02-03-2015 05:27 AM
401 ... 1112131415 ...
tools
  1. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I guess I am missing something here, since you said, "...If I took money for accepting something on my job I could end up in jail...". So it's a government job? I just don't understand how you could end up in jail.
    If I accepted a bad weld, knowingly, and being paid by a company to accept it. Especially if someone got hurt or killed by said faulty product.
    No, not government work either.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-08-2014 11:29 AM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    Why do you find slimy behavior acceptable? Why isn't any other profession held to such a low standard? If I took money for accepting something on my job I could end up in jail and I would lose my certifications as rightly so. Thats one of the biggest reasons I'm tired of people being blinded by their political parties.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Where exactly do you get that I find slimy behavior acceptable? I was comparing being a politician to being a car salesman, which isn't complimenting either profession. I find both parties to be disgusting for different reasons. What gives me more angst with regards to the GOP is the fact that most of their biggest donors are billionaires.

    The biggest problem I see with our system is that there is too wide a gap between the richest and the poorest. With a stronger middle class there would be more production of goods because people would have disposable income. The money is currently going up towards the top 1%. Thus, why would I align myself with politicians that are being backed by the very people that have decimated the middle class all in the name of greed?
    04-08-2014 08:45 PM
  3. toober's Avatar
    The biggest problem I see with our system is that there is too wide a gap between the richest and the poorest. With a stronger middle class there would be more production of goods because people would have disposable income. The money is currently going up towards the top 1%. Thus, why would I align myself with politicians that are being backed by the very people that have decimated the middle class all in the name of greed?
    Maybe we should think about electing conservatives instead of liberals. According to the government's own numbers, Democrats are worse for the middle class and the poor the Republicans.
    Party of the Rich? That's the Democrats
    And yet, when we look at the data, what do we see? The Democrats are actually the party of the rich, the Republicans are the party of the middle class, and the Republicans may even have a slight lead over the Democrats in representing the poor.
    But please, let's not let little things such as facts get in the way of our talking points.
    04-08-2014 10:27 PM
  4. pappy53's Avatar
    What gives me more angst with regards to the GOP is the fact that most of their biggest donors are billionaires.
    Uh huh.

    https://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/116...ew-party-rich/
    04-08-2014 10:52 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    The original data doesn't say what Kyle Becker twisted this into at all. This is why, when sourcing arguments, we ought not use partisan blogs but slice and dice the actual data ourselves or go to trusted fact checking sites who may have already done the analysis.

    Note: I can't stand this argument because it's basically bragging about which side cheated everyone more, but just linking to obviously false representations of data should be questioned and it is something that I work with a lot anyways when sending letters and making calls to state legislators for the campaign to put a stop to this buffoonery. I already have the data and use opensecrets.org as a source as well (the chart linked is from them) and thus can easily set the record straight. Democrats and Republicans are the exact same thing to me and in my opinion 100% of the money spent on this legal bribery would have been better spent (in terms of positive benefit to our country) by lighting it on fire. That being said, the idea that republicans are being funded by giant donations from extremely wealthy individuals less than democrats are is laughable and an easy and obvious lie to disprove. Limiting the scope to who donates to the RNC and the DNC and widening the period in order to prove your point is not only bad analytic methodology but as quote unquote journalists it is unethical and deceptive.

    The giant disclaimer at the top states that it doesn't include dark money (like Americans for Prosperity) and doesn't include Sheldon Adelson, who according to opensecrets.org donated $93 million to conservative super-PACs in 2012 alone (which not including all of the donations over the previous two decades would put him by himself #2 on the list). In fact, in that 2012 race, when you look at individuals, Adelson spent more than all of the top democrats in the top 50 list . That's 22 of the top 50 that summed to about $77,721,685 compared to his $92,796,625. That doesn't include the other 27 top donors who contributed to the campaigns. The top 3 (all republican) contributed twice as much as the top 18 democrats combined. There is a disparity there. In that same election, outside spending was more than 2:1 conservative vs all others while the top 4 conservative groups outspent all liberal groups combined.

    This doesn't include the 501(c)(4) donors, who are not reported due to their abuse of that status. Those groups, with conservatives outspending liberals 7.5:1, spent 68% of their nearly $300 million against democrat candidates, 18% for republican candidates (that's about 86% or just shy of 7/8) and 11% against republican candidates, with the final 4% in favor of democratic candidates. Keep in mind, exactly $0 of all of that money was supposed to be spent on politics.

    There is an easy and obvious solution to all of this: money out of politics. Bring the liberal campaign contribution down to $0 and the conservative campaign contribution down to $0, let them funnel those billions of dollars each season into the economy instead. Campaign finance is another term for legalized bribery and it is disgusting. Politics is not supposed to be a game that one gets rich playing.
    04-09-2014 04:23 AM
  6. msndrstood's Avatar
    Maybe we should think about electing conservatives instead of liberals. According to the government's own numbers, Democrats are worse for the middle class and the poor the Republicans.
    Party of the Rich? That's the Democrats

    But please, let's not let little things such as facts get in the way of our talking points.
    From a right wing website. Ok.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    A895 and rexxman like this.
    04-09-2014 08:26 AM
  7. toober's Avatar
    From a right wing website. Ok.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Facts don't change. Their data was from the US census. I would have linked to a left wing site if there were any that had taken the time to analyze the data and not ignored it as they tend to do.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    04-09-2014 08:35 AM
  8. msndrstood's Avatar
    Facts don't change. Their data was from the US census. I would have linked to a left wing site if there were any that had taken the time to analyze the data and not ignored it as they tend to do.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    After reading a few of the headlines on that site, I'll take it with a block of salt.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-09-2014 08:36 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    From a right wing website. Ok.
    Facts don't change. Their data was from the US census. I would have linked to a left wing site if there were any that had taken the time to analyze the data and not ignored it as they tend to do.
    This is why, when sourcing arguments, we ought not use partisan blogs but slice and dice the actual data ourselves or go to trusted fact checking sites who may have already done the analysis.
    Since these three posts happened in succession, I would take the opportunity that they are all related to each other.
    04-09-2014 08:38 AM
  10. toober's Avatar
    After reading a few of the headlines on that site, I'll take it with a block of salt.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    As long as they can back up their statements with facts, I'll take their word for it.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    04-09-2014 08:40 AM
  11. msndrstood's Avatar
    Since these three posts happened in succession, I would take the opportunity that they are all related to each other.
    I saw your post after I posted mine. You covered all the points.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-09-2014 08:47 AM
  12. msndrstood's Avatar
    Eye opening.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/04/09/glob...ium=socialflow

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri and A895 like this.
    04-09-2014 08:58 AM
  13. palandri's Avatar
    Eye opening.

    Global rankings study: America in warp-speed decline - Salon.com

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    No surprise there.
    04-09-2014 12:31 PM
  14. msndrstood's Avatar
    No surprise there.
    Depressing.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri likes this.
    04-09-2014 12:42 PM
  15. toober's Avatar
    Eye opening.

    Global rankings study: America in warp-speed decline - Salon.com

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Thank you, you have proven your point nicely about using partisan web sites. Do you have anything that can refute the arguments made on the link I posted, or is just that is is a right wing site enough to disregard what was stated?

    As for the link posted here, I am not seeing anything about why the US ranks so low. Have they taken into account that the US spends more money on foreign aid than any of the top ranked countries? How much more could we do in our own country with the $49.5 billion we are giving in military and financial aid? Would some of these other countries rank as high if they had to pay for their own military? When we have a base in another country, we are offering not only free protection, but our soldiers and their families spend money boosting their economies. If we were to leave these countries to their own devices, how long would it be before they were taken over by another country or face an economic collapse?
    There is also the issue of size. As a country's population grows, it becomes more diverse and will eventually get to a point that is impossible to effectively govern. With over 300 million people, the US has reached that point. While many keep up the argument that we need more government, what we need is to break up the union into smaller parts. Did you notice that the happiest countries on that list were the smallest? There is a reason for that. The Average Country has a population of around 34 million people. The US has almost 10 times that amount. There is no way our federal government can govern that amount effectively.

    So, what of the U.S? In terms of happiness, we rank 17th, trailing neighboring Mexico
    On this point, I have to call BS. If the people in Mexico are so damned happy, why are they fighting so hard to come here? This single statement makes me doubt the integrity of the entire argument. It also looks like the biggest thing they were measuring was how socialist a country is.
    04-09-2014 07:48 PM
  16. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Eye opening.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/04/09/glob...ium=socialflow

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Wow. After you like what darth spock posted about not using biased media sources you post from salon and alternet (liberal progressive sites)

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-09-2014 07:52 PM
  17. msndrstood's Avatar
    Wow. After you like what darth spock posted about not using biased media sources you post from salon and alternet (liberal progressive sites)

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Yep, I did.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-09-2014 10:49 PM
  18. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Yep, I did.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    A little hypocritical, no?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-09-2014 10:57 PM
  19. msndrstood's Avatar
    A little hypocritical, no?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    No. Facts are facts.

    http://www.mercer.com/press-releases...ng-report-2014

    http://www.businessinsider.com/top-c...ex-2013-5?op=1

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    A895 likes this.
    04-09-2014 11:30 PM
  20. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Ok, I'll bite and from what I read from your previous source (alternet) to your new one. Wow. There is a whole lot of biased and "the world would be better if we were all liberal" on the alternet that you posted and had alot more opinions thrown in with the survey.

    Now about the survey, the business insider did not come up with the same results as alternet because the surveys were using different criteria.

    The business insider said that
    The (OECD) an international economic organization analyzed 34 countries in11 categories, including income, housing, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work-life balance.
    and alternet said
    132 nations and evaluates 54 social and environmental indicators for each country that matter to real people. Rather than measuring a countrys success by its per capita GDP, the index is based on an array of data reflecting suicide, ecosystem sustainability, property rights, access to healthcare and education, gender equality, attitudes toward immigrants and minorities, religious freedom, nutrition, infrastructure and more.
    In other words alternet instead used things that matter to someone of a more liberal mentality to make a survey in their own favor. Anyone can make a survey outcome be in their favor by constricting the sample points of a survey.

    On edit: I also would like to know how they measure some of these sample points. How do you poll life satisfaction? If I'm happy about something in my life, you might not be. Example: say I just purchased a new gun, I may enjoy the fact I may be able to purchase something like that when you may not.

    Religious freedom? Alot of the time the people that cry for that are usually the ones that try to sue someone for having a "Merry Christmas" sign in their yard.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-10-2014 04:24 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    Some comedian said something to this effect the other day on YouTube and it goes back to a concept that is about 240 years old (and probably older), but somehow it feels appropriate today too (I'm paraphrasing): If you find yourself angry at a/some stranger(s) that has/have personally not trespassed against you and they happen to be lower on the socioeconomic spectrum than you are, there is a very high likelihood that you are being manipulated by someone much higher on that spectrum than you are.


    On a side note, I thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly recommend that each and every person read as much of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin's available collectible works as you can stomach. All of these folks sing to the libertarian in me but also in the total context of each other, etc they scream out of the reader's soul the necessity of critical self evaluation and ethical self investigation on matters ESPECIALLY when someone powerful has a financial or other marked interest in your participation in their narrative. There is no way to overstate the imperative premise of abstract rationality in the face of propaganda. Think, read, pray - do whatever it takes to remove yourself from group think and understand that sometimes what's best for the individual is playing on the team and we are deeply interconnected.... and sometimes what is best for the team is that no individual's rights are trampled even in the the name of the greater good.


    Liberal, conservative... a jedi cares not for these things. Rich, poor - it's all human. Figure that out. Either we're all worthy of dignity or none of us are... and if you are leaning towards that latter category, I am sorry to be the one to inform you... you are not the one in control of this situation.

    /End of Rant.
    04-10-2014 06:26 AM
  22. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Some comedian said something to this effect the other day on YouTube and it goes back to a concept that is about 240 years old (and probably older), but somehow it feels appropriate today too (I'm paraphrasing): If you find yourself angry at a/some stranger(s) that has/have personally not trespassed against you and they happen to be lower on the socioeconomic spectrum than you are, there is a very high likelihood that you are being manipulated by someone much higher on that spectrum than you are.


    On a side note, I thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly recommend that each and every person read as much of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin's available collectible works as you can stomach. All of these folks sing to the libertarian in me but also in the total context of each other, etc they scream out of the reader's soul the necessity of critical self evaluation and ethical self investigation on matters ESPECIALLY when someone powerful has a financial or other marked interest in your participation in their narrative. There is no way to overstate the imperative premise of abstract rationality in the face of propaganda. Think, read, pray - do whatever it takes to remove yourself from group think and understand that sometimes what's best for the individual is playing on the team and we are deeply interconnected.... and sometimes what is best for the team is that no individual's rights are trampled even in the the name of the greater good.


    Liberal, conservative... a jedi cares not for these things. Rich, poor - it's all human. Figure that out. Either we're all worthy of dignity or none of us are... and if you are leaning towards that latter category, I am sorry to be the one to inform you... you are not the one in control of this situation.

    /End of Rant.


    While I have read alot of Jefferson, a little Franklin an none of Paine, I agree with them. My biggest problem with the government is that it's too big. It was NEVER intended to be this big. People often mistake me as conservative. I am an independent that leans heavily toward libertarian.

    What I mean is the government should not take care of rich or poor. It's not it's job. And while I do agree with most of what you said, I don't agree with the lower on the socioeconomic part.


    On edit: Maybe I do agree on the socioeconomic part by saying that the politicians that give things to people for votes rich or poor since I am in a lower socioeconomic class than the politicians.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-10-2014 06:44 AM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    While I have read alot of Jefferson, a little Franklin an none of Paine, I agree with them. My biggest problem with the government is that it's too big. It was NEVER intended to be this big. People often mistake me as conservative. I am an independent that leans heavily toward libertarian.

    What I mean is the government should not take care of rich or poor. It's not it's job. And while I do agree with most of what you said, I don't agree with the lower on the socioeconomic part.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    To be clear, this isn't directed at any individual but at the interwebs as a whole. That being said, I have a very different definition of what conservative and liberal mean and they tend to be staked in the non-partisan philosophical context where liberal promotes liberty while conservative promotes efficiency and preservation (or conservation) of resources, values, etc. Obviously, they disagree with modern political views of the words - but I don't think that is my fault and I'd challenge just about anyone to defend the core ideals of their silly party's arguments via the foundations established by their respective philosophical masters. Ayn Rand speaks for approximately no one of intellectual stature; rinse repeat for Marx, Mao, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Rove, Kirchner, Windsor, Palin, Thatcher or Rockefeller. The mental giants of our history all agree on liberty, agree 99% on ethics and disagree only on the balance of individual liberty versus the optimization of the society. American (and mostly global) politics has such a warped context to all of this that the entire meaning is lost and people are left squabbling over scraps of what it feels like to involve one's very essence in the fabric of promoting the rights of human kind. This is a new journey and mistakes are anticipated, but we seem to have grown proud of our missteps and doubled down on pretending that they are virtues.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    04-10-2014 07:06 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    On edit: Maybe I do agree on the socioeconomic part by saying that the politicians that give things to people for votes rich or poor since I am in a lower socioeconomic class than the politicians.
    Manipulating the freedom to choose of other persons or groups of persons is wrong by just about every definition of morality that we accept as plausible for general argument. Politicians (and their media) ought not be twisting information in order to get you to do something, but providing you with information for you to make your own decisions. I think we agree that this is not the current state of affairs. Democrat, republican, Fox, MSNBC .. the sooner we realize that the establishment is the establishment and that we are not.... the sooner we realize that we truly are at war, but it is not against each other unless we choose to ignore the facts. They are all the same entity and we should be using our ability to reason and our defense of our own and each other's rights and dignity to band together ... not accepting their nonsense at face value and slapping each other (and thus ourselves) in the face with their rhetoric.

    Edit: I'm not trying to rant AT you, so please do not take my statements as an attack on your positions. I'm really just arguing for a form of solidarity in which we mostly all agree to use reason and logic to combat propaganda in a mutual self interest based on our social and spiritual (I can't think of a better word right now) interdependence.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    04-10-2014 07:13 AM
  25. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Manipulating the freedom to choose of other persons or groups of persons is wrong by just about every definition of morality that we accept as plausible for general argument. Politicians (and their media) ought not be twisting information in order to get you to do something, but providing you with information for you to make your own decisions. I think we agree that this is not the current state of affairs. Democrat, republican, Fox, MSNBC .. the sooner we realize that the establishment is the establishment and that we are not.... the sooner we realize that we truly are at war, but it is not against each other unless we choose to ignore the facts. They are all the same entity and we should be using our ability to reason and our defense of our own and each other's rights and dignity to band together ... not accepting their nonsense at face value and slapping each other (and thus ourselves) in the face with their rhetoric.

    Edit: I'm not trying to rant AT you, so please do not take my statements as an attack on your positions. I'm really just arguing for a form of solidarity in which we mostly all agree to use reason and logic to combat propaganda in a mutual self interest based on our social and spiritual (I can't think of a better word right now) interdependence.
    To be clear, this isn't directed at any individual but at the interwebs as a whole. That being said, I have a very different definition of what conservative and liberal mean and they tend to be staked in the non-partisan philosophical context where liberal promotes liberty while conservative promotes efficiency and preservation (or conservation) of resources, values, etc. Obviously, they disagree with modern political views of the words - but I don't think that is my fault and I'd challenge just about anyone to defend the core ideals of their silly party's arguments via the foundations established by their respective philosophical masters. Ayn Rand speaks for approximately no one of intellectual stature; rinse repeat for Marx, Mao, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Rove, Kirchner, Windsor, Palin, Thatcher or Rockefeller. The mental giants of our history all agree on liberty, agree 99% on ethics and disagree only on the balance of individual liberty versus the optimization of the society. American (and mostly global) politics has such a warped context to all of this that the entire meaning is lost and people are left squabbling over scraps of what it feels like to involve one's very essence in the fabric of promoting the rights of human kind. This is a new journey and mistakes are anticipated, but we seem to have grown proud of our missteps and doubled down on pretending that they are virtues.
    No, I didn't take it as it was directed at only me.

    I agree with what you said 100%. I trust the words of fallen patriots long before those that have corporate hands in their pockets. I hear people talk all of the time about wanting to change the constitution. I'm terrified of the thought of folly that would occur on such journey and the ultimate cost, not only in gold but of blood. When the founding fathers made our own government, they came from an oppressive government. With all of the earmarks due to corporate hands in the pockets, the thought of trusting any current politician more is too terrible to contemplate.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-10-2014 07:47 AM
401 ... 1112131415 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Make choose action menu GO AWAY!!!!!!
    By Dallas Medina in forum Android 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.3 Jelly Bean
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 03:52 PM
  2. [Free][3D]Fire Making
    By jkm0114 in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2014, 11:48 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 05:10 PM
  4. Nexus 7: Why does Google search want permission to make phone calls.
    By smoggyturnip in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 09:27 AM
  5. iCallYou - Making a difference - Remind Your Friend(s)
    By roselalalar in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 03:07 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD