion class sex ed during one of my 13 years of Catholic school. The teacher says to us, "now the Catholic Church recommends that you use 'the rhythm method' (or whatever they called it back then) instead of contraception. I'm sure most of your parents used this, as good Catholics are told. I'm also sure that half of you are a result of your parents using this method." :)

lonestar
02-06-2012, 02:13 PM
No one should underestimate the Religious right. The Catholic church has already openly declared war on Obama because of his health care (covered contraception measures in the plan) . The Mormons and Protestants will follow suit. The droid army will get it's marching orders from the pulpit and unite under one flag. It won't matter how ridiculous the leaders are that they shove out there in front. The mindless hordes will do what they are told without question. Watch and see...

Read Democrats

bendog
02-06-2012, 02:37 PM
You'd think the bishops would be into civil unions. Just saying.

Paladin
02-06-2012, 03:15 PM
I saw a graphic on TV that showed some 68* of American Catholic women use contraceptives and 78* of Evangelicals use them, and 72% of "others" use them. I could be off on the specific numbers, but the point is that the majority of Aerican women without regards to religion use contraceptives. One wonders of Newt relied on the Rhythym method during his philandering days.

Hypocracy is a terrible thing to see....




(This message was written without the benefit of TOG's wife's nipples. )

Spider
02-06-2012, 03:18 PM
(This message was written without the benefit of TOG's wife's nipples. )

Hilarious!

Lycan
02-06-2012, 03:29 PM
From a completely disinterested perspective, Romney is smug, Gingrich is bland, Paul is a non-factor and Santorum is an outright bigot.

Woo! Politics!

Inkana7
02-06-2012, 04:22 PM
Just gonna leave this here..

http://www.vice.com/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry

That One Guy
02-06-2012, 04:27 PM
Right, but I just had eye surgery, and I am trying to type more from memory than by sight. If I used the two finget method like you do, I might have fewer mistakes, but my thoughts would stil be richer and moire clever......

Go hide your face in shame.

What kind of typo is "truthiness"?

You attempted a lame insult using words you apparently made up. The lameness went way beyond the possible results of surgery. Nice try, though.

That One Guy
02-06-2012, 04:30 PM
I want you all to know that I did not need his wife's nipples to type this messge. Althought I must say they are very .....talented.....



Hilarious!

dumbarse......

It's not much of a comeback if you pull it out 15 hours after you responded to the post the first time.

Lycan
02-06-2012, 04:31 PM
What kind of typo is "truthiness"?

You attempted a lame insult using words you apparently made up. The lameness went way beyond the possible results of surgery. Nice try, though.

Truthiness is actually a reference to Stephen Colbert I believe.

BroncoBuff
02-06-2012, 08:05 PM
What kind of typo is "truthiness"?

You attempted a lame insult using words you apparently made up.

Dude ... :nono:


http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8007/colberta.jpg

BroncoBuff
02-06-2012, 08:09 PM
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/I/m/colbert_truthinesstopower.jpg

BroncoBuff
02-06-2012, 08:12 PM
I saw a graphic on TV that showed some 68* of American Catholic women use contraceptives and 78* of Evangelicals use them, and 72% of "others" use them.

Hypocrisy is a terrible thing to see....

Even greater hypocrisy is that Evangelicals undergo abortions at the same rate as other religions. Catholics skew the numbers of course, but the others all fall between 70% and 76%. If it weren't for the Catholic girls hogging all the procedures, it might be right about even - 100% for every religion.


. . . . . .. . . .%Pop. (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) - %Ab'tns (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) - Rate
PROTESTANT: . . 51 - 37 . ...= 70%
EVANGELICAL: . . 26 - 18 .. . = 72%
CATHOLIC:. . . .. 24 - 31. ... =129%
JEWISH: . . . .. . 1.7 –1.3. . . = 76%

% Pop. = Percentage of U.S. Population
% ab'tns = % of all abortions performed

Bronco Yoda
02-06-2012, 09:38 PM
Just gonna leave this here..

http://www.vice.com/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry

http://www.thortrains.net/armymen/zarxgren.jpg


http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nuclear-bomb-badger350.jpg?w=640

I'd really like to see the vocal Ron Paul supporters address this. (what are the odds?)

BroncoBuff
02-06-2012, 10:20 PM
. . . . . .. . . .%Pop. (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) - %Ab'tns (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) - Rate
PROTESTANT: . . 51 - 37 . ...= 70%
EVANGELICAL: . . 26 - 18 .. . = 72%
CATHOLIC:. . . .. 24 - 31. ... =129%
JEWISH: . . . .. . 1.7 –1.3. . . = 76%

% Pop. = Percentage of U.S. Population
% ab'tns = % of all abortions performed



I made a mistake here ... you might've noticed the percentages of population total is over 100, so something's wrong. Looking closely at the source, the 26% number of Evangelicals is not a %-age of the total population, it's a 26% subset of the 51% Protestants:

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5936/religionsl.jpg


That means Evangelicals account for 13% of the total population. However, the abortion rate number - the 18% (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) - that is a percentage of the ALL abortions performed in the US.

So then, Evangelicals are over-represented in abortion clinics at 148% of their total, easily surpassing Catholics. Wow ....

. . . . . .. . . .%Pop. (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) - %Ab'tns (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) - Rate
PROTESTANT: . . 51 - 37 . ...= 70%
EVANGELICAL: . 12.5 - 18 .. . =150%
CATHOLIC:. . . .. 24 - 31. . .. =129%
JEWISH: . . . .. . 1.7 –1.3. . . = 76%

% Pop. = Percentage of U.S. Population
% ab'tns = % of all abortions performed

Paladin
02-06-2012, 11:27 PM
What kind of typo is "truthiness"?

You attempted a lame insult using words you apparently made up. The lameness went way beyond the possible results of surgery. Nice try, though.

Watch Colbert at all? He invented the word representing the tendency of Repugnicans and other subversives like Rove to bend and cause the truth to "migrate" to something less unattractive to their beliefs. To take a truth and bend it to a lie.

For example, the Nevada Caucus was attended by about 11,000 fewer people than in 2010, indicating that many of the "faithful" do not care for any of the members if the Clownshow. You could say Mittines "won" 50% of the votes, but you'd be ignoring the fewer participants, and the fact that Mittins' "unfavorable" ratings are climbing and are now about 47%. Before you call me out, make sure you get your head out of your arse and think it through before you ......er.......type.....:~ohyah!:



(This message was typed without the help of TOG's wife's nipples. Not bad for a blind man, eh?)

BTW: I really did have cataract surgery. Stiil can't read the screen very well, but I getr up there and squint at it.

Lycan
02-07-2012, 03:37 AM
Watch Colbert at all? He invented the word representing the tendency of Repugnicans and other subversives like Rove to bend and cause the truth to "migrate" to something less unattractive to their beliefs. To take a truth and bend it to a lie.

For example, the Nevada Caucus was attended by about 11,000 fewer people than in 2010, indicating that many of the "faithful" do not care for any of the members if the Clownshow. You could say Mittines "won" 50% of the votes, but you'd be ignoring the fewer participants, and the fact that Mittins' "unfavorable" ratings are climbing and are now about 47%. Before you call me out, make sure you get your head out of your arse and think it through before you ......er.......type.....:~ohyah!:



(This message was typed without the help of TOG's wife's nipples. Not bad for a blind man, eh?)

BTW: I really did have cataract surgery. Stiil can't read the screen very well, but I getr up there and squint at it.



......That's what she said.

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 06:44 AM
Watch Colbert at all? He invented the word representing the tendency of Repugnicans and other subversives like Rove to bend and cause the truth to "migrate" to something less unattractive to their beliefs. To take a truth and bend it to a lie.

For example, the Nevada Caucus was attended by about 11,000 fewer people than in 2010, indicating that many of the "faithful" do not care for any of the members if the Clownshow. You could say Mittines "won" 50% of the votes, but you'd be ignoring the fewer participants, and the fact that Mittins' "unfavorable" ratings are climbing and are now about 47%. Before you call me out, make sure you get your head out of your arse and think it through before you ......er.......type.....:~ohyah!:



(This message was typed without the help of TOG's wife's nipples. Not bad for a blind man, eh?)

BTW: I really did have cataract surgery. Stiil can't read the screen very well, but I getr up there and squint at it.

I didn't know the reference but it was just one example. If your post is going to look like something Dan Bronco Fan posts, maybe you should just take a day off.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 06:53 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/03/cynical-world-americas-private-prisons?CMP=twt_gu

In the past few decades, changes in sentencing laws and get-tough-on-crime policies have led to an explosion in America's prison population. Funding this incarceration binge has been an enormous drain on taxpayer dollars, with some states now spending more to lock up their citizens than to provide their children with education. It's difficult to spin anything positive out of that scenario, but as it turns out, even this blackest of clouds has a silver lining – silver as in dollars, that is, for the private prison industry.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 06:57 AM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NA31Dj01.html

How America made its children crazy
By Spengler

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 06:59 AM
Paladin. You do realize that Colbert is a comedian, don't you?

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:00 AM
He's like Carlin..or Hicks! Using humor to illustrate the absurdity.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 07:08 AM
He's like Carlin..or Hicks! Using humor to illustrate the absurdity.

That's fine as far as it goes. As long as we understand that a satirist isn't a replacement for informed debate. Often all they do is help you reinforce your own preconceptions.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:15 AM
That's fine as far as it goes. As long as we understand that a satirist isn't a replacement for informed debate. Often all they do is help you reinforce your own preconceptions.

With out the satirist, you wouldn't have debate.

What do you consider debate, what we have now? It's really more like this:

Basically it's two TeeVee's yelling at each other. There's no conversation, only regurgitated talking points by mindless monkeys flinging verbal poo at each other.

For the most part - you perpetually brainwash yourself everyday with the ideology you agree with (which is really brainwashing by your corporate sponsors).

You are all sheep...even you black sheep. You are all going to get NOM'D. You are all a bunch of stupid lazy ****s who don't want to do any work to actually fix anything. you just want to argue "who is right".

**** y'all. You ****ed **** up, and want someone else to fix it - but they can't ever fix it to the imaginary specs you have written in your head...you dumb ****s.

*This post is directed to everyone who reads it.

Rohirrim
02-07-2012, 07:18 AM
Here's the number that tells the story: Republican turnout for these primaries has dropped, on average, 15% from the primaries of 2008. Romney has had a constant organizational presence in Nevada for six years and the turnout of his followers in last week's primary was 27% percent less than 2008.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:19 AM
Who cares. Those #'s are just imaginary and there's no meaning to them.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 07:20 AM
With out the satirist, you wouldn't have debate.

What do you consider debate, what we have now? It's really more like this:

Basically it's two TeeVee's yelling at each other. There's no conversation, only regurgitated talking points by mindless monkeys flinging verbal poo at each other.

For the most part - you perpetually brainwash yourself everyday with the ideology you agree with (which is really brainwashing by your corporate sponsors).

You are all sheep...even you black sheep. You are all going to get NOM'D. You are all a bunch of stupid lazy ****s who don't want to do any work to actually fix anything. you just want to argue "who is right".

**** y'all. You ****ed **** up, and want someone else to fix it - but they can't ever fix it to the imaginary specs you have written in your head...you dumb ****s.

*This post is directed to everyone who reads it.

Colbert does nothing to break out of that cycle though. He's basically a walking strawman. It works well for people who want to see their 'enemy' that way. It does nothing to build an understanding of why the other side thinks the way it does. Unless you believe that the other side only believes what it does because they're stupid.

But if you believe that, there really is no reason to debate. The poo flinging is all there is, if that's the case.

Rohirrim
02-07-2012, 07:20 AM
Who cares. Those #'s are just imaginary and there's no meaning to them.

Time for another medication adjustment.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:25 AM
Colbert does nothing to break out of that cycle though. He's basically a walking strawman. It works well for people who want to see their 'enemy' that way. It does nothing to build an understanding of why the other side thinks the way it does. Unless you believe that the other side only believes what it does because they're stupid.

But if you believe that, there really is no reason to debate. The poo flinging is all there is, if that's the case.

Yet it's funny - people who see Colbert - see him slanted towards their POV.

Which means - he's walking in the middle and people are seeing what they want to see.


http://www.disinfo.com/2012/01/satire-democracy%E2%80%99s-most-unexpected-enemy/


But that's fine for you to SHARE your BIAS with us. :D

But you aren't funny, and your points aren't pointy.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:28 AM
Time for another medication adjustment.

You should call your Dr. about that. I know how much you want to believe that it's only the R's who are evil in this world, but well - That's delusional Ro~. You can bite into any # you think matters, but it doesn't. There's no weight or meaning to those #'s. it's just what you're being sold/marketed to and you are attaching a value to those #'s thinking it MEANS something.

It doesn't.

You know why?

Cuz the game is more rigged than a carney could do. That's why your #'s don't mean ****.

That'll be a $40 copay, the receptionist will take care of it.

Thx.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 07:33 AM
Yet it's funny - people who see Colbert - see him slanted towards their POV.

Yeah, that's not really true. Colbert is a straw parody of a conservative. Conservatives don't see him as an embodiment of their views. When you argue based on a point Colbert makes, you're arguing with a strawman. Sure it makes it easy. But it's completely unproductive.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:39 AM
Yeah, that's not really true. Colbert is a straw parody of a conservative. Conservatives don't see him as an embodiment of their views. When you argue based on a point Colbert makes, you're arguing with a strawman. Sure it makes it easy. But it's completely unproductive.

Wow, i can see you don't really understand satire, nor understand confirmation bias, nor do you understand that Colbert - doesn't denounce conservative ideas. He's a centrist. Also, the article listed gives outlines and examples of how people that find it slanted, are more or less "projecting". (sorry macgruder) (see linked article that breaks down language used during different segments - you can go down the rabbit hole more - but i know you didn't read the article thoroughly, even though it pertains to the subject of satire - and well - sort of makes you look like a tool right about now)


A 2009 study from Ohio State University evaluated the way that political beliefs affect a viewer’s perception of both humor and the host’s intentions in The Colbert Report. The peer-reviewed journal article by LaMarre, et al, called “The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report,” says that “conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements.” (5) However, according to the authors, self-identified “conservatives” and “liberals” (measured on a seven-point range) both found Colbert equally funny.



But it's funny to see yours bias! You are arguing a political talking point, you're arguing with a strawman. So really, you're discrediting exactly what you want:

informed discussion.


Sorry dude - enjoy your day - and your wrongness. It happens. The unicorns will give you drink to cheer you up though!

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 07:53 AM
With out the satirist, you wouldn't have debate.

What do you consider debate, what we have now? It's really more like this:

Basically it's two TeeVee's yelling at each other. There's no conversation, only regurgitated talking points by mindless monkeys flinging verbal poo at each other.

For the most part - you perpetually brainwash yourself everyday with the ideology you agree with (which is really brainwashing by your corporate sponsors).

You are all sheep...even you black sheep. You are all going to get NOM'D. You are all a bunch of stupid lazy ****s who don't want to do any work to actually fix anything. you just want to argue "who is right".

**** y'all. You ****ed **** up, and want someone else to fix it - but they can't ever fix it to the imaginary specs you have written in your head...you dumb ****s.

*This post is directed to everyone who reads it.

It's good to see you're finally abandoning thinly veiled condescension and going for the more easily identified blatant version.

The irony about you making the narcissism thread is beautiful unless, of course, it came to you during a time of self-reflection.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 07:54 AM
Sorry dude - enjoy your day - and your wrongness. It happens. The unicorns will give you drink to cheer you up though!

See, this is what it is. You like to fling poo. You just don't want to be seen as a 'poo flinger' so you pretend there's more to it than that.


says that “conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements.”

Most conservatives aren't likely to watch Colbert. Just like most Liberals probably don't listen to Shawn Hannity. Making wide-sweeping assumptions based on the few that would bother doesn't serve any purpose. They're the exception, not the rule.

I can find you plenty of conservative columnists who know that Colbert is mocking conservatives, and does not 'mean what he says'

That is the mainstream conservative view of Colbert. You may not know because, as you've shown, you have a hard time having a reasonable conversation with those you disagree with.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 07:59 AM
It's good to see you're finally abandoning thinly veiled condescension and going for the more easily identified blatant version.

The irony about you making the narcissism thread is beautiful unless, of course, it came to you during a time of self-reflection.


Well, we know why Jesus was killed. It's people like TOG that nailed him to the cross (and his wife's nipples).

:)

alkemical
02-07-2012, 08:06 AM
See, this is what it is. You like to fling poo. You just don't want to be seen as a 'poo flinger' so you pretend there's more to it than that.


Actually, not at all the case. I fling poo when I have to, due to the fact you stupid monkey's like to pretend you have conversation, but you really don't. The truth is - you don't like being called on your bull****. Which I did, by flinging it back at you. Enjoy it while you can. It brings enlightenment.



Most conservatives aren't likely to watch Colbert. Just like most Liberals probably don't listen to Shawn Hannity. Making wide-sweeping assumptions based on the few that would bother doesn't serve any purpose. They're the exception, not the rule.



So, when the evidence presented (you know, there was actual science referenced) - you deflect with a strawman.

Cool story bro.


I can find you plenty of conservative columnists who know that Colbert is mocking conservatives, and does not 'mean what he says'

That is the mainstream conservative view of Colbert. You may not know because, as you've shown, you have a hard time having a reasonable conversation with those you disagree with.

no, i just have science, facts (the article outlined a few experiments).
Your own bias is getting in the way of it.

Which again - for someone wanting discussion - you're failing miserably at it.

Do you want a list of cognative biases to go through? I can provide you that, and then you can spend time looking at how your biases are leading you to assumptions that aren't there.

We all have them, Mine just happens to be this:

People who claim a political ideology are self imposing their own dogma, and are morons. Thus anything considered "conversation" is non-existant, since most of these people - do not think their own thoughts.

PS - it's Sean Hannity. :) (You know the guy with the bumper that says: "it's our goal to make Obama a one term president")

Oh, and Limbaugh said there's no left wing media conspiracy.

Just wanted to pass that on.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 08:09 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/the-third-constitution-of-the-united-states/

The Third Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the People of the United States establish this Third Constitution of the United States of North America to promote human rights, social justice, ecological wisdom, peace, and egalitarianism for the citizens of our country and ultimately to all citizens of the world.

Neighborhood togetherness and community solidarity shall be valued above individual and corporate aggrandizement that jeopardize the participatory democracy of We the People. The Earth and the world will be viewed as one organism, like the human body: the cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems have to cooperate together or else the whole organism suffers and dies. (The first U.S. government was under the Articles of Confederation. The second was implemented with the presidency of George Washington in 1789.)

Human Rights

1. We the People have a right to participate in a government that is built from the bottom-up, something that has never been tried before, instead of the usual, bureaucratic control from the top-down. However, the government built from the bottom-up, at higher levels, may make laws that affect lower levels.

2. The people have a right to change their federal government through amendments added to this Third Constitution, and the people have a right to make an entirely new constitution fairly easily, which would then be the basis for a fourth federal or national government.

3. All individuals have freedom to speak and write about their personal, political, and spiritual beliefs. They may worship God through the religion of their choice, or they may choose ethical behavior or spiritual disciplines not based on any religion.

4. Government has powers granted to it as determined by the people’s democratic decision making. Government protects the rights of individuals.

5. Individual citizens have a right to keep and bear arms if they are registered by the county and state where they live. Federal lawmakers will determine the guidelines and the maximum amount of firepower an individual may possess. A county government may further limit the federal allowances or even abolish an individual’s right to own weapons.

6. Involuntary servitude of law-abiding citizens is prohibited. Thus, if the government declares a war that an individual deems unethical, the individual has a right to refuse service in the military.

7. Government authorities must have a probable cause to search our homes, cars, or any other property.

8. Property owners are entitled to a generous compensation if through eminent domain the government needs to seize the property for a higher, socially justifiable purpose, such as necessary road construction, for example.

9. No person shall be tried for a serious crime unless there is a Grand Jury indictment that states valid reasons for the upcoming court trial.

10. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property unless there is due process (or fair procedures) in carrying out the law.

11. In all criminal cases and prosecutions:

A. The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed.

B. The accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

C. The accused has a right to a counselor who may or may not be an attorney. The accused, or a counselor of the accused, may confront (or cross examine) all witnesses testifying against him or her.

D. The accused may require witnesses to testify if the witnesses have important information to share in the case.

E. Unless it is a minor charge (or a misdemeanor), citizens have a right to a trial by jury. Juries may determine a person’s guilt or innocence, and if a person is found guilty, the jury may determine the sentence of the accused, as advised by the judge.

F. Excessive bail shall not be required of a person, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

12. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes or bedrooms that does not infringe on the property or the rights of others should not be the concern of government. Thus, individuals have a right to privacy.

13. Hemp shall not be declared illegal to grow for medical, agricultural, industrial, or recreational purposes.

14. A citizen may choose where he or she wants to live. Moreover, citizens may visit any country they choose, including Cuba. If they choose to move to another country, they will not be dispossessed of their personal assets by the government.

15. We the People have a right to a job in this nation.

16. We the People have a right to earn enough to pay for nutritious food, clothing, and recreation.

17. Every small, organic farmer will have financial incentives to raise and sell his products without restrictions or unfair competition from large agricultural monopolies that overly use artificial chemicals, radiate our foods, and genetically modify them without our knowing it.

18. Every entrepreneurial business person will be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies, domestic or abroad.

19. Every citizen will have a right to a decent home.

20. Every American will have a right to adequate medical care and will be educated, encouraged, and rewarded for engaging in good health practices.

21. Citizens, both young and old, will not have economic fears of age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

22. Every citizen will have a right to a good public education from preschool to as far as he or she can advance. The philosophy, curriculum, and administration of a public school will be decided by the neighbors who live within the boundaries of that particular elementary, middle, or high school.


***Cont'd @ source - interested to read & think about. What would a re-write look like today - depending on the authors.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 08:18 AM
Actually, not at all the case. I fling poo when I have to, due to the fact you stupid monkey's like to pretend you have conversation, but you really don't. The truth is - you don't like being called on your bull****. Which I did, by flinging it back at you. Enjoy it while you can. It brings enlightenment.

I tend to see the poo flinging as a defense mechanism. You hate to be challenged, and like a dog barking at a mailman, you've associated your bravado with 'winning' the debate. In reality, you make it clear to others that you're not worth debating because you can't do so with a reasonable level of respect or courtesy, so they choose to move on.

In your mind you think you've silenced them with your brilliance, just like the dog thinks he scared off the mailman and protected the home with his brave show of force.

In reality, just like the mailman, people just move on because they've got better **** to do than talk to someone who doesn't listen.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 08:25 AM
I tend to see the poo flinging as a defense mechanism. You hate to be challenged, and like a dog barking at a mailman, you've associated your bravado with 'winning' the debate. In reality, you make it clear to others that you're not worth debating because you can't do so with a reasonable level of respect or courtesy, so they choose to move on.

In your mind you think you've silenced them with your brilliance, just like the dog thinks he scared off the mailman and protected the home with his brave show of force.

In reality, just like the mailman, people just move on because they've got better **** to do than talk to someone who doesn't listen.

Not really, and you're 3 posts into replying to the fact that the Colbert show isn't in the "middle", but yet slanted, so instead you turn to cheap personal attacks that are incorrect, and well - do nothing to denote your position "of discussion" - thus - making my opening statement on why "conversation" doesn't exist amongst political dogmatic thinkers like yourself - even more accurate.

So instead of being a "man" and accepting that your bias might infact, be skewed - You hate to be challenged, and like a dog barking at a mailman, you've associated your bravado with 'winning' the debate. In reality, you make it clear to others that you're not worth debating because you can't do so with a reasonable level of respect or courtesy, so they choose to move on.

In your mind you think you've silenced them with your brilliance, just like the dog thinks he scared off the mailman and protected the home with his brave show of force.

In reality, just like the mailman, people just move on because they've got better **** to do than talk to someone who doesn't listen.


Who's going to listen to you, when you don't make any point to back up your failed positions?

Paladin
02-07-2012, 08:30 AM
Well, we know why Jesus was killed. It's people like TOG that nailed him to the cross (and his wife's nipples).

:)

LOL!!!!!

Good to know....

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 08:30 AM
Not really, and you're 3 posts into replying to the fact that the Colbert show isn't in the "middle", but yet slanted, so instead you turn to cheap personal attacks that are incorrect, and well - do nothing to denote your position "of discussion" - thus - making my opening statement on why "conversation" doesn't exist amongst political dogmatic thinkers like yourself - even more accurate.

So instead of being a "man" and accepting that your bias might infact, be skewed - You hate to be challenged, and like a dog barking at a mailman, you've associated your bravado with 'winning' the debate. In reality, you make it clear to others that you're not worth debating because you can't do so with a reasonable level of respect or courtesy, so they choose to move on.

In your mind you think you've silenced them with your brilliance, just like the dog thinks he scared off the mailman and protected the home with his brave show of force.

In reality, just like the mailman, people just move on because they've got better **** to do than talk to someone who doesn't listen.


Who's going to listen to you, when you don't make any point to back up your failed positions?

Your rationale is circular. "Conservatives who watch Colbert find something endearing about Colbert"

Never mentioning the fact that more liberals watch him than conservatives.

Outside of that, the fact that you view yourself as a qualified arbiter of who sits 'in the middle' says everything that needs saying. Most conservatives choose to NOT WATCH Steven Colbert. That should tell you what you need to know.

Paladin
02-07-2012, 08:51 AM
Truthiness hurts, huh?

Know what else it is? Not telling the WHOLE story, and citing only the parts that support your fantasies, or ridicules your oppponent. Sort of like what TOG is trying to do. Remember Mittins' infamous ad where it "quotes" President Obama talking about the economy? Well, that's like Mittins' "very poor people" quote that even conservatives view as a badly mangled statement.

Sound bite politics is greatly unsatisfying. But one thing seems to be true, at least to me. Mittins has not given any statemebt about his "vision" for the Country; there are no positivce ideas, or exactly what would he do different. He gives nothing but criticisms. I honestly believe his handlers do not want him to say anything that could be subject to discussion or debate.

And people seem to not like him very much.


(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

Paladin
02-07-2012, 08:55 AM
Paladin. You do realize that Colbert is a comedian, don't you?

He was running for President of the United States of South Carolina. Is that truthiness enough for you?



Jebus, Butthead, you are dense.




(Message was typed wothout the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 08:59 AM
This thread is kinda silly right now so I'll omit comment other than to post this which I found while working on a paper. It's from Confucius' teachings on Government:

Zigong asked about government. The Master said, "The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler." Zigong said, "If it cannot be helped, and one of these must be dispensed with, which of the three should be foregone first?" "The military equipment," said the Master. Zigong again asked, "If it cannot be helped, and one of the remaining two must be dispensed with, which of them should be foregone?" The Master answered, "Part with the food. From of old, death has been the lot of all men; but if the people have no faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the State."

I know going back to Bush's second term for sure, it was pretty unanimous that whoever held office got little support from the people. Be they anywhere from congressmen to the president, it's been a time of second guessing our elected leaders. It's interesting, though, that the support is usually all up or all down so maybe you can't really infer too much into the actual individuals' success or failure.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 09:08 AM
He was running for President of the United States of South Carolina. Is that truthiness enough for you?



Jebus, Butthead, you are dense.)

Would that be the first time a comedian has put his name on a ballot somewhere?

Thought this was interesting
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57338510-503544/study-finds-conventional-wisdom-about-what-tv-republicans-democrats-watch/

The report, which measures the favorite and least favorite television programs of self-described "liberal Democrats" and "conservative Republicans," finds that Democrats trend toward more "sarcastic" fare, while Republicans go for "serious work-centered shows" and reality competitions, according to EW.

Not infrequently, a show beloved by one party is reviled by the other.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and the "Colbert Report" - both comedy news programs on Comedy Central - topped liberals' lists of favorites. Republicans, on the other hand, named both shows among their least favorite programs (second only to "Weeds," a dark comedy about a droll, marijuana-dealing matriarch).

So we're told that Conservatives tend to believe Colbert is a great guy who sincerely represents their views... but overall they hate his show for it. That's the ticket.

But whaddya gonna' do? To quote Ron "Alkemical' Burgundy.

"It's science" :)

Kaylore
02-07-2012, 09:11 AM
I'm going to caucus tonight. :)

Rohirrim
02-07-2012, 09:12 AM
I'm going to caucus tonight. :)

You do realize that Bush is only allowed two terms, right? ;D

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 09:13 AM
Would that be the first time a comedian has put his name on a ballot somewhere?

Thought this was interesting
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57338510-503544/study-finds-conventional-wisdom-about-what-tv-republicans-democrats-watch/



So we're told that Conservatives tend to believe Colbert is a great guy who sincerely represents their views... but overall they hate his show for it. That's the ticket.

But whaddya gonna' do? To quote Ron "Alkemical' Burgundy.

"It's science" :)

You have to see the pointlessness of continuing here. Paladin entered Spider territory by using absurdly useless arguments built around made up words and such witty quips as "tighty whitey righties" while Alkemical... well.. I don't know what he's even arguing - aside from his own greatness, of course.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 09:18 AM
You have to see the pointlessness of continuing here. Paladin entered Spider territory by using absurdly useless arguments built around made up words and such witty quips as "tighty whitey righties" while Alkemical... well.. I don't know what he's even arguing - aside from his own greatness, of course.

Yeah, I saw it a couple posts ago. Should've seen it when someone who starts lecturing about confirmation bias posted a link to disinfo.com. :)

TonyR
02-07-2012, 09:24 AM
Most conservatives aren't likely to watch Colbert. Just like most Liberals probably don't listen to Shawn Hannity.

I just want to make sure you see, and understand, the difference between Colbert and what he does, and Hannity and what he does.

Rohirrim
02-07-2012, 09:28 AM
I just want to make sure you see, and understand, the difference between Colbert and what he does, and Hannity and what he does.

Colbert is a satirist. Hannity is a propagandist.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 09:36 AM
I just want to make sure you see, and understand, the difference between Colbert and what he does, and Hannity and what he does.

They're absolutely different in what they do. I was just using him as an example of someone it would be hard for most liberals to stomach.

What I was trying to say was that you'd have to be careful drawing conclusions about liberals as a whole from "Liberals who listen to Hannity"

Even I can't stomach the guy. Same with Rush. I can't imagine what kind of masochist you'd have to be to voluntarily watch Hannity from a truly liberal point of view.

TonyR
02-07-2012, 09:39 AM
They're absolutely different in what they do...

Okay, we're on the same page on this.

lonestar
02-07-2012, 12:32 PM
Colbert is a satirist. Hannity is a propagandist.

Who both have an agenda. Unfortunatly you do not get it.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 12:44 PM
You have to see the pointlessness of continuing here. Paladin entered Spider territory by using absurdly useless arguments built around made up words and such witty quips as "tighty whitey righties" while Alkemical... well.. I don't know what he's even arguing - aside from his own greatness, of course.

Not really - just the fact that i'm pointing out that bias, distorts what the individual "sees", when watch groups analyzed content and found the content to be equal - then the disparity is based upon the viewing public who fills in the blanks.

It's pretty OBVIOUS to understand how bias "connects dots" that aren't there...Much like your post here.

Does that help you understand, or is the context of understanding how bias works...a rather difficult concept to grasp?

I make no claims on objectivity being my greatest trait - My claim is that since my bias exists outside of the ideology that you ****tards keep buying into - it's MORE objective about the state of "libural & consurfitive" mindsets, then those participants are.

For you participants who keep subscribing to a failed ideology - well, then my greatness isn't even in question - it's a fact due to the principle that i'm not continually conned by these hucksters the way you* are.

Is that sufficient enough, or do I need to type this with your wife's nipples?

I mean - here's a list of cognitive biases - you guys can play with this on your own and see where the lines have been drawn for you, and where you limit your own thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

It's a fun game, and sometimes annoying when you realize that the world you drew in your head...isn't the one that exists. I've been there. :)

alkemical
02-07-2012, 12:45 PM
Who both have an agenda. Unfortunatly you do not get it.

Colbert = Mock Partisan politics and show how stupid the PAC game is.

hannity = Obama a 1 term president.


FTR - I don't have cable television - and I do listen to AM talk radio. :)

alkemical
02-07-2012, 12:47 PM
http://www.blackironprison.com/index.php?title=The_Two_Man_Con

The Two Man Con

So I was on the move again. I had a few days of traveling to do, a friend had just got back from Hong Kong as was going to be in London for a few days before jetting off again. Jammy git.

As there was nothing else to do while on the train, I turned on the radio and decided to listen to a talk show. On this particular program they had two opposing politicians in, debating the then upcoming election.

I listened for a while, wishing I could get a decent music station, or had bought some CDs with me. The debate was getting boring, and was essentially becoming a right/left conflict: Give up your social freedom for more economic freedom, or give up your economic freedom for your social ones.

Damn, that was stupid! I found myself thinking. So basically, I have to give up some sort of freedom, in order to gain another? Looking closely, there wasn’t even that much of a choice. To take benefit of the "economic free market" of the Right means you have to have the money in the first place. And on the left, without economic freedom, social freedom was nothing, as money is a large part of the social structure.

So was there really a choice? To be sure, there are some differences. Certainly among the personalities involved. But the basic philosophy was the same. Almost all our current politicians come from the "Oxbridge elite", those lucky few without enough connections or cash to get into those 2 universities. This is pretty much the same for the leadership of both parties, whether right or left wing. And either way, it basically benefits them, as they are richer than their constituents who they supposedly represent.

It’s a two man con. Or rather, a two ideology con. They say (this "they" presumably being the same "they" who are the everyone in "everyone knows". And quite possibly make up "the community", whoever the hell they are) that you can’t con an honest man, often to make themselves feel superior to some poor schmuck who just lost a lot on what seemed a fair gamble.

However, you can con an honest man, if you do it with two men. Make them look like opposing teams, like a "thief" getting caught at a jewelers and a "copper" taking the stolen goods as evidence. But in reality, they are both working ultimately for their own benefit. That’s the way politicians keep conning the public. We get the same old guard year after year, being moved by their party from safeseat to safeseat. That’s modern politics.

Keep voting yourself pay rises and make sure there aren"t equal taxes applied to the rich. And people wonder why fringe parties and apathy are on the rise...

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 12:53 PM
Not really - just the fact that i'm pointing out that bias, distorts what the individual "sees", when watch groups analyzed content and found the content to be equal - then the disparity is based upon the viewing public who fills in the blanks.

It's pretty OBVIOUS to understand how bias "connects dots" that aren't there...Much like your post here.

Does that help you understand, or is the context of understanding how bias works...a rather difficult concept to grasp?

I make no claims on objectivity being my greatest trait - My claim is that since my bias exists outside of the ideology that you ****tards keep buying into - it's MORE objective about the state of "libural & consurfitive" mindsets, then those participants are.

For you participants who keep subscribing to a failed ideology - well, then my greatness isn't even in question - it's a fact due to the principle that i'm not continually conned by these hucksters the way you* are.

Is that sufficient enough, or do I need to type this with your wife's nipples?

I mean - here's a list of cognitive biases - you guys can play with this on your own and see where the lines have been drawn for you, and where you limit your own thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

It's a fun game, and sometimes annoying when you realize that the world you drew in your head...isn't the one that exists. I've been there. :)

Except in Colbert's case, there is consensus. Liberals love him for mocking conservatives. Conservatives hate him for mocking conservatives.

It seems to me, in this scenario, it might be you who's connecting dots that aren't there.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Except in Colbert's case, there is consensus. Liberals love him for mocking conservatives. Conservatives hate him for mocking conservatives.

It seems to me, in this scenario, it might be you who's connecting dots that aren't there.

Funny, the blind independent studies found different stats, than your biased sources.

imagine that!

But again, you're more interested on "being right", than understanding the actual context and big picture of what i'm saying.

In fact, i appreciate you keep posting on this topic - it's a perfect illustration of your own cognitive bias. :)

I know you know what satire is, and when it's done "right" - people aren't sure what side you're on. it's funny how & WHO classifies him as "this or that" - when in reality - his Satire is centrist - that everyone's fair game.

I mean, you do WATCH it, right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report#Program_format

The Stephen Colbert character is a fictional character portrayed by comedian and actor Stephen Colbert. The character is a caricature of news pundits such as Stone Phillips, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Geraldo Rivera, whose shows focus on "bluster and personality".[4][9] Colbert's character, a "well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot", is right-wing, egomaniacal, fact-averse ("factose intolerant"), God-fearing, and hyper-patriotic. He claims to be an independent who is often mistaken for a Republican, but uniformly despises liberals and generally agrees with the actions and decisions of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. This is evidenced by one of the questions that he asks of many of his guests: "George W. Bush: great President, or the greatest President?"[26]

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 01:05 PM
Funny, the blind independent studies found different stats, than your biased sources

Is CBS News biased now? Let's dig deeper. Is everyone except you biased?

bendog
02-07-2012, 01:07 PM
It is, and it isn't, a con. There are basic distinctions between the parties. There were, and I do mean past tense, some decent republicans who sincerely wanted to do something about uninsured folks, but the reality of a mandate and taxing the more well off are unacceptable to the very extreme, and the result of even trying is that those people were either tossed over the side or forced to give up their manhood, e.g. Mitt. An extreme goper cannot be elected potus, i.e. Teaparty. However, there is still a small glimmer of a party that wants to promote a meritocracy even after the debacles of Bushii's adventures in Mesopetamia and looting of the treasury.


I don't think Obama really had a policy vision beyond wanting to be potus and being seen as sort of a transformational rock star that moved past the engrained racism even in the boomer generation to sort of a post-civil rights America. Traditionally, the more extreme wing of the dems is focused on income equality, and some describe that as "guaranteeing outcomes rather than opportunity," though if you think a college age kid has the same opportunity that I had to attend a public 4 year uni w/o taking of debt, I have a bridge in Bagdad that can be your's for a million in missing cold hard cash. So, like a strage mirror of the gop, a dim potus has to do a dance of how far can he go from the extreme to grab the middle. Slick was a master at it.

So, as you say, both parties want power, and for selfish motives aimed at furthering the interests of its clients. Still, there are basic ideological differences that come from how America is seen. But, politically, neither side can move too far towards its base w/o losing power by alienating the middle.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 01:13 PM
Is CBS News biased now? Let's dig deeper. Is everyone except you biased?

According to the Vast Rightwing - there is a liberal media bias, and CBS is on that list.

Everyone is biased, even me - i've outlined a few of my biases above. But i find it interesting you'd rather talk about ME - than actual dealing with the issue - which of course - was how bias interprets satire as "one sided", when the content is shown to "cut both ways"

Besides, i'm sure you don't watch the Colbert report enough to actually have an opinion on it - your deflections non-withstanding to not actually address anything, is more just a ploy to keep deflecting beyond the point that..well...your own bias views things differently - and for some reason that bothers you - that colbert - somehow makes fun of everyone...I don't get it, but hey - that's people.

Trust me - i conflict it everyday! Do you know how hard it is to hate big-gov't & wasteful spending...yet you're rewarding for wasting $?

If you only knew the paradoxes that i fight everyday! :)

Sincerely,

#Theguywhohatespoliticalideologuesyetservesthemino rdertocompletehiscontracts.

alkemical
02-07-2012, 01:16 PM
It is, and it isn't, a con. There are basic distinctions between the parties. There were, and I do mean past tense, some decent republicans who sincerely wanted to do something about uninsured folks, but the reality of a mandate and taxing the more well off are unacceptable to the very extreme, and the result of even trying is that those people were either tossed over the side or forced to give up their manhood, e.g. Mitt. An extreme goper cannot be elected potus, i.e. Teaparty. However, there is still a small glimmer of a party that wants to promote a meritocracy even after the debacles of Bushii's adventures in Mesopetamia and looting of the treasury.


I don't think Obama really had a policy vision beyond wanting to be potus and being seen as sort of a transformational rock star that moved past the engrained racism even in the boomer generation to sort of a post-civil rights America. Traditionally, the more extreme wing of the dems is focused on income equality, and some describe that as "guaranteeing outcomes rather than opportunity," though if you think a college age kid has the same opportunity that I had to attend a public 4 year uni w/o taking of debt, I have a bridge in Bagdad that can be your's for a million in missing cold hard cash. So, like a strage mirror of the gop, a dim potus has to do a dance of how far can he go from the extreme to grab the middle. Slick was a master at it.

So, as you say, both parties want power, and for selfish motives aimed at furthering the interests of its clients. Still, there are basic ideological differences that come from how America is seen. But, politically, neither side can move too far towards its base w/o losing power by alienating the middle.


You make some great points, and i disagree with a few of them. :)

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 01:19 PM
According to the Vast Rightwing - there is a liberal media bias, and CBS is on that list.

Everyone is biased, even me - i've outlined a few of my biases above. But i find it interesting you'd rather talk about ME - than actual dealing with the issue - which of course - was how bias interprets satire as "one sided", when the content is shown to "cut both ways"

Besides, i'm sure you don't watch the Colbert report enough to actually have an opinion on it - your deflections non-withstanding to not actually address anything, is more just a ploy to keep deflecting beyond the point that..well...your own bias views things differently - and for some reason that bothers you - that colbert - somehow makes fun of everyone...I don't get it, but hey - that's people.

Trust me - i conflict it everyday! Do you know how hard it is to hate big-gov't & wasteful spending...yet you're rewarding for wasting $?

If you only knew the paradoxes that i fight everyday! :)

Sincerely,

#Theguywhohatespoliticalideologuesyetservesthemino rdertocompletehiscontracts.

Sorry, but only a person of extreme bias could point to a show that's hated by one side and loved by the other as "centrist"

I've run into plenty of people who try to hold themselves out as 'independent' when in reality they're just as ideologically caged as any fully- admitted partisan. They just think using the label 'independent' gives them added credibility.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 01:21 PM
According to the Vast Rightwing - there is a liberal media bias, and CBS is on that list.

Everyone is biased, even me - i've outlined a few of my biases above. But i find it interesting you'd rather talk about ME - than actual dealing with the issue

You called my MSM source biased (while yourself linking to questionably-sourced political blogs). How is that dealing with the issue?

bendog
02-07-2012, 01:24 PM
You make some great points, and i disagree with a few of them. :)

No doubt, but I think we basically agree that there is a collective group think which is the biggest hindrance to real third party alternatives. If anyone strays from the consensus, both parties lable him "extreme." And the collective group think is fostered by Mainstream Media, which I thought was sort of the issue at present. Colbert is a liberal!

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 01:29 PM
No doubt, but I think we basically agree that there is a collective group think which is the biggest hindrance to real third party alternatives. If anyone strays from the consensus, both parties lable him "extreme." And the collective group think is fostered by Mainstream Media, which I thought was sort of the issue at present. Colbert is a liberal!

In reality, the group think is the natural by-product of having to build a 51% consensus in order to govern. Combine it with the power of modern mass media to homogenize, and you have our present situation.

bendog
02-07-2012, 01:37 PM
No group think is formulated by those who control what we hear inorder to protect their own vested interests, which imo is the core what alkemical is saying. When someone steps away from that, be it Colbert or Paul, it becomes necessary for group think to apply a lable.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 01:57 PM
No group think is formulated by those who control what we hear inorder to protect their own vested interests, which imo is the core what alkemical is saying. When someone steps away from that, be it Colbert or Paul, it becomes necessary for group think to apply a lable.

Colbert is a Democrat. He's said so. I have no problem with that. But let's look at facts. He's not an independent. His show isn't 'centrist' It's marketed to a certain ideological group, and it does well in that niche.

BroncoBuff
02-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Who both have an agenda. Unfortunatly you do not get it.

One tries to make people laugh ... the other tries to make them vote against their own interests.

Or how about this:
Sean Hannity believes EVERY word he speaks.
Stephen Colbert DIS-believes every word he speaks.

Hope that sinks in a bit.

bendog
02-07-2012, 02:42 PM
Colbert is a Democrat. He's said so. I have no problem with that. But let's look at facts. He's not an independent. His show isn't 'centrist' It's marketed to a certain ideological group, and it does well in that niche.

nobody other than you used the word 'centrist.' You're not even trying to read, or perhaps you are simply incapable.

As to Hannity being a true believer, possibly. Good salesmen believe in their product.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 02:45 PM
nobody other than you used the word 'centrist.' You're not even trying to read, or perhaps you are simply incapable.

I know you know what satire is, and when it's done "right" - people aren't sure what side you're on. it's funny how & WHO classifies him as "this or that" - when in reality - his Satire is centrist - that everyone's fair game.

Posted before I ever used the word. I see why you and Alk get along so well though. Insult intelligence first, ask questions later.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 02:53 PM
One tries to make people laugh ... the other tries to make them vote against their own interests.

Or how about this:
Sean Hannity believes EVERY word he speaks.
Stephen Colbert DIS-believes every word he speaks.

Hope that sinks in a bit.

Gotcha. Colbert is a sarcastic Sean Hannity. I can roll with that. :)

Paladin
02-07-2012, 03:24 PM
It is interesting to sit here and watch the tightie whitie rightis' neuroses evolve over just a few pages. Wow.





(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 03:37 PM
It is interesting to sit here and watch the tightie whitie rightis' neuroses evolve over just a few pages. Wow.

Yeah sure.

Colbert is centrist.

No he isn't.

Yes he is.

No he isn't. Here's why.

Well nobody but you ever said anything about centrist :)

BroncoBuff
02-07-2012, 04:13 PM
The center ain't what it used to be.

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Well this sure turned into a useless thread in a hurry.

lonestar
02-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Colbert = Mock Partisan politics and show how stupid the PAC game is.

hannity = Obama a 1 term president.


FTR - I don't have cable television - and I do listen to AM talk radio. :)

Yet your one of the biggest critics of FOX news.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

As for Colbert he has a progressive agenda he pushes via "comedy".

Yep that makes him the same a mouthpiece with an agenda.

lonestar
02-07-2012, 06:47 PM
Except in Colbert's case, there is consensus. Liberals love him for mocking conservatives. Conservatives hate him for mocking conservatives.

It seems to me, in this scenario, it might be you who's connecting dots that aren't there.

Hate that about liberals.

lonestar
02-07-2012, 06:49 PM
Is CBS News biased now? Let's dig deeper. Is everyone except you biased?

Can't wait to see the response to this question.

lonestar
02-07-2012, 06:57 PM
Colbert is a Democrat. He's said so. I have no problem with that. But let's look at facts. He's not an independent. His show isn't 'centrist' It's marketed to a certain ideological group, and it does well in that niche.

Wow as does hannity. The wonders of freedom of the press.

But hopefully one can call a spade a spade and agree that neither is a centrist. They BOTH have Agendas.

Which freedom of the press allows them to express. No mater how wrong Colbert is in his thinking.

Ahahahahahahahahaha

lonestar
02-07-2012, 07:01 PM
One tries to make people laugh ... the other tries to make them vote against their own interests.

Or how about this:
Sean Hannity believes EVERY word he speaks.
Stephen Colbert DIS-believes every word he speaks.

Hope that sinks in a bit.

Pray tell how does "the other" tries to make them vote against their own interests.

The vast majority of his audience believe he is talking about protecting their interests.

Only a liberal would get that wrong.

lonestar
02-07-2012, 07:03 PM
Posted before I ever used the word. I see why you and Alk get along so well though. Insult intelligence first, ask questions later.

Yeah don't let actually facts get in your way like the liberals do!

Great retort.

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 07:11 PM
On a not so lame topic, looks like Santorum is putting on a clinic today.

JCMElway
02-07-2012, 08:02 PM
I still don't think it effects the outcome. Santorum picks up a couple of small, caucus states. No big deal. Romney should cruise in the delegate rich states like Texas and California. Also, Romney will sweep the northeast and most midwest states.

Lycan
02-07-2012, 08:19 PM
How anyone could even think to vote for Santorum boggles my mind. Just go read some of the things this guy has said. Dude is a raging, bigoted, psychopath.

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 08:33 PM
How anyone could even think to vote for Santorum boggles my mind. Just go read some of the things this guy has said. Dude is a raging, bigoted, psychopath.

And my response is... "meh".

I am personally more concerned with things like "Will he make decisions in the interest of the people or corporations?" than I am with things like "Does he like black people?"

Kaylore
02-07-2012, 10:18 PM
My caucus was ambushed by a bunch of Ron Paul supporters. I think they pre-agreed to stack the vote. They passed out literature that was borderline hilarious and their dude was some blogger who talked about how we should all go to his blog and help the mid-east crisis. Why do all Ron Paul supporters seem like crazy nutjobs?

Anyway, it split our vote between Paul and Romney, but it's just a straw poll. The real vote came with the delegates and the rest of the group seemed to get behind Romney. So while the Caucus was split dead even between Romney and Paul, both our delegates we sent to the county convention are Romney supporters.

Dexter
02-07-2012, 10:30 PM
And my response is... "meh".

I am personally more concerned with things like "Will he make decisions in the interest of the people or corporations?" than I am with things like "Does he like black people?"

Corporations. As every politician on both sides of the isle in Washington does. Minus a very very very select few.

Looks like I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils yet again. Hello... Obama Uhh

BroncoBuff
02-07-2012, 10:40 PM
My caucus was ambushed by a bunch of Ron Paul supporters. I think they pre-agreed to stack the vote. They passed out literature that was borderline hilarious and their dude was some blogger who talked about how we should all go to his blog and help the mid-east crisis. Why do all Ron Paul supporters seem like crazy nutjobs?

Anyway, it split our vote between Paul and Romney, but it's just a straw poll. The real vote came with the delegates and the rest of the group seemed to get behind Romney. So while the Caucus was split dead even between Romney and Paul, both our delegates we sent to the county convention are Romney supporters.

Was it pretty fun ... give us more stories.

If I was a Republican, I would have written in Jon Huntsman.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 10:49 PM
The Republican party is devouring itself. I don't know if it will be able to win a presidential election in the next 8 years at this rate, let alone 8 months.

BroncoBuff
02-07-2012, 11:02 PM
I bet you love the Ron Paul ambush TJ, actually sounds fun, you guys are never boring that's for sure.

But I still don't get how a true libertarian can be against a woman's right to choose :ouwknow:

pricejj
02-08-2012, 12:03 AM
Glad to see Colorado buck the liberal media bias. Would Romney carry CO in November if he wins the nomination? How could he, if he lacks support in Republican strongholds?

Drek
02-08-2012, 01:44 AM
I bet you love the Ron Paul ambush TJ, actually sounds fun, you guys are never boring that's for sure.

But I still don't get how a true libertarian can be against a woman's right to choose :ouwknow:

Dude's an OB/GYN. I'd say he knows a bit more about the point of conception than the average citizen. Maybe you should ask yourself why someone who is such a pure libertarian on so many other issues suddenly diverges so strongly on this one thing that is smack dab in his wheel house of expertise.

Glad to see Colorado buck the liberal media bias. Would Romney carry CO in November if he wins the nomination? How could he, if he lacks support in Republican strongholds?

How exactly did Colorado buck the "liberal media bias"? Mind giving some examples of this bias before just throwing it out there like some kind of truism?

And no, CO will be a blue state come November. Just like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada.

BroncoInferno
02-08-2012, 05:00 AM
So, Santorum swept 3 states last night. Hilarious! The GOP is in full meltdown mode. Obama is going to moonwalk to a second term thanks to these lunatics and their hayseed base.

That One Guy
02-08-2012, 05:02 AM
Corporations. As every politician on both sides of the isle in Washington does. Minus a very very very select few.

Looks like I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils yet again. Hello... Obama Uhh

Most likely. I was just saying that as an example of something I'd care more about than someone's personal views. Of course, if someone's personal views were pure ignorance and actually slanted policy, I'd rethink my position but if it's just closet feelings, I wouldn't concern myself too much.

kappys
02-08-2012, 05:21 AM
And my response is... "meh".

I am personally more concerned with things like "Will he make decisions in the interest of the people or corporations?" than I am with things like "Does he like black people?"

"Corporations are people"

BroncoBuff
02-08-2012, 06:31 AM
Dude's an OB/GYN. I'd say he knows a bit more about the point of conception than the average citizen. Maybe you should ask yourself why someone who is such a pure libertarian on so many other issues suddenly diverges so strongly on this one thing that is smack dab in his wheel house of expertise.

Seemed a calculated political decision to me - deviating from libertarian principles on this one critical, politicized issue. You meant viability, right? I think conception occurs before we even catch our breath.

Kaylore
02-08-2012, 06:35 AM
Was it pretty fun ... give us more stories.

If I was a Republican, I would have written in Jon Huntsman.

How's this: In choosing the delegates, one vote got thrown out for my buddy Jason (Romney Supporter) because someone voted wrong. That left the second delegate seat tied with Ron Paul supporter. Cuacus rules dictate that in tie votes, the decision comes down to a coin flip. Jason let Ryan call it (Heads) and it was tails and both delegates were Romney supporters. I would have been ok with either way too because the tie breaking vote would have gone to Jason but got thrown out, but the straw poll was a tie so sending a split group of delegates would have been acceptable.

It was certainly more interesting than the off year caucuses when its usually me and two other people and some donuts and its over in fifteen minutes. :giggle:

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:03 AM
"Corporations are people"

Then Mitt Romney is a serial killer.

:)

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:04 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/forgotten-man-painting-shows-president-obama-trampling-constitution/

‘Forgotten Man’ Painting Shows President Obama Trampling Constitution

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/the-forgotten-man.jpeg

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:05 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/hacked-emails-show-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis-anonymous-claims/

Hacked Emails Show Closer Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis, Anonymous Claims

The hackers group Anonymous has hacked and defaced the website of the American Third Position Party, a Neo-Nazi organization attempting to foment a “white revolution”. Anonymous says emails reveal that Ron Paul regularly holds conference calls with A3P’s board of directors, and that members hold key posts in Ron Paul’s campaign. Is this a smear job based on guilt by association, or outright lies? Or an ugly side of Ron Paul revealed? The International Business Times reports:

Members of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s meetings and campaigns, according emails hacked by the collective. Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.

“According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors,” read a statement from Anonymous.

Paul’s connections with racist supporters have been highlighted by the media in America. Bill White, a former member of the neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Movement, became disillusioned with Paul after a spokesman for the Republican candidate called white supremacy “a small ideology”.

Following the incident, he wrote on a popular white supremacist website: “Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays,” he said. “I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.”

“Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position,” he added.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:06 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/obama-administration-selling-arms-to-bahrain/

Obama Administration Selling Arms to Bahrain

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:21 AM
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/why_conservatives_and_liberals_see_the_world_diffe rently1

Why Conservatives and Liberals see the world differently


On the most recent show, Moyers interviewed University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who many DM readers might be familiar with from his 2008 TED talk on the moral values that liberals and conservatives hold the most highly and how this influences their politics, and from his book The Happiness Hypothesis.

In his upcoming book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Professor Haidt aims to explain what it means when the other side “doesn’t get it” to both sides. He makes some terrifically good points during his interview with Moyers, especially when it comes to explaining how “group think” and “the hive mind” work on both extremes of the political spectrum in America (and in other countries, too).

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:25 AM
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/a_subliminal_message_from_mitt_romney

http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/Mitt_Romney_Money.jpg

Old Dude
02-08-2012, 07:28 AM
Who's this Santorum guy? Sounds like he walked out of a 1950's sitcom.

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:29 AM
Who's this Santorum guy? Sounds like he walked out of a 1950's sitcom.

He's the most corrupt congressmen of 2006, that's who!

Old Dude
02-08-2012, 07:31 AM
Oh, good. More entertainment that way.

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:33 AM
Oh, good. More entertainment that way.

You have no idea.

bendog
02-08-2012, 07:35 AM
Last Friday, CNN's Piers Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his reasoning behind such a callous position. Insisting that "it's not a matter of religious values," Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should "accept this horribly created" pregnancy because it is "nevertheless a gift in a very broken way" and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has "to make the best out of a bad situation":

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/9604-focus-santorum-to-rape-victims-make-the-best-out-of-a-bad-situation

Old Dude
02-08-2012, 07:41 AM
- Gets popcorn -

alkemical
02-08-2012, 07:45 AM
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/the-corrupt-christianist.html

Perhaps the most jarring detail from his tenure in office is the unorthodox $500,000 mortgage that Santorum and his wife secured on the home in rural Virginia they had purchased for $643,361. According to a series of reports in the Philadelphia Daily News, the mortgage came from Philadelphia Trust Company, a fledgling private bank catering to "affluent investors and institutions" whose officers had contributed $24,000 to Santorum's political action committees and re-election campaign.

In advertising, the lender said it only offered its preferred rates to well-heeled borrowers who also used their investment services. But Santorum's public disclosure forms showed he did not have the required minimum $250,000 in liquid assets and was not an investor with Philadelphia Trust. His ability to secure the five-year loan led [Melanie] Sloan to file a complaint under a Senate ethics rule that specifically prohibits members from accepting a loan on terms not available to members of the general public. At the time, a Santorum spokeswoman told the Daily News that the mortgage terms were set at "market rates," but did not provide further comment.

Kaylore
02-08-2012, 07:56 AM
Yeah if Santorum gets any kind of traction it will completely torpedo any shots Republicans have at winning the White House this election cycle.

bendog
02-08-2012, 08:08 AM
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/why_conservatives_and_liberals_see_the_world_diffe rently1In his upcoming book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Professor Haidt aims to explain what it means when the other side “doesn’t get it” to both sides. He makes some terrifically good points during his interview with Moyers, especially when it comes to explaining how “group think” and “the hive mind” work on both extremes of the political spectrum in America (and in other countries, too).

Here is where I think we disagree. Quote from your link:


t would be a waste of time to try to catalog every instance of ill-informed right-wingers who can’t spell “moron,” vehemently protest policies that would actually benefit their own lives, and who think that every single word in the Bible is the infallible utterance of God himself, but at least in this interview (his book isn’t out yet) Haidt fails to demonstrate why stupidity, superstition and flagrant lies about established historical facts deserve intellectual parity alongside of opinions borne of widely accepted science, common sense and a commonly shared national history, as opposed to the made-up one the Reichwing subscribes to.

Hyperbole aside, this quote illustrates two things. First, simply because a working class person doesn't support taxes on the more wealthy that would go to lowering tuition for an education, does not necessarily mean they are "ill informed" or "morons." This I think is Haidt's point, and why the more liberal folks cannot understand some voters. There isn't anything irrational in thinking if somebody earned something it should be their's. One can disagree from a different moral/social perspective, but just because someone has a different moral view doesn't make them stupid.

However, Haidt's view does NOT explain morality or political views based upon prejudice and simple refuation of reality. For example, Reverend posted awhile back that the dem party was the party set out to destroy American families. One can disagree with Obama and even Jerimaih Wright about a lot of stuff, but beyond any doubt both men are committed to a society that protects families and children. Maybe their ways of doing so aren't everyone's cup ot tea, but that's the question Haidt appears to say we can disagree over. But when you get to the birthers or those who equate one political party with Satan (Pat Robertson), a person has departed rational thought and cannot be reasoned with.

Where all this goes is to where I disagree with you. I was reading a paper my kid wrote on Huck Finn, and she nailed it. I don't know where she found it, but she included the de tocqueville critique of America that despite our stated embrace of liberty and equality, America had less independece of mind and critical thinking than anywhere he'd been. Twain's genius is that literally Huck was faced with his kindly aunt wanting so 'sivilize' him so that he could live in a society that promoted inequality for his friends Jim and Becky, so he "lit out" for uncivilized territory.

Simply put it's just uncomfortable to independently criticize society because it means one inevitably confronts his own acceptance of at best morally ambiguous condundrums (pregnant rape victims) and downright moral corruption (locking up addicts who are not violent). Mainstream media is controlled by corporate America which is largely owned by 500-1000 families, and they certainly have no interest in looking at inequality, so Paul's views on our international entanglements are given short shrift, no one is going to rationally discuss the war on drugs, and progressive taxation is "class warfare." But the reality is THEY TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR. We want to be 'sivilized.' It's comfy.

pricejj
02-08-2012, 08:14 AM
And no, CO will be a blue state come November. Just like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada.

Hilarious!


Really? Then who's going to win the World Series and Super Bowl next year?

Matter of fact, just tell me who's going to win Nuggets games for the next week, and I will be a millionaire.

alkemical
02-08-2012, 08:16 AM
Here is where I think we disagree. Quote from your link:


t would be a waste of time to try to catalog every instance of ill-informed right-wingers who can’t spell “moron,” vehemently protest policies that would actually benefit their own lives, and who think that every single word in the Bible is the infallible utterance of God himself, but at least in this interview (his book isn’t out yet) Haidt fails to demonstrate why stupidity, superstition and flagrant lies about established historical facts deserve intellectual parity alongside of opinions borne of widely accepted science, common sense and a commonly shared national history, as opposed to the made-up one the Reichwing subscribes to.

Hyperbole aside, this quote illustrates two things. First, simply because a working class person doesn't support taxes on the more wealthy that would go to lowering tuition for an education, does not necessarily mean they are "ill informed" or "morons." This I think is Haidt's point, and why the more liberal folks cannot understand some voters. There isn't anything irrational in thinking if somebody earned something it should be their's. One can disagree from a different moral/social perspective, but just because someone has a different moral view doesn't make them stupid.

However, Haidt's view does NOT explain morality or political views based upon prejudice and simple refuation of reality. For example, Reverend posted awhile back that the dem party was the party set out to destroy American families. One can disagree with Obama and even Jerimaih Wright about a lot of stuff, but beyond any doubt both men are committed to a society that protects families and children. Maybe their ways of doing so aren't everyone's cup ot tea, but that's the question Haidt appears to say we can disagree over. But when you get to the birthers or those who equate one political party with Satan (Pat Robertson), a person has departed rational thought and cannot be reasoned with.

Where all this goes is to where I disagree with you. I was reading a paper my kid wrote on Huck Finn, and she nailed it. I don't know where she found it, but she included the de tocqueville critique of America that despite our stated embrace of liberty and equality, America had less independece of mind and critical thinking than anywhere he'd been. Twain's genius is that literally Huck was faced with his kindly aunt wanting so 'sivilize' him so that he could live in a society that promoted inequality for his friends Jim and Becky, so he "lit out" for uncivilized territory.

Simply put it's just uncomfortable to independently criticize society because it means one inevitably confronts his own acceptance of at best morally ambiguous condundrums (pregnant rape victims) and downright moral corruption (locking up addicts who are not violent). Mainstream media is controlled by corporate America which is largely owned by 500-1000 families, and they certainly have no interest in looking at inequality, so Paul's views on our international entanglements are given short shrift, no one is going to rationally discuss the war on drugs, and progressive taxation is "class warfare." But the reality is THEY TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR. We want to be 'sivilized.' It's comfy.



Oh, I totally agree. The Commonwealth that I live in now - is going through measures. They're going to be cutting Higher_Ed funding. IMO, from reading what and why we're losing manufacturing - is due to "us" not having the skill level(s). It's been said we need more engineers & science majors. Yet, now in this place, they're going to be cutting the nose to spite the face.

I don't understand the logic sometimes. Even though i do agree that what & what we've been spending $ on...has been wasteful and illadvised at times - with a dose of corruption/collusions between biz & gov't.

As for the "media controlling the message"....Well...you know I'm with ya there.


I thought the article would make good discussion. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it's a running theme...most of it is imagined and doesn't exist. But...more people have themselves invested in their position - and are following the "might is right" (ie: if i shout louder, i'm smarter) mantra. This is not excluded to ONE side (in this imaginary division) - but to all of it.

I'm alarmed at the rising anti-thought & anti-co-operation in Americans.

Play2win
02-08-2012, 08:27 AM
Higher Education funding is an investment in America's Future.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 08:28 AM
Too much hyperbole up in here. Romney will win. Caucuses are dumb. But to pretend that an ugly primary fight preordains a general election win for the other side, is to ignore what happened back in 2008.

Many Democrats were prepared to ignore two of the largest (delegate) states in the country in order to deliver the guy they wanted to the general election. The 2008 Democratic primary was nothing if not ugly.

Fact of the matter is most people (especially the key squishy middle) don't really care until August or September. The rest of it is all inside baseball.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 08:31 AM
Higher Education funding is an investment in America's Future.

Problem is you can spend unlimited amounts in the name of the children. We fund a perpetual avalanche of education and tend to get less and less in return.

bendog
02-08-2012, 08:32 AM
yeah. The pt I tried to make is that there's a natural tendency to accept the logically inconsistent political/moral "norms" in American society. Perhaps what we have is a society that has mini-societies in it. Rick Santorum as an acceptable leader, for example. You and I go WTF! But a lot of guys voted for him, and it's probably safe to say they really do think Obama has declared war on family values. There are people on the left who want to tax others simply becase they have too much money.

But I remember a Reagan speech where he talked about the welfare queen. There may have been an actual person there at one time, but when he delivered his speech he just made up facts to fit what we wanted to believe. Welfare = abuse and sloth. Of course it does in some cases, and reform would be good, but Reagan left out the part about unless someone is given the tools to learn skills they won't make it beyond welfare as he was cutting aid to education. But hey, I got a tax cut. It's like spice, we want to hear that it's ok. But when someone pokes around the edges of our conscience, we need to nail them to a tree.

Old Dude
02-08-2012, 08:35 AM
Yeah if Santorum gets any kind of traction it will completely torpedo any shots Republicans have at winning the White House this election cycle.

Putting all my personal biases aside and just looking at it from a mechanical point of view, it seems to me like the most immediate question is going to be Santorum vs. Ginrich since they are fighting over the same niche of voters. Once one of them withdraws, then, with all due respect to Ron Paul, it's really a classic two-man race for the Republican nomination.

I suppose the longer the fight goes on, there is an increasing danger that some of the fences might be harder to mend and the fewer financial resources the winner would have to use against Obama. That could have an effect if the presidential race turns out as close as expected.

It will be interesting to see if Ginrich can rebound by Super Tuesday, because, in terms of the big picture, he looks like yesterday's biggest loser.

bendog
02-08-2012, 08:43 AM
Putting all my personal biases aside and just looking at it from a mechanical point of view, it seems to me like the most immediate question is going to be Santorum vs. Ginrich since they are fighting over the same niche of voters. Once one of them withdraws, then, with all due respect to Ron Paul, it's really a classic two-man race for the Republican nomination.

I suppose the longer the fight goes on, there is an increasing danger that some of the fences might be harder to mend and the fewer financial resources the winner would have to use against Obama. That could have an effect if the presidential race turns out as close as expected.

It will be interesting to see if Ginrich can rebound by Super Tuesday, because, in terms of the big picture, he looks like yesterday's biggest loser.

If I believe Haley Barbour, Gingrich torpedoes any gop hope too. I don't believe Haley on much, but on elections the guy's a genius.

Edit, I switch between parties, and like Alkemical don't see a whole lot of difference when it gets down to national candidates. But it's sort of like Nixon going to Mao. There was simply no way a post-vietnam dem could open a dialogue with the most vicious commie on the planet. There is no way Obama will get enough gop votes in congress to really address the debt because revenues will have to be part of the solution. You can't balance the budget w/o more revenue unless you radically cut medicare or soc sec. The numbers aren't there. Politically, it'll take a goper who can cobble together dems and gopers who aren't in the just-departed-reality group OR the dems keeping the senate and retaking the House which is just short of impossible.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 08:55 AM
If I believe Haley Barbour, Gingrich torpedoes any gop hope too. I don't believe Haley on much, but on elections the guy's a genius.

Edit, I switch between parties, and like Alkemical don't see a whole lot of difference when it gets down to national candidates. But it's sort of like Nixon going to Mao. There was simply no way a post-vietnam dem could open a dialogue with the most vicious commie on the planet. There is no way Obama will get enough gop votes in congress to really address the debt because revenues will have to be part of the solution. You can't balance the budget w/o more revenue unless you radically cut medicare or soc sec. The numbers aren't there. Politically, it'll take a goper who can cobble together dems and gopers who aren't in the just-departed-reality group OR the dems keeping the senate and retaking the House which is just short of impossible.

There is no avenue to enough revenue to 'fix' Medicare without radically restructuring it. Left on it's own, it would bankrupt the country. This idea that the solution to everything is to fund the death spirals of institutions that aren't working is a big part of the problem.

Old Dude
02-08-2012, 08:57 AM
If I was a Romney supporter, the best case scenario would be, of course, to sweep the upcoming primaries and be done with it.

The worst case scenario would be for one of the other four to steal my momentum and take the lead.

In-between, though, there are a couple different possibilities.

Would it be better to eek into the convention with a mere plurality of delegates (say 45/25/25/5) or with a majority over a single "real" competitor (say 51/44/5)?

What do you folks think?

Spider
02-08-2012, 08:58 AM
If I believe Haley Barbour, Gingrich torpedoes any gop hope too. I don't believe Haley on much, but on elections the guy's a genius.

Edit, I switch between parties, and like Alkemical don't see a whole lot of difference when it gets down to national candidates. But it's sort of like Nixon going to Mao. There was simply no way a post-vietnam dem could open a dialogue with the most vicious commie on the planet. There is no way Obama will get enough gop votes in congress to really address the debt because revenues will have to be part of the solution. You can't balance the budget w/o more revenue unless you radically cut medicare or soc sec. The numbers aren't there. Politically, it'll take a goper who can cobble together dems and gopers who aren't in the just-departed-reality group OR the dems keeping the senate and retaking the House which is just short of impossible.
I lean left, that is no secret , call me a Clinton Democrat , I support fossil fuels , Dont mind more drilling in the right locations , dont mind a pipeline if it is useful to help feed our need here , What I dont support from the gopers is , pro life , tax breaks for the wealthy , anti union , I still dont see why a GOP candidate feels I need to pay more in Taxes then Bill gates , Warren Buffet , G.E. etc .......... I supported the war in Afghanistan , Not Iraq ....I dont believe that religion should be forced on people or forced into schools , or politics ....
and as long as they keep ****ing with my wallet , they can go **** themselfs ....
People that meet me in person say .......Your a democrat ;D ...... I am as redneck as they come , dont **** with my money though

bendog
02-08-2012, 09:06 AM
If I was a Romney supporter, the best case scenario would be, of course, to sweep the upcoming primaries and be done with it.

The worst case scenario would be for one of the other four to steal my momentum and take the lead.

In-between, though, there are a couple different possibilities.

Would it be better to eek into the convention with a mere plurality of delegates (say 45/25/25/5) or with a majority over a single "real" competitor (say 51/44/5)?

What do you folks think?

I think a majority, but it's going to be very confusing because we don't know right now how many actual delegates Fla will get becaue they held their election out of turn, and the three caucuses yesterday don't really allocate all the delegates because there's still a party meeting of sorts. At least that's what I thought I read.

Plus, if I'm Romney, I really don't want any of the other three anywhere near me on my ticket.

Rohirrim
02-08-2012, 09:09 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rnk66Ieyjr0/TyQE8bRSNkI/AAAAAAAAXYs/B-3dWHmEt9g/s320/Romney_Futureworld.jpg

Dexter
02-08-2012, 09:16 AM
Am I the only one that would be extremely shocked if Romney won the general election solely because I can't see this country with the state it is in electing what would be the richest president in U.S. history?

bendog
02-08-2012, 09:25 AM
My guess is that if anyone really held his wealth against him, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. And, imo, it'd backfire on Obama to campagin on that exactly. There might be some ammunition is what his real tax rate is. Honestly, I'll be surprised if Obama isn't re-elected. And I think Jeb would be surprised too as well as royally ticked off

alkemical
02-08-2012, 09:42 AM
My guess is that if anyone really held his wealth against him, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. And, imo, it'd backfire on Obama to campagin on that exactly. There might be some ammunition is what his real tax rate is. Honestly, I'll be surprised if Obama isn't re-elected. And I think Jeb would be surprised too as well as royally ticked off

I really would love Anon to hack all these guys and see what's up.

Give us REAL transparency to make decisions. (Since the corporate media won't due us any favors)

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 09:53 AM
Am I the only one that would be extremely shocked if Romney won the general election solely because I can't see this country with the state it is in electing what would be the richest president in U.S. history?

I don't know, we've got the current president running around the country asking WWWD?

(Warren)

TonyR
02-08-2012, 09:54 AM
These are not the hallmarks of a race with a dominant candidate. Nor, even, of a race with a candidate like John Kerry, the best of a somewhat weak lot of Democrats in 2004, but one whom the party settled upon fairly quickly. Instead, this race bears more resemblance to something like the 1984 Democratic contest or the 1976 Republican race. There was a favorite in each of those contests — Walter Mondale in 1984 and Gerald Ford in 1976 — and they were ahead in the delegate count more or less from start to finish. But both contests progressed through all 50 states and were not that far from going to the convention.http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/g-o-p-race-has-hallmarks-of-prolonged-battle/

Dexter
02-08-2012, 09:56 AM
My guess is that if anyone really held his wealth against him, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. And, imo, it'd backfire on Obama to campagin on that exactly. There might be some ammunition is what his real tax rate is. Honestly, I'll be surprised if Obama isn't re-elected. And I think Jeb would be surprised too as well as royally ticked off

Yeah, I'm sure they'd pull the whole "class warfare" crap. God forbid we point out that Romney while claiming to be patriotic decides to have his money in foreign bank accounts.

Don't get me wrong though, this won't be the sole reason I won't be voting for him. But it won't really surprise me if it is for a good majority of other voters who are struggling.

I'd vote for a republican, if they had good values and actually cared about the people. Not that a lot of democrats do either, but at least they usually have a few better social values in my book.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 10:01 AM
Yeah, I'm sure they'd pull the whole "class warfare" crap. God forbid we point out that Romney while claiming to be patriotic decides to have his money in foreign bank accounts.

Good luck doing any international business without money in foreign accounts.

TonyR
02-08-2012, 10:03 AM
Until last night, I would have pegged Romney as by far the most electable in the GOP field. Now I’m not at all sure. Obviously he has more appeal to the independent swing voters than Santorum does. But who gets excited about the prospect of voting for Romney? If Romney is the next president, he’s going to get no respect from Congressional Republicans, who will know how weak he is, even with his own base.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/02/08/santorum-shocks-romney/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=santorum-shocks-romney

alkemical
02-08-2012, 10:03 AM
Romney's $ = your outsourced jobs..which is why his $ is probably offshore...

Dexter
02-08-2012, 10:05 AM
Good luck doing any international business without money in foreign accounts.

Yeah, just international business.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/romneys-wife-had-3-million-in-ubs-unit-closed-for-helping-us-citizens-evade-taxes.html

Nothing sketchy about this at all..

What a great patriot we have here....

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 10:24 AM
Yeah, just international business.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/romneys-wife-had-3-million-in-ubs-unit-closed-for-helping-us-citizens-evade-taxes.html

Nothing sketchy about this at all..

What a great patriot we have here....

A more balanced read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/should-i-put-my-money-in-caribbean-tax-havens-like-mitt-romney-does/251732/

Spider
02-08-2012, 10:28 AM
A more balanced read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/should-i-put-my-money-in-caribbean-tax-havens-like-mitt-romney-does/251732/

Poor Mitt ........ I think we should hold a bake sale for him and give him a great big thank you for all the hard work he does hiding his money in the cayman islands ....... Not easy thats for sure

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 10:32 AM
Poor Mitt ........ I think we should hold a bake sale for him and give him a great big thank you for all the hard work he does hiding his money in the cayman islands ....... Not easy thats for sure

Anyone want to take bets on whether John Kerry has money in overseas accounts?

Spider
02-08-2012, 10:33 AM
Anyone want to take bets on whether John Kerry has money in overseas accounts?

and this has what to do with this election ?
besides most of his fortune belongs to the woman he knocks booths with , catchup queen ...... Hienz

Dexter
02-08-2012, 10:34 AM
A more balanced read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/should-i-put-my-money-in-caribbean-tax-havens-like-mitt-romney-does/251732/

Decent article. I read this one however regarding his "blind trust" http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/27/413423/romneys-blind-trust-was-not-very-blind/

Either way, I just can't get over this. I if I thought he'd use some of his business skill to get this country out of debt I might vote for him. But chances are he's just going to keep on giving the rich tax cuts, which won't trickle down to the diminishing middle class, and favor corporations over people.

He's also incredibly inconsistent on his values. Although I wish he'd change a few.

bowtown
02-08-2012, 10:35 AM
John Kerry is running for president again!?!?!

24champ
02-08-2012, 10:39 AM
GOP doesn't get it. Economy is the #1 issue and they have so far rejected Huntsman, Paul and not really liking Romney. Yet last night they vote for a big spending social conservative that will get steamrolled in the General. What gives?

Like Taco said the GOP is trying its damnedest to be irrelevant for the next 8 years.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 10:39 AM
and this has what to do with this election ?
besides most of his fortune belongs to the woman he knocks booths with , catchup queen ...... Hienz

I think it might actually be a plus to have someone in office who understands how this stuff works. As the article I posted states, much of Romney's overseas investments are overseas because that's how Bain makes money off it's international investments.

So long as Romney is sincere, I'd give him much better odds of figuring out how to make America competitive internationally again than some life-long politician whose biggest experience with the world of finance came from calling in some favors on a sweetheart mortgage.

alkemical
02-08-2012, 10:44 AM
http://www.neatorama.com/2012/02/06/future-jobs-for-high-school-grads/

Future Jobs for High School Grads


Want fries with your job? The good news: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics's latest job growth prediction, the US economy will add millions of jobs for Americans with only a high school diploma.

According to the BLS, there will be 20.4 million more jobs in 2020 than there were in 2010. About 12.8 million of those jobs will require a high school degree or less. Many of those will be clustered in services. The country will need more healthcare aides to look after a rapidly aging population. There will be more work in food preparation, retail, and office administration. The graph below depicts the occupations requiring a high school degree or less that are expected to add the most jobs (from left to right).


http://static.neatorama.com/images/2012-02/high-school-jobs.jpg

Spider
02-08-2012, 10:45 AM
I think .

an idiot with an opinion who thinks , thats rare