/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 384374)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 137877595518.jpg - (30.96KB , 369x400 , politician[1].jpg )
384374 No. 384374
New thread because the old one had to be nuked from orbit.
Expand all images
>> No. 384375
i went to a political meeting with the deputy first minister tonight and it was pretty cool. i'm going to a rally on the 21st and i'm thinking about doing some campaign volunteering. this is all so interesting.
>> No. 384376
Thank you anon for the drunk answer.

I had a couple more questions, but I don't want to start anything.
>> No. 384380
jesus fucking christ
fuck mexican politics

granted, the president is actually not as bad as everyone predicted but anyone in any lower rung is pretty much some of the worst humanity has to offer
>> No. 384384
>> No. 384395
File 137881465613.png - (42.16KB , 540x540 , What_the_fuck_happened.png )
>the old one had to be nuked from orbit

Usually threads get locked instead of deleted unless something major happens. So what'd I miss?
>> No. 384396
>> No. 384397
Dickwolves, lots and lots of them.

And on other matters...

> http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2013/09/09/tsr-intv-obama-blitzer-assad-threat.cnn.html
> Obama: Assad's threats not credible Obama: Assad's threats not credible
> President tells CNN that Syria does not have means to threaten the U.S.

Uhm, I thought a big part of the justification to go Mossad on Assad's ass, was because he was a threat to us? I recall Kerry saying that very clearly, yes I do.
>> No. 384400
I'm actually curious too. The last thread certainly got heated, but that's kind of inevitable in politics threads. From everything I saw, a lock + telling people to drop it in the OP of the new thread would suffice.
What gives?
>> No. 384401
The topic of feminism/rape devolved into generics, mainly because it was everyone arguing against a single troll.

It was the only way to be sure.
>> No. 384403
Please be quiet, you didn't get banned. Everyone who disagreed with you got banned. But apparently resorting to adhoms is not a banworthy offense.

Who was the single troll? I know for 100% that each side had at least 2 supporters.
Slowpoke and an anon on one side, since you haven't banned him and he isn't the "one troll".

Me and another anon on the other side, which I know for sure because I'm not him. And we were keeping it civil while slowpoke and his anon called us names.
>> No. 384404
figured it was a "drop it" moment when I saw a complete lack of that thread on the front page. Which, message received. It's a difficult topic and not much is really gained in rehashing it again, we'd just come to the same conclusions, as it were. Defending someone's right to say something shitty toes a really fine line where eventually, they're not really defensible, the exercise is simply academic.

See, I was never under that impression that Syria had the ability to directly threaten the U.S. I was under the impression that the U.S. trying to strong arm Syria was a little bit more about appeasing Allied Nations and trade partners in that region, and in general just playing world police again.
>> No. 384405
>Everyone who disagreed with you got banned.

You know this how?

Sage is for off topic and meta.

More on this >>384397
>> No. 384406
Is it bad that I think it's a little hypocritical that (at least in the US and Canada) we want as much privacy as we can get but expect the government(s) to turn into a glass house?
>> No. 384407
I don't know if it's "bad" so much as "silly." The government is not a person. And "government transparency" does not mean we get any more access to the private lives of the people in charge of government than any other person on the planet--those arguing in favor of government transparency neither expect nor want Obama to let us watch him poop. At least most of them don't. I'm sure there are a couple of crazies and poop fetishists who do.

Democracy only works if people can vote based on their opinions of the performance of the people in power. If we are not told what our representatives are doing with the power we have given them, then our vote becomes meaningless--we may as well just throw a random number generator to decide who's going to be elected.

The fight for Government Transparency is ultimately about the same thing the Founders fought the Revolutionary War over--remember "No taxation without representation?" People who are in favor of government transparency feel that those who are lied to about what their representatives are doing do not have representation.

But even setting aside the question of whether or not we're being represented if we don't know what the people we elect do once they'r elected, there's the issue of accountability--accountability is the entire reason we allow government to do things that would get an ordinary citizen scorned by civilization. We allow the government to take our money to build things everyone needs because there is a paper trail showing how that money is spent. We allow the government to hire uniformed thugs to enforce its rules because when those thugs abuse their power we can get their badge numbers and find the documentation of the incidents in question. We allow the government to commit homicide because when they do, there is paperwork that can be followed to provide proof that it was necessary.

Once those receipts and paperwork are no longer available to the people of the United States, the actions of government that we accept as necessary to an orderly society no longer have any way of proving they're being done for good reasons--and such actions, with no proof of justification, become Tyranny.
>> No. 384408
I'm actually okay with more transparency in public because everyone in America likes drinking and fucking and shitting and generally being jerks and it's all kept under wraps by this whole Christian notion being "ideal" and it makes the whole nation just schizophrenic. I think a little more transparency on both sides would be nice.
>> No. 384415



I'm not understanding your desire for "transparency" from private citizens and their activities. Private corporations, maybe, because they are "owned" by many different shareholders, their shares change hands frequently, etc. but private individuals have no duty to disclose where they go, what they do, or how they spend their money. If they volunteer that information, as is their right, it's different; you post on Facebook you're at Wendy's, or that you like mt. Dew, it's in a public forum, and assumed you're ok with everyone and their mom, as well as Uncle Sam, knowing that info. But you have an expectation of privacy in your home, and the legal burden is on the government to justify intrusions into your home. Likewise, you're guaranteed to be secure in your person, papers, and effects unless legal justification is provided; the burden is on the state to demonstrate why they can violate that otherwise sacrosanct privacy/freedom from search.

If you're talking social transparency, that's different. People will always be two-faced and hide socially/personally shameful activity/beliefs, whether legal or not, from others. The phenomena of social media and the ubiquity of recording devices connected to the internet means it'll be harder to do so, but not impossible. But I feel I have no more right to know my neigh it's secrets or non-publicized vices than he does mine.

Every society has the problem you describe. America it's just exaggerated by our Calvinist culture ("if you do bad/bad things happen to you, you're predestined to hell; same reason we became so gung ho capitalist) combined with a sense of entitlement (we've had it really well the past century, no wars on our own soil; manifest destiny/thinking we're some exceptional nation with divinely ordained importance).

The cure for it is education, not a loss of privacy
>> No. 384419
Except that loss of some privacy would act as a kind of education.

It's that Calvinist Ideal that needs to die. That is the single largest thing that fucks our country and our ability as a people to have mature discussions about what's going on. It's the single largest thing that fuels the loudest, brashest idiots who inject the most confusion and doubt into the entire system. For no reason other than to secure power for people who don't give a shit about them.

I actually like the idea of Big Data. I like the idea that on an unprecedented level, we can monitor people and see what they're actually doing, and see it in aggregate. That we can affect policy with an idea of What's Actually Going On, not What We Think is Going On.

All this NSA stuff comes out and everybody sucks their panties straight up into the blackhole of knowledge and burritos that is their asses. At the same time, I just saw an article from the Associate Press that's like, "Google was War Driving Unencryptd Wireless Networks while it was taking pictures for Maps". And everyone's up in arms about a practice that has been possible for anyone to do with cheap equipment and free software for 20 years. It's the reason your wireless router comes standard with encryption protocols that dipshits don't enable.

I am in favor of Social Transparency as an Education Experience. I am in favor of showing people the vast divide not just between economic income but between education, experience, and frankly ability. If the Federal Government comes out and goes "by processing Phone Records, we've figured out that 70% of the nation smokes pot. So we're going to De-criminalize that Federally and let the rest of the shit work itself out", I would be ecstatic.

After a Lifetime on the Internet, a Lifetime of being force to post links to the Relevant Research and then let the forum savage that as it may, I am ready for a Federal Government that actually does rely on Data, and not Supposition.

Yeah I realize that's largely unreasonable but I'm sick of being stuck in a Country where the perception is we're all fucking idiots. Clearly that's not fucking true, and we should stop acting like it is. That just makes people okay with being stupid, and treating every opinion like it has the exact same weight when they don't.
>> No. 384421
Okay, but here's the thing: let's say you're writing a book about a MacGuyver type character, and you need to know what materials he would need to have available to rig up a bomb to get out of a place. In a sane world, you just look that shit up and be done with it. In a world where everything you do is constantly surveilled, suddenly you start asking yourself if you should be looking up that information--it has a chilling information on our actions because we're afraid of giving the appearance of guilt.

Additionally, most of the people who have access to this sort of information are contractors, young people who aren't necessarily that loyal or disciplined--look at how Snowden defected once his principles were challenged (or, depending how you see him, once he saw an opportunity for glory). However you see Snowden, one assumes that with that many contractors with so little accountability, you're going to get people who are going to abuse their power. And they have more or less unfettered access to everything the NSA can crack--which includes things like financial statements, bank numbers, and the ability to personally stalk on love interests or exes using taxpayer money and the power of the entire government spy machine, which they've actually been caught doing. How long until we find out they use their access to steal money, or to play the stock market based on insider information gleaned from spying on companies before they make major decisions?

For that matter, the government has the power to spy on the phone calls that criminals make to their lawyers. That alone is fucking terrifying.

But even if you don't care about any of that, there's the other elephant in the room: it doesn't work.

Do you remember 9/11? The government had all the information they needed to know that it was going to happen. Do you know why they didn't act on it? Conspiracy theorists say it was because it was a false flag that would've required untold amounts of secrecy and competence that the government has never indicated it's capable of, but those people are lunatics. The actual reason, and the reason they've copped to, is much simpler and much more telling about why wide-range surveillance is stupid: they had too much information to be able to tell what was important. They had tons of memos to go through to figure out which ones were worth acting on, and they weren't able to get to the ones about 9/11 until too late. Dragnets do not work because all they do is decrease the signal to noise ratio even further than it already is.
>> No. 384422
Well, that and Paul Wolfowitz ten years ago made a big thesis about continuing Republican relevance with perpetual war and that it needed a catalyzing event to occur that would be strong enough to throw America into conflict.

And then they have multiple chances to end it symbolically with Osama's capture or hunting down this or that guy, and then don't because REASONS. If there is a conspiracy, it would be one of willful ignorance because it does fit into the goals of this document. There's probably attacks all the fucking time we know nothing about they stop.

Do I buy it? Not really, I much prefer the 'Administration was incompent' idea. But a conspiracy doesn't necessarily need convoluted plans. It can just be a level of disconnected avoidance of the issue. The winning move, or the move you want to play, can be to not play at all.
>> No. 384423
Bill Clinton was also aware of OSama Bin Laden and was discussing what to do with him up through the end of his Administration. It was only once Bush got into power and moved his guys in that everything got screwed up as they tried to refactor the Intelligence Agencies. There weren't too many reports or garbage information, there were people who were unable to process them effectively.

Too much information is not the Problem. People who cannot deal with that information but still believe that they should be in charge are the problem. 9/11 was totally preventable, but no Conservative will listen to that viewpoint (or read a lot of memos).

>> No. 384424
It should also be pointed out that the NSA Dragnet as such did not exist at that point and time, and one of Clinton's gripes about Intelligence at the time was that they did not really have effective Intelligence about what was going on from a digital perspective:

>For the last three years of his presidency, Clinton says, he and top national security officials discussed bin Laden "several times a week." U.S. intelligence agencies "didn't succeed in either getting bin Laden or telling us where he was. And I was sometimes frustrated thinking they were recommending that I not do things more than that I do. It was frustrating to me."

>Clinton also discusses a proposal to restructure U.S. intelligence agencies. "The best minds in each of our intelligence agencies should be given a common office somewhere and they should have a joint doomsday planning operation," he says.


As for Snowden, yes, I'm totally sad that a broken Security Clearance process allowed some guy to get into the system and then tip us all off:

>> No. 384425
and the great takeaway here is that even when the system isn't actually in full effect, it still kind of works. The instant you put somebody who can't deal with this in Office (along with his whole administration), the whole thing falls to shit. Or worse. Obama had to improve the system that Bush initially okay'd. Half the shit that guy has had to deal with is the fallout from the United States of Dumbfuckistan.
>> No. 384426
That's a good point: an institution that can't continue running at an acceptable level when an idiot is in charge is an institution that cannot remain a part of government, because you can pretty much guarantee, regardless of your political affiliation, that at some point someone who you think is an idiot is going to be in charge.
>> No. 384437
Good Job Australia, this is the most fucked thing I've heard in a while.

>> No. 384438
Bill Clinton partly made the 9/11 attacks possible.

If you actually look back, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers had Bosnian passports granted to them by people Clinton 'protected' in the 90s, or were trained in Bosnia in mockups of aircraft. Clinton also supported the Afghani Mujahideen in the Afghan civil war, which is where Al Qaeda gets its foot soldiers from. And since Bosnia wasn't considered a watch high risk country, they slipped past controls without problems.

Not enough time to get into the Saudi link or how Clinton pretty much created the recession, the point is that he was a bad president and shouldn't be used as a good example.
>> No. 384439
File 137891201683.png - (23.59KB , 379x214 , 13229672513.png )
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Who in their right mind could possibly think this is a good idea?!
>> No. 384440
Australia is slowly morphing into a republican haven of batshit insanity.

Which is a damn shame for the poor sane ones who have to deal with the crazy bullshit of the likes of Tony Abbot.
>> No. 384442


Th'fuck, mates.
>> No. 384448
Why??? Politics here have OFFICIALLY gone to shit.
>> No. 384449
I'm not sure if this is EXACTLY the right thread for this, but I've been reading the Illuminatus! trilogy for the first time recently, and it is just ridiculous how applicable it is to the current political climate. Almost every line or joke they make about various government agencies, political groups, religious organizations, laws, court decisions, and even government surveillance, could have been a line in a topical serial from 2013.

Not bad for books that are forty years old and not even set in the future.
>> No. 384453
Just thought I'd share this.

Alright, interesting !youtube thumb
>> No. 384455
>> No. 384456
Huh. When did the Onion start reporting facts?
>> No. 384459
They secretly always where.
>> No. 384467
That was funny. This one, however, not so much.


I know what they're getting at, but it's still in rather poor taste.

Polite sage, and crossing fingers that this won't re-ignite the rape jokes/dickwolves debate.
>> No. 384472
> Bosnian passports granted to them by people Clinton 'protected' in the 90s
[Citation Needed]

From Wikipedia:
>According to James Bamford, the NSA had picked up communications of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi back in 1999, but had been hampered by internal bureaucratic conflicts between itself and the CIA, and did not do a full analysis of the information it passed on to the agency. For example; it only passed the first names on, Nawaf and Khalid.[25]

>Bamford also claims that the CIA's Alec Station (a unit assigned to bin Laden) knew that al-Mihdhar was planning to come to New York as far back as January 2000. Doug Miller, one of 3 FBI agents working inside the CIA station, tried to send a message (a CIR) to the FBI to alert them about this, so they could put al-Mihdhar on a watch list. His CIA boss, Tom Wilshire, deputy station chief, allegedly denied permission to Miller. Miller asked his associate Mark Rossini for advice; Rossini pressed Wilshire's deputy but was again rebuffed.[26][27]

The time frame for them entering the country falls more onto Bush's lap than Clinton's, and attempts were still being made to notify various agencies, in the midst of the restructuring they were going through with Bush. It's also worth noting that at the time, none of these people had actually done anything; Osama was suspected of having funded terrorist plots and operations, but there was no concrete ties to anything where we would've actually been justified in picking him up.

>The point is that he was a bad president and shouldn't be used as a good example

>Clinton left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. president since World War II

>The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints.

By every non-conservative estimate, that is, every objective appraisal of his Presidency, Clinton was the best President of the last 50 years, since Kennedy. And even if he wasn't, it's really fucking weird that for some reason whenever a Democrat gets into Office the Economy Magically starts to work and function and actually turn around. It is even happening under Obama despite all protests to the contrary. It's almost like one party actually knows what they're doing and the other party just believes they should rule. Which, based on the freakish mutants they have rolled out on their presidential selections, is probably the actual case. Fuck, even Kerry just helped defuse the situation in Syria!

It's almost like for years the Democratic Party has been saying "Let us Actually Help You" and the Conservatives have just gone "YOU ARE TRYING TO SUBVERT MUH FREEDUMS". The economic track records are certainly striking.
>> No. 384570
Why do convenience and consumer rights have to be mutually exclusive? I just don't get it.
>> No. 384581
I imagine the answer boils down to money.
>> No. 384587
i dont get the question?
>> No. 384589
i dont get the question?
>> No. 384607
From police.

They should only have whistles and billy clubs.
>> No. 384612
This is what happens when you grant a large segment of the population the ability and outright responsibility to enforce their view of social order through violence, and train them to believe they suffer no consequences for doing so.
>> No. 384618
Not exactly the best idea for a country the size of the United States.
Hell, even regular states.
>> No. 384642
Aren't cops trained not to shoot when there are bystanders in front of or behind a bad guy?

That's what TV keeps telling me.
>> No. 384651
TV is full of lies, both fictional and non-. Even on shows that will delve into the likes of Internal Affairs, they usually paint the scenario as a half-dozen cops at most being corrupt/abusive, or at most a unit collectively hiding a few cops that do so, when the reality appears to be (or, at least, I believe it to be) that most cops are either
A) corrupt
B) power hungry bullies, or
C) enabling A or B, either directly or indirectly (by remaining silent when they know about the wrongdoing)

Dont Talk to Policeyoutube thumb

On a side note, a show that focuses on Internal Affairs could be highly interesting ("Law & Order: Code Blue"), and may have the added bonus of raising the national debate about the powers given to police and lack of oversight/punishment.
>> No. 384667
> crazed asshole starts shooting people in a school, college, or any sort of public area, kills lot of people
> argument is made that if people were allowed to be armed in such instances, the murderer would not be able to kill as many
> crazed asshole starts shooting people in a US Navy base, a place you would assume has at least a good number of armed personnel going around
> he kills 19, and it's actually the police who shoots him down.

Odd. I am really not making an argument for gun control here, just curious by the whole thing. I am not American, so perhaps I am assuming wrong and there are not really that many armed people quickly available in a military base, could somebody shed some light on this?
>> No. 384668
While I've not been on a Naval base, nor have I read into the details of what happened, I have to assume that it's like an Army base: If we're not under direct military threat, only the MPs (Military Police) and anyone assigned as a bodyguard actively carry weapons. Everyone else's assigned weapon is locked up somewhere in their unit, and then the ammunition for that weapon is kept at a separate, central facility.

Even when we got our weapons for field missions, we didn't even get blanks.

Same reason the same thing happened at Fort Hood a few years back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

Now if all military personnel had been packing, then the shooter would have gotten one, maybe two people from the element of surprise. But because such an instance is so rare it's not deemed worthy to have all personnel armed; and, sadly so far as I can tell from my experience, most basic military personnel have very limited range time and would be as likely to hit a civilian as the shooter. :( (It is probably for this reason and such nearby high drug cartel activity that, at least on Fort Bliss, you couldn't carry your personal weapon, either; all personal weapons brought onto base had to be checked into the unit's armory or the post's gun club.)
>> No. 384669

>would be as likely to hit a civilian as the shooter

That's one of the points gun control advocates bring up in cases such as this: even if civilians and such were armed at the exact moment of a shooting such as Sandy Hook or the Aurora theater shooting, they're typically not trained to handle those situations. A handful of training courses on guns and gun safety wouldn’t and couldn’t prepare the average person to handle the kind of situations that the police and the military train to handle. Thus, their chances of accidentally shooting an innocent civilian go up. That’s not to say that cops, MPs, etc. couldn't do the same thing, but they have a much lower chance of doing it than a scared civilian who only took a couple of hours’ worth of safety courses at the local gun club.
>> No. 384671
Can gun grabbers please stop obsessing over the AR-15. This dude didn't even bring one but the media somehow managed to shoehorn "AR-15" into every. single. broadcast.

It's not an assault rifle, it is not a machine gun, it is not used by the military. It's just a standard hunting rifle with a plastic coating instead of wood.

Similar to this actually

People aren't allowed to have weapons on bases in USA unless they're MPs. America is not a war zone, if a regular soldier is issued a gun it's usually to clean it and put it away again.

Civvies often get more range time than cops. The thing is the police might have to pass a firearms certification course once every two years and the passing grade is ridiculously low, some states don't even require that. Imo the cert requirements need to be raised and tested every month, with range time required every week. The problem is that people say "oh the police only use a gun once or twice in their career, expense isn't justified" and other bullshit.
Which is why things like this >>384607 happen.

On the other hand gun enthusiasts go to the range every weekend. Nobody buys a gun and just ignores it, it would be like buying a cake and not eating it.

Also, the police aren't trained to handle themselves in a stressful situation, there is really no training for that. Even military basic is more of a physical stress (lol 20km run with full gear) than a mental or a reaction one. They're cutting down on the physical stuff because of so many fatty applicants
In counties with high standards cops get a short firearms training course, obstacle courses, law courses, and occasional powerpoint presentations on how to handcuff someone in a wheelchair.

I blame Hollywood for all these misconceptions.
>> No. 384672
Aye. I'm a strong ardent of the 2nd Amendment, but I agree that such an idea is quite preposterous. At best, there's equal potential of a civilian (or even under-trained military support personnel) defender hitting (not necessarily killing or even stopping) the shooter as there is of the defender hitting another bystander.

And, considering the apparent mix of low-critical-thinking and paranoia in America, I can easily see a second civilian coming onto the scene immediately after the defender takes their shot, thinking the defender is the shooter, then shooting the defender (or another innocent bystander.)

Even armed military in this situation would have done little unless they had the training and education of the police or MPs, because from my experience your standard army enlisted's training is "aim, shoot, then think," and that third step is optional. (Since the Navy is more about boat warfare, they likely have even less training thanks to furloughs.) I would not have trusted half my company with a loaded weapon near me (and we were attached to an Infantry battalion!)
>> No. 384674
>Even military basic is more of a physical stress (lol 20km run with full gear) than a mental or a reaction one.
Right. When I was in Basic, we had some weapons training and combat stress training, but they were never mixed (likely out of safety concern). We did do a stress shoot run (but it was only about two miles in full gear) to get us used to aiming after weariness (we arrived too early and ran circles around a turnabout in front of the range until it was our turn). The combat stress training (I forget what it was called) involved a four mile hike to the training grounds, at which point we had to climb a mostly vertical cement wall to get to a sandy area, then crawl about 1000ft, about half under barbed wire, while simulated mortars went off all around and live rounds were fired about 25ft off the ground (at the end you could turn around and watch the tracer rounds fly through the dark). We had our weapons, but no ammo.

>They're cutting down on the physical stuff because of so many fatty applicants
Also unfortunately true, and this shouldn't be the case at all.
>> No. 384675
>Even military basic is more of a physical stress (lol 20km run with full gear) than a mental or a reaction one.
Right. When I was in Basic, we had some weapons training and combat stress training, but they were never mixed (likely out of safety concern). We did do a stress shoot run (but it was only about two miles in full gear) to get us used to aiming after weariness (we arrived too early and ran circles around a turnabout in front of the range until it was our turn). The combat stress training (I forget what it was called) involved a four mile hike to the training grounds, at which point we had to climb a mostly vertical cement wall to get to a sandy area, then crawl about 1000ft, about half under barbed wire, while simulated mortars went off all around and live rounds were fired about 25ft off the ground (at the end you could turn around and watch the tracer rounds fly through the dark). We had our weapons, but no ammo.

>They're cutting down on the physical stuff because of so many fatty applicants
Also unfortunately true, and this shouldn't be the case at all.
>> No. 384678
>> No. 384685
>> No. 384688
Way to ruin the biggest addition to human history sense language.
>> No. 384692
So the government is concerned other countries might isolate themselves. Well it might have to do with us spying on them. Sad thing is we will probably lose this fantastic tool that allows global communication because the feds thought blatantly peeping on everyone was a good idea.
>> No. 384698
This has probably been a long time coming, unfortunately. Part of the reason that the NSA has been able to perform to this level is because most of the network controls and the standards that define the Internet are based in the U.S., which I believe still has the largest population of Internet users?

Fracturing the network into multiple networks does actually make a kind of sense from a job generation and border security perspective. China's already done it and they're one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Communist and repressive, but growing fast.

I am little distraught though, and though I might wager that the cultural bleedover on the internet doesn't happen on a wide scale, the scale we do get is an important one. I think the important question is, if this becomes the new business model, will we still be able to access extra national sites without being stopped or limited, or worse, in some cases hunted.
>> No. 384701
It was our first strong step to global unification.

Maybe one day.
>> No. 384707
He couldn't have done it himself. Out of the 541 politicians that steer this country only 37 expressed a negative opinion on the PATRIOT or NDA act.

>Baldwin, Blumenauer, Burton, Capuano, Clay, Conyers, Cummings, Davis, DeFazio, DeGette, Farr, Frank, Hastings, Honda, Jackson, Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson (GA), Jones, Kucinich, Lee (CA), Lewis, McDermott, McGovern, Miller (CT), Nadler, Olver, Paul, Payne (ME), Rush, Schakowsky, Scott, Serrano, Stark, Thompson, Tierney, Waters, Watt, Woolsey.

So the majority of the political establishment would have to be fired out of a cannon, into the sun for America to have a chance.

>Fracturing the network into multiple networks does actually make a kind of sense from a job generation and border security perspective. China's already done it and they're one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Communist and repressive, but growing fast.
Their economy isn't growing because of internet restrictions... it's growing in spite of their internet restrictions.
Next people will say their economy is growing because they execute 90% of their prisoners instead of bothering to house and feed them like America.
>> No. 384709
> the U.S., which I believe still has the largest population of Internet users?

China has twice as many internet users than the US. Of course, their population is much larger, so the % of people actually using the internet is significantly lower. Still, in sheer numbers we are #2.
>> No. 384716
Because US control of the internet was such a problem and clearly inhibited its growth.

This is utter garbage and will just result in multiple, competing internets accessible from only certain countries apiece. What utter horseshit.
>> No. 384717
Well, they also don't have the highest per capita percent of prisoners in the world like the U.S. does.

But explain your reasoning to me. I thought part of their economic boom was tied to them not using outside internet service like Facebook, or the strain between their Government and Google. I was under the impression that it was creating a somewhat lucrative dot com bubble for them.

China is one of those economies everyone's supposed to watch what they do in the coming years, and Brazil's another one. That Brazil is contemplating something like what China has is not insignificant, nor do I think you should just dismiss it offhand for a reason that looks like "lol communism".
>> No. 384719
File 137953250124.jpg - (103.36KB , 490x308 , execution van.jpg )
>Well, they also don't have the highest per capita percent of prisoners in the world like the U.S. does.
Yeah maybe we should have roving execution vans that execute people on the spot for basic things like small time theft and drug use.
Oh wait, we actually place value on human life, silly Americans.

> I thought part of their economic boom was tied to them not using outside internet service like Facebook, or the strain between their Government and Google. I was under the impression that it was creating a somewhat lucrative dot com bubble for them.
lolwut, you realize their economy has been increasing at the same rate long before facebook was a thing? Do you know what a dot com bubble even is?

>China is one of those economies everyone's supposed to watch what they do in the coming years, and Brazil's another one.
All of BRIC is. Their economies are improving because corruption is falling and efficiency levels are approaching that of the west.
As in, their people are producing more per person, and their GPD per capita is approaching the west.

They aren't doing anything better than the west, they're approaching the ability to do things similarly.
>> No. 384723
>Oh wait, we actually place value on human life
Only rich male heterosexual white people's lives, though.
>> No. 384732
File 137954978547.gif - (676.42KB , 180x135 , asianskissing.gif )
Lets not start the troll train.

Prison stats by number of incarcerated, race, and gender:
1. Black men
2. White men
3. Black women
4. White women
5. East Asian men
6. East Asian women

Considering the rates of homosexuality in women's prisons, it seems that Asian lesbians are the most highly valued members of our society.
>> No. 384734
My hard drive certainly agrees.
>> No. 384735
That's a disingenuous statistic, since it's going by raw numbers rather than a per capita incarceration rate per group. But even if it weren't, it's unrelated to my actual point which I assumed was pretty non-controversial: the United States government and mass media don't much care about sanctity of life for poor people and minorities. Keeping people from starving to death or dying of preventable diseases solely because of lack of financial resources is not a priority for America, nor is providing nutritious foods at prices that the poor can afford. Saving women's lives is not as important as saving the lives of their fetuses. Saving black people, hispanics, middle easterners, or especially Amerindians' lives is not important ever.

This is not about trolling, it is about combating a very dangerous piece of misinformation that the United States tries to sell to its citizens: that the other powerful nations are somehow less humanitarian or more prone to neglecting its citizens. But here's the thing--those nations believe that, too. Because that's what their countries, and their countries' medias, tell them. Hell, North Koreans actually believe that the people of the United States are only able to eat because of North Korean humanitarian efforts! Do you honestly believe a country like China, which has more than a billion people in it would not be able to pull off a successful revolution against a government that was truly heinous? Of course they could. But just like America, China is just tolerable enough for them convince themselves that "Well, it sucks here, but at least it's better than INSERT OTHER COUNTRY HERE."

Do not make the mistake of assuming the United States is some saintly nation, or even an above average nation, in terms of how it treats its people. No nation with a military industrial complex as powerful as the United States, nor with a political system as dependent on private investment of money from the wealthy, will ever be any better than Lawful Evil.

I am not suggesting we need to change allegiance to some other country--I don't honestly believe there are many countries left where this sort of shit doesn't happen. But don't believe the lies that try to convince you that your country is somehow more valorous than the rest of the world. No matter what country you live in, chances are it is run by villains who want to encourage you to buy into their tribalistic nonsense about how much better you have it than the other Tribes, because the people in power have it much easier when you think they're the best chance you've got.
>> No. 384737
I was gonna say

>25% of the population incarcerated, mostly black and entirely poor and disenfranchised
>Incarcerated population is used by defense contractors to build bullets, bombs, and drones for pennies an hour (to undercut free Mexican contractors who work at around the same prices, supposedly)
>Murder innocents in the name of tracking a terror network that arguably wasted all its' talent in its' first attack (seriously most of these so called terrorists have trouble getting their explosives to work)

idk man Murderbus' economy is on the rise, they must be doing something right. Something you still haven't attributed to any mechanical action. I thought the limited network combined with their somewhat more lax attitude towards copyright law, which allows a lot of copycatting to go on. Which in turn is financing other bubbles like a housing bubble over there as well. Every bit of material I've heard discussing their economy is primarily focused on the fact that they've had to re-invent everything out here within their own network, and then compete against copycats.

But you haven't really explained how, mechanically (that is, what are the jobs/actions the people are undertaking to make it a growing economy), how this is all working. You've just held up the Murderbus.
>> No. 384739
So, Navy Yard shooter? Had secret-level clearance, which is how he gained access, despite multiple firearm incidents (shooting his ceiling, tires on someone's car, and more).


Go Go America.
>> No. 384780
I really really really wish I could find that article with that ex-agent detailing just how fucking pathetic the secret clearance system is now but suffice to say that secret clearance is basically a certification and all you have to do to get one is apply for it then pass a really dumb test

but I can't and I don't know where it went so
>> No. 384796
This kind of stuff is just going to get worse as the GOP tries their damnedest to pull up the safety nets, for-profit private prisons increase, focus on education/shouting at science decreases, and more.

I reckon that much of this kind of thing can be solved within 15 years, but doing so means destroying a lot of income for a lot of rich people that have bought a lot of congressmen/Presidents.
>> No. 384798
File 137971071032.jpg - (36.70KB , 399x429 , CrimeStats.jpg )
Second shooting in Chicago, another city with strict firearms restrictions. Proving once again that gun control works perfectly!

Well to be fair ever since police started throwing everyone in jail for everything (c.'89), USA has had a massive drop in crime. Organized crime is mostly broken and only really exists south of the border, all that remains are small time street gangs. (pic 1)

As for race... the problem is a real and tangible social collapse within the African American community, not racist judges sending black men to jail disproportionately. When you ignore this problem or blame it on racism, you might as well be pulling the trigger yourself. (pic 2/3)
>> No. 384801
>Well to be fair ever since police started throwing everyone in jail for everything (c.'89), USA has had a massive drop in crime.
Pretty much the entire world's crime rates have gone down since then, and they haven't been locking up their citizens in anywhere near those levels since then. Correlation does not imply causation.
>> No. 384808
That time frame also includes two other possibilities:
1) About the time that poor kids start to reach major crime-committing age, but there are far less thanks to legalizing abortion (legalized nation-wide in 1973) (go go Freakonomics)
2) About the time that any kids start to reach major crime-committing age, but these kids grew up with far less exposure to lead paint (banned in 1978) and so are far less impaired.

There was also a lot more racial integration by that point (much of it starting in the 50s-70s), which may have helped.
>> No. 384860
I know this is more a military question than a political one, but what areas would be destabilized the most if America was to suddenly shut down all of its foreign military bases and bring its troops home?

Just curious, is all.
>> No. 384866

>> No. 384868

Some individual areas may have trouble (Yemen) when the insurgent groups we've been drone-ing get a break, and shit would get...interesting in Korea/Japan China/Philippines, but overall, things would (imho) eventually balance out and be more stable. Our meddling (drone strikes, assassinations, arms sales, pressuring gov'ts with our military) creates more instability than its absence would, and if countries like Israel (ok, especially Israel) had to shoulder the cost of their own defense and couldn't count of US air/sea power being a phone call and fifteen minutes away, they'd probably focus more on diplomacy and compromise than posturing and saber-rattling.
>> No. 384874
> and shit would get...interesting in Korea

I am curious (because I seriousy have no idea), in all these years has SK not build up a military good enough to stop a Zerg rush from the north? Because that would be incredibly dumb.

I mean, at least Israel has nukes as a detterrent.
>> No. 384875
>I mean, at least Israel has nukes as a detterrent.
Right. "Deterrent." That's what they have those nukes for.
>> No. 384877
"Destroy us, and be destroyed yourself"

Sounds like deterrent to me. What else would they do with the nukes, perhaps a ritual to summon the Metatron detailed in the forgotten sixth tome of the Torah?
>> No. 384878
>Sounds like deterrent to me. What else would they do with the nukes, perhaps a ritual to summon the Metatron detailed in the forgotten sixth tome of the Torah?

>> No. 384880
I'm implying that Israel is an instigator, and is therefore using those weapons not just to say "Destroy us and be destroyed yourself," but also to say "Do what we want or be destroyed."
>> No. 384884
The problems is that you could arguably use nukes to force somebody else an ocean away to do your bidding, but it doesn't really work if said "somebody else" is your neighbor since the nukes would also harm your people. Plus, Israel already has the US for that purpose, to serve as an enforcerof their will. The very real threat of aircraft carriers and cruise missiles fucking shit up is much more effective than making empty boasts of nuclear armageddon in your back yard.
>> No. 384888
Right, because the threat of nuclear attack over some minor bullshit is viable. I suggest you bone up on game theory.
>> No. 384889
You need to bone up on your history if you think that countries base their foreign policy on well thought out, rational decisions. Even relatively "sane" countries make their foreign policies based on emotion and nationalistic pride more often than on sound logic, and Israel isn't even THAT competent at foreign policy.
>> No. 384893
I don't think it's the threat of nukes so much as it's the threat of modern military technology, which has come pretty ridiculously far and would, I imagine, be part of Israel's arsenal if they have up-to-and-including Nukes. Things like Drone strikes are somewhat more dangerous than nukes because they can eliminate individuals so rapidly, rather than eliminating everyone. Certainly, having the American military in their pocket would be a boon, but there's also a giant boom in military hardware occurring from private contracting companies in that region. Threat of nukes doesn't seem necessary when there's threat of artillery strike.
>> No. 384921
If Israel actually launched a nuke (which they won't), America would drop them like a hot potato. Thinking otherwise is like thinking China would back NK if THEY launched a nuke.
>> No. 384926
They've committed war crimes in the past and we've stuck by them. But then, we don't consider them war crimes if our side does them. Like when Hussein used that gas we sold him when he was still our ally.
>> No. 384951

Honestly I find that response to be incredibly ignorant. The man is in country where he is the minority and treated the lesser for it. Bringing up history is an odd defense. It doesn't give you a pass for being a shitty person now.
>> No. 384960
Hey, where do you guys get your news? Like, regularly. At the moment, I only check Wired (website) and the NY/LA Times (newspapers). I feel this isn't broad enough.
>> No. 384963
Slashdot, Engadget, Ars Technica (mostly tech stuff, but sometimes more general things) and NPR.

I don't read actual newspapers/magazines.
>> No. 384964
I read Reddit's /r/politics and /r/news. /r/politics is notoriously slanted left, but then so am I, so whatever. Even with the slant, you get a pretty eclectic mix of news links that way that at least gives you an idea of what people with different politics think.
>> No. 384976
Ars Technica, Wired sometimes, Tumblr and Twitter when I'm arsed to check it from my phone, which is technically considered the fasted News Delivery service of any kind at the moment. Though it's also a very good case study for why a lot of News Organizations need to grow up and concentrate more on getting it right, and providing actual expert insight into events, rather than getting it first. Getting it first is useless to almost everyone.
>> No. 385085
Well good job Republicans. You, the party that ostensibly wants to save money for the public, in your quest to stop sick people from getting treatment, tried to push said quest against a pro-sick people Senate and White House. Now you have brought the government to a shutdown, costing us millions in cash and god knows what else.

This is why John Boehner is commonly known as the Prince of Lies.
>> No. 385087
In Boehner's defense, I don't think he wanted this at all. I think the tea party has managed to gain so much influence in the party that even the insiders who are actually capable of rational thinking can't act in logical ways without risking their jobs.

Now one can call into question his integrity if he's willing to sacrifice the well-being of his country in the interests of keeping his job, but he probably justifies it to himself by convincing himself that he can do more by remaining in office so they can't replace him with someone who won't even push back against the Tea Party.

But at this point I'm convinced: we're not going to be able to move on as a country until the Tea Party splits from the Republican Party. They might not ever be able to win another Presidential race the way they are now, but thanks to Gerrymandering the Republicans can continue to fuck up Congress for decades to come. This split needs to happen for the good of everyone, democrat or sane republican. The only people who lose in that equation is the Tea Partiers, and they don't live in the real world so they'll probably see themselves as winning, too.
>> No. 385089
You say it's the Tea Party but there is no clear distinction between them and Republicans. Obviously it seems like they're getting something done (even if it is crippling their already crippled party), although it's still amazing to me that the Tea Party is considered in any way legitimate, rather than a mutant freak baby of rich republicans.
>> No. 385091
You haven't been paying attention, if you believe that. There's a clear split between GOP Establishment (Boehner, McCain, Rove, etc.) and Tea Party (Cruz, Rand Paul, etc.). GOP Establishment wants to limit the regulations on corporations and industry, increased spending on defense and reduction on taxes on the rich. They don't like working with democrats, but they recognize the importance of sometimes making concessions to win over Moderate voters.

The Tea Party seems to want nothing less than anarchy, and are more than willing to shoot themselves in the foot if the win condition would get them closer to anarchy, even if that win condition is unattainable. They are the ones who will elect primary candidates who have no chance at all of winning in a general election because their "Conservatism" is more "Pure" than the guy who wants to admit that, say, immigrants have basic human rights or that the Post Office actually works or that Social Security doesn't actually cost the country anything and given how many old people vote Republican, hamstringing Social Security is the most retarded thing a conservative politician could do.
>> No. 385093
I don't differentiate between rhetoric that is essentially the same. The differences seem arbitrary and like they'll result in the same thing. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any divisiveness with this shutdown. Everyone seems on board with that, save maybe the one or two that are against it to coddle their fanbase.

You say there's a difference but from the outside looking in there doesn't seem to be any difference. Congratulations, each half of the party has chosen a different path towards destruction. Don't ask me to pretend that either of them is less ridiculous for agreeing with the other, because they're both ridiculous.
>> No. 385097
The happening has only begun, wait some weeks until we hit the debt ceiling with a suspended goverment. Now that will be fun.
>> No. 385114
four researchers i know have been personally defunded and my funding is in jeopardy.

>> No. 385119
the armenian genocide was in 1915. both armenia and greece have a long history with turkey. today turkey still denies the genocide happened.

here in the united states the greeks, turks, and armenians all live around each other. similar cultures, similar food leads to the diaspora all having to get along with each other and not bring up the past. greece and turkey helped each other out after an earthquake for fucks sake.

granted, it's a different situation when one person moves to another country rather when diaspora unite in a foreign land, but citing history as a reason to treat others like trash or like they don't even exist will never be right. the 'can't be racist against white people' does apply in actual situations today in the United States, for example, because racism is still ingrained into systems. what the tumblr responder said was 1. asshattish and 2. far too simple. if even the most tumblr of white liberal totally cisqueer tumblrs was refused service in a restaurant run by black people, I bet you they would be pissed.
>> No. 385120
this whole thing is such a fucking redonkdonk
>> No. 385138
The ultra-nationalist movements are gaining so much traction in Europe. It's really scary. And as someone living in Germany I know exactly which country draws their ire, because it's one of the few countries in the world that are still doing well. Not that I'm scared of another world war happening in Europe again, or something. But if every country around us begins to instate protectionism laws, we're going to go under alongside them. Not to mention, we can't really go on trips anywhere in Europe anymore, if this hate keeps boiling up.
>> No. 385142
Well according to yesterdays stockmarket, nobody on wallstreet thinks this is gonna do much lasting damage on the corporate side.

I think a much more informing study could be done on exactly what the total dollar cost of people not getting the flu/food stamp supplies they need. So that the next time this happens the house can have a sound byte of info that says

>> No. 385144
>nobody on wallstreet thinks this is gonna do much lasting damage on the corporate side.
I would think that it would be a boon to the corporate side, because a hobbled government means they can skimp on regulation requirements for the time being (moreso than they already do.)
>> No. 385145
Actually, a lot of Wall Street people are siding with the Dems on this one and calling out the Republicans. A government shutdown is going to have a lot of repercussions on US and World economic interests that we won't feel immediately, and if they actually take it to the point of being a default on the Debt Ceiling, it's going to be a goddamned global catastrophe.
>> No. 385153
> A government shutdown is going to have a lot of repercussions on US and World economic interests that we won't feel immediately
... ffs guys... government shutdown doesn't mean what media is trying to paint it as, we've had dozens of government shutdowns before. We had two during a pretty prosperous time in the 90s.

It might even make things better in the long run, get people to realize the budget is not a toy.
>> No. 385154
Oh please, European nationalism is more watered down than Mr. Rogers nightcap, and they're incompetent to boot so it's not as if any nationalist organization could run a government much less declare a successful war. Are you seriously scared of NPD?

> the 'can't be racist against white people' does apply in actual situations today in the United States
No it doesn't.
>> No. 385158
I'm not scared of NPD and other fascist groups (except for Chrysi Avgi, that shit is scary). I'm scared of nationalism and protectionism gaining traction and support within the conservative camp of the established parties. And of those bullet points winning elections. Just look at what's happening in Britain right now.
>> No. 385160
> European nationalism is more watered down than Mr. Rogers nightcap
And that's why the Communists, the Corporatists, the Oligarchs, and the British no longer take us seriously.
>> No. 385161
Well ok that's at least a valid concern. Don't be too scared of nationalism being introduced gradually, it's one of the few things which can't be introduced that way especially when 89% of London is foreign now, queen will probably be surrounded by 100% of foreigners long before any nationalist party can do anything.

Or were you talking about market protectionism? That's different, and should happen to some degree...
>> No. 385162
At a recent rally one placard demanded: “Save Our Water”. Another: “You can’t drink gas”. I thought, “Pithy. Accurate. I like it.” Unfortunately, all that the placards at this particular protest revealed was the incoherence of the anti-fracking messages – and those in Britain’s shires being suckered by them.

That is not to say that accidents don’t happen, or haven’t taken place. It is the nature of the technological advancement beast that accidents – even negligence – will occur. Nor does it infer that some companies don’t occasionally need their butt kicked to comply with regulatory oversight, such as cleaning up surface tail ponds, etc.

But, in all its essentials, the entire anti-fracking movement has its head where the sun doesn’t shine. Here are just ten reasons why:
1. Hydraulic fracking has been around for 60+ years. Developments made by U.S. engineers around 2008-9 (enabling horizontal fracturing) simply made the process much more commercially viable;

2. Since fracking was introduced in 1949, well over 2 million frack treatments have been pumped without a single documented case of treatments polluting a water aquifer;

3. 90 percent of all gas wells drilled in the United States since 1949 have been fracked;

4. Most shale deposits are drilled at a depth of between 6,000 and 10,000 feet – water aquifers exist at an average depth of 500 feet;

5. Claims of ‘migration’ between the shale gas layers and water aquifers due to fracking are patently absurd as the gas would have to pass through millions of tons of impermeable rock. If the rock was that porous, either the water or the gas would have migrated long before fracking took place;

6. Fracture design engineers go to great lengths to avoid fracturing beyond even 100 feet. Common sense alone dictates that this is essential if a costly loss of production is not to be incurred;

7. The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland movies create a media impact by making outrageous claims that include suggesting “569 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand. Much of the remainder is made up of a maximum of 12 or so harmless gelling agents, like Guar gum (used in ice cream making), and chemicals commonly found around the house;

8. Equally, domestic running water being ignited might wow gullible film audiences, but dissolved methane found in water aquifers is far from uncommon and is biogenic (naturally occurring). As the largest component in natural gas, methane is not even regulated as it is not toxic and escapes naturally like soda bubbles;

9. Hydraulic fracking procedures are heavily regulated and not, as often claimed by eco-activists, exempt from drinking water and other key regulatory laws. Concerns about using “excessive water resources” in the process are already being assuaged by new developments, including recycling water and drilling utilising compressed air;

10. Time and again, official investigations have declared that hydraulic fracturing is a “fundamentally safe technology” that, in its 60-year history, has never been shown to have caused earthquakes. Where minor tremors have occurred they have been on the scale of those associated with a passing lorry or a subway train.

>> No. 385163
Fack you, man.
>> No. 385166

The EU was a premature attempt at European Unification, so it was bound to fail. Free trade and movement between signatory nations, military and law enforcement cooperation, and mutual defense, regulatory harmonization, that's all doable. It's when you try to tie together economies as disparate as France, Germany, and Greece to one currency, and try to create a supranational umbrella govt that you run head on into trouble. Europe's individual nations aren't even all happy being a single political entity (Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales in UK; Basques and Caralonians in Spain; Corsicans, Basques, Bretons in France); how can you expect the whole continent of wildly different languages, cultures, and economic models to function as a cohesive unit? Continental, and global unification (which, to be clear, I do believe to be worthy goals and inevitable) can only occur organically. There can't be a democracy without a demos, and there's no unified European demos as yet.


For now, at least, federal revenue covers the interest on our bond payments, so budget or not, debt ceiling or not, we at least wont default on our loans. If interest rates go up, however, without revenues increasing or spending decreasing, we're (potentially) boned.
>> No. 385172
i checked this site for credibility but it's about as absurd or worse than the huffington post.

such fine articles as "http://www.trendingcentral.com/hillary-clinton-first-lesbian-president/" really get me excited for quality content.

the link you provided doesn't cite studies that demonstrate those numbers/facts. i have not read the book by this author, but i'm not entirely persuaded by his arguments.
>> No. 385181
Then attack his arguments, not the credibility of the site. It would be easy enough to disprove him if he's wrong.

He's supposed to prove we've been using fracking since WWII now?
>> No. 385182
Burden of proof is on the person making controversial claims, and providing a citation to a bad source does not count as proof.
>> No. 385183
>we're (potentially) boned.
Worst case scenario we default and our rating tanks.
People in Washington overprint money and the dollar collapses.
US hits a depression that's about half as bad as the great one.
Nations dependent on US (aid monkeys, china, etc.) crash.
WTO moves to switch to something like the international dollar as the trade base.
A generation later America comes swinging out of it with the greatest boom since the golden 20s.

It's not so bad, it won't be fun but it's not the end of the world.
>> No. 385184
He's not the one making controversial claims, the people who make retarded films like Gasland are.
>> No. 385187
I feel like this misses the point. Of course we're fracking. Nobody has figured out an alternate fuel source that is as wondrous as petroleum.
>> No. 385189
sheesh. i'm not saying all of it is bunk. i'm just trying to figure out where the fuck he's pulling his numbers. people get uppity over everything and think that asking for more is proof of dissent. i'm a scientist by training. i need to know why people believe what they do before I'm on board. i don't necessarily buy into the water pollution caused by fracking thing either because I simply see cases in somewhat sensational reports about what the water being polluted.

I'm not attacking the history of fracking. That's absurd. No need to get defensive on those points.

okay. let's focus on the ones we have evidence for:

7. I'm not entirely convinced that "common household chemicals" are that safe. Just because 99.2-99.5% of the fracking fluid is water that still means significant (on the absolute chemical scale) of these non-trace additives are still being pumped in there. Now, I did the homework because some of you fucks are too lazy to do it yourselves, and I happen to work in a chem lab so I can actually verify that these claims are somewhat sound. Not being a geologist nor an environmental chemist, I can't say for sure that adding the following chemicals is safe for the environment, but it's relatively benign as far as a trained chemist like me would be concerned:
"Acids—hydrochloric acid (usually 5%-28%), or acetic acid is used in the pre-fracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.[62]
Sodium chloride (salt)—delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.[62]
Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers—minimizes the friction between fluid and pipe, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface.[62]
Ethylene glycol—prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.[62]
Borate salts—used for maintaining fluid viscosity during the temperature increase.[62]
Sodium and potassium carbonates—used for maintaining effectiveness of crosslinkers.[62]
Glutaraldehyde—used as disinfectant of the water (bacteria elimination).[62]
Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents—increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.[59][62]
Citric acid—used for corrosion prevention.
Isopropanol—increases the viscosity of the fracture fluid.[62]"

8. I'm still interested to see more studies on the correlation of new methane getting into water sources, but this doesn't seem to be nearly as controversial as the documentaries suggest.

9. Hydraulic fracking procedures are heavily regulated and not, as often claimed by eco-activists, exempt from drinking water and other key regulatory laws. Concerns about using “excessive water resources” in the process are already being assuaged by new developments, including recycling water and drilling utilising compressed air;

10. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fracking-energy-exploration-connected-earthquakes-say-studies-6C10604071
Now you can't just have it both ways. Either it doesn't cause earthquakes or it causes minor ones. Looks like it may cause small, mostly harmless ones.

Now that we've covered those bases, here are concerns that HAVEN'T been addressed:

-Blackmail style purchasing of land from home/land owners. The business practices may be malicious and may not properly compensate the people who forfeit their homes/land so that fracking may occur.
-The peak oil issue we're still having as we approach depletion of relatively easy to release oil sources. (Some of my professor colleagues believe we've already reached peak oil.)
-The issue of anthropogenic climate change.
-The local destruction of habitats.

So yeah. Don't be a prick and assume I'm against you immediately. I just don't like bad reporting. And now you make me do the homework for you and the thing you post? Jeez. This would never fly in an academic environment. We like to at least cite studies and sources to justify our beliefs. Even if you're right, you're an ass.
>> No. 385190
File 138085920547.jpg - (68.65KB , 612x896 , Untitled.jpg )
Key point he's presenting is that historically fracking is safe both in terms of lives lost and environmental impact.
And if you stop to think about it, modern horizontal fracking will be a lot better than vertical. Shitty mspaint pic related.
>> No. 385192
woops. meant to remove point 9.
had no issues with that.
>> No. 385193
>here are concerns that HAVEN'T been addressed:
None of those concerns have anything to do with the actual technique of fracking.

Agressive land seizure is omnipresent, even the government does it (lol eminent domain), and has nothing to do with fracking.
Peak oil is a different issue, only related to fracking in that we are nearing peak oil because new techniques (like fracking) for accessing hydrocarbons are constantly stalemated by nutjobs appealing to emotions.
AGW is again only tangentially related in the use of the end product (methane) which may be better than petroleum from the AGW point of view anyway.

This though
>The local destruction of habitats.
Has been addressed, fracking has a fairly low environmental impact.
>> No. 385196
i am getting kind of pissed off at the anti-gmo movement. it's monsanto that is the problem, not genetically modified organisms. we have fucked with our planet badly enough already. people starve. droughts and pests come, land cannot be farmed. however, i have noticed that most of the anti-gmo crowd who insists that GMOs are 'unhealthy', 'dangerous to eat', 'just plain morally wrong' have no basic understanding of what DNA actually is. if you think it's wrong to interfere with nature and evolution, then i guess if your loved ones get sick or hurt you will just let them die??? scientific progress is neither a good or evil thing. it is a tool. maybe it's just because I've been watching a lot of star trek, but I've been infused with all these humanistic ideals lately and i truly believe humans will reach the stars someday. scientific progress will lead us to that, it will help us solve the problems here on earth. I guess I just feel among the hippie dippie organic movement (which I guess I'm a part of) there is serious dismissal of actual science and a huge fucking double standard, and it is manifesting itself in the anti-gmo (you mean ANTI-MONSANTO JFC) deal. I saw a pretty terrible documentary on it. 'im a stupid dad who doesn't know anything, let me exploit my cute kids while i talk about morality and nothing that actually pertains to the fact that we can make food able to grow with less water, resist pests that would otherwise decimate a crop, etc etc etc'. Now, GMOs are not used in the best ways, nor the ways they should and and could be used all the time. This is a problem with the corporations, not the fucking genetically modified organisms themselves. And, I haven't read every report so I could be wrong, but the supposed scientific reports that PROVE gmos are actually deadly poison are about crops that were specifically treated with insecticides and chemicals and shit. Not to mention the fact we all should know by now: it is so easy for online media to twist a scientific report to confirm themselves, and it's all about the headlines anyway.

guys im not putting this into very good terms because of reasons, but the point is why don't people actually read and apply critical thinking because they do more harm than good to the issues they supposedly care so much about

ty for this post of logic
>> No. 385199
This is part of an overwhelming issue worldwide but especially in America, where Freedom tends to equate to Ignorance and Knowledge to "Oppression".

The belief that you can be free to believe whatever you want has led people to believe some pretty ridiculous things, and I'm not just talking about organized religion. The fact is, the Science does actually tend to be on top of whatever is going on in the world. Maybe it is not the whole picture but it is so integral that it's downright infuriating when people simply don't apply any critical thinking skills. Then again, the systems to teach them those skills have largely failed at this point, which is alarming as this society is so complex that I'm not sure you can get it without at least some college level education. But the wheels of industry and invention have become so ethereal that most people would just rather not believe they exist, even though they are quite in evidence, a la basically all of modern life.
>> No. 385202
I am not against GMOs, but I am very firmly against corporations being allowed to keep secrets from their consumers in pretty much all cases. So I support labeling even though I can't ever see changing my buying habits based on whether or not GMOs are involved unless it's to go FOR things that have been genetically modified.

But fuck corporate secrets. Fuck secrets for anything but private citizens.
>> No. 385214
Man, I almost had a really good job (for an entry-level) with Monsanto. I didn't take it based on the fact that their policies for usage are terrible, but sometimes I wonder if I should have taken it anyway, because somebody else just filled in the seat I boycotted, and I would have gotten $$$$ for it.

The one real actual concern with GMOs is built-in pesticides. Proteins and DNA break down in your digestive system, and in that respect, a GM strawberry is completely identical to an organic strawberry. I think some fears may come from people not understanding how digestion works. Pesticides are literally poison though and while people do their best to find pesticides we can break down but insects can't, it's not perfect. The problem right now is that we don't know for sure if these chemicals modified plants are producing are actually fucking up the people who eat them somehow; we don't know how they are going to effect this new generation growing up eating GMOs because it is too soon to tell. But I feel like the fear about it is overblown. If you want to worry about pesticides, worry about the ones that have to be sprayed and continuously applied. I think there is also some concerns about growth hormone in meat, whether it's injected or the animal was modified, but I think that is mostly bullcrap too. Science isn't scary. Genetics isn't scary. I feel like most people are scared of genetics because they don't understand what it is or how it's done, which you can chalk up to really shitty biology education.

That being said, eating organic local food is good and, if it's possible for you, I think you ought to try to do that as much as you can. Honestly, organic tends to taste better anyway, since foods are often modified more for size and quantity than flavour.
>> No. 385215
They make GMOs with pesticides in them? I thought they just made GMOs that were immune to herbicide and pesticides and such so they could spray Round-Up on directly on the plants and not worry about them dying.
>> No. 385217
They do both. Monsanto's Round-Up Ready is the most infamous herbicide-resistant strain, not really due to safety concerns, but because Monsanto decided it'd be a great idea to lie about Roundup's toxicity to the public and falsify toxicity tests. Herbicide-resistant crops aren't super great because they allow people to spray herbicide all over without worrying that it will damage their crops; the plants themselves are perfectly fine, but they're coated in pesticide and the act of spraying pesticide on crops means it can leak into the soil or into waterways as runoff and damage ecosystems.

Many plants naturally produce their own pesticide to deter things from eating them, and if they produce their own they are cheaper to grow (now that you don't need barrels and barrels of posionous shit to keep bugs off) so genetically engineering crops to do so is a point of interest. ofc companies that make pesticide might not like them very much, but they exist.
>> No. 385233
>i got rejected from a job at monsanto and am now blowing it off by saying they suck
If you had moral qualms you wouldn't have applied in the first place, man.

>They make GMOs with pesticides in them?
BT toxin which can't hurt humans, is specific to pest insects, it's only expressed in the leaves not the fruiting bodies, and it's been used for decades as a pesticide sprayed everywhere. So the guy above you doesn't know what he's talking about.

Anyone who says "organic tends to taste better" or uses the word "chemicals" in place of toxin is someone you need to stop listening to unless he's selling you a few grams of something.
>> No. 385261
I find non-seedless grapes better because the flesh is softer and the skin is more tangy.
>> No. 385262
I'm working my way through a giant 900+ page article about GMOs, but here's a very good and succint look at it:

>> No. 385266
Remember when Obamacare first passed the senate and we started playing Soviet national anthems and going on about picking out our death 'panels'?
>> No. 385277
The truth is that you can't taste the difference and are imagining it.

But hey, half the wine and culinary world is based on that, so who am I to judge.

Very noice. Don't know if criticism or praise, but from the source alone it seems to not be bullshit.
>> No. 385296
Nah, apparently it's just that I was entirely wrong about what makes grapes "seedless": it's just a different variety of grapes, when I'm pretty sure I read in a high school textbook that it was an example of chemical treatments altering plants. Basically, I just prefer small, round grapes to the ones that get big enough to go oblong. It's not even a taste thing, except for the tartness, which is probably also due to being a completely different variety.
>> No. 385301
Today I learned that Toys R Us' days are basically numbered, and it's Mitt Romney's fault.
Mitt Romney: killing American jobs, and crushing the dreams of children and peoples' inner child alike.
>> No. 385330
File 138124718715.png - (63.10KB , 168x202 , 1332115834070.png )
That bastard.
>> No. 385345
>things I have wanted to ask every U.S. conservative.
>> No. 385346
US Conservatives aren't against fun! They're just against other people having fun.
>> No. 385370

I don't see a difference.
>> No. 385432
File 138155120290.jpg - (81.60KB , 800x511 , 1362285698645.jpg )
Sure is circlejerk in here.
>> No. 385434
When did 'fun' become so important anyway?
>> No. 385437

yeah damn those people and their shared opinions

damn them
>> No. 385439
I'm a conservative and I don't hate fun. If anything, I think most of the anti-fun stuff comes from the left these days (political correctness being spammed everywhere in movies, games, cartoons and basically everything but anime). I just want to have fun not get my privilege checked.
>> No. 385440
File 138155653892.gif - (350.06KB , 245x189 , the mind of hostage takers.gif )
It would probably be less circle-jerky if one party wasn't so increasingly primarily the cause of all this country's problems.

The baseline issue is that of the 2 major parties, only one of them has attempted to provide real solutions to real problems that this country is currently facing. The other one has only attempted to argue that the problems don't really exist, while ignoring the advice of some of the most intelligent minds on the planet, and indeed all the Science, while routinely failing to empathize and understand the majority of Americans. Mostly because they keep ignoring the Science, keep ignoring the one thing that produces really awesome, interesting stuff.

It really feels like they believe one thing: that they should rule, and no one else. That's the first sign that someone shouldn't be given power. No matter what these guys say though, just about everything in reality is arrayed against them, if only because they won't listen to the people saying "we know how to fix this".
>> No. 385441
See here's the thing though: it isn't necessarily about you. Well it's about you, but not the way you think it's about you.

Republicans and Christians respond to pointing out holes in their rhetoric the same way: they think that the person talking to them is talking about them personally. Liberals do not make the arguments we make solely to take digs at people, especially when we suggest that some program or another will probably work. We're trying to fix problems. We have research. We have a lot of people hurting who are not you. And you might not think you're against fun with all this talk of "rampant political correctness", but often the people bitching about political correctness are kind of unfun, fyi. You can still say rude things but you don't get to be offended when people move away from you for the things you said. That's on you. And increasingly, all of this shit is on the Republican party, because they refuse to join everyone else in the 22nd century.
>> No. 385442
I don't think political correctness has anything to do with your political affiliation. And nor should it.

Mostly because as far as I can see, a sizable number of people aren't trying to pass laws about it or making any strong attempt to. You should keep in mind that complaining about something isn't the same thing. You shouldn't be holding someone's blog post or whatever to "the left is at it again!"
>> No. 385444
>I just want to have fun not get my privilege checked.
I know you're trying to be glib here, but if you take this sentence literally, it is just another way of saying "I'm not against fun, I'm just against other people having fun." Or at least "I'm against other people having as much fun as me."
>> No. 385445
File 13815584983.png - (159.79KB , 1050x1050 , 1racssgh_wizardchan_1r9e87n9_wizardchan_13676.png )
>"Let's follow the constitution" = causing all of the country's problems

Holy hyperbole broski.
>> No. 385446

Nice strawman. Anyway, I'm out, because this is about to get retarded. Actually, it already is. I suggest the rest of you go on about your ways before the politics thread gets nuked again.

Don't feed the retards!
>> No. 385447
I don't want to get into a politics fight either, because I'm watching keions, but... wow, fuck you for calling me retarded just because I happen to have different opinions than you. That's exactly why I called the thread a circlejerk. You literally want NO conservative opinions at all.
>> No. 385448
File 138155952085.gif - (2.78MB , 338x252 , 1377582569487.gif )
No dude, what you just said is hyperbole. "Let's stay true to the constitution" is a horrific misrepresentation of what the republican party has been doing over the last 20 years. They do not follow the constitution. They do not treat all peoples as equal. They do not strive for a better world for myself and for my fellow man. They are not for happiness and they are not for fun.

Look, we may need to change the constitution further. That's the thing about the constitution, it can be amended. But beneath even that, we have to make great strides simply to live up to the standards of that document as it stands. The advance of technology has spawned philosophical and legal issues about what should happen in the world and how we as a nation should conduct ourselves, both to the rest of the world and to the people in this country. That last one is of the utmost importance. The times are changing, the issues are changing, history is walking forward and for the last 10 years we've had a ball and chain around the neck of America called the Republican party. We need to move forward. And we can't do that reasonably if only one side comes up with solutions while the other side tries it's damnedest to just dig it's heels in instead of trying to help.
>> No. 385449
>> No. 385450
File 138155993125.jpg - (56.59KB , 558x753 , 1362652036257.jpg )
I wasn't talking about the Republican Party for the last 20 years, I was talking about the Tea Party. For some reason leftists think the Tea Party is some evil, sinister faction of conservatisism when really they're a huge improvement over the Bush-era Republicans. I agree they're not perfect/pure but the basic message of the Tea Party is, "let's follow the constitution again". (The real Tea Party, not establishment politicians like Bachmann and Palin who latched on to it)
>> No. 385451
File 138156017183.gif - (2.85MB , 560x315 , 1381486064475.gif )
The problem is that content creators cave into the complainers and share the same worldview as them. Anime is mostly immune to this so I'm grateful for that.
>> No. 385452
>The problem is that content creators cave into the complainers and share the same worldview as them. Anime is mostly immune to this so I'm grateful for that.
That's called "free market forces at work." Which conservatives are supposed to be in favor of.
>> No. 385453
File 138156080793.jpg - (65.20KB , 1280x720 , 1381490918550.jpg )
You can criticize the free market, retard. And guess what else is the free market at work, GTA5 being the fastest selling video game of all time even though it made womyn and liberals butthurt as hell.

>you will never check our privileges
>> No. 385454
I'm not sure if I understand your argument here. I am saying that the people who give in to the pressure from people who are upset about that treatment is the free market at work, rather than any sort of government intervention. An honest conservative would have to concede that this is the system working as intended, and any attempts to prevent this from happening would be an embrace of the idea of regulating speech--only regulating it to suit your vision of the world instead of the majority's. Your holding up GTA does not do anything to disprove this, because I have not called for GTA to be banned, nor criticized people who play it. At least not for political reasons. I criticize them for playing it because sandbox games are stupid and unplayable messes and they have terrible taste, but their politics are not my concern.
>> No. 385455
I didn't call for anything to be banned either.
>> No. 385456
You have suggested that content creators capitulating to public opinion is censorious, and censorship is generally accepted to be an evil that should not be allowed. I took it for granted that if you thought content creators not making things that alienate their audience was worth complaining about, that you were against content creators refraining from making things that displeases their audience.

In that case, it seems your entire statement was irrelevant. You do not disagree with "liberals" and their "political correctness," you just wanted to whine about the fact that public opinion is no longer the same as your own personal tastes.
>> No. 385457
What did I just say here >>385446

Same for you.
>> No. 385458
>anyone who disagrees with me is a retard
>> No. 385459
I'm against political correctness because it politicizes my favorite forms of media, and in political spaces, it shrinks the sphere of allowed debate by a combination of shame, coercion, and actual censorship. Sometimes this does express itself in laws, like in the UK where you can be arrested for posting racist tweets on twitter, other times it expresses itself in speech codes like at universities or online witchhunts. I don't think the latter should be illegal but I can still criticize it since it's shitty.
>> No. 385460
>and in political spaces, it shrinks the sphere of allowed debate by a combination of shame, coercion, and actual censorship.

Uh huh. Give me some examples. Every time I see someone saying this, it's to defend some honest to goodness whackjob making retarded statements.
>> No. 385462
File 13815719269.jpg - (21.31KB , 296x321 , 1279806731328.jpg )
>taking anything the so-called Tea Party says seriously
>> No. 385465
>taking anything the democrats say seriously

Just look up FIRE and the kinds of cases they take up frequently.

>> No. 385466
>dat kneejerk reaction

Notice how he said nothing about republicans. Just tea partiers.

Also, give me some specific examples. I'm not doing your legwork.
>> No. 385467
How was that a kneejerk reaction anymore than his post was? I posted a pretty sane, sensible explanation for my beliefs and his counterargument was a greentext...
>> No. 385468
>How was that a kneejerk reaction anymore than his post was?

Someone as "intelligent" as yourself should know that all republicans aren't tea partiers. Responding to someone's post like that is retarded, especially considering he didn't even let on to what his political alignment was.
>> No. 385469
File 138157737137.jpg - (150.69KB , 1045x1071 , 1380782917895.jpg )
How does that make it any more or less kneejerk than my post? And why are you putting "intelligent" in quotes, I didn't call myself intelligent? Why are you being a dick to me?
>> No. 385470
Already explained in my post. You decided to greentext something silly about democrats despite the fact that he, in no way, let on to his political preferences. If you can't see the difference between that and his comment to a post specifically about the tea party, you are not quick on the draw.
>> No. 385471
But his comment was a silly greentext too. He didn't rebut anything in my post or even offer a counterargument. How would you have responded to it?
>> No. 385472
Also he clearly did let on his political preferences. He posted, ">taking anything the so-called Tea Party says seriously". This implies he is someone left-of-center or perhaps a neocon. Unless you're implying you shouldn't take anyone in politics seriously it seems like he thinks the Tea Party is uniquely "unserious".

So...... yeah, I don't get why you're so mad, I think you're just being disingenuous right here.
>> No. 385473
>This implies he is someone left-of-center or perhaps a neocon.

Or maybe that the person just isn't fond of the tea party.
>> No. 385474
Okay. It still doesn't change the fact that his post had no substance to it, no facts, no argument, nothing to rebut in a logical matter. It was just as kneejerk as you're accusing me of being but you only criticized me.
>> No. 385475
> It still doesn't change the fact that his post had no substance to it, no facts, no argument, nothing to rebut in a logical matter.

No one implied it did. You just don't grasp how it's different even when it's explained to you. I'm not arguing it was a good post, but it was decidedly less silly than yours and a hell of a lot less reactionary.
>> No. 385477
>I thought I'd come here and offer a different viewpoint to these threads

And no one is shitting on you for having a different viewpoint.


You won't be missed.
>> No. 385478
>You won't be missed.
>> No. 385480
I love how every political argument without exception ends up forgetting about the matter in hand and turn into a crossfire of "you don't get what i said" and "why are you a poopie-head".
>> No. 385481
He IS a poopie-head, though.
>> No. 385482
File 138158776332.jpg - (12.43KB , 480x360 , hqdefault.jpg )
Now now, my colleague is a great man, but his head is also certifiably made of, poop.
>> No. 385490
So anyway, the point is, the Tea Party has shut down the government and is now trying to let us default on our debt obligations despite the Constitution making that illegal, and have therefore sacrificed any claim of just being out to follow the Constitution. They are not out to make the government follow the Constitution--they are out to destroy the government. The Tea Party are anarchists pretending to not be anarchists.
>> No. 385491
File 138160889971.gif - (0.97MB , 500x378 , 1379972454687.gif )
This is the thing about Republicans and the Tea Party though; from the outside, they look like the exact same thing. I know you guys make a big deal out of playing different politics, out of saying "we are not like them we are the new and improved Republicans" but the thing is, to paraphrase Bill Maher, the people you put forward as your political leaders are still "the exact same type of idiot", for both Tea Partiers and Republicans, who I still can't see as different parties, really.

You come here saying that you're trying to present a different side to the debate, a different side to the argument, and yet you subvert the topic to be about political correctness. Political correctness that is not really affecting mainstream media. Tumblr and the SJ crowd might lose their shit over the portrayal of PoC and Women in popular media but it really hasn't filtered down to the popular media at all, reference GTAV. And again, the real issue there is about defending your right to say mean dumb things, or to have the media never present you with anything that really challenges your ideas. And unfortunately, there just isn't a lot of material out in the old media that would challenge your ideas. You may feel your right to say something is under attack, but in the public venues that really isn't the case. Popular media is still squarely the domain of the white male, and it's slowly killing the movie industry through boredom, but that's a different topic.

You think you're providing an alternative viewpoint but you aren't. You're providing the exact same viewpoint that both Republicans and Tea Partiers have espoused for the last 10 years; when the rest of the country presents a very real problem, your immediate reaction is to present the complete inverse of that problem as being the real problem, and then decry the rest of us as being idiots for not focusing on a problem you essentially just made up. That's not an alternate side to the debate or the solution, it's a bunch of people completely detached from reality making stuff up so that they get their way. Unsurprisingly, it is starting to backfire as the public gets it more and more into their heads that Republicans and Tea Partiers are the Lying Party, the Party that Gets Nothing Done, the Party In Denial of the World Around Them.

I'm sorry if you think this seems like an attack on you personally. It's not meant to be. These are the problems the Republican Party has, and the ones that will destroy them as they move forward, no matter what they call themselves or who defends them. If they are unable to serve the people at large then they will fall from power.
>> No. 385495
>This is the thing about Republicans and the Tea Party though; from the outside, they look like the exact same thing.
No, they don't. I'm looking from the outside (as someone fairly far to the left of the democrats), and I can see the distinction pretty clearly.

The Tea Party was founded by the Koch Brothers, and its goal revolves entirely around increasing the power of the Koch Brothers. It has no other goal, and that's why it doesn't appear to have any sort of real strategy to accomplish any of the goals it commits to. It's why Ted Cruz has no answer when people ask him what his endgame in the shutdown fight is. It's why they're so committed to this "Defund Obamacare" thing despite the fact that no one with an IQ over 60 believes that's an outcome that's achievable--the goal here isn't to defund Obamacare, it's to force moderate conservatives, or more specifically, conservatives who aren't enough in the pocket of the Koch brothers, to vote with the Democrats so they can be primaried out of office.

The ultimate goal is a Republican caucus made up entirely of people who owe their office to the Koch Brothers, and depend on Koch money (and the support of the Koch Brothers' Tea Party) to continue to be elected.
>> No. 385499
File 138163026144.png - (30.53KB , 245x228 , 1364309888766.png )
>So anyway, the point is, the Tea Party has shut down the government and is now trying to let us default on our debt obligations despite the Constitution making that illegal, and have therefore sacrificed any claim of just being out to follow the Constitution.
Except the House Republicans are the ones who passed a budget, and it's the Democrats who are refusing to negotiate. I'm not saying HURR REPUBLICANS ARE PERFECT EVIL OBAMA, but I don't think you can flat-out the Republicans are trying to keep the government shut down here when they've done everything they're supposed to do and it's Senate Dems who are holding up the process.

>The Tea Party was founded by the Koch Brothers
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you parrot ridiculous conspiracy theories like this? You're as bad as when Glenn Beck complains about communist socialists and George Soros.

You guys have to pick one or the other? Are the Tea Party anarchists, rebranded Republicans, or the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy ? How about this, maybe they can disagree with you without being evil or sinister in some way. If you stopped getting your news from comedy shows and actually opened a book once you'd see reality is more complex than you make it. /rant
>> No. 385500
>Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you parrot ridiculous conspiracy theories like this?
It's not a conspiracy theory. The first tea party website was registered to the Koch Brothers, and companies owned by the Koch's are the primary investors in Tea Party groups. And since money is speech thanks to Tea Party efforts, the people who donate the most money are the ones whose opinions matter most.

It's a scam, not a conspiracy. The difference being that there don't need to be many people involved and keeping secrets to keep a scam going--just a couple of con men convincing a bunch of easily duped, desperate people believing a bunch of lies that make them feel good. The tea partiers are not being dishonest about their beliefs--they're just having those beliefs fed to them by people who are dishonest.
>> No. 385501

Pardon me, but haven't the Republicans made it a point of asking for the dismantling/defunding of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for a deal to re-open the government/reach a deal on the budget? Wasn't that the whole reason the government shut down in the first place?
>> No. 385502
Republicans prefer to pretend like that's not what's happening so they can try to blame it on the Democrats. Pretty much no one is buying it, but if there's one thing Republicans are good at, it's staying on message. Chances are by this time next year they'll have actually managed to get people to believe the Democrats were the ones holding the government hostage to get concessions, rather than the other way around.
>> No. 385503
one of my friends actually said "watch the left-controlled media somehow spin this to seem like it's the republicans' fault"
my friend is an absolute dumbass
we cool tho
>> No. 385505
>not doing everything they're supposed to do

Really? Because it looks like they're throwing a temper tantrum over something they have repeatedly tried to vote down, even after it passed, even after it continued to pass, even with the consideration that the health care system needs a massive overhaul. Sure they created a budget - a budget in which they failed to account for the thing that was already going to happen. Now they're shutting down the government, they're holding up work, and it looks exactly like what they've been doing for years now. The Tea Party is totally funded by the Koch brothers, that's not a conspiracy, that's pretty much fact that the Koches don't want people to know. That's why I say that they don't look different from classic Republicans: they don't. Their rhetoric may be different but the actions they take, the people they elect, and how they choose to deal with these situations don't make either party look different from the other, and frankly both of them are so poisonous that I don't really want to give anyone the lip service to say they aren't. They want to get back in the race? Recognize that global warming is a problem, recognize that racism is still a problem, recognize that Monsanto is a problem, recognize that we are on the verge of a whole new set of regulations for companies in things that most of the public doesn't know about, such as Data Mining.

You're trying to place this shutdown in the context of one action at one time. It isn't. It is the latest in a huge list of shit not getting done because the GOP (and their bastard Tea Partiers) simply won't admit that it is an issue. Or more worryingly, they parrot the talking points of conservative news heads and the opinions of the people controlling their parties, both of which have proven to be toxic where they aren't just plain incorrect.

The basic point is that the Democrats did not shut down the government. The Democrats have not been standing in the way of cheap healthcare for everyone. The Democrats have not been responsible for any wars in the past 20 years that the Republicans didn't start. The Dems do not deny any of the myriad issues that this nation has to deal with, they try to find solutions. Solutions that the Republicans invariably crippled. You can keep splitting hairs over what is an isn't but it is increasingly evident that there is only one party standing between this nation and progress, and it isn't the Democrats.

We can't pick one label for these people because to label them what they are would be a-political. They're frauds and shysters, they present conflicting viewpoints to their constituents, who aren't exactly up on fact-checking themselves, and thy try to treat the whole of the country as if we're illiterates. Then they are thunderously shocked when reasoning, thinking people come out on election day to select the party that does not resemble an abusive boyfriend.
>> No. 385511
Show him this:

Of course, then you might have to say "inb4 John McCain is a RINO" really fast.
>> No. 385534
Is it wrong to hope that this whole mess goes as bad as it can(default, massive credit rating downgrades, economic downturn, etc.)? I'm so disillusioned with the United States gov't--the war on terror, war on drugs, Gitmo, rendition, drones, NSA, sponsoring terrorists and dictators, our shitty money-based elections, all while lecturing other nations on "human rights and democracy",etc.--that I want us to have our shit slapped--hard--because that's what it's going to take to get us back on track.
>> No. 385536
The last time we had massive devastation was the Civil War. This is old enough now that, as a country, we can't remember the terrors of war and turning away our fellow man. Add to that the wars we've rocked since then; even the ones we didn't really rock, and even had the support for them dwindle severely, were so incubated from the daily American that it didn't have a lasting effect (otherwise we wouldn't have gone into Iraq after Vietnam). Pearl Harbor is the only severe penetration onto American land, and it was only a protectorate then.

America, as a country, hasn't known real hardship for almost two generations. An ever-growing number of the population may be understanding this (especially if we default this month), but even if nothing changes it will be another generation or two before real reform happens. There's also a lot of willful ignorance and, in some portions of the country, being highly intelligent/educated is a bad thing.

So I agree, I think the U.S. needs a good, swift kick in the ass to overcome some of the really large obstacles and come together. Primarily our first-past-the-post and gerrymandering federal election system; no real progress can happen until this system is overhauled, and those in power don't want it to be (and the majority of the citizens don't seem to understand why it's bad.)

Because if it doesn't at least start towards the idea that the "free market" isn't King and Country and that socialist programs like nationalized (hell, I'd be happy with state-based) healthcare are extremely good for everyone, the country will experience an entirely different world of hurt once we hit our stride in the Age of Automation...
>> No. 385537
>because that's what it's going to take to get us back on track.
Man, you have no idea how power works, do you? The more devastated the government gets, the easier it's going to be for the rich to take personal power for themselves. And the rich accruing personal power is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
>> No. 385538

The rich and powerful, however, depend on the state. Having billions is only to your benefit if the police show up when your mansion is burgled, or when the FDIC will make up the difference if your bank goes belly-up. So much of our wealthy is dependent that way: from oil/coal/Ag subsidies to military/fed contracts, our wealthiest citizens and ruling class are interwoven and often one in the same.
>> No. 385539
>The rich and powerful, however, depend on the state.
Only because the law prevents them from forming their own private armies at the moment. Once those laws are gone, they become feudal lords.
>> No. 385540

Given the growing militarization of police departments around the country and the idea that they're "armies" in and of themselves (thank you SOOOOOOOO much for that, Bloomberg), they can just fund the police and not even have to worry about writing new laws and shit.
>> No. 385551
Goddamn Doomsday cult stupid fucks.

The GOP's little rule change t…youtube thumb
>> No. 385552

"Democracy has been suspended!"

too fucking right
>> No. 385553
I love when at 1:10 he shits his heart out because they've been caught so fucking red handed.
>> No. 385554
The HR Resolution question that effectively banned the "clean" bill from coming to the floor: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres368/text

Important to note that this was passed right before the shutdown, basically ensuring the shutdown. A surprisingly short document for something that effectively holds the country hostage.

I hope it continues so more people wake up. If the Republicans hold any majority power this next election, America will have learned nothing and is summarily doomed. Thank goodness Bachman isn't running, hopefully they can put someone sane in front of the cameras now.

Or at 5:00ish when he says the quote in >>385552 and gets a round of applause.
>> No. 385568
File 138185674297.jpg - (80.18KB , 786x264 , I Quit This Planet.jpg )
So once debt ceiling deadline has passed and America has been reduced to a lawless, mad max-ish wasteland, where is the best place for me to pick up mismatched sporting equipment pads and leather outfits?
>> No. 385572
Raid a Goodwill. It's your best bet to find what you need to fit the new dystopian fashion, and all the stupid people will be raiding Best Buys and shit so you'll have to fend off fewer individuals.

Added bonus: Exotic melee weapons.
>> No. 385573
I already have a pair of assless leather chaps prepared
>> No. 385574
Okay, but what's actually going to happen?
>> No. 385575
Depending on who you get your news from, it ranges from nothing to America becomes an also-ran nation (as countries switch to the Euro or Yuan as their default currency) to a (near-)global depression.
>> No. 385577
If we default? The people who lend us money will increase the interest rates at which they lend to us, thus raising the cost of running government exponentially. The value of the dollar will fall significantly, and the major nations in the world (many of which do international trade in dollars because of how reliable they've been up until now) take a bath on any money that have stored in dollars. Because of this, they also stop relying on the dollar as a "safe" currency to store their money in, and so foreign use of the dollar outside of purchasing things from Americans is reduced. Thus the value of the dollar is even further reduced, and we have an influx of USD from all the foreign powers offloading theirs, increasing inflation.

It won't be anything Mad Max style, but most economists think it will bring on a bigger recession than the one we had at the turn of the century, and will rival anything since the Great Depression.
>> No. 385578
File 138187498930.jpg - (179.85KB , 1322x530 , 1381874696929.jpg )
Found elsewhere.

>> No. 385579
Are you honestly asking, or are you just trying to bring 4chan trolling onto this board? I notice you didn't include your thoughts.
>> No. 385580

The former, and I don’t have enough knowledge to form my own coherent thoughts on the matter.
>> No. 385581

Compromise would assume the democrats are getting something that they want that the Republicans don't want. Working under the assumption that rational actors would not want the government to go down in flames, then what they are doing is not compromising, they are holding the country ransom because they cannot get what they want via normal bargaining.
>> No. 385582
It's a troll with 0 merit; if the poster would cite his claims, then we could have a discussion. (I'm not familiar with that third "everyone must live under Obamacare" claim.)

It also fails to mention that the Republicans passed a Resolution in the house (with 7 Democrats supporting, wtf) before the shutdown began that only allows the clean bill to come to the floor under the approval of the Majority Leader as a point of parliamentary procedure. (>>385551)
>> No. 385583
>I'm not familiar with that third "everyone must live under Obamacare" claim.
It's an attempt to make it look like the government is "cheating" at Obamacare, when in fact any government agency that is exempt from Obamacare provisions is exempt for the same reason businesses meeting the same criteria would be. The Republicans are attempting to introduce exceptions to the rule to make government agencies adopt Obamacare for two reasons: 1.) because making it look like those agencies are avoiding Obamacare rather than just being unaffected by it implies malfeasance on the part of those in charge, and 2.) because they recognize that the reason small enough organizations are exempt is because the burden placed on those organizations by Obamacare is too high to be easily shouldered, and they recognize a chance to do economic harm to those agencies this way, which they consider an advantage for no reason other than spite.
>> No. 385585
I know about the myth that the government is somehow exempt from it, but I meant that I haven't heard of them voting up or offering up a bill that would keep the government open but apply those "new" restrictions to the ACA.
>> No. 385588
Trolling and/or conservative hyperbole. They're trying to place it simply in the context of "we're only doing things within the law and we are totally not being petulant children". It's like, it doesn't really matter if they're operating within the law when they've tried to repeal Obamacare basically since it passed and failed every time. Now they are shutting down the government over this and trying to pretend it's not because they didn't get their way? Failing to put Obamacare into the budget when they knew it's going to happen is their fault (and against the law? certainly it fails to fulfill their duties), and the government being shut down is their fault, and people trying to pretend that isn't the case, that too is their fault. And it's horseshit. It's hysterical that people are still trying to defend these actions. And I know 4chan is the original trolling grounds for shit like this but goddamn, I don't really think your given /pol/ troll gets that much traction anymore without really obfuscating shit and even then, most people tune out when the explanation is too complex.
>> No. 385589
File 138190253887.jpg - (252.86KB , 500x700 , obama drones.jpg )
> they are holding the country ransom because they cannot get what they want via normal bargaining
Yeah no shit, they shut off the EBT so people would starve, ordered government employees to make things as difficult as possible, capped fucking Old Faithful... not sure why people even have faith in them anymore.

The administration is acting like a bunch of petulant children, and intentionally doing damage to the population in order to extort a result they want.
>> No. 385606
Aw fuck, the Dems and Reps reached an agreement. I really wanted to use those assless chaps.
>> No. 385607
>According to sources, the Senate deal under discussion would reopen the government, funding it until January 15. It would also raise the debt limit until February 7 to avert a possible default on U.S. debt obligations for the first time.

Don't worry, Anon, they simply gave you some more shopping days to find the perfect accessories for those assless chaps.

No word on what other agreements they had to make to get this in place, but they just kicked the can down the road again. I personally hope this whole debacle repeats itself to keep the bungling of the Republicans in the mind of the American people come election time next year.
>> No. 385611

Moronic strawman trolling.
>> No. 385612

While neither side is blameless (in American politics? Both sides having dirty hands? Quelle horreur!) the GOP (specifically, the Tea Party caucus), get the majority of the blame. There is a time and place for things, and however badly they want to repeal the ACA, threatening the health of the already sickly US/global economy is not the way to do it. Had they not pulled this shitty stunt, they could point to all the problems with the ACA rollout and say "See? We told you this would be bad! But you can get rid of it by electing a supermajority of us in both houses in 2014, or a majority in both houses and the White House in '16!" And then they'd be (a) having a conversation on the issue, rather than at gunpoint negotiation, and (b) the public would be voting on the consequences of the bill the next two big elections, not the behavior of its supporters and detractors.

Instead, they now look (more) like insane, hostage-taking radicals. Doesn't matter that the administration prioritized certain closures during the phony shutdown to make things look worse, the GOP fucked up royal, and is full out madmen and idiots.

We're just so screwed, politically. Between the secretive, corporate funded elections, gerrymandered districts, the gutting of the voter's rights act, and lack of congressional term limits, none of these idiots will get voted out, unless its for some one even more Tea Party crazy.
>> No. 385616

>lack of congressional term limits

This is the one that gets me the most. We have term limits on the President, but not on Congress? WTF.
>> No. 385619
Agreed. The Founders intended for elected office to be a part of being a citizen: give up a few years of your life, help run the country, then go back to being a doctor or a farmer or whatever. They also created the Federal government with the idea that it had extremely limited power (10th Amendment), serving only as a unifying umbrella over the individual and more powerful states. I suppose they didn't envision both the rise of career politicians and vastly expanded Federal power, perhaps thinking that one would counter the other.

But things didn't work out that way. Congressional term limits and voting reform are the most important things that this country needs, and those in power will do their damnedest to keep them from doing so. I call it "Bachmann Envy": to be as bat-shit crazy as Michelle Bachmann, doing as you please, yet still getting elected term over term with little in the way of contest. Lather, rinse, repeat until you're too old to stay awake during your own campaign.

(I think Surpreme Court Justices need term limits, too, but not to the restriction or with the importance of Congressional term limits.)
>> No. 385620
I used to agree, but people have pointed out to me that it would increase the power of lobbyists if congress had as much turnover as term limits would impose, thanks to lobbyists having more experience writing laws than congressmen would in that scenario, and their arguments have convinced me that that might not be a good option.

A better option would be to increase the number of representatives for each state by a large enough number to make Gerrymandering far less effective at skewing the numbers.
>> No. 385622
The House didn't threaten US economy, they challenged a tiny tiny piece of a budget as is their right. The administration then caused an issue of it because they were not willing to have a conversation or make compromises. Which is hilarious because the current president ran on the compromise/party cooperation platform, you'd expect him to at least want to talk.

> Doesn't matter that the administration prioritized certain closures during the phony shutdown to make things look worse
Um... that's "gunpoint negotiation" and it's the real threat to US economy. If you're really ok with this on a fundamental level you're already too far gone to recognize the inherent hypocrisy.

>Instead, they now look (more) like insane, hostage-taking radicals.
Actually white house does...
Vets marching past White House…youtube thumb
Stop getting your news from CNN.
>> No. 385623

>The administration then caused an issue of it because they were not willing to have a conversation or make compromises.

Yeah, the administration TOTALLY should have compromised with the GOP and wholly dismantled a law that passed through all three branches of the Federal Government (and set back the state of health care in this country to God-knows-when in the process), amirite?

Remember, this whole fight hinged on the reforms to the health care system brought on by Obamacare. The GOP held the country’s economy hostage to deny this country some long-needed (if poorly executed) health care reform.

>the current president ran on the compromise/party cooperation platform, you'd expect him to at least want to talk

I’d think Obama finds it hard to talk to leaders of a political party that appears to have no interest in compromising with him.

>that's "gunpoint negotiation" and it's the real threat to US economy

Uh, how does Boehner, Cruz, and the GOP preventing votes on a ‘clean resolution’ that would restart the government and refusing to negotiate unless the Democrats promised to defund Obamacare and give Republicans all the other things they wanted out of their stunt NOT count as gunpoint negotiation?
>> No. 385624
> it would increase the power of lobbyists if congress had as much turnover as term limits would impose, thanks to lobbyists having more experience writing laws than congressmen would in that scenario
Oooooooooor the newly minted guys would just tell the lobbyists to fuck off. Legal briberylobbying is another thing that has to go.

And as things are now, career politicians are more than happy to let the lobbyists write the laws for them because it means they get far more kickbacks and have an even easier political career.
>> No. 385625


>Yeah, the administration TOTALLY should have compromised with the GOP and wholly dismantled a law that passed through all three branches of the Federal Government (and set back the state of health care in this country to God-knows-when in the process), amirite?

I meant the compromise to defund Obamacare would have set back the state of health care, not Obamacare itself did (but who knows this early on).

To quote Sterling Archer: PHRASING.
>> No. 385626
>Actually white house does...
You know, you're free to believe whatever you like, but if you don't start basing your picture of the political climate on reality instead of whatever echo chamber you've been listening to, you're never going to understand why you keep losing national elections.
>> No. 385635
File 138200870936.jpg - (87.10KB , 500x412 , image.jpg )

The House said 'we won't fund the economy or raise the debt ceiling unless we get to defund/delay/dismantle/etc (the demands shifted over time) your signature legislation, and get nothing in return'. That is not a bargaining position, that is a THREAT, especially given what an obvious non-starter such a position is as for negotiations. Neither keeping the government open nor raising the debt ceiling are concessions to demand something in exchange for. Those are the very basic jobs of congress. The Democrats were not obligated to negotiate an inch in exchange for them; and to their credit, they didn't.

If you think the Denocrats were the hostage takers here, you need to get your head checked. They were not demanding a change of policy or law, and were not trying to bypass the normal legislative process by demanding concessions in exchange for the normal functions of government. That was the Republicans. And it is by no means the first time the Rs have pulled this shit over the past five years.

You also need to get your head checked if you think a handful of vets flying the fucking confederate flag outside the White House made OBAMA look bad.
>> No. 385636
Actually, you know what, gonna take a moment to highlight an especially counter factual part of that post:

>The House didn't threaten US economy, they challenged a tiny tiny piece of a budget as is their right.

That would be a compelling argument if it weren't for one thing: Obamacare was already funded! Did you wonder why the final rollout went ahead despite the government shutdown? That's because it's self-funded and does not need to be funded by a separate appropriations bill or continuing resolution, in much the same way that Medicare and social security don't come up on the chopping block year after year.

In other words, it is not part of the budget. This isn't two parties at loggerheads over fiscal policy, it's one party introducing a separate legislative issue into normal budget negotiations and subsequently blowing them up.
>> No. 385640
>They also created the Federal government with the idea that it had extremely limited power (10th Amendment)

That depends on which found fathers you were talking about. Historical revisionism states that they were all for a limited government, but in actuality George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, all the "famous" founding fathers you think of when the name is evoked, wanted a much stronger federal government than the one they got. A lot of power was taken out to appease the "anti-federalists" like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee. In fact many federalists assumed the federal government was still going to be too weak to survive and would collapse like it did previously under the Articles of Confederation.
>> No. 385644
File 138203439947.gif - (2.91MB , 270x332 , 1374242133368.gif )
>misfired in sym

>my sides
>> No. 385645
File 138203794953.jpg - (69.35KB , 652x365 , shutdown-government-reopens.jpg )
>Vice President Joe Biden showed up at the Environmental Protection Agency's headquarters bearing muffins Thursday morning, and greeted employees as they returned to work after the 16-day government shutdown.

>“I brought some muffins!” Biden said when he arrived, placing few containers of “Coffee Cake Bites” on the EPA security desk, per a White House pool report.

>The vice president spotted a sign on the desk that read, “All visitors must be escorted at all times.” Biden announced: “I’d like to be escorted!”

Gotta love Joe. Best VP.
>> No. 385646
While I must point out that I consider most of the things he does and says to be very stupid, that was nice of him. Also he had that incredibly uncomfortable cameo in Parks and Recreation last season, so I'll give him a little credit.
>> No. 385649
Yeah, but when he does and says stupid things, they're the sorts of things a bumbling but lovable uncle would do/say. Considering the pointlessness of his job, I have no problem with him being America's Bumbling Uncle.
>> No. 385650

Can we make that an official office?
>> No. 385651
File 138205765827.png?spoiler - (127.66KB , 600x664 , Romneycare.png?spoiler )
You mean reality like the real vets marching on real White House and it not being reported in your echo chamber? I haven't posted once in this thread without sources to support my frame of view, so if you want to keep arguing over this and trying to say the administration isn't looking like a bunch of tools, feel free to post a vid of people marching in the House of Representatives.

Or read things like >>385644 to find out just how much respect and cooperation Obama is fostering between parties. You think it's easy working with a guy like that? He'd piss off Bob Ross.
Although in that article this part is funny...
>“You’re asking me to accept Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Why would I do that?”
Since the healthcare bill is essentially copypasting Mitt Romneys plan.

>> No. 385654

I'd say it's probably easier than working with Boehner, the guy who continuously makes deals and then either reneges or is simply unable to deal with them.
>> No. 385655
This is the respect and cooperation that the GOP have earned. A lot of us are sick of trying to batter down the walls around the conservative movement. You keep accusing everyone outside the GOP mindset of the exact thing your side has been doing all along. Really, a bunch of veterans marched on Washington to protest Obama's policies? Let's give them the exact same respect that was shown Anti-War Protestors during Bush Jr.'s tenure.

Here's the thing you're not getting; there are reasons beyond pure Political Party-lineism for why everyone is turning against the GOP, and it has to do with the constant barrage of misinformation they feed anyone who will listen (coincidentally, mostly rich white males, or christian white males who believe whatever their congregation tells them).

We're not posting links because this is the writing on the wall for just about everyone outside the GOP camp. We're sick of it. We posted the links. We posted the Scientific Research. We have made a very good case for the problems that we are trying to solve, and the one giant thing standing in the way of progress is the GOP. That you are even here defending these shmucks after they have the gall to shut down the Government then Lie About It to their constituents is mind-boggling, man. Even John McCain is like "GTFO with the lies. Republicans did this". Here's a link:

Obama went with Romney's healthcare plan because that was the only fucking way to get the GOP to agree to anything. He's not going with his Tax Plan because it would Destroy the Economy. That's not hyperbole, that's what the GOP just tried to do. Their Economic Policies do not work. Here's just one article detailing that:

You keep trying to nitpick this thing and cast it as "Not Us". Or "Obama's fault". And the truth is that no. Your fault. Your politics. Your lies. Your fundamental misunderstanding that, however bad the Obama Administration is, it is billions of times better than the economy-crashing wasteland that every single conservative voice is calling for.

Your inability to face reality. Not ours and not the majority of American People, whom these policies actually affect. Do you even acknowledge that people like Obamacare once it's explained to them? And not called "Obamacare" but "the Affordable Care Act"?
>> No. 385662
File 138210025891.gif - (428.25KB , 480x360 , I have nothing to add but thank you for saying tha.gif )
>> No. 385663
So yes. In any world, in any room, you will encounter a hugbox.
>> No. 385665
It should also be pointed out that although we call it Romneycare, it was passed by the Romney who was the Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state, with strong D majorities in both state houses. It wasn't the fondest dream of his heart (and indeed he essentially repudiated it when running for president) it was a plan that would avoid losing hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid payments and would be acceptable to the Democrats in the state house and senate.

It's also a pretty good health care plan, as people from Massachusetts will tell you. It's the only thing from the Romney years spoken of fondly.
>> No. 385667
>It's also a pretty good health care plan, as people from Massachusetts will tell you.
This is what I find humorous about the whole thing. Massachusetts favors Romneycare by a decent margin (62% favorability; http://www.wbur.org/2012/02/15/health-care-wbur-poll), but that never seems to come up when anyone is talking about it.

Of course, popularity doesn't actually mean something is good or not. While Massachussets != Country, it can be used as a litmus test of sorts. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/
>The latest number from the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy: 98.1 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2010. [...] DHCFP’s statistics show the percent of residents without insurance declining from 7.4 percent in 2004 and 6.4 percent in 2006 to 1.9 percent in 2010. (That compares with national figures of 14.8 percent uninsured in 2006 and 15.4 percent last year.)

>In May 2009 [Taxpayers Foundation] put out a report called “The Myth of Uncontrolled Costs,” which concluded that the net added cost to Massachusetts taxpayers was $353 million in 2010, or roughly 1.2 percent of the state budget.

>Let’s compare what people in the pre-merger individual market spent per person per month for a premium in 2006 and what those in the post-merger market spent in 2008. Those numbers went from $437 to $360, an 18 percent decrease.

Again, Massachusetts isn't the country, but from this it hasn't caused the state to kill off grandmas and fall into a dystopia as the vitriol of so many GOP talking heads would have you believe.
>> No. 385729
>“Unfortunately,” they write, “the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping. By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.”

tl;dr activists are their own worst enemy, or in simpler terms whenever a feminist reinforces manhater stereotypes a mass of people turn away from the movement
>> No. 385730
Alternate interpretation: no one wants to eat their vegetables.
>> No. 385734
Signed. We kind of already knew this. The hardest thing to try and teach folks is that "all people deserve to be treated equally". This gets harder when people point to a few of the truly angry activists who are very in your face about Equal Rights, and treat that as the stereotype. Environmentalism has a rough time because everything about it points to our petroleum-based society very rapidly destroying the planet, and they sound like doomsayers when they report on factual events. A bigger problem is that we don't have an answer to the petroleum-based society. Even if everybody puts on the proverbial brakes, we're still hurtling towards that particular cliff.
>> No. 385736
I won't pretend that people can't make their own movements look worse.

However, I find it more harmful that people aren't willing to do research on these opposing viewpoints and instead of arguing towards these strawmen and stereotypes. Also if people could understand for a second that not everyone subscribes to the same ideologies. Just as an example, people cannot honestly believe that every liberal/conservative, democrat/republican/whatever actually all hold all the same beliefs.
>> No. 385739
>Alternate interpretation
Uh, no. Read the study, your "alternate interpretation" doesn't make any damn sense.

In scientific studies they make sure there is no alternate interpretation, that's why they had controls and blind choices.

>For one-third of the participants, the writer was described as a stereotypical environmentalist (his “profile” stated, “I hold rallies outside chemical research labs”). Another third were told he was an atypical, less-abrasive environmentalist (“I’m involved in organizing social events … to raise money for grassroots-level environmental organizations”). For the final third, his profile did not mention environmental activism at all.
>After reading the article, participants were asked whether it inspired them to do more recycling, or otherwise take more eco-friendly actions.
>“Participants were less motivated to adopt pro-environmental behaviors when these behaviors were advocated by the ‘typical’ environmentalist, rather than by the ‘atypical’ environmentalist or the undefined target,” the researchers report.

So people do like environmentalism, just not when it's being sold to them by an activist.

Most people don't have enough time in their day to get educated on all of the thousand hot button issues going on at any given moment, that's what raising awareness is all about.
>> No. 385740
You're saying people like Feminism as well, just not when it's being sold to them by a Feminist?

In scientific studies they try to control for as much outside influencing factors as possible, not eliminate alternative interpretation. They cannot ever eliminate alternative interpretation, which is why experiments are designed to be performed repeatedly by different research groups and can be modified to focus on different aspects of the questions they ask. So long as their focus is interpreting the data, and all the data, as such that it can be correlated elsewhere, then we can reasonably say that they are certain.

While it could indeed be that people simply don't like being told something by an Activist, I wonder how they would respond to being told these things by a Scientist. If we were to replace the 3 descriptions with descriptions of a Scientific Researcher where you know exactly what they study, to Scientific Researcher where they tell you partially what they study, to Scientific Researcher where you have no idea what they study, then ask them to read the exact same articles, I wonder how much more or less credence would be given to the articles?

The interpretation here doesn't have enough data to really make a conclusive statement about this. This has echoes of a few other studies that point to people associating verbal attacks on brands they like with attacks on themselves. When you say "I get in people's faces to try and promote social change" vs. "I respectfully campaign and fund-raise to raise awareness of important issues", the response you'll get is very different, and I think that difference is represented within the larger Civil Rights movements in terms of the difference of people trying to really get across the importance of social issues vs. people who have been legitimately hurt and are angry and lashing out.

I think "people don't want to eat their vegetables" is a very apt alternative interpretation. People don't want to do many things that are technically good for them, generally given a path of lesser resistance. We see this with flossing, with physical fitness, with mental illness and the associated medication, with shopping smartly, with avoiding scams, with a lot of stuff where the Science as interpreted is "this will be healthier/better for you in your life". But we've known for a long time that yelling, threatening, cajoling and harassing people into being "better" does not really work as an effective promoter of change. I doubt that any of the participants will have really changed their ways after reading those papers, if the research took the time to poll them afterwards. This kind of thinking is reflected in Political circles as well, where public figures are heavily trained to not be too vehement on any one issue, opting for very calm and controlled responses designed not to upset one side or the other. This does not mean that certain issues do not have prescience before certain others, merely that Politicians have to tread very carefully least they tread on the ill will of the average citizen.
>> No. 385801
>by a Feminist
Try "by a pushy obsessed activist", there are regular feminists out there that don't proselytize, or even call themselves feminists.

I'm not saying that, the research is.

Well if that first strawman sentence is anything like the rest of your comment, I'm just gonna stop right here...
>> No. 385953

Right-wing moderators trying to filter what sites people are able to link to (mostly sites that actually report on conservative misdeeds).
>> No. 385954
And this is why I don't like top-level moderation you see on most forums. Moderation should be for removing irrelevant material (spam, porn, something not within the purpose of the forum like discussing general video games on a forum for origami), illegal material based on the country of hosting (to keep the feds out of your hair, if that's something you care about), and obvious trolling/shitposting (though what is "obvious" will vary a lot between people.)

Going any further than those three leads to such a blacklist (and even those three are still open to bias) and the drowning of conversation and viewpoints.

I like (+)4chan's minimal-moderation level, but for getting the cream out of a long discussion Slashdot has the best option I've seen. Reddit does not, because the visible and non-capped scores lead to cliques, and the cliques rise and create their own top-level moderation even if none were defined (and they are). Closest thing Slashdot has to this is UID and having +1 added to your posts' scores with default settings when you have high karma (ranking, not a number, and visible only when viewing someone's profile.)
>> No. 385955
/r/Politics has always been pretty left-leaning, actually. And many of the banned domains are conservative, such as reason.com and heritage.org.
>> No. 385959
I don't really think we're in disagreement about this issue but it is annoying to have only the description of the author changed in the research and people forming their opinions of those arguments based on that description of the person rather than the arguments.
Although I suppose that segues neatly into the current discussion.

This has always been the issue innate though. "Trolling", for however much we like to pretend it is an intentional activity done for laughs, is just as often an actual expression of someone's beliefs. The issue of shitposting and of "post quality" is a problem as old as the internet. And unfortunately, the "Top Down" moderation approach is really one of oldest and easiest to implement, even if it is one of the poorest models for screening for quality content. The latest news about Wikipedia kind of talks about the same issues:

The political climate in the U.S., and in particular the media released from largely conservative outlets (Fox News mainly) has seriously damaged the integrity of journalism as a whole, and by extension a lot of the purported expertise that forms the basis of most "serious" discussion on the net.

I kind of understand a few of the sites. Alternet and Salon tend to mix their opinion columns with their news content. I'm less familiar with most of the others, though if they have similar problems, I could see them being banned for ease, or at least until review. Motherjones and Vice I understand less.

Crying "Conspiracy" does seem a little rich one way or the other, and it's far too soon to really start dissecting this. If it is, however, it may set an interesting precedent. The article itself actually talks about a conservative conspiracy on Digg a few years back. And it is generally known that the best way to upvote things on most any aggregation site is by fixing the initial amount of upvotes you get in some sense. Reddit has a kind legitimacy never before held by an aggregation site, mostly for the Ask Me Anything threads. If the players in this are actually being approached by Big Time interests, it might be a pivotal moment in the understanding of such sites as being mostly immune to real-world pressures. Although I suspect those more in the know might say that has already passed.
>> No. 385967
Well there legitimately is a "conspiracy" so to speak, in that the mods are conspiring to accomplish a goal, but it's a less dramatic one than people would usually mean when they talk of conspiracies--/r/politics/ used to be a default subreddit for new users, and it lost that status because of complaints from new redditors. The mods are attempting to improve "post quality" in the hopes of regaining that status and the prestige that comes from being a "respected subreddit," and they have decided that the cause of the low perception of quality is due to sensationalist reporting in the links distributed.

Maybe that's the problem with some of them (and I actually agree with their decision to get rid of blogspam links--seeing the same link a dozen times because people keep posting links to other news aggregator sites instead of the actual sites doing the story is just stupid), but I think they may be overlooking the fact that part of the reason the quality of political discourse seems to be going down is that the quality of politics as a cultural phenomenon is going down.
>> No. 386133
The support by foreigners for labor unions baffles me. Why do Europeans in particular seem to love these fronts for organized crime so much?
>> No. 386135
>labor unions
>fronts for organized crime
Are you posting from China or something?
>> No. 386145
It's almost like you misspelled "superpacs" but not quite
>> No. 386160
US here, most unions are mobbed the fuck up, I don't get why Euros like them so much either.
>> No. 386161

Complete myth. There was an element of truth to it, like, a hundred years ago. But not anymore, and it was always exaggerated by anti-labor forces.
>> No. 386162
>I don't get why Euros like them so much either
Because they actually use their political sway to make sure employees have basic rights and get paid decently? How would people be against that? Unless you're some kind of horrible narcissist and don't want any other person in the world to be well-off?
>> No. 386163
A pro-union socialist.

Ho hum.
>> No. 386164

Do you enjoy the forty-hour work week? Overtime pay? The ability to go to turn down assignments that would get you killed? If so then you should be pro-union too, since all of those things are the result of organized labor.
>> No. 386167
Yeah, it's rarer than you think, and most of the concept is due to anti-union forces (read: employers) in the U.S., which would hate having to pay fast food employees an actually livable wage. And even when labor unions do turn to crime, mostly it's for the same reason anyone turns to crime: the "legitimate" jobs in that area were either outsourced or dried up due to technological innovation.

The Italian Mob is still around, but they've been largely gutted in effectiveness due to the increasingly advanced operations of the U.S. Police forces, as well as the rise and distribution of Narcotics from Mexico, and operation largely controlled by the Mexican drug cartels and then by street gangs when it gets up into the states (although this too is changing).

Also if you are in any way anti-union then holy fucking shit who have you been listening to? Just about everything good in Labor Laws has come from Union pressures in the U.S.
>> No. 386170
>How would people be against that?
It's that whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" thing. America has been able to build the myth of upward mobility up so much that many poor people believe that one day they won't be poor, which makes them entirely willing to go along with things that are bad for them but good for the rich since they assume they'll be rich one day. The rich are willing to continue feeding this myth and ignoring the fact that they've more or less destroyed upward mobility because it means they have a voting block that is willing to vote against its own best interests (i.e. by limiting the power of unions, dismantling the social safety net, voting in huge tax breaks for gazillionaires, taxing labor far greater than capital, etc.) under the assumption that they'll get a cut one day.

They won't, of course, but they believe that they will, and that's all it takes to get their vote and their loyalty to a political movement that hates them.
>> No. 386171

Do you like rockets? Do you enjoy Fanta? Like watching the Olympic torch relay? If so, you should be pro-Nazi, because all those were invented by the Third Reich.

(I'm not comparing unions to Nazis, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.)
>> No. 386173
Aaaaaand you instantly lost the argument.
>> No. 386175
File 138385873442.jpg - (24.26KB , 385x185 , image.jpg )

Yes, because all of those were accomplishments central to National Socialism, which rose to power with the promise to shoot overly sugary drinks into low orbit and develop a showy way to move fire from place to place.
>> No. 386176
>just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

No you didn't.

You're comparing pro-union to things that have to do with union and work to things that don't necessarily have anything to do with the Nazi party.

I'm going to assume you were trying to have a giggle when you made that silly post.
>> No. 386189
>internet argument
>implying there can be any winners
>> No. 386196
Not really sure if this is better posted here or the crazy ideas thread, but I specifically want feedback on this, so here it goes:

Political issues often are attributed to lobbying and other influence form corporations, and there are complaints about corporate activity in general. Corporations themselves mostly lay the blame for their behavior on their legal obligation to please their shareholders, who are presumed to want competitiveness and quick profits first and foremost unless they explicitly demand otherwise.

Now for one thing, I don't think there's much of a way to specifically buy stock for the purpose of gaining the influence over its policies unless you can just buy a controlling interest in it, since otherwise you risk simply investing in whatever it's already doing. So it could be useful for there to be an escrow service sort of like a crowdfunding site, but for people to group together and collectively offer to buy a company if it agrees to a contract enforcing a particular code of conduct.

Many companies might simply be too large for this tactic to be effective, especially and unfortunately those with the most political influence. But comparing the most successful Kickstarter campaigns to the total value of many companies, it might be feasible to, for example, buy up EA just to tell it stop buying developers and spin off the ones it has. And I think it'd be even easier for a small company to be purchased by its customers for the sole purpose of barring it from takeover by a larger business. Hopefully if this actually happens it won't lead to companies being intentionally bad so as to attract such an offer.

Also, while I'm not sure, it seems like people managing their retirement funds have a lot of influence over stocks even though they likely have very little interest in the internal affairs of the companies they fund, often even just having a third party invest their money for them. I'm wondering if a mass usage of some retirement preparation not including stock ownership would have a significant affect on the behavior of companies most often purchased for such reasons, and if so how.
>> No. 386197
Crowdfunding doesn't make enough money to buy major corporations like EA. You could potentially buy a small local newspaper with crowdfunding, or a company on a similar scale to that, but you're not going to make even a dent in the sort of National corporation, or especially a Megacorp that acts like a government unto itself, ala Google or Wal*Mart. Technically the government is not supposed to allow companies to GET that big, but we stopped policing that when we started getting bribed to let corporations do whatever they want.

Companies like those are why a free market is impossible in a capitalist economy.
>> No. 386199
Well, how I did the numbers for EA was that I looked at the Pebble watch as an example: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android?ref=most-funded

$10,266,845 from 68,929 backers makes just below 149 dollars per backer.
...Alright, I remember seeing something on I think Yahoo answers where someone tries guessing how much money it would theoretically take to buy EA, but I can't even find it now, so that shows how good it was I guess. But, I'm thinking if people can pay so much for a watch, more people than that might pay more each on average for changing the course of a major player in an industry. I guess my calculations were way off, though. I'll have try looking into it more later, but I guess most companies that could get bought like that are on a scale where just funding individual projects works well enough.
>> No. 386202
EA's market cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization) is 7.9B, so that's at least a number we can work with. Taking your average, it would take over 53M people to buy all shares (and it likely would cost many more times than that if bought outright.)

But the problem with this and >>386196 is that not all shares are equal. Aside from Wall Street being able to pull any kind of shenanigans (up to and including closing the market) if they feel such a play is being made and feel threatened by it, some companies offer "tiers" of stock. You could own all of a tier B stock, but it wouldn't mean shit because it's the tier A stockholders, usually the founding members and early investors, who actually have a say. Everyone else is along for the ride and a profit cut. (http://www.investopedia.com/university/stocks/stocks2.asp) Essentially, to do such a takeover, you would already have to be the Illuminati.

In either case, it would all be for naught. Even if we were to able to crowdfund a corporate takeover, the clout and power of the remaining corporations easily drowns us out; and that's assuming the company we would take over would still have a strong leader so it remains profitable and in business. Our time is better spent behind humanist lobbying (until such time as we make lobbying illegal) and causes like Wolf-PAC (http://www.wolf-pac.com/).
>> No. 386204
>you would already have to be the Illuminati.
And you would need to be upper-tier Illuminati at that. I'm an Illuminatus, and there's no frickin' WAY I could get a company that big under my control.
>> No. 386207
>Fanta made by the Third Reich
>> No. 386223
The whole union argument is retarded anyway, it's possible for a movement to do good and bad things at the same time. The fundamental disagreement is whether the good unions did outweighs the bad, but that's subjective and can't be quantified so it's retarded to argue about it.

Some people may have lost their job because of a union, and thus hate them, others may have kept their job because of one, and thus like the concept. It's completely subject to experience.

People... plus4 denizens... please learn to take a step back and evaluate if its worth starting an argument that can never be resolved.
>> No. 386234
No, trying to start a fight over whether Unions are good or bad is doomed to fall. Unions are good. Full stop. Everything negative you can say about a Union stems directly from the cause of the creation of the concept, that is to defend Workers' Rights' against Employers. Somebody was denied a job because of a Union? That's because they didn't qualify for the skilled labor, and including such a person would undercut the salaries of the actually skilled men aligned with the Union. Mobs moved in and set up shop in Union Operations? The employers weren't paying enough to the workers. And this is recent, this isn't like back in the day when Company Owners would call in Pinkertons to attack striking workers who were protesting dangerous working conditions for unfair pay.

There isn't that much evidence that Unions are bad, but there's a lot of evidence that Unions are good in spite of all the bad shit around them. I find it amazing that anyone in the U.S. would think that Unions are bad at all when they've been an intrinsic part of the fight for the rights of the common worker. They are only bad when they get shut out, ignored, or attacked by Companies who don't want to make the wages for their people actually livable. They've fallen by the wayside in the past few decades because the majority of jobs in this country are unskilled labor, and can be very easily replaced. Technically skilled labor exists but there are so few people there and they are paid so well that the need for Unions doesn't exist there.
>> No. 386238

Unions = direct factor on the unemployment of anyone who doesn't belong to their secret houseclub. Yes, they achieve higher wages but with lesser jobs, and it led to the whole outsourcing overseas faggotry.

Fuck unions, and fuck any leftie retard who defends them.
>> No. 386239
>it led to the whole outsourcing overseas faggotry.
Corporate greed lead to the whole outsourcing overseas faggotry.

Don't shill for the CEOs, anon. You are not a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. You are in the lower class, and you will always be in the lower class. You are shooting yourself in the foot by dancing on their puppet strings like this.
>> No. 386240
>Fuck unions, and fuck any leftie retard who defends them.

>> No. 386251
File 138414344388.jpg - (23.30KB , 124x126 , fuckyou.jpg )
>Full stop
Stop that.
>> No. 386261
>You are in the lower class, and you will always be in the lower class.
Do you fully believe this?
>> No. 386262
That upward mobility in the United States is dead? Yeah, pretty much. If we rebuilt the middle class, there might be some room to move up within that range, but we've decimated it so bad that the only way for the lower classes to reach the upper classes is to have a long-lost wealthy relative die and bequeath it all to them.
>> No. 386265
>and it led to the whole outsourcing overseas faggotry.
Corporations did that. Not unions. You want outsourced jobs to come back? Well, are you prepared to live like a migrant worker in China? With life-threatening working conditions, working 16-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, then going to sleep with 40 of your co-workers in a single, moldy, badly ventilated room that has about 6 beds? All for about $150 a month? Oh yes, fuck those Unions from preventing the US to become like that. Fuck them hard. Anyone who's not rich doesn't deserve basic human rights.
>> No. 386269
Interestingly, it will likely be the unionization of shops in China/India that will drive manufacturing back to the states, assuming A) Africa is still pretty war-torn overall, and B) robots don't replace them first. Which they already are.
>> No. 386271
File 138419338436.jpg - (62.17KB , 513x355 , economists_.jpg )
Actually neither unions nor corporations are to blame for outsourcing.

Domestic cost of labor was just too high because of things like minimum wage, and cheaper overseas alternatives opened up because of more liberal trade agreements.

Don't worry though, eventually the Chinese people will also ask for a high minimum wage, and the cost of labor equation will swing back home.
>> No. 386273
BTW this is why corporations made shittons of profit.

While they switched from expensive domestic labor to cheap foreign labor, they kept the prices the same or even increased them in some cases!

This is also why cost of living in the west is skyrocketing.
>> No. 386275
>corporations aren't to blame
>BTW this is why corporations made shittons of profit
>> No. 386276
Corporations didn't cause the problem, they just found a way around it which makes them a lot of money.

I mean, what were they supposed to do? Have a sit down meeting and say "well folks lets lose billions of dollars, the confidence of our investors, hurt our customers and fire everyone because some guy on the internet might one day think we're the bad guy, we wouldn't want that to happen".
>> No. 386277
Outsourcing was not a fucking desperation move. Stop trying to make it out as one. I realize that pressure from the stock market exists, but that just goes to show how utterly fucked to the core the whole system is. If a company doesn't somehow make even more money than it made in the last quarter, the stock drops and suddenly the actual money it made by selling its product is gone, because it's deep in the red with arbitrary make-believe money. That's fucked. And the insatiable hunger for more and more growth that this system begets, which cannot possibly be satiated on a planet with finite ressources, is devouring those that have the least first, because they are the most defenseless.
>> No. 386278
Yes, it was. If they didn't move they couldn't compete, if they couldn't compete the might as well pack their bags and go home (which many companies did). That's a desperation move.

>cannot possibly be satiated on a planet with finite ressources
>arbitrary make-believe money.
What are you talking about?

Wealth is a representation of power and influence, money is a measurement of wealth, currency is a representation of money. While currency can be arbitrary (10, 15 or 100 currency can all represent one value of money) it can't be imaginary or make believe. And wealth isn't a finite thing, its any object, service or idea that someone finds valuable, this is constantly created and constantly grows.

The global economy is not a game of monopoly where one person has to get poorer for another to get richer.
>> No. 386279
> it can't be imaginary or make believe.
What the fuck are you talking about? Money is 100% imaginary and/or made up. At least in the US and most other modern economies.
>> No. 386285
>If they didn't move they couldn't compete
With whom? Who, before outsourcing began, already offered lower prices thanks to insanely cheap work?

No one. The stuff already coming out of other countries was, in general, far inferior; it was cheap because it was cheap crap. And then the American companies started outsourcing, but when they did so the American consumer only saw a drop in certain categories. Stuff like Air Jordans and Levis are made in China, yet still cost $$$.

>it can't be imaginary or make believe
Oof. It's entirely imaginary: American currency, along with the currency of most nations, has value because we have a mass hallucination that it has value; this doubly true in modern times, where "money" or "wealth" is often a number in a ledger or ones and zeroes on a hard drive. Even if you want to parade out the idea of fiat money and going back to the gold standard, gold itself is only slightly less disconnected from this idea: Gold has some limited intrinsic uses (it is an excellent conductor, IIRC) but otherwise has value due only to scarcity and beauty. The former is only one unearthing away from crumbling, and the latter is up to the whims of society (which, admittedly, will not be easily swayed on this matter.)

The same holds true for most everything else; during history there were periods where spices were more expensive than gold and used as a method of payment instead of the precious metal.
>> No. 386286
I don't understand why, if the reason we give corporations such cushy tax breaks is because they're "job creators," we don't just tie their tax rate directly to the number of American jobs they create. With jobs they end counting against them for this figure. Then we can give the Republicans who want to help "job creators" what they want, but can tax the crap out of companies that outsource and horde their ridiculous capital.
>> No. 386287
1) Either adding even more complexity to the tax code or an undue burden on small companies ("main street")
2) There is a ceiling on personnel to every company (and if you were to take that into consideration, how the hell do you decide where the cut off is)
3) Do you punish people for automation, especially when it works out for the best for everyone except the people who lose their jobs
4) Large companies will bury it in loopholes and never pay a red cent anyway

I'd be far more in favor of not taxing companies at all. And if the government is going to continue this bullshit of "corporations are people", that's the easiest way to move corporate money somewhat out of politics.
>> No. 386289
You're confusing currency with money. Currency is the little paper things the government prints, it's not imaginary, but it is arbitrary. Which leads to little things like inflation. Money can also be represented by property, bonds and written agreements, things which are pretty damn ironclad and not at all imaginary or arbitrary.

>if the reason we give corporations such cushy tax breaks is because they're "job creators,"
Actually the prevailing opinion on why we give them "tax breaks" is that it will incite foreign companies to move more of their assets here. Which is more or less working, something above 90% of the money in the world passes through America, with the only countries that try to abstain being Iran, Nepal and North Korea.

What we need to do is completely remove the idea of "tax brackets" from the IRS mindset. Taxing needs to be based on things like natural logarithms, because that's the kind of mathematics that wealth distribution follows. The modern concept of taxes is designed to be manipulated and taken advantage of by politicians, something the founding fathers tried and miserably failed to prevent.
>> No. 386291
>I'd be far more in favor of not taxing companies at all. And if the government is going to continue this bullshit of "corporations are people", that's the easiest way to move corporate money somewhat out of politics.
I fail to understand any of the logic you say here. How does not eliminating the laws that allow companies to contribute directly to politicians' re-election efforts and/or offer them cushy jobs after retirement, and eliminating their taxes so they have EVEN MORE money to spend on that sort of thing, get money out of politics?
>> No. 386295
>Money can also be represented by property

You only own property insofar as society collectively agrees that you do. Imaginary value.


Bonds only represent value because we collectively agree that they do. Imaginary value.

>written agreements

I think you know exactly what I'm going to say here (also a bond effectively is a written agreement).

'Imaginary' isn't really the best way to describe it, though. 'Socially constructed' is better. These things have value, and so are 'money', because we as a society have collectively agreed that they do, and honor them as such. They're no more concrete than currency.
>> No. 386296
>You only own property insofar as society collectively agrees that you do. Imaginary value.
Ah, well, sorta--there are two kinds of property. One is the kind that any reasonable person would agree is someone's property without any need for them to be compelled to do so--for example, a person's house would generally be recognized as their property even without a society in place because it's obvious that the place you live is yours to live in. This is the kind of property meant when people say "Property is Liberty."

The other kind of property is the kind that only exists with force of arms and/or coercion. This kind is the kind that relies on society, or at least upon someone stealing it from everyone else. An example of this would be, for example, intellectual property or someone claiming land they don't live on. This is also the kind of property being referred to when people say "Property is Theft."
>> No. 386297
>'Imaginary' isn't really the best way to describe it, though. 'Socially constructed' is better.
I still like "mass hallucination" better.

> One is the kind that any reasonable person would agree is someone's property without any need for them to be compelled to do so
But that's still going by our particular society; you're still using structures of ownership that have been in use for a long time, but are still a human thing. I don't know of any existing society that would say otherwise, but there are others that do have various levels of openness with their homes, inviting random people in.

Back when it was all caves, I wouldn't be surprised if no one really "owned" a cave; they'd live and people would come and go because there was little shelter, and having a mobile community was useful for hunting. Or you could think of medieval times, when serfs lived in homes but never owned them, instead working for whoever owned the land or was leased the land by someone above them. Or animals, where a certain species has a territory but they still share it with all other kinds of species.
>> No. 386304
> You only own property insofar as society collectively agrees that you do. Imaginary value.

Well, there is the alternate, more "real" method of owning property by having the means to pshycally defend it (and yes, I do mean by force) when others try to dispute your ownership.
>> No. 386318
File 138428494097.png - (70.61KB , 800x1200 , hahahaahahahaaahahaaahaaaa.png )
>You only own property insofar as society collectively agrees that you do. Imaginary value.
>You only own property insofar as society collectively agrees that you do. Imaginary value.
>Bonds only represent value because we collectively agree that they do. Imaginary value.
>Apples only exist because we collectively agree they do. Imaginary fruit.
>I think therefore I am, b'durrr freshman philosophy major.
OK let me take a momentary breather here after laughing my butt off.

>They're no more concrete than currency.
Actually money is more concrete than currency. The value of a property for example is constant and not something we can impose our will on. Sure we can price it higher or lower, but that doesn't change the inherent amount people are willing to pay for it, the inherent value.
Currency on the other hand can and DOES change whenever we need it to. In fact if you have cash in your pocket right at this moment, it is decreasing in value because of the aforementioned inflation (>>386289). Essentially the number of bills in existence is growing (being printed) faster than the money value they represent since the government needs that bit of extra money to pay off national debt interest (and buy $100,000 toilet seats for the congress).... it's a tax on hoarding cash more or less, and it's initiated by people. But you'll notice people talking about the dollar being worth less, if you pay attention.

>'Socially constructed' is better
>I still like "mass hallucination" better.
I prefer 'bullet constructed'. As in 'if you steal from me I'll pay an army to put a bullet in your head, or do it myself'. This is more or less the basis of all civilized society, when we talk about ownership of a property it's implied people are willing to protect it regardless of what the society at large says.
>> No. 386320

That's not even philosophy, it's the basics of how society functions. Property ownership functions along rules set and agreed to be society. If those rules break down or change, your ownership can go up in smoke. The physical objects you claim property over are of course concrete, but your right of ownership over them - the thing that allows them to function as money - is not.

Don't believe me? Ask the Russian landed nobility from the early twentieth century how well owning all that land worked out for them.

>The value of a property for example is constant

Uh. No. No it isn't. That might be the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard. If I buy a worthless plot of land, then discover that actually it's full of oil, the value of that land has increased substantially. If the energy market then moves away from fossil fuels, the value of my land decreases. The value of property shifts based even on far less dramatic changes; if I buy an undeveloped lot in a residential area, and then the government builds a school right down the street, the value goes up. Hell, this is the whole premise behind collector's markets: you buy stuff in the hope that in fifty years it will be more heavily valued.
>> No. 386323
Everything related to money, I feel, amounts to a nice, cordial promise. A handshake; a pinky swear; a contract made with erasable ink.

The bank promises to give me how much money I'm supposed to have in there, whenever I want. As we've seen from the Great Depression, this promise might be broken. Hackers or identity thieves might take it, also, because technically the bank only promises that money to SOMEONE, not necessarily to me.

A store/manufacturer promises to honor a guarantee or warranty on a product, but if they go out of business, that promise may be broken. A "lifetime warranty"? Give me a break; how many companies do you know are around 80+ years, especially nowadays?

I currently hold life-insurance, where the insurer promises to give X amount of money if I die. Ignoring for the moment the existential fact that I'll be dead so they could snub their noses at my family and I wouldn't even know. We have a contract, yes, but I don't doubt for one second the ability for a large company with powerful lawyers to weasel their way out of any contract (any "promise") if they are so inclined. If the company is dissolved, supposedly my insurance is covered under the state Guaranty Fund (basically like a bank's FDIC) but that's just another promise, except this time from the federal government. The government breaks its promises all the damn time.

Any minted currency is subject to the whims of the value ascribed it by the Invisible Hand. Inflation! Every second, through no fault of my own, the money in that bank is losing value. That promise is being whittled away, year by year.

As already mentioned, non-fiat currency like gold and diamonds don't have any actual, intrinsic value, either. One big reason why mining on asteroids or the moon could be dangerous is: what happens if they discover a million tons of gold? The world economy would be sent into a complete tailspin as many country's reserves are based on bullion. THIS amounts to a promise by the universe that there won't be any appreciable amount of gold left around to mess up the balance.

As for property, you're simply promising yourself that you have the ability to keep anyone else out of there. The government can still show up, blab some nonsense about "eminent domain" or whatever crap (or, if you're in China, not even bother), and go ahead and bulldoze away. In part, the government is also promising that they have the capability to defend the country against foreign attack. If you're invaded and the government overthrown, all of those promises go out the window. Your property is then no longer yours.

I don't really trust people. When they promise to love me, or not betray me, or do something for me, I am careful and am always prepared to be disappointed. Why should that be different when someone promises me money?
>> No. 386331
>I think therefore I am, b'durrr freshman philosophy major.

Why do I get the feeling you haven't done much reading on economics? Or philosophy for that matter...not that this has anything to do with philosophy.

It's pretty simple stuff. Things like money are things that have value only because we as people assign them value.

>The value of a property for example is constant and not something we can impose our will on.
>The value of a property for example is constant

>> No. 386339
Yeah, it's pretty funny how he's invoking philosophy 101, but seems to have skipped economics 101: everything is worth what its purchaser is willing to pay for it. That is the beginning and end of the "value" of any property. And the obvious inverse of that is: money is worth exactly what the person you're purchasing from is willing to give you for it, nothing more and nothing less.
>> No. 386341
And the point I tried to clumsily make with my initial post is that this exchange is no longer happening at the highest level. It's just numbers in a database going up and down. Numbers that have gotten so absurdly high in this system that incessently hungers for more and more growth and profit, that there is no longer enough money and goods in this world to appropiately "cash them out". These numbers have lost all relation to anything real and yet these numbers are apparently the most important thing in the world, because some companies being worth a few more billions on a screen is totally worth driving up the global wheat price and sending the entire third world into a hunger crisis.
>> No. 386352
You're investing money into changing your property in hopes it will be worth more, it isn't the same old property you bought, you added money to it. That's called development and something covered in previous comments.

>Things like money are things that have value only because we as people assign them value.
That's true of everything though. The sun is a sun because we all agree that the word and idea represent a glowing ball of plasma. The fact that we as a society have to agree on this doesn't make it any less real, it doesn't make the sun imaginary or somehow intangible. Value is the same, the value of a spoon doesn't stop being the amount of labor and materials put into its production just because someone is willing to pay a billion dollars for that spoon. This person may be a collector trying to outspend his peers (or he may just be insane) but he isn't paying the actual value, he's paying more than the value for some reason (so he can brag to his peers that he got what they couldn't etc).

That's the thing, it's possible for someone to pay less or more, or to sell something for less or more, but the actual value remains the same.

> seems to have skipped economics 101: everything is worth what its purchaser is willing to pay for it.
That is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
It's a wishy washy circular argument, requiring an open and competitive market (which doesn't exist anywhere) to guess even close to real value.
I'm talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value
Which can actually be used to calculate investments and see whats going on with the global economy. If you had actually taken a 100 level economics course, you would know the difference.
>> No. 386353
But it was never really tied to anything. We think of the Gold standard as what it was tied to because for years that's what the American government promised to exchange for bank notes, but that's irrespective of other currencies around the world, which did not need any more backing than state and government backing, to ensure the currency is usable within that country.

What everyone else is saying is correct: the value of money (and especially the value of stocks, bonds, and other more complex financial transactions) is based on what people believe it's worth, and what people will pay for as its' worth. The value of the American Dollar is going down because the rest of the world is coming around to the idea that almost everything we pay for is made elsewhere, and they can just make it themselves if they want. It doesn't really have anything to do with Gold, which can't really be freely traded anymore and which finds its' greatest use as conductors and other component electronics parts, and is fairly worthless on its' own. The value of money as always been determined by belief in the state and by market pressures, never by the idea that it could flat exchanged for something of equal value.

somebody else fill in the gaps, I never made it much past economics 101
>> No. 386354
>An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic or contained in the item itself.

Yeah that doesn't look much better than the subjective value theory. And even controlling for actual costs of production, overall costs and therefor any intrinsic or labor and materials defined value can shift. If you mean intrinsic to mean "innate" value, well, we can't really define that either. We can define costs of production and materials but that doesn't speak to actual market worth, like when Betamax tanked. The actual value of something is not necessarily defined by the costs of production, even if those are the sturdiest indicators.
>> No. 386356
>we can't really define
Well maybe you can't, I do it for a living.

Also you seem to be confusing market price with value for some reason? Apple computers is a pretty good indication that market price is not the same as intrinsic value, when you calculate market price you need to add in however much the customer is getting gypped.
>> No. 386357
>it isn't the same old property you bought, you added money to it.

What? Yes it is the same property. When you buy something, you spend money on it. Throwing money at a plot of land does not change the properties of said plot of land.

> The sun is a sun because we all agree that the word and idea represent a glowing ball of plasma.

The problem with your examples and the main concept you're missing is this: Yes, we came up with the word for the sun and all that shit, but even if we hadn't, it would still be a star. It would still have the properties of a star. Your money, be it the quarter in your pocket, or the stuff in your savings account, has no such properties. The sun was the sun before money came to be. It will continue to be the sun after money ceases to be. If every human in the world died tomorrow, the money would lose its meaning. The sun, on the other hand, would keep doing what it does best. We don't HAVE to "agree" on anything. The sun is going to keep being the sun whether we have anything to say about it or not.

You need to think your ideas all the way through.
>> No. 386358
File 138431787963.jpg - (44.57KB , 640x499 , buddhapalm.jpg )
>Throwing money at a plot of land does not change the properties of said plot of land.
It does if you buy machines and pay people to change the plot of land. Are you serious?

>Your money, be it the quarter in your pocket
That's currency. Damn it. You guys need to take a community college course on this stuff, it's free, and I don't have time to lecture comment by comment.
>> No. 386360
>It does if you buy machines and pay people to change the plot of land.

Aside from the fact that this isn't "changing the properties of the land itself" (and the fact you introduced this idea--not us), we're not talking about that. We're talking about a monetary exchange for the plot of land, not work done to it.

>You guys need to take a community college course on this stuff, it's free, and I don't have time to lecture comment by comment.

Uh huh. Says the guy who's been debating this for a day with the rest of us, on a slow imageboard, and in a thread that's going to be here for quite some time. Thanks for playing, and next time don't bother posting.
>> No. 386362
File 138431908276.jpg - (27.37KB , 343x342 , image.jpg )
>My face when this guy starts seriously trying to argue that his position makes sense if you adhere only to his strict, abstract, and utterly useless definition of the word 'value' that isn't what anybody else in the world means by it
>My face when even his own link on Intrinsic Theory of Value doesn't seem to say what he thinks it says
>This fucking guy I swear to god
>> No. 386373
>And the point I tried to clumsily make with my initial post is that ... It's just numbers in a database going up and down ... there is no longer enough money and goods in this world to appropiately "cash them out". These numbers have lost all relation to anything real

It is rather stupid if you think about it. Banks are the same: they don't have enough money sitting in the vaults for all their account-holders to cash out their accounts. It would be fine for just some small fry like us, "Oh, hey, here's your $50,000..." but what about even a single one of the super-rich, like a CEO or mogul? "Excuse me, sir, I'd like to cash out my account. It comes to five-hundred-and-seventy-two million and change. I'd like it in twenties, if you please." It would be a joke! Every branch they have across the country might not have that much physical currency sitting around.

It's like that with countries, but using even bigger imaginary numbers. That's why it's laughable when people talk about how scary it is that the USA owes however many trillions of dollars of debt to China. "What if they decide to collect on that debt?!?" they cry in a panic. Calmer folks might tell them that they won't, for various reasons, but it's also clear that they simply CAN'T. If the USA gave up their ENTIRE GDP to China (forget for a moment that it's mostly a service economy and not much of that is agriculture/manufacturing) for several years, it wouldn't be enough. Large exchanges are done by changing numbers in a computer somewhere.

It's the same thing with the bank in my previous example. This hypothetical CEO with over five-hundred-million in one bank wouldn't cash out his account (he CAN'T!), he would transfer it somewhere else. Someone with a little more clearance than a teller would tap on his computer keyboard, and those numbers would go from one place to another, and never at any point becoming anything other than imaginary placeholders.
>> No. 386434
File 138462342517.jpg - (200.14KB , 960x1171 , 1384546306002.jpg )
Before government healthcare insurance:
>48.6 million people without health insurance.

After government health insurance:
>52.5 million people without health insurance.

It would have worked out better if they took the $600 million dollars sunk into their shitty website made by 12 year olds using Cobol and simply granted it to 60000 sick people. At least that would have been a positive.
>> No. 386435
File 138462457189.gif - (23.23KB , 500x358 , piratesarecool4.gif )
>> No. 386437
Proof positive that the Pastafarians are the only ones who really understand what's going on.
>> No. 386445

Wow it sure didn't take long for someone to claim the 'stupidest poster in the thread' prize from economics anon.
>> No. 386462
It's not just a correlation though, we can prove causation here.
>> No. 386463
Then please do.
>> No. 386465
File 138470659546.jpg - (37.58KB , 688x666 , serious.jpg )
Read title of second column of that pic. The entire hulabaloo is that the new insurance regulations are forcing companies to drop clients.
>> No. 386467
File 138470919539.jpg - (36.82KB , 462x249 , image.jpg )

Okay let me explain why you're stupid. This is going to take multiple parts because you are REALLY stupid.

1. We're not 'after government insurance' because:
a) Obamacare isn't government insurance. It's private insurance purchased through exchanges.
b) The plans don't actually start until January and there's still like four months of open enrollment. Surprise surprise, most people are going to wait until near the end of the period to slap down their money. This is what happened in Massachusetts too.

2. Many of those plans would have been discontinued anyway. Plans get discontinued all the time in the individual insurance market.

3. If the plans actually were forced into discontinuation by new regulation, it's because they were worthless junk 'insurance' that I feel dirty even calling that. Plans that only have fifty dollars a month in premiums, but would only ever pay out fifty dollars for any expense, no matter how many thousands of dollars you suddenly find yourself owing. The people in those plans no doubt thought they had health care coverage, and I'm sure it made them feel very safe and secure. But in reality it's even less than a paper shield against the threat of of medical bankruptcy. These plans were not insurance. They were a legalized scam perpetrated by insurance companies, selling fake hope in exchange for money from people too poor to afford actual insurance. They were a moral abomination and the market is better off without them.

4. Even if you take everything in that chart at face value (and as I've demonstrated you really shouldn't) it conveniently leaves out new Medicaid enrollments (which actually IS government insurance) The Medicaid expansion is every bit as 'Obamacare' as the private insurance exchange plans.

And how many new people are covered by the expansion of Medicaid? Why, only more than four hundred thousand people.


Bit of an oopsie there.

So, yeah. You're stupid.
>> No. 386468
File 138471014017.jpg - (5.40KB , 249x203 , 1341977727619.jpg )
>Obamacare isn't government insurance.
Didn't need to continue writing that post, your opinion was rendered worthless with that sentence.

>You're stupid.
Oh god, stop it with the witty insults!
>> No. 386469
File 138471191078.gif - (1.15MB , 232x215 , 1379125818604.gif )
>Gets reqkt by multipart explanation with a link that explains what we're seeing
>Points to the same chart, without actually explaining anything and just making the assumption that it's causation
>"It's actually Government funded insurance (something the GOP wouldn't allow) and therefor you're stupid for calling it what it is."
>Completely ignore the argument without actually trying to prove your points.

Protip: pointing to a chart and yelling "Causation" is not causation. You have to explain how one part of the chart causes or correlates to the other part. DudeWithMoney did that, you didn't. To a bystander, his reasoning is much better because it's clearer/it actually exists.
>> No. 386470

I'm not sure what definition you're using where 'insurance purchased by individuals, from private companies' is 'government insurance'. I wish it was government insurance, either in the form of single payer or a public option on the exchanges. Either of those would provide better outcomes than sticking with private providers. But this is the best we could get in the current political climate and it's a miracle we got what we did.

By all means, tell us how you you think Obamacare works. I'm sure it'll be amusing.
>> No. 386471
Incidentally, there would probably be twice as many new Medicaid enrollees if the Republican governors of 26 states hadn't left the money for the expansion on the table in an absolutely disgusting display of naked political pandering.
>> No. 386474
>being butthurt because someone (rightfully) called you stupid
>go on to ignore the rest of the post

That's not how arguments work, stupid. Arguments do not become invalid because there's an insult or two thrown in. I suspect this is either a troll or a stupid person, possibly the econ Anon from before. Don't expect many more posts or even a substantial argument from him.
>> No. 386486
File 138475933327.jpg - (21.06KB , 319x329 , 1325797827002.jpg )
Oh god. Put in some damn effort.

DudeWithMoney didn't do shit, at least bother reading his article which is a week out of date. The table is using both the ACA website numbers and the state exchanges, if you want to be liberal add 440000 medicaid/medicare recipients to that. Does that turn it into a positive? No.
And there are still 21 states yet to report their coverage losses... coverage losses that are happening NOW even though ACA won't actually start functioning until 2014 with some parts delayed (the employer mandate) until 2015. I really hope no one of those three million people gets sick until then.

Because it's paid in part by government and allows the government to put more incompetent regulatory fingers into the coverage pie (no denying coverage for pre existing issues wtf?) which is causing insurance companies to drop clients, re: entire issue.

And before you go "hurr only shitty policies were dropped" consider for a moment the fact that the people chose to pay for those "shitty" policies, in other words, those policies were working for them and their lifestyle. Now those same people will have to find some other company willing to insure them or they would pay a TAX PENALTY for failing to have insurance. Are you yet catching on to how retarded the entire concept is?

I'm not fundamentally against well planned universal health insurance coverage, the key words here being WELL PLANNED. This is a disaster, please don't try to paint it as being better than what we had. This is after the damn President clearly and plainly said, and I directly quote "if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan" and then later went "oh shit, sorry lol, lifes a bitch" when people started getting letters from their insurers.

It takes an awe inspiring level of ignorance to be confident in a system that's failing so bad that the guy who started the ball rolling admits its failing.
>> No. 386487
>Oh god. Put in some damn effort.

You first, kiddo. ;)
>> No. 386488
File 138475963571.jpg - (42.91KB , 336x340 , 1342234209491.jpg )
>> No. 386489

Oh my, a week old, I suppose those four hundred thousand people just vanished between now and then.

>And there are still 21 states yet to report their coverage losses...

Oh, okay, so you get to count coverage losses that don't exist yet, but we can only count new enrollments that have occurred in the first month of open enrollment. That makes sense.

> coverage losses that are happening NOW even though ACA won't actually start functioning until 2014 with some parts delayed (the employer mandate) until 2015. I really hope no one of those three million people gets sick until then.

Do you...have the slightest idea how health insurance works? Those people being dropped from their shitty plans aren't getting cast off instantly. Those numbers indicate the number of people on plans that are being discontinued in 2014. As in, coverage continues until the 2014 coverage period begins. Adurrrrrrrrr.

>Because it's paid in part by government and allows the government to put more incompetent regulatory fingers into the coverage pie (no denying coverage for pre existing issues wtf?) which is causing insurance companies to drop clients, re: entire issue.

So, being regulated or subsidized in any way makes it government insurance. Good to know how your mind works.

Also it is astonishing that you would consider the preexisting condition ban a wtf. The ability for insurance companies to deny coverage based on that was nothing short of monstrous, and not something accepted in any other developed nation. It rendered the entire concept of health insurance a complete fucking joke.

>And before you go "hurr only shitty policies were dropped" consider for a moment the fact that the people chose to pay for those "shitty" policies, in other words, those policies were working for them and their lifestyle.

Wrong. They thought they were working for their lifestyle, perhaps...until they got a kidney stone, or an infection, or even just caught the flu and needed to go to the emergency room. At which point they would discover that the 'insurance' they thought would cover them didn't cover jack fucking shit.

Don't believe me? I didn't make up that 'fifty dollars in, fifty dollars out' plan myself. It's an actual plan formerly owned by one Diane Barrette, who you might remember had fifteen minutes of fame around the end of October when the media tried to turn her losing her junk insurance into a national issue until someone performed basic due diligence and realized that wow, that plan is junk:


Note the update at the end: not only was this woman's plan completely junk, she had no idea it was junk and wouldn't have found out until suddenly she needed it.

The health care insurance market is not full of rational actors making informed decisions based on their needs. It is full of people trying to make good decisions amid a swarm of confusing and misleading information, based on needs that they won't actually know until they arise (and cannot be reliably predicted). The idea that all someone needs is the insurance they think they need is horseshit.

>Now those same people will have to find some other company willing to insure them

Which is what the rest of the law is there for.

>or they would pay a TAX PENALTY for failing to have insurance. Are you yet catching on to how retarded the entire concept is?

Actually, this makes perfect sense to me. If Diane Barrette gets sick and goes to the emergency room, who do you think is going to end up paying for that visit? Not her insurance company, which will dole out it's fifty dollars and wash it's hands of the couple of thousand more left unpaid. Probably not her, since I doubt she has that much money lying around (although they'll bleed her for what they can).

Have you figured it out yet? Why, yes, it's John Q. Taxpayer! Since the Reagan years, the government has guaranteed the right to be treated at the emergency room, regardless of ability to pay. Which means the government ends up paying instead. This is a big part of why the existing health care 'system' was such a huge drag on the economy.

So, yeah, if she's choosing not to buy health insurance and this putting the taxpayer at risk of having to pay for her inevitably necessary medical care, it makes perfect sense to me that she would have to pay a tax penalty to help cover that.
>> No. 386491
Regarding the TAX PENALTY brought up before--this is in place BECAUSE of the "No turning down for pre-existing conditions" law. If the tax penalty weren't there, it would not only be perfectly possible to go without insurance until you need medical work done and then drop it as soon as it is paid, it would be stupid NOT TO do that.

The tax penalty is there both to discourage that sort of behavior, and to provide insurance companies with their own safety net so they continue to consider insuring people to be worth their time and investment.

Neither of these two changes should be looked at in isolation, because neither would exist without the other. Short of a single payer plan, these two laws coupled together are the best we can do in regards to helping keep both healthcare and insurance costs lower.
>> No. 386497
File 138479290246.png - (144.10KB , 287x269 , obamacaepelosi.png )
OK before we start
>government insurance = insurance provided (meaning paid for and secured) by the government
Don't quibble over definitions that are self evident. If the program is being funded by the government, if the government controls what the health plans are, it's government insurance.

The ~400k didn't vanish, I included them, they still don't make it into a positive.... bother with reading please. On the other side of the balance, the unreported coverage losses are UNREPORTED, meaning they already exist, also the people lost their insurance in the same month so why shouldn't we compare the two? As more people sign up, more coverage will be dropped and unreported coverage will get reported.

>pre-existing coverage
How is banning based on preexisting conditions "monstrous"? Customers can't have a condition develop months or years ago and then go pay ONE RATE of the insurance and claim the full payout, that doesn't make any sense. Health insurance is a flexible piggy bank for future illnesses not past or even current ones, their profit margin is already thin enough without what any sane person would call fraud. If the piggy bank is empty, you can't really pay anything with it.
Before you start ragging on evil insurance companies try to realize that on average they have an 15% gross income margin whereas your local starbucks has a gross income margin of 60.4%.

We can't expect people to dish out enough money to insure every health failure and problem, and we can't force them at virtual gunpoint to get a plan they neither want, need or can afford. Not only is that wasting money we as a nation don't have, it's also incredibly degrading. What people want is their basic human right, if you take that away you're left with the government forcing people to eat healthy and not take any risks.... which is probably going to happen when people realize ACA can't really be funded out of anywhere except overseas credit.
Also it's funny that you say the insurance market is full of confused people when congress itself did not read the ACA before passing it.

>emergency room bullshit
Oh so wait, the solution to letting the taxpayer pay for her emergency room visit -she may never use- is to have the Peoples Republic of China pay her monthly premium regardless of whether she ever visits an emergency room or not?
What could go wrong. It's not like our economy won't suffer crippling debt and inflation. It's not like insurance companies won't eventually lobby to change the ACA and have access to more of that cash.

It's a solution to a problem created by the legislation itself.
>> No. 386503
>As more people sign up, more coverage will be dropped

Uh...no. Insurance companies kind of have to tell you ahead of time if they're canceling your policy for next year. Deadlines vary by state so there'll probably be some more policy discontinuations trickling in but the vast bulk of them have already happened.

You really don't have the first clue how insurance works, do you?

>How is banning based on preexisting conditions "monstrous"?

"Oh hello, Mr. Anonymous. I'm contacting you about this claim you just submitted for your cancer treatment. I thank you for paying in thousands and thousands of dollars to this plan over the years. However, you had an ingrown toenail when you were a teenager that you forgot to mention, and your cancer's going to be expensive, so we're dropping your coverage and leaving you high and dry."

This is a story that played itself out time and time again. Fuck you for defending the worst of the insurance industry's practices.

(Also, "flexible piggy bank"? Dear god you really have no idea how insurance works. Try risk pooling you clown)

>We can't expect people to dish out enough money to insure every health failure and problem

That's what they do in the state of Massachusetts and it works fine for them. In fact, it's what they do in every civilized nation, except in those cases the insurance provider is the government. Which actually makes it government insurance, unlike your laughable definition.

And if they genuinely can't afford health insurance they are exempt, and Medicaid has been expanded to cover those individuals. You know, except for where right-wing assholes have left the money for their state on the table for no justifiable reason.

>Also it's funny that you say the insurance market is full of confused people when congress itself did not read the ACA before passing it.

Complete right-wing canard. That Bill was in debate for almost six months, and it was argued over and amendments were suggested and voted on...they read it, alright. You credulous moron.

>Oh so wait, the solution to letting the taxpayer pay for her emergency room visit -she may never use- is to have the Peoples Republic of China pay her monthly premium regardless of whether she ever visits an emergency room or not?
What could go wrong. It's not like our economy won't suffer crippling debt and inflation. It's not like insurance companies won't eventually lobby to change the ACA and have access to more of that cash.

I...what? This is completely incoherent. I don't even know what to say to this, because nothing you've said here has any basis in reality or what anybody in this thread has said. Everyone in this thread is dumber for having read that.

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
>> No. 386505
File 138479867531.gif - (1.84MB , 220x176 , 1371776866280.gif )
>> No. 386507
As someone who has previously worked in the health insurance industry, it's my opinion that DudeWithMoney has, also; and that the anon who is arguing with him has no idea how insurance actually works, instead holding onto the delusional fantasy that the insurance companies TELL HIM.

Fear not, brave anon; you are not alone. Roughly 95% of people are in the exact same boat. Arguably, the entire insurance system would collapse if everyone knew how it really worked instead of simply being gamed by smooth-talking salespersons.

I think people forget that insurance is A BUSINESS. The companies have to make money. In essence, holding insurance from the point of the insurer is EXACTLY like running a casino. In order to pay out large amounts of money to those who win the jackpots (or those who need a million dollars of surgery/medications) they need to take small amounts of money from all those who do not, and give them nothing in return.

Do you go to Las Vegas EXPECTING to win lots of money? Of course not. You expect to lose a little bit of money, which you will accept because there is a much smaller chance you might make a fortune. You pay health insurance for the same reason. Do you EXPECT to get sick? Probably not (though, in all honesty, unless you die before age 50, you ARE GOING TO GET SICKER as you drift into old-age). You expect to pay into health insurance and get back less than what you paid into it — or possibly nothing if you're stricken instantly dead by a sudden stroke or serious accident — which you will accept because there is a much smaller chance you might end up seriously ill and need all that money.

>The health care insurance market ... is full of people trying to make good decisions amid a swarm of confusing and misleading information

Actually, in my experience, it's full of lies and deliberate misinformation. Every single salesperson you talk to, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is full to the roots of their hair with Grade-A bullshit. They're almost all working for a single company and will press those products because they have quotas to fill for the period, and putting food on the table of their family (surprise! very few salespersons are actually wealthy) is more important than what happens to you. And if you think that by choosing an insurance broker, that "works for you", is better, you're very wrong! Fact is, they get more money in commissions from certain plans, so they will push those; if they tell you they can offer you insurance from EVERYONE, they're just lying — some companies only allow agents that work for them exclusively to offer their products.

The worst offense I saw was as follows: Sparing you the gritty details, when entering Medicare, one can either continue with a standard HMO plan (low or zero-dollar premiums, almost-worthless coverage), called Medicare Advantage, or go with a Supplement plan (high premiums, spectacular coverage, including one that is basically: covers everything). We heard that a leading, national insurer (I won't name names) had had agents holding seminars in senior communities. The company offered Advantage plans, but not Supplement plans, and in their presentations they conveniently failed to mention to these people that Supplement plans EVEN EXISTED AT ALL.

That's what it's like in there. That's the shit you're getting yourself into if you don't know what you are doing and merely listen to a company spokesperson. That's how they make money: by ripping people like you off and selling them snake oil. But you really can't blame them; it's just capitalism at work. You either get screwed or you're the one doing the screwing. The only thing that the ACA does is put a little more power into the hands of the consumer.
>> No. 386508
>and that the anon who is arguing with him has no idea how insurance actually works

Actually, I just assumed the Anon was purposefully making stupid statements for the reaction it was provoking from DudeWithMoney.
>> No. 386509
I think so, too. However, you never know with some people.
>> No. 386528
Brotherhood societies are risk pooling. Insurance companies have to turn a profit and can't afford to do that kind of thing all the time. But they can be flexible, or do some shifting of funds to cover holes.

You know what, come back when you grow up. This is ridiculous.

>The only thing that the ACA does is put a little more power into the hands of the government... which is being lobbied by the insurance companies.
Fixd. The only thing this law does is pump money the government doesn't have towards the insurance companies.
People put power in the hands of the government with the mistaken belief that they will be protected by it because it's a democracy. Meanwhile a few very powerful companies are throwing money at congressmen who haven't even read the set of laws they passed. But hey I'm sure government will forever be infallible, "power stabilizes" is the age old saying after all.

This "everyone who has an opinion opposite my own is a troll" and "lets call him names" kind of mentality really needs to stop. Hundreds of millions of people on the internet and you think your opinion is the only one, or even the majority one? How self centered is that?
>A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 38% of Likely U.S. Voters now have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the new national health care law. That’s down seven points from 45% a month ago. Fifty-eight percent (58%) view the law unfavorably, up five points from the previous survey and the highest finding in regular surveying since early January. These findings include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of the law and 45% with a Very Unfavorable one, another high for the year.
>> No. 386530

This is indeed ridiculous, but only because of your sheer stupidity. Insurance is risk pooling. That is the very definition of insurance. Many people are all at risk of something, whether it is illness or their house burning down or getting into a car accident. Because this would be ruinous to any one of them, they get together and spread the risk over a great many number of people, so the financial burden is borne not by one person, who would be destroyed by it, but by many people, who can better withstand it. Insurance companies are there to facilitate this.

Of course, this means that the people in the risk pool for a given plan can't all need to file claims against it at once or you have a problem (this is why property insurance companies lose a ton of money whenever there's a big natural disaster). For health insurance, that means you have to have your healthy participants as well as your sick, or else the premiums to make the plan viable will increase beyond what the participants can sustain. In the past, the mechanism for keeping the risk pools relatively healthy was to deny coverage form 'preexisting conditions', meaning they could keep the sick people off the plans. But the problem with this was that it undermined the very idea of insurance - you didn't have the security it was supposed to provide because it gave the insurance companies a way to boot you off the plan the instant you actually needed it. It also left a big swathe of the population uninsurable, which is a problem because everybody needs health insurance for their own security, and because when these people did get sick, John Q. Taxpayer had to cover it.

The ACA solved this by banning insurance companies from so much as breathing the word 'insurance' while simultaneously requiring everyone able to afford insurance to purchase it, which will push individuals who don't perceive an immediate need for insurance into the market and keep the risk pools from being destroyed. These people who are being pushed into the market benefit too, although it may not be immediately obvious to them. But they'll appreciate having insurance when they fall off a ladder and break their arm, or suddenly find themselves needing a course of antibiotics they couldn't possibly pay for out of pocket.

Do you understand now, you puff-faced buffoon?

Also, cut it out with the counterfactual bullshit about the ACA being funded by foreign debt. The bill pays for itself through taxes and fees included in the bill itself (which is why the rollout went forward even when the government is shut down) and is projected to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars over the next ten years.


>lol Rasmussen


Never worked in insurance, although I did spend a few years working phones for a company that administered Flexible Spending Accounts (and some HSAs and HRAs, but it was almost entirely FSAs). I've just done a lot of reading since 2009.


I've considered the possibility, but Poe's law and all. There are a lot of people who genuinely believe the stupid things he's spouting; a lot of it is standard talking points for right-wing morons.
>> No. 386532
File 138487568633.jpg - (32.64KB , 267x214 , 1341978135766.jpg )
>but only because of your sheer stupidity
OK seriously, I'm not going to respond to insults and name calling anymore, you need to learn how to communicate.

If the first idea in your head is a put-down, you're not worth it and I'm not going to enable that kind of mindset.
>> No. 386536

If you keep catching the other guy's left straight to the face, it's probably because you keep leaving yourself open.
>> No. 386538

Nothing is hurting your case quite as much as you yourself, posting unverifiable information without a trusted source. We're calling you an idiot because that's what you keep coming into this thread and presenting as. Where are your links? Where's your reasoned argument? Yeah, getting called a dumb butt hurts, but the thing is that we have 2 other posters, one pulling from publicly available information and one claiming to have worked in Healthcare with Insurance companies. Both of them are saying you're wrong. Based on a cursory reading of the laws and the way this all works, I'm fairly certain you're wrong, I'm just not certain enough (not enough links) to successfully debate you on it. But everything you've been saying has presented such a warped point of view on this issue that there is no reason to take you seriously. Name calling or not.
>> No. 386543
This oversensitivity to insults isn't helping this guy either. Dude: you're arguing anonymously. Your honor is not being diminished by name-calling. Just get over it.

If you come onto a politics thread on an anonymous imageboard and make controversial statements, you need to expect to get some insults thrown at you. Especially when you redefine terms that everyone else uses differently than you to suit the needs of your argument, like redefining "government insurance" to mean "private insurance that has rules limiting how horrible they can be to their clients."
>> No. 386544
File 13848967849.jpg - (22.80KB , 367x250 , Hobgob_Idunno.jpg )
>like redefining "government insurance" to mean "private insurance that has rules limiting how horrible they can be to their clients."

Interestingly, under his train of logic do we all drive "government cars" because there is legislation regulating their manufacture and safety features? Do we all eat "government food" and live in "government housing" run by "government energy" and sit down to watch our "government television" or call people on our "government phones"?
>> No. 386547
Apparently Vermont has passed single-payer healthcare in their State. Many believe this is likely to save the state 25% per capita. But it won't be fully in effect until 2017.

Still, if it works, and if they really do save money as the predictions say, it's going to be a real feather in the cap of people pushing for true socialized medicine nationwide. Obamacare has always been little more than a foot in the door for progressives to move the country toward that outcome, something both Democrats and Republicans are aware of--which is why Democrats fight so hard for it and Republicans fight so hard against it despite both being fully aware that it is almost word-for-word a Republican healthcare plan pushed by the Heritage Foundation years ago and implemented by Mitt Romney fairly recently in Massachusetts.
>> No. 386554
See, this is one reason that we need to be a Union and less a country. Each state can try a healthcare approach tailored towards their needs and situations, and if one really wins out it can be adopted by other states and eventually combined under a loose federal umbrella if it gains enough traction.

The same goes for taxes, for education, etc. Yeah, there will be shit to deal with (like some states trying to get ID into school textbooks,) but in the long run it will benefit everyone.

It's why I support States Rights, want the Senate to go back to being appointed by the states, and want the federal government to collect taxes from states rather than people. If we have to fight everything at a federal level from the beginning, change is much harder. If we can instead do so at a town/city level, and then cities/counties band together to do it at a state level, and states work towards the federal level, improvements will be much easier to put in place.
>> No. 386555
I could go for that as I think Reps have too little accountability to represent their state and constituents accurately in their current form.
>> No. 386558
>It's why I support States Rights, want the Senate to go back to being appointed by the states, and want the federal government to collect taxes from states rather than people. If we have to fight everything at a federal level from the beginning, change is much harder. If we can instead do so at a town/city level, and then cities/counties band together to do it at a state level, and states work towards the federal level, improvements will be much easier to put in place.
Some of that is perfectly sensible, but there are many ways where State's Rights just don't work. The Interstate Highway system, for example, is something that required a federal government capable of collecting a reasonably high amount of taxes and employing a reasonably high number of workers. Regulation of ICANN and the other organizations that control the internet can't be trusted to State-based regulation (and recent evidence proves it can't even be trusted to national-level regulation--we're going to have to go Global, even though that's going to suck in a lot of ways, because America has proven that it can't be trusted with the keys to the internet).

Environmental Regulation cannot be done on a state-by-state basis, either. If Minnesota decides to deal with all its garbage by dumping it in the Mississippi River, eight other states feel the effects.

Additionally, look what happened when the Supreme Court overturned those parts of the Voter's Rights Act that prevented Southern States from vote-tampering. They immediately started blatantly, proudly vote tampering.
>> No. 386574
Proving yet again dead silence is WAAAAAAAAAAY worse than booing, it's Rick Santorum on the Colbert Report!
>> No. 386576
Agreed, there are some things that have to be handled on the federal level; it's why the Federal government was created. I'm not disputing those kind of things (all 50 states can't have their own CIA or military), but overall power (and money) has become so centralized in Washington that it's detrimental to the entire country.

At the very least, I'd like to see Washington DC moved. It was a great location when we only had up to the Appalachians, and when our biggest trading partners were in Europe, but now that it's more-or-less global and our country spans from shore-to-shore, it should be in a centralized location, as well. I've always though Wyoming would be a good place.

Aside from making the nation give more focus to the midwest, it would be a huge boon to the "fly over" states (which would no longer be fly-over) through the creation of the city in some otherwise-desolate area in Wyoming. Then, create bullet trains or Musk's Hyper Loop that connect it to Denver, Billings, Chicago, Seattle, and Las Vegas.

Will never happen, but I think it would be good.
>> No. 386577
I'll agree on the interstate and internet issue, but environmentalism? No way, we had pretty decent environment protections before EPA. Minnesota wouldn't dump stuff in a river because the other states wouldn't do business with them, putting pressure to punish the culprits.

This is how Theodore Roosevelt and many others before him envisioned it and how it worked until Nixon barfed an incompetent alphabet soup over everything.
>> No. 386578
File 138496954918.jpg - (115.70KB , 750x421 , quote snowden.jpg )
Yeah centralized systems aren't nearly as responsive, and infinitely easier to corrupt.
>> No. 386580
>but environmentalism? No way, we had pretty decent environment protections before EPA.

This is completely untrue. Actually, not just untrue but 100% the opposite of reality. Please refer to Reserve Mining v. Herbst (1977)*, an excellent case that lasted over thirty years that exposes why common law of the state (which is what was used by states to regulate environmental issues) was ill-suited to the task at hand and why the EPA was necessary. There is an absolute necessity to establish uniform national air and water quality standards. These must be enforced uniformly to prevent industry from blackmailing one state into lowering its standards with the threat to move jobs elsewhere.

As for the issue of local politicians being more beholden to their constituents, I used to think this as well. However, it has not been what I've observed in practice.

*in this case, the Reserve Mining Company generated "tailings" while processing Taconite, and these tailings were dumped into Lake Superior at a rate of 47 tons PER MINUTE, and created an enormous, poisonous delta. So the idea that Minnesota wouldn't let dumping happen in its rivers just because it would affect it's lower neighbors is particularly hilarious, BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN MINNESOTA, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASES!
>> No. 386582
>quoting Snowden
The words of a traitor hold very little water.
>> No. 386583
The words of a traitor with proof are enough to change the world
>> No. 386584
I hope you don't put much stock in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence then.
>> No. 386586

Except for the slightly awkward fact that none of his documents have proven any of what he said in that quote (or, indeed, anything that wasn't already obvious to anybody who'd been paying a whit of attention).
>> No. 386587
This thread feels like an entire board arguing against a single Fox News representative. It's kinda hilarious.
>> No. 386589

It really is. I've stopped responding and just come in here to laugh at him.
>> No. 386590

Okay, here's my question to you: what, precisely, makes Snowden a traitor?
>> No. 386592
>Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The argument would be that he committed a subversive act that weakened the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies.
>> No. 386593
Though keep in mind that defining him as a traitor under these terms requires us to accept that "The Citizens of the United States" are "the enemy." Which has, of course, been true for a long time, but it is rare to see it acknowledged by those in power.
>> No. 386595
>Said Article conveniently is forgotten during any operation called "Fast and Furious."
>> No. 386599
It was a dumb movie anyway.
>> No. 386601
You're right he is so wrong that they are declassifying documents that prove how he is totally right:
>> No. 386611

Except that...doesn't have much of anything to do with what he was saying? Metadata isn't data.
>> No. 386613
That is the most ignorant statement about technology I have ever seen. The name flat-out tells you it's data. Metadata literally means "data about data."
>> No. 386614

Except it is, if you know what to do with it. With the right bits of metadata, you can put together a profile of someone's life -- then use it against them, if you're so inclined.
>> No. 386631
Which is, of course, the point. They wouldn't WANT the data if you couldn't use it to invade someone's privacy. Invading people's privacy is the entire goal of the NSA. It's just that when they were granted the authority they've been granted, we were under the impression that the people whose privacy they would be invading would be terrorists. Not US Citizens who aren't suspected of any wrongdoing.

But yeah, the US government is well aware that "non invasive" data collected with enough of a dragnet is potentially an invasion of privacy--FOIA requests are now being turned down because even though the individual requests don't reveal anything classified, a sufficient amount of them being divulged could allow inferences to be made that WOULD reveal classified information.

I wonder if the irony is lost on them?
>> No. 386633

It's really shocking. They could look and see you're on your cell phone at a pot dispensary--legal under your state's law, but illegal under federal law--and bust you for that. They could see you go to a gun show out of state, and tip of state law enforcement that you might be bringing in a rifle that violates state law.

Even legal activities can be harmful if disclosed. You went to an oncologist? Well, good like finding a job with cancer, cancer-boy. You were sending and receiving texts at a gay bar? There goes your job in 29 states.

It's not a matter of them even doing it. The potential that they can, at any minute, bust you for something that chills free speech, free association, and the general attitude of being free, independent citizens rather than fearful subjects.


Cellphones "talk" to the cell towers ever so many seconds or so. As you move out of range of one tower, you move into range of another. Most smartphones have a GPS feature as well. Imagine you're required by law to report to the cops where you were every five seconds of every day, or having an inspector follow you around and jot down each location you visit, who you call text or email, how long each call lasts. Scary prospect, isn't it?

The government can obtain info from you cellular carrier, and you have neither the right to know they've sought that info, nor challenge the subpoena or National Security Letter. It's the third party doctrine: you've disclosed that info to a third party, so its believed you've forfeited all expectation of privacy to that information. Of course, that doctrine is bullshit; even though the Supreme Court has upheld it as far as bank records (United States v. Miller), web data (United States v. Forrester), and "non-content" phone data (Smith v. Maryland, Pen Register statute), the cops need a warrant to search your mail, even though you've handed it over to a third party (Ex Parte Jackson). Some lower courts have recognized that email is effectively modern mail and entitled to (US v. Warshak), but what we need is a constitutional ruling, or full-on amendment, affording text-messages, emails, web-browsing, and all other third-party digital info the same level of protection as the content of a phone call in a phone booth (Katz v. US) or anything else you do in the privacy of the home.
>> No. 386634
>It's not a matter of them even doing it. The potential that they can, at any minute, bust you for something that chills free speech, free association, and the general attitude of being free, independent citizens rather than fearful subjects.

A fact which has been proven because stories have already run in a couple of blogs about writers being afraid to search for potentially loaded terms on google for research about their books for fear it might get the Government's Goons on their backs.
>> No. 386648
File 138515842812.jpg - (73.79KB , 508x528 , nsa dangers.jpg )
Even without that though, even with 100% moral NSA goons, no one can really guarantee that the organization will stay moral decades from now.
The data is effectively immortal and unchanging, the organization isn't.

I'd hate to think that 100 years from now my descendants might be arrested and tried because their ancestors (me) browsed Russian or Chinese language websites.

That's the kind of reality we have to deal with now.
>> No. 386649
File 138515863459.png - (346.23KB , 673x601 , hahahaha la.png )
>Metadata isn't data.
>> No. 386654

Same as it ever was. Why do you think libraries are so harassed about giving out who checked out what book?
>> No. 386659
If in 100 years we openly go back to that sort of Cold War fanaticism, mankind will never make it off this tiny rock.
>> No. 386666
Well, yes. That much is a given. I know we've made some amazing leaps and bounds, but I think you're overestimating mankind here a little.
>> No. 386669
Other than pessimism making you look cool, do you have any rationale behind the thing you just said?

Also, the Cold War was the biggest reason our space program went as big as it did. America is most motivated by having someone to hate--which is why our politicians have made sure to keep us at war for 90% of the time we've been a country.
>> No. 386670
I don't care about looking cool. We both just have different outlooks on life. You think humanity is amazing and grand and kindness and human intellect trumps all and I think humanity is awful and despicable and base desires like lust for power and wealth will forever drive it. You think Kids Helping Kids, I think child soldiers. You think Star Trek, I think Metro 2033. We're just very different people, you and I.
>> No. 386673
See, all of that is irrelevant, though. The question isn't "Is mankind wonderful," it's "what is the course technology is going to take." Technology will eventually make it relatively easy to colonize at least the near solar system, and that means people will do it just to prove they can, and occasionally out of greed.

And I don't know how you got a message of "Humans are wonderful" from "Our country is mostly motivated by hatred of outsiders and has been since it was formed."
>> No. 386675
Yeah, I don't think I've seen any more posts before now that I would truly classify as "wow 5edgy4me" but good job.

I feel like both of your approaches are a little outdated though. Assuming Humanity is Net "Good" or "Bad" is, well, actually one of the biggest problems America has, imho. We all want to draw this line between absolute good and absolute evil and then declare where we fall on that axis. But the truth is that we're all a mixture of good and evil, and it's the pressures of our environments that cause those aspects to emerge or submerge based on the situation. Declaring that we as a species fall on either side of this imaginary line we've drawn suggests not a full comprehension of the topic. It isn't as simple as that.
>> No. 386676

Where do you see that kind of technology developing?? We still don't know if it's possible for humans to survive long voyages in zero gravity. We still don't know what kind of deadly radiation astronauts might face outside of Earth's sphere of influence. We still haven't built any spaceships that aren't essentially a WW2 submarine. We haven't had any human travel further than the moon. Since the last Apollo mission in 1972, there haven't been any humans further away than low-Earth orbit (the ISS is a mere 230 miles above the ground). We've basically given up on that front. To point, all of the exploration in the last 30 years has been done by robotic probes and rovers. There isn't any point in sending out humans to harvest resources from asteroids or other planets when robots can do it better and cheaper.

As for other star systems, everything we know in modern physics tells us that traveling faster than the speed of light is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. With that, it becomes unfeasible, not to mention unprofitable! There is absolutely no company that is going to launch a sub-light-speed venture to a "nearby" star system where the payoff won't be coming for a thousand years.

Humans simply do not live long enough to give a flying fuck about what happens further away than a couple decades from now, at best. The only way I see anything happening is if an extinction-level catastrophe is forecast to hit the world in a generation or two, and humanity has to unite like never before to save our collective skins. Even then, it will probably just result in war.

My general outlook on humanity is like this guy: >>386670 but far worse. Stripping away all the bullshit and delusions, I've found myself to be — at the core — composed of nothing but hatred and tears. I've found everyone else to be that way, too.
>> No. 386681
Mankind is awesome and wonderful. Also, it is shitty and terrible. Both are true, we are capable of acts of despicable horror and selfless good, and everything in between. Labelling out whole species as "good" or "bad" is every bit as retarded as when you see aliens in sci-fi looking and behaving exactly the same as each other. Shit does not work that way
>> No. 386682
There are several one-way trips to Mars currently being planned worldwide, including a Reality TV show following a colonization attempt and a program by the Russians to launch death row inmates into Space Australia. And Virgin is planning to build a hotel on the moon, as well.

And via space stations and the like, we've had live in space long enough at this point to know that the effects of long-term life at zero-g, while possibly presenting some complications, are not inherently life-threatening.
>> No. 386684
connected to those projects is another group of scientists working on bringing life from mars to earth. Also may lead to a era of transmittable Vaccinations via the internet to small home labs.

>> No. 386746
>A fact which has been proven because stories have already run in a couple of blogs about writers being afraid to search for potentially loaded terms on google for research about their books for fear it might get the Government's Goons on their backs.

Oh you'll love this.

>The National Security Agency collected evidence of online sexual activity and visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of six people the agency considered "radicalizers,"
>The targets, all Muslims, are described in the document as examples of how "personal vulnerabilities" can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target's credibility, reputation and authority
>However, the agency identifies one of them as a "U.S. person," which means he is either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.
>None of the six individuals targeted by the NSA is accused in the document of being involved in terror plots.
Anyone ITT who thinks this can't be used against any person who challenges a regime, you're a fool. And if you think you won't ever have a disagreement with the next 15 presidents, stop and think what will happen to your children or grandchildren who do.

Not really, do remember that most of the technology we use today came about during a cold war and a world war, the lesson being that nothing can stop technological progress.

These things are cyclical too, so don't think we won't have a major change. Who knows, maybe in a century we'll be speaking Chinese, and we all know how enlightened their leadership is.
>> No. 386749
If true, that's incredibly disturbing on so many levels. Like not just in the sense of "I'm not happy about that," but in the sense of "That is a genuinely horrifying abuse of power to eliminate free speech."
>> No. 386753

It shouldn't surprise anyone. The FBI wanted to set up Martin Luther King Jr. Of all people to get caught in bed with a girl in order to destroy his credibility.
>> No. 386761
File 138561136620.png - (92.97KB , 703x599 , government mafia.png )
And they tried to make Fidel's beard fall out.

Modern difference is that they have dirt on everyone and their grandmother, plus it's all computerized so they can ruin a life with a push of a button.

Hard to believe they wouldn't try to ruin lives of a bunch of muslims for shits and giggles.
>> No. 386852
I'm glad people are finally standing up against Putin's bullshit.
I just didn't expect the treatment of homosexuals to be the main trigger.
>> No. 386875
File 138609215370.jpg - (72.55KB , 750x600 , trollface.jpg )
>> No. 386882
Radical feminists trying to at…youtube thumb

An extraordinary demonstration has taken place in San Juan, a provincial city in Argentina. In brief, a gathering of 7000 feminists attempted to attack a cathedral, which was defended by 1500 men. The men did not attempt to physically attack the women, but linked arms and formed a barrier. And the feminist women? They spat on the men, sprayed them with aerosol spray paint, performed lewd acts in front of them, draped their underwear over them and generally behaved as if they had been seized by some primitive or savage spirit.

During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.
>> No. 386883
So the story here is "Some dudes got annoyed by some women in front of a church and started crying over it?"
>> No. 386886
File 138612763678.jpg - (209.72KB , 1800x987 , 232995.jpg )
An anti-abortion rally planned to storm the church and burn it, and the men held a wall against it, so they were sprayed, spat on, assaulted, and beaten by feminists, who proceeded to burn an effigy of the pope and have an orgy while cursing Jesus.

I'm a lapsed Catholic, and even I'm getting a strong 'Alexander Anderson' tingle up my back. Heathens need'a cullin'.
>> No. 386890
Funny, you didn't mention them being beaten the first time you described the scene. I also don't understand why anti-abortionists would burn a church--one would expect they would find allies in the church.
>> No. 386891
I'm not the first poster. I did a bit of searching.
I wish there were more international news reports to give you, but there aren't any.
>> No. 386892
Also I mis-spoke. A pro-abortion rally.
>> No. 386894
File 138613170286.jpg - (130.58KB , 960x638 , feminist crowd.jpg )
>Funny, you didn't mention them being beaten the first time you described the scene.
I'm not that guy, just thought it was a funny story.

Pic related, the feminist in the red box is a porn star that does horses, supposedly because she hates men too much. Funny shit.
>> No. 386896
So what are you having trouble understanding?
>> No. 386899
kill all men.
>> No. 386901
hey now, cutting out prospective clients that way.
>> No. 386905
File 138614111067.jpg - (70.29KB , 640x480 , take my money2.jpg )
How bout now?
>> No. 386917
>kill all men
>dramatic rise in rampant unconstrained lesbianism
>fuck you pay me

what, like i've not thought this through or something
>> No. 386921
>mysterious virus sweeps through ba'gina-d population
>cure is in a Vlasic Pickle Jar
>humanity dies as the human race gives up and just watches RomComs into oblivion
>> No. 386922
File 13862014989.jpg - (157.57KB , 541x376 , obsolete.jpg )
kill all men
>> No. 386928
Fuck you! I'll kill myself!
>> No. 386937
oh wow that cant be a real product
>> No. 386942
holy shit just use your shirt or a rag
>> No. 386959

So...contraception mandate is going up to the SCOTUS. That's going to be fun. What do you guys think of the situation?

Frankly, I'm pro-coverage, but not without some concerns; on the one hand, I find fault with both sides' arguments. On the no coverage side, they're acting like providing an insurance plan that offers coverage of certain medications they disapprove of is the same as being made to buy them for their employees. Religiiously neutral laws of general applicability that incidentally infringe on religion are generally kosher; Reynolds v. U.S.; Employment Division v. Smith.

On the other, it does raise some free exercise alarm bells with me in regards to free exercise--must one check their faith at the door when they enter the marketplace? Does the state or the believer get to decide whether compliance with a law violates their faith? --and, in their defense, "not paying for it" =/= saying you can't have it. Plus, as this article points ask ( http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/04/are-women-fighting-the-wrong-fight-on-contraceptives/), is this the right contraception fight? Could we circumvent it entirely by making the pill OTC, as it is in many countries?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.
>> No. 386968
I favor making vasectomies or tubal ligations covered, but not day to day stuff that's already dirt cheap and/or free like condoms. Really, of all the contraceptives they intend to cover, only the morning after pill is really worth it.
As for the religious bollocks side argument which everyone seems to be focusing on... it is a tad unfair to make them do things against their faith when it isn't even a human rights issue.

The daily birth control pill causes way more problems than condoms, environmental and otherwise, we should really be phasing it out.
>> No. 386981

I favor a dystopian approach. Everyone is sterilized at birth, and when you become an adult and are REALLY REALLY SURE you want a child, you can have a (free) surgery to undo that, after passing months-long tests for basic knowledge, psychological stability, financial capacity, and practical ability.

The only downside is that it's only really implementable in first-world countries, which are already seeing declining birth rates. The actual result would be that the poor fuckers in Africa and Asia would continue multiplying like bacteria and eventually overwhelm the world, anyway. Still, it's better than what we have now. We can just eliminate the "undo" part and have the tests for adoption. You want a child, you'll get a baby from China or something. Almost as good and a lot cheaper — to quote Calvin and Hobbes.

>Religious arguments

Faith should be kept one's own private business. Just because it's crucial to one's own life doesn't mean anyone else need care about it, a bit like an asshole.

Also, religion should NEVER NEVER NEVER be allowed to interfere with the lives of others, even in a small part. I don't give a flying snake's hemipenis about whether some sad sap business owner thinks doing something that doesn't affect his life in the least infringes on his "religious right", and nobody else should, either. Not allowing an employee to do ANYTHING on the reason that it offends you is right on the edge of a slippery slope. It's no different from me saying I refuse to provide the minimum wage to blacks and gays and latinos and whoever else because they offend this religion that I just made up five minutes ago. Last I checked, that kind of bull isn't allowed in the USA, so why should refusing to provide something basic (and dirt cheap) as contraception be any different? The only argument they have outside of the religion one is "I just don't want to pay it". Well, tough cookie, shithead. Suck it up; you own the business and thus have the responsibility.

Next thing you know, they'll be refusing to provide health insurance!

Oh, wait, they already do that. Disregard.
>> No. 386982
>Problems with the daily birth control pill
I didn't realize there was a daily pill. That must be very ineffective: miss one day and you might be screwed. I thought most birth control methods for women were longer term, but I'm not well versed in all the varying methods.

I do think that we could get by with making vasectomies and tubular ligations covered, but it is somewhat baffling that cheap birth control for women isn't more of an OTC product. I also find it hard to believe that anyone really thinks there's a specific provision under the ACA where companies would have to pay for condoms (unless someone can point me to one). Those are so cheap that many clinics just give them away for free. I don't see this as companies having to specifically dole out pills or rubbers. This is allowing an employee the choice to use the healthcare provided by their employer as needed/as that person sees fit. I don't buy the right of companies to force a child on a woman because they don't believe in safe sex. Saying that it's for religious purposes in any respect instantly degrades the companies leg to stand on, in my mind.

You get to practice religion freely so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of other people through your practice. This is a pretty clear violation of that, and personally, as I go through life, it's getting more and more annoying to have to cater to people who use the "Invisible Sky Man told me and I have to suck his dick" argument as an actual rational reason. And it's even more frustrating when the people using that argument literally fail to see how their beliefs are injurious to others.
>> No. 386993

Female birth control is hormone based, allowing over the counter purchase of any such product would be unwise. There are drug interactions, major side effects, it can affect other people or the environment if disposed of improperly, and of course it sets a bad precedent.
>> No. 387001
>it is a tad unfair to make them do things against their faith when it isn't even a human rights issue.
The only way they're doing something against their faith is if it's against their faith to provide compensation to their employees that their employees are allowed to use how they want. Insurance is not something the owners of the company are providing themselves, it is one of the ways they are paying their workers. It is none of their goddamned business what their employees do with their compensation.
>> No. 387003

>bad precedent

I agree that the pill is a lot less inoccuous than the time article would indicate, but still, "allowing adults more leeway in regards to what the choose to put in their bodies" is a bad precedent. The risks of OTC purchase could be mitigated by waivers, or requiring, as in some countries, a doctor's screening to be cleared to buy OTC.
>> No. 387004
>doctor's screening to be cleared to buy OTC.
That's not exactly OTC, if you include limits it's basically prescription.

And you have to include limits because the issue with hormonal drugs is that a person so inclined could buy 100 packages and dump them all in a lake, making dozens of species locally extinct. And that's just estrogen, if you get into other hormones it starts being even more dangerous.
Can you imagine what pure epinephrine could do to people? Putting some in the water supply would be worse than any terror attack.

That only makes sense if you ignore the part of the government in it, which is why people are complaining in the first place (separation of church and state). It's not like someone can take their health insurance money and go buy a Honda... it's pretty much earmarked for things the source of the money (companies) would consider blasphemous.
>> No. 387005
The government's involvement consists solely of saying "Hey, when you compensate your workers you have to actually compensate them and not fuck them out of fair pay by using Jesus as an excuse to try to control other people's lives."
>> No. 387015
>"allowing adults more leeway in regards to what the choose to put in their bodies" is a bad precedent

Since when? We put tons of chemicals in our foods daily. Giving people control over what they put in their bodies is kind of a huge deal. It's driving the incredibly pointless drug war right now. Besides, what kind of nut would poison the water supply in this day and age? That's some saturday morning cartoon shit
>> No. 387027
since >>387004

And the water supply thing is just a simplified example. The more dangerous thing could just be overuse and improper disposal.
>> No. 387087
Problematic dumping of pills is the biggest problem? Aside from potential bad reactions to the pills? That seems, again, incredibly arbitrary and like some cartoon villain shit. Somebody would literally have to go out of their way to do that shit. And tons of medications already get flushed into the water in America, which gets cleaned and fed back into your house tap, or bottled. Unless there's something I'm missing here about the sewers and our water treatment, that scenario seems incredibly unlikely, and at the very least I would be more concerned about industrial runoff from the production of the medication over some nut deciding to pitch all their birth control meds into a drinkable water supply. Which could happen regardless of whether these are over the counter or not.
>> No. 387094
File 138665367329.jpg - (324.93KB , 1540x1000 , 1386653493023[1].jpg )
Daily Show was pretty great tonight.
>> No. 387110
Pollution by non-native chemicals is still the number one problem facing the environment. Everything else takes a second seat, and the majority of other problems stem from it. It's not arbitrary or "cartoon villain" shit just because you've never heard of a major environmental problem, we've been feeding our livestock hormones without proper regulation and it's been devastating the environment (which again is still a problem even if you haven't heard of it), and there are far more humans than livestock, we are everywhere, and we are much harder to regulate.
So far the issue is being kept in check by three factors:
1. Currently it's prescription only, so it can't really be overused, and it limits the percentage of population that uses it.
2. The human sourced pollution is localized to urban regions of a few developed nations (~12 million women in USA, <100 million worldwide)
3. Other sources of pollution are localized to plants and farms in these nations.

If you make it OTC it's harder to justify any regulation, even among farm animals or industrial runoff, and other nations will follow suit. Imagine if the three billion people in Asia looked to our model and decided it's a good idea to control their birth rate with hormones or to pump their cows full of milk producing hormones?
I'm not overstating things when saying that global unregulated use of hormones and hormone mimicking compounds is dangerously unwise. Since all vertebrates depend on estrogen as a sex mediating hormone it has the potential to make all higher animals and many plants that depend on them simply stop reproducing. It would be on par with the late Devonian mass extinction... and that's just with widespread use of estrogen, not even including many other hormones and steroids which could become popular.

So in summation, we should be phasing out the use of hormonal birth control and hormonal use in industry, not expanding on it or deregulating it.
>> No. 387194
Okay, so it's affecting the environment simply through general run off? That makes much more sense. When you use the example of someone specifically buying things to dump them, that actually sounds ridiculous. The concept of unregulated usage affecting the environment simply through existence makes more sense in terms of scale and viability. The idea that a few nuts just dump shit like that is what is cartoon villainy, and when you portray it like that, it's hyperbole to say that that is the problem.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post