|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:I never knew letting everyone vote was basically communism if you think about it That's not what Marx wrote  , Stop calling Obama a Marxist you fucks. If he was, I'd like him better!quote:1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. I have some problems with Marx's philosophy, but at least I took the time to actually read his goddamn works, instead of whatever game of broken telephone this rear end in a top hat played. With the amount it's been twisted to fit Obama, it's like reading a book on loving Nostradamus prophecies. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Dec 11, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Hat tip: Lawyers Guns and Mony blogquote:It's become a habit for Americans to embrace charismatic individuals without knowing anything about them. The reason could be that our nation's culture has devolved to the point where we're shallow, uninformed and more apt to esteem celebrity above patriotism. As a result, there are America-haters among us who have become rich and famous thanks to the accepting nature of the American people. Houston Euler fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
Wait is he saying that PSY was...not mocking the rich people in the Gangnam district but rather supporting them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Wait is he saying that PSY was...not mocking the rich people in the Gangnam district but rather supporting them? No I think he's saying that PSY is this generation's Gallagher.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
hakarl posted:No I think he's saying that PSY is this generation's Gallagher. So in 20 years he is going to be a rightwing shitheel?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
I personally can't wait for PSY Too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:PSY is South Korea's very own Pee Wee Herman/pop star whose "Gangnam Style" hit is all the rage right here in the country he apparently abhors. Wow, this guy is certainly "with it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
This is from a right wing rag that my parents get for free (everyone in west st. louis county gets one I guess) http://www.newsmagazinenetwork.com/2012121028483/shame-on-who/ quote:For some reason I thought we were different, that being from West County we have higher standards, a better moral fiber. That if it was me (and it has been me) that I would be honest and considerate enough to leave a note with my name and phone number, and even an apology. I have done this before. I wonder if he thinks scary black people and hispanics in blue cars gave her kid a love tap in the parking lot. For the record, I have never seen minorities other than Asian people at the Asian center they opened there a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:Recently, it was made public that over the years PSY has participated in several "anti-American" protests. In 2002, in opposition to the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula, PSY painted his face gold and, similar to comedian Gallagher smashing watermelons onstage, PSY, as part of his act demolished a model of a U.S. military tank. This is one of those "only the US is allowed to have a foreign policy" things. Can you imagine the poo poo storm the writer of this piece would raise if another country kept a significant military presence on US soil?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183251542.htmlquote:As a 25-year member of the Minnesota Association of Public Employees (MAPE), I applaud Michigan's adoption of a right-to-work law ("Michigan passes sweeping limits on union power," Dec. 12). I have no right to "free association" in Minnesota. I am forced to belong to and pay dues to a union that does not represent my political or personal values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Only in the fevered, deluded brains of the right wingers in this country is it a terrible thing for PSY to have been critical of the US after members of its military ran down a little girl in his country and got off free and clear. If these idiots can't figure out why the rest of the world might be pissed off at us for just going around doing whatever we want... I can't even finish that. How can people be so goddamned stupid and blind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183251542.html No, you are not, that's already illegal. The fees you pay as a non-member only cover your representation costs and don't go to political donations. Feel free to use those two sentences anywhere online they may be appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Walter posted:How can people be so goddamned stupid and blind? What are you talking about? America is a country that was ordained by God as the light of the earth and anything it does is simply His will. Why is it so hard for you to understand that everything America does is inherently good based on the fact it was done by America? I'm so sick of people apologizing for this country!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183251542.html They negotiate with the very governor they helped elect, which does nothing for members
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
If deborah johnson of rosemount is so worried about unions not repersenting her personal or political views and she is concerned about the burden herself and her fellow fatcat govt workers put on tax payers, then why is she a government employee?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Branis posted:If deborah johnson of rosemount is so worried about unions not repersenting her personal or political views and she is concerned about the burden herself and her fellow fatcat govt workers put on tax payers, then why is she a government employee? Because the union forced her to be one against her will. She could go work at one of those low paying no benefits no security non union jobs, but the fact that the only decent job around requires union membership only demonstrates how she would be better off without the union. Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Branis posted:If deborah johnson of rosemount is so worried about unions not repersenting her personal or political views and she is concerned about the burden herself and her fellow fatcat govt workers put on tax payers, then why is she a government employee? Self loathing union members are everywhere. The local school district has one of the shittiest CBAs I've ever seen (all teachers are fired then rehired every year to reset their seniority and avoid giving people tenure, any decently written CBA would have this loophole patched out by allowing seniority to accrue after seasonal layoffs) in part because the teachers are right wing and loathe the NEA. edit: Did some poking around, apparently the NEA that "represents" teachers at this district is headed by local principals and school district officials, locking the Missouri NEA out. CAPS LOCK BROKEN fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
I worked at UPS for 3 and half years at a location in the Philadelphia area. It was a closed shop for all below-management employees so everyone was in the teamsters. I worked with people who loathed the teamsters and how they let people who were "loving leeches" stay while they worked their rear end off. One critic was a man who without the health benefits that the teamsters negotiated for would have had probably $1 million in medical bills because of a emergency his wife had. He also took advantage of it constantly as he had a guaranteed yearly raise and had been there long enough that seniority protected him. In conclusion, people hate unions they're in because they're ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
I'm curious, since many people buy into the "unions don't let companies fire anyone, so employees can just slack off!" schlock: what are the productivity numbers like? Are right-to-work states more productive by that measure than states that allow closed shops? I know numbers won't change anyone's minds because anecdotes but I'd be interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I'm curious, since many people buy into the "unions don't let companies fire anyone, so employees can just slack off!" schlock: what are the productivity numbers like? Are right-to-work states more productive by that measure than states that allow closed shops? Unions don't prevent people from being fired. From a policy standpoint, all we do is make sure that due process is followed by management in firing. If your manager is too much of a spineless/apathetic idiot to fire someone it is hardly the union's fault. Many times we would be called into meetings after the worker was fired without due process to negotiate a settlement for breaking a private, freely negotiated contract of labor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Unions don't prevent people from being fired. From a policy standpoint, all we do is make sure that due process is followed by management in firing. If your manager is too much of a spineless/apathetic idiot to fire someone it is hardly the union's fault. Many times we would be called into meetings after the worker was fired without due process to negotiate a settlement for breaking a private, freely negotiated contract of labor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183251542.html Wanted to single out this part, as I have had this argument with people before. Unions aren't the only organization that do this; businesses do this all the time. The solution to unions (and businesses) negotiating contracts and influencing laws with representatives they helped elect by financial means isn't dissolving unions, it's making campaigns and elections publicly financed at an equal level for all candidates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Oh I know, but people still buy into the lies after you tell them that, because they all know (they don't) some union shop where people slack off all the time. Just to give you some perspective, the company I work at fired an upper-level IT guy for saying a ton of racist poo poo during a non-harrassment seminar to be "edgy". He'd done the same poo poo the previous year and had been warned about it before the current year, so they fired him. Dude lawyered up and got a great settlement because HR hadn't kept sufficient documentation of his past actions. Now that guy 100% deserved to be fired, but people have rights, even dickheads, and unions protect those rights without you having to find some ambulance-chaser on daytime television and give him most of the settlement. If companies handle a firing correctly, poo poo like that won't happen, union or no union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:The solution to unions (and businesses) negotiating contracts and influencing laws with representatives they helped elect by financial means isn't dissolving unions, it's making campaigns and elections publicly financed at an equal level for all candidates. If this says what I think it means, then I love you. I have maintained for years on end that publicly financed elections are the solution to so many American problems but never heard anyone express the same sentiment outside of some book I read a long time ago. But it's such an unlikely prospect that nobody ever seems to agree with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51861quote:Doing away with the most dangerous places in the United States: Gun Free Zones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
"Liberals are shamelessly exploiting this tragedy to push an agenda! And I think this tragedy is a reminder of why all liberals ever are bad!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
What's really to blame for the tragic CT shooting? Lax gun laws? Bad parenting? Inadequate care for the mentally ill? Not enough kindergarteners with concealed-carry permits? Nope, the gays did it!quote:NUGENT: Connecticut killings a result of moral decay
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
I consider Nugent to be equivalent to Ann Coulter at this point, honestly. I don't think either of them seriously buy into the bile they spew, they just want the attention (and paycheck) that comes with saying controversial poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:20
|
|
MaxxBot posted:What's really to blame for the tragic CT shooting? Lax gun laws? Bad parenting? Inadequate care for the mentally ill? Not enough kindergarteners with concealed-carry permits? Nope, the gays did it! There isn't an irony meter big enough for Ted Nugent to be talking about family values.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:There isn't an irony meter big enough for Ted Nugent to be talking about family values. Why would anyone think that? quote:n 1978, Nugent began a relationship with seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa. Due to the age difference they could not marry so Nugent joined Massa's parents in signing documents to make himself her legal guardian, an arrangement that Spin magazine ranked in October 2000 as #63 on their list of the "100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock".
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
bad day posted:If this says what I think it means, then I love you. I have maintained for years on end that publicly financed elections are the solution to so many American problems but never heard anyone express the same sentiment outside of some book I read a long time ago. But it's such an unlikely prospect that nobody ever seems to agree with me. I mean it makes the most logical sense to me; make it so that every candidate who clears a certain number of signatures to achieve ballot access in a state receives X dollars, and have means in place to allow equal time for candidates in the media. No extra money can be spent on political activities, period. Now all candidates are on a level playing field at least as far as general exposure goes. Businesses and unions have no reason to donate to campaigns or candidates because they can't spend that money to expand their messaging capability anyway. The only problematic aspect I've run into is how to handle outsider spending. Things like Super PACs and interest groups can run ads on whatever they want as much as they want based on the argument that money is speech. Resolving that conflict is something I haven't really worked out to a degree I'm comfortable with because it is a difficult line to tread: if I like candidate X, I can obviously speak to others in support of him. Can I write a blog in support of him? What about make up some flyers? What about if I make some yard signs for sale? Can I rent out radio time to actively discuss the candidate's ideas? What if I make a short audio clip about the candidate and buy some advertising space to play it in? It's a touchy subject to be sure, and I'm not sure where the line ought be set yet, but it seems clear to me that the abundance of money in the electoral cycle is a compromising issue. e: One that might be worth it's own thread instead of taking over this one on editorials, once I get my thoughts set into good order on the subject. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I mean it makes the most logical sense to me; make it so that every candidate who clears a certain number of signatures to achieve ballot access in a state receives X dollars, and have means in place to allow equal time for candidates in the media. No extra money can be spent on political activities, period. Now all candidates are on a level playing field at least as far as general exposure goes. Businesses and unions have no reason to donate to campaigns or candidates because they can't spend that money to expand their messaging capability anyway. It probably does deserve another thread so I won't get too into it but the argument I've seen that makes the most sense to me is that the spending limits govern the use of public airwaves, so they're less a speech thing and more a means to speak thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
I don't buy the argument that money is speech. Money is money, and its effects can be quite different from speech. If I give an impassioned speech to my congressman on behalf of some pet issue, I may or may not convince him to help me. If I give him money for support of that pet issue, it's called bribery. Still, if not for the distorting effects of large amounts of money, I'd be cool with people giving it to whomever they want. On principle I respect peoples' right to uphold causes in whatever way they deem fit, whether that be spending a resource like time and effort or something like cash. We just can't ignore the distortions that cash causes when you allow democracy to go up for sale. Basically, whoever has more money gets more speech. It's not only grossly unfair, it threatens the very principles that are the foundation of our country: that each qualified citizen gets a roughly equal say in terms of electing government officials. If I had my say in the matter, people would be allowed to print up as many flyers and signs as they wanted. Blogs or whatever are fine too. That could still cause some distortions, but it's well within the line of individual speech. Hiring ad firms on behalf of a candidate though, or millions of dollars worth of ad time? No. No no no. When you start allowing a small minority with vast resources to have a massively overstated effect on the public discourse, you are harming all those who can or will not do the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I don't buy the argument that money is speech. Money is money, and its effects can be quite different from speech. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court says that it is speech and therefore it is speech and corporations have the same rights as a living, breathing person. Neither makes any sense and the contorted logic used to create these fictions is really quite amazing. At this point, to reverse these decisions, we would either have to pass constitutional amendments or get a Supreme Court that was willing to ignore precedent, which will probably never happen since its a foundation of our legal system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
radical meme posted:At this point, to reverse these decisions, we would either have to pass constitutional amendments or get a Supreme Court that was willing to ignore precedent, which will probably never happen since its a foundation of our legal system. Precedent is only as important as each justice regards it. For example, Clarence Thomas basically regards precedent as wholly irrelevant. On Citizens United, if you get Democratic control of the Presidency for 8 years after Obama, that would virtually guarantee liberal replacements for Kennedy and Scalia. At that point, a case challenging Citizens United would likely be brought, and a more liberal court would be very likely to overturn that decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
radical meme posted:... and corporations have the same rights as a living, breathing person. This has never been ruled. It's not part of the law or judicial precedent of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Well a friend just found this gem... http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium?pg=1 quote:There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza. Republicans, literally children. Bolding mine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:Well a friend just found this gem... Joementum posted:The best/worst part of that article is that it's not even loving true that there weren't any manly, husky, burly men around. Just because this talking point has to be refuted whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:Well a friend just found this gem... Feminism has enabled mass shootings as without it 12 year old boys would otherwise have been able to attack and subdue gunmen.  No. There is no way a real person actually said this. This is something I need to believe. I do like how we should 'think of what Sandy Hook would have looked like' if men had stepped in to save the day, rather than offering any details. Somehow I'm thinking they would probably have been shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:Well a friend just found this gem... Wasn't the standard pre-sexual revolution to have unwed women as teachers so they'd have a womenfolk job but not corrupt the kids? What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 18:16
|
|
