15,951 Forum Posts by "aviewaskewed"
At 1/22/14 08:45 AM, Korriken wrote: Funny, you're so well programmed that you jump straight into the "imaginary persecution of________" mode. I almost pity you.... Almost.
Actually I think it's the knee jerk reaction you yourself have instilled because ANY damn time you talk about black issues, or black figures of authority or importance, YOU always talk about the "race card". YOU enter that into the conversation every damn time. YOU entered it in this time, and don't hand me "well I was being pre-emptive" it doesn't change the fact that YOU brought it in and it's cheap and tiresome. How about waiting until somebody does or says something stupid in the thread.
Also, Entice, I've seen the episode a few times, and clearly you misunderstood the part about BET, he did NOT glorify BET. His exact qoute was "Black Entertainment Television is the WORST thing I have ever seen in my life!". Hardly a ringing endorsement.
At 1/16/14 09:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm not talking about total creationists. I am talking about those who accept all that has been shown by evidence, but fill in the remaining gaps with their religion.
I was talking about those people too. :)
That's not exclusive to the religious. Many scientific minds close down when they think they have the right answer.
I never intended to say that it was. You asked about what was the negative effect of applying that methodology, I gave you an answer. You agree with that answer, so we have common ground, go us.
The difference between believing in the Big Bang and thinking God started it is purely academic.
I was with you till we got here. Because it isn't purely academic if one is trying to get to THE definitive answer to THE biggest question "how did it all start?". For all we know, BOTH those ideas are completely off the mark and we're still a long ways off from the path to the truth. That's why I was saying using a methodology that would lead one to lazily accept that they have the answer, no reason to keep searching thank you very much, is something that benefits nobody and nothing.
There are definitely religious beliefs that affect day to day life, however, I was not referring to these.
My mistake.
And? Who cares? If I believe that the sky is pizza colored, how does that affect you? Unless one wishes to argue or convert, one's religious beliefs on such scientific issues are 100% irrelevant to others. So I am trying to understand the vitriol with which Saen was defending his position.
Ah, I think I see where we fundamentally disconnected now. I'm speaking more in the broad sense, your speaking in a very specific arena.
Nope. It wasn't an ad hominem. It wasn;t meant to attack or insult. It was meant as a jab to elicit a response. Saen has been extremely hostile (not in a debate sense, but in an abraisive angry sense) to any question of his beliefs, and I inserted the jab in an attempt to rile him into explaining his attitude.
I see. My mistake then.
At 1/16/14 06:58 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: ...and you're probably happier because of it.. but people who know all the answers are automatically assholes anyway... ya don't need to be religious.
I didn't actually hear anything refuting the point I made in there...just sounded like you were maybe trying to lay some framework of challenge but didn't quite get there?
He's talking about the holes in proven/known/accepted history. I mean, really, how much of human history do YOU take on faith?
None. Because I don't need to. We have mounds and mounds of research, documents, etc. to corroborate much and most of human history. Again the PROBLEM with filling in those holes with things like "God did it" is that it is fundamentally lazy myth making, and it is in no way an attempt to get at the truth (which I find great value in). When one has decided that have the answer (in this case "God did it") they do not look for any contrary answer (either proof that God did indeed do it, or something else did it instead).
Because keeping your beliefs to yourself doesn't proliferate them as well as sharing and living by example.
True.
How has it effected you?
For one thing it's annoying, in another case some of what he says is highly offensive based on my personal history. It's also an inappropriate topic for work place conversation because of the inflammatory nature of some of his beliefs.
Are you affected the same way as the others you work with?
Sure.
How do you know?
Because they tell me? I know, probably thought you were going to make some grand point there but...it falls apart if a group of people who work closely together every day actually are social with each other.
You also allude to fringe malignancies.. and implore us that your co-worker is not of the benign category. Care to explain?
When someone has been indoctrinated that it's ok to think that it is justifiable for a class of people (in this case gays) to die simply because of lifestyle choice, that is clearly a very dangerous and inflammatory mindset. A belief set that on the one hand is supposed to be about the sanctity of human life has now taught the naieve and malleable that human life is sacred...but...and it's that "but" that can lead to some truly disturbing and undesirable outcomes.
Um, are you saying they can't work in concert? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
I thought I was quite clear that that was EXACTLY what I was saying. How could I have been anymore clear on that?
Maybe you read cam's Q wrong.
Maybe. If I did, I'm sure he'll be nice enough to come back and tell me so.
He's actually more diligent than you here. And that hurts to say.
How so?
If I had to guess, I'd say your parents instilled your lividity towards the religious, either by bringing you along to services against your will, or explaining away your childhood questions with what they thought would give you the best chance to live a happy, successful life.
Or maybe you can put down the amateur psychiatrist's hat (because seriously, you suck at it and the hat just looks ridiculous), there are many, many other reasons for me to think religion can be seriously damaging (like simply bothering to study it with a critical eye instead of as a devout adherent). For the record, my parents were great on the subject of religion, always made it my choice, and last I checked, actually DO believe in God. But you know, amateur psychiatry is fun...especially for me when it's so laughably wrong.
Are you happy?
Overall? Sure.
Are you successful?
Yep.
Are you willing to live and let live when confronted with religious belief?
Sure, just not the kind that's damaging to the benefit of a civilized society and the propagation of ideas better left in the dark ages.
At 1/20/14 05:00 PM, DarkOasis wrote:
I know it to be true that God is real,
No, you BELIEVE God to be real. You do not know this, you have faith in it, you have been taught it and it has met your own standards of proof. If you had actual incontrivertible proof you would have put it out there and ended this debate. Let's be very clear that if we're going to have a profitable discussion of anything we have to be clear about what words mean and using them properly.
I have faith in Jesus Christ,
Now that is an example of using terms correctly.
Me and everyone who had a middle school education know it to be true that Jesus died on the cross in Rome,
Now this is a broad assumption leading into...
but I know it to be true that He died to save us from our sins and that the only way to have an afterlife better than life on this fallen world is through Him, the Father, AND the Holy Spirit.
...another false use of the word "know" when you want the word "believe" sandwiched into a false dilemma whereby if I know that it is historically accepted a religious teacher of the Jewish faith named Jesus existed, and was executed as a political dissident by the Romans, then I need to also accept the unproven, supernatural elements of the story as well. If I know or understand the former to be true, that is not proof of the veracity of the latter. If you're going to play, you need to play by the same rules as everyone else making any sort of claim: You have to be able to prove it.
Before I type anything else, I'd like to see how the faithful and non-faithful alike respond to this.
I wish this debate to be loving and friendly ( Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:30-31), but revealing.
At 1/15/14 11:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Propagandizing your legit family run small business to increase profit in a quarter so you can pay a family vacation trip is a far cry from propagandizing privatized health care that only benefit's insurance companies and Banks and war.
No, it really actually amounts to the same basic thing: You're lying to the public to get the outcome you desire. It is the same thing, it's clearly wrong, so I'm not sure why you want to act like it's somehow different when it's the same activity for the same basic outcome.
Still reading the document "it's over 600 pages" so. But I will leave you with this for now.
I'll read it too if you just hand me a legitimate link to it so I can have a look myself.
INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS
Now this looks like conspiracy site type fun. How's about you find me a government link to this alleged bill. Because let me tell you, it's easy as shit to copy the style of a real bill if you've read through even a couple pages of even one of them.
At 1/13/14 04:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as filling in the holes with God, so what? What's the problem with that?
It's sloppy, it's unproven, it shuts off people's minds to wanting to understand the truth of how things actually work. There is loads and loads of proof to back that up (exhibit A is the entirety of religious history).
Why should we fault others for wanting a complete story as opposed to leaving so much unknown?
Because when people think they have all the answers, they don't look for any new ones. Why would you? You have all the right ones already!
Is it truly so bad for them to fill in the holes that have zero effect on their day to day life so that they can feel like there is some control in our universe?
How can religious belief be said to have zero effect on their day to day life? It impacts so many of their choices and beliefs, and even their interactions. I've just begun to work with someone whose super religious and it's effected not only himself, but all the rest of us around him since he is not someone who simply holds a belief and then keeps it to himself, why? Because part of his belief is that he should share it, and deny any reality that disputes it. Is that every person of faith? Of course not, but it is an example of how such beliefs are not always benign or "not effecting day to day life"
Why is it such an affront to you that there are people who accept science and choose to combine it with their religious beliefs?
Because to say the two are equivalent is false. The very mechanisms by which they basically work are dramatically opposed.
Did one of them kill your puppy as a child or something?
Now you're just throwing in an ad hominem to distract it would seem from somebody trying to intelligently debate your point and cast doubt on the seriousness of what you yourself are actually putting forward.
At 1/15/14 03:40 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Government of the USA officially bringing in the use of Propaganda into law is an admission of guilt on behalf of the Government of The people's Republic of The United State of America.
Well, assuming you ever do find the actual text of the amendment (until you do I'm treating this like a hypothetical exercise), I do have to ask what's the point in codifying something that they already do? As well as every business, charity, and any organized group on this planet does? Nobody goes out there and says in public "listen, we're a bunch of rotten shits and we'll try to do better", even if you catch them red handed.
Government has officially admitted that American's have, are and will continue to be propagandized into War, financial scams by the Banks and Fed and the continual striping of constitutional right's and freedoms.
Again, assuming you can find the amendment, and I highly doubt they've put that exact text into any kind of print unless we well and truly have elected the single stupidest individuals to ever walk the face of the earth.
At 1/8/14 10:56 PM, ToddM wrote:At 1/8/14 10:34 PM, ZJ wrote: So, who's subscribing to the WWE network in February?I will and all of the territory footage they have I want it all.
A LIBRARY OF ECW AND WCW PAY-PER-VIEWS? SIGN ME UP!
Notice how these posts are focused on old footage from non-WWE promotions and not the fact that people can get the current slate of PPVs and extra content for current TV? There's a message there WWE!
At 1/9/14 02:54 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: but their reasons are as valid as mine for accepting it. I hold nothing against them for a personal choice.
Was with you until right here, so that's why this is the only bit I'm responding to. This simply isn't true, and it is part of the apologist "can't we just all get along?" clap trap that's sprung up that suggests science and religion are compatible, or that they arrive at explanations for things in the same way. They don't. Those claiming evolution have a pretty good mountain of evidence saying "look, more likely then not, this is what happened...now, if you've got something with just as much evidence to dispute it, we're listening" those denying are simply saying "Im going to stick my fingers in my ears and scream blasphemy because The Bible is completely accurate and my pastor is the smartest guy ever and said it isn't true. So stop profaining my God because the bible says evolution didn't happen. Teh Edn". Not the same process whatsoever to arrive at the conclusion and to hold up willful ignorance and say it can stand side by side with intelligent reasoning is a dangerously negligent attitude.
At 12/24/13 09:36 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Are you using "we" as the global equivalent of humanity? If not, how do you resolve conflicts between opposing societal mores?
I clearly said "the society in which one lives" as the first line of the point. That would then clearly preclude expanding the subject into the much stickier realm of the global community of humanity (which doesn't really exist because humanity has always been about sectioning itself into tribes). So I'm not sure why exactly this question is coming up.
At 12/24/13 11:19 PM, Wriggle wrote: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
-JFK
Thank you.
At 12/19/13 01:30 AM, Korriken wrote: According to Abrahamic religions? yes.
Nice use of the back pedal there. Also there ARE factions within those religions that do NOT take the prohibition as seriously as all that, disagree with it, and continue to point out that it's only one line in one book and disagree. The current Pope in fact has decreed that the church needs to stop teaching intolerance against homosexuality.
And people believe in the Abrahamic religions.
People used to believe the earth is flat. What's your point? Because right now you've stuck yourself into a very bad position, because based on THIS post, and the parts in the OP where you said "is what he said really that bad?" I'm wondering if this actually a free speech issue for you, or a "he should be able to point out the sins of homosexuality...but since that'll get me no play, I'm going to talk about the free speech issue"
Just because others don't it doesn't give them any more right to silence those that do any more than gives those who do the right to silence those who don't.
I think this got a bit repetitive and confused but...I take your meaning. Mr. Robertson does have the right to freedom of speech and religion, and he has the right to share those things if he so chooses, just like I have the right to vehemently disagree with him and call it the ignorant views of a backwoods yocal done incredibly good.
Everyone's opinion should be respected, even if you don't like it.
No, this one is just plain incorrect. Opinions that are demonstrably false, destructive, or illegal are well within the rights of a society to sanction, censor, and reject on the face of it. What Mr. Robertson said is devisive in the extreme and I feel has no basis in a society built on freedom and equality, but since he hasn't voiced anything that is destructive or illegal (and since I can't know for sure if there is a Judeo-Christian God, or further know that deity's opinions on homosexuality I can't apply the "false" tag either to his opinions).
No one is the arbiter or moral authority.
Bullshit. The society in which one lives is, always has been, and always will be the ultimate arbiter or moral authority. This is why we have rules, laws, and other codes and prohibitions and even codified freedoms.
At 12/22/13 06:59 PM, Wriggle wrote: I don't really wanna talk about plan B but eventually plan B will have to be "THE" plan if peaceful revolution becomes impossible.
Are you talking about some kind of violent uprising?
At 12/19/13 07:50 PM, ToddM wrote: Do any of you guys have the Mid South DVD that came out recently? I have it and its great. Just wish they put other territory promotions on DVD besides WCW.
They did one on WCCCW a little while back, and the AWA before that. Neither sold great, which made them gun shy for more. The footage they have from old territories will be a key part in their Network programming.
Firstly, this has nothing at all to do with Tea Party situation. So bringing it up only hurts your credibility and makes this seem like a witch hunt on the IRS from the get go. Second strike on this post was that you qouted foxnews, the number 1 cable news conservative spin doctor service (yes, I WOULD shit on a liberal just as hard for MSNBC as a source too without a second source backing the story).
This is a fair and non-partisan article on the subject. I strongly urge EVERYONE to read it before making any more responses to this thread, so you can better grasp the issues. The FOX article omits every relevant fact in what is an obvious, blatant, and irresponsible piece of partisan hackery on their part.
No the facts before you start your bitching people, and bitch about the right bits.
At 11/5/13 10:55 PM, ToddM wrote: Well looks like Kane has a new look.
And here's an on air authority figure...hey WWE, how about Undertaker loses the streak to Heath Slater so you can finally prove once and for all that you CAN ruin anything and nothing is fuck up proof in your world? Good god...
At 11/5/13 09:24 PM, Memorize wrote: Because everything anyone ever does or says ultimately means absolutely nothing through time.
Some names that disprove this:
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
Edgar Alan Poe
Abraham Lincoln
Julius Cesar
Rameses
Adolf Hitler
Jesus Christ
I could keep doing this on and on and on. It's completely ridiculous on the face of it for you to say that the actions of any one person always mean nothing, and nothing that anyone ever did ever matters in the long run. You know better
It's like when I hear people bitch about how "some good people" might end up in hell and that's "unfair"... which I find amusing coming from the people whose belief set means that everyone in the world, no matter how good or noble, gets the same end result of "nothingness" as Hitler and Stalin.
That's a decent point.
Point being. I don't understand why people who choose to live in the moment of the 1 shot they get at life which results in nothing would be more obsessed with discussing a "god" or "after life" than those who believe it amounts to "something."
Most atheists who do this are doing it really for the same reason their theist counterparts do: They believe it is important to spread what they see as a vital truth that will help those around them to understand how the universe works and better their lives.
At 10/30/13 08:35 AM, Korriken wrote: It should be. the government spends tens of billions a year on intelligence and they couldn't even figure out al Qaeda was plotting an attack on the consulate,
*sigh* you're leaving out the parts about the 9/11 analogy: that it is possible to have intelligence, that it can be solid as fuck, but if the right people don't do anything with it, then bad shit is going to happen. You act like the "government" is this well oiled machine yet on other issues you'd argue they aren't and it's ineffective...which is it?
even as they had openly stated that they planned to hit 3 targets, one of them being the consulate. They hit the other 2 targets just as they said they would. Also, hiring Libyan militias to guards the consulate? Whoever decided THAT was a good idea is about as sharp as a rubber mallet.
Definitely not smart. Hey! I have an idea, instead of trying to lay this at the feet of the Executive to score political capitol (which they won't, because the electorate has proven time and again, right or wrong, they don't give a fuck on this one) they should actually do their job and nail the real culprit instead of chasing ghosts which is what this "investigation" has seemed like from the beginning.
You'd figure they would have learned after 9/11. the scary part is they didn't.
What the fuck? You do not know your history. The CIA got 9/11 RIGHT! All sources I've read before and since then peg the CIA as gathering the clues, and running around Washington "with their hair on fire, trying to get someone to listen to them". They knew an attack was coming, they didn't have the exact when, but they knew it was imminent. Condoleeza Rice was the top intelligence liason then, she did nothing, 9/11 happened. Bush blamed the CIA and promoted Rice.
For all the money thrown at the CIA, you would figure they could have seen that one coming.
Maybe they did and they once again had uncooperative elements somewhere who didn't pass the memos up. Or worse, they got told to ignore the inconvient reality (*cough* Iraq War *cough*)
Maybe they did and decided to not act on it? We'll probably never know.
If no one does a real and proper investigation instead of this farcical witch hunt that is designed to try and stain only one person? Yep.
Kind of makes you question the CIA, doesn't it? They couldn't even put 2 and 2 together,
Just like 9/11, or Iraq, oh wait a minute...those were executive failures. I'm not sure you understand what the CIA can and can't do.
Also, if the CIA knew about the attack ahead of time, and refused to do anything, there is a long line of people who need to be held accountable for their lack of action.
Yep, definitely don't know what the CIA can and can't do. Alrighty then.
At 10/2/13 06:23 PM, hecticjon wrote: and yet you're not okay with less fortunate people having this luxury? that's quite selfish if you ask me.
One of the great head scratchers yes. Even the staunchest opponents admit you NEED health insurance, but yet still complain that some people shouldn't get it. Never mind that these people will need to seek medical treatment at some point, hospitals are forced to take them, with no insurance they can't hope to pay the bill, they go bankrupt, the hospital doesn't get their money back, and then pass the cost to the consumer. More insured people means less of this happening...but that's obviously a terrible thing.
At 10/2/13 07:40 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The President is, to a degree, to blame for the government shutdown.
Insofar as when the Repubs said "tear down your signature piece of legislation and accept a repeal or be fucked"? Then yes, to that extent he is. In all other ways, I'm going to go ahead and blame the whiny children who refused any kind of compromise.
I don't want to preach to the choir.
This seems almost like your somehow giving in to the myth that theirs two sides to this issue and their equally sharing the blame.
What disappointed me most was the lack of communication between Obama and Boehner.
Well, when Boehner is preaching that he'll extort Obama and there can be no two ways about it, what exactly was Obama going to say to him? Hmmm?
Reagan and Tip O'Neill were hugely ideological enemies, yet they spent hours talking and negotiating deals. (Although the government did shut down every other year during their terms). Clinton and Gingrich spent hours long into the night negotiating budget deals.
And the Government shut down under them too...these are piss poor examples for trying to act like there were combative Presidents and Speakers who managed to work together when it counted...
I'm no fan of Gingrich, but he's right when he said that he and Clinton spent more days together than Obama and Boehner spent hours.
See above. How can you negotiate when one side is telling you flat out you have to do what they want or else. It would be like me saying "hey Ranger, you have to agree with everything I say on this board or I'll ban you. If I don't, Tom will remove me as a mod.". How do you negotiate that? You can't. Because I am coming at you with absolutely no room for another solution to use because if I give in to you, I'll be removed from my position. Now, I absolutely could say "no Tom, I won't ban Ranger over that, take my modship then", but if I value being a mod more then your opinion, or I see being a mod as all I want to do...it's pretty clear how I'll handle that situation. Boehner and House Republicans did the same. They were told by the radicals within the party they'd be primaried out if they didn't pursue this idiotic course and they caved. It's a myth that Obama hasn't tried to reach out. He's tried multiple times and he's always rebuffed by these crazies, so now he did the smart thing and said "you don't want to play? Don't want to show you're going to compromise? Fuck ya then, enjoy the public crucifying you". It really doesn't hurt him.
I understand that the Republicans didn't want to negotiate, and they were acting like little babies. But it's still Obama's responsibility to call Boehner for as many meetings as possible to resolve the crisis. And he is the President of the United States; if he wants to talk to the Speaker, he will talk to the Speaker.
You can't respond to crazy. The Senate made it clear again and again they would not accept a repeal, Obama did too. If he can't even get past the point of "I'm not repealing this, what else you got?" then what the FUCK could he do? I'm sick of this myth that there's a valid other side to this. There absolutely isn't.
I didn't expect Obama to solve the crisis by striking a grand bargain or letting Obamacare be slashed. I did expect him, to be meeting with Boehner for hours and hours and hours so that if the shutdown did happen, the President could at least say that he was in the fight, that he was doing what he was elected to do.
He fucking well did! He ran the government, and he tried to stop the shut down. Boehner could have talked to him too! Boehner could have compromised! This is beyond idiotic now, you didn't expect a resolution, but you expected Obama to waste his time behind closed doors trying to work for one? What?
Obama is the President of the United States. He needs to take responsibilities for all the government's problems, even if they're not his fault.
That's insanely stupid.
Have you been in a restaurant or on a plane with a screaming baby whose parents don't even try to calm him down, but instead ignore him? It's not the parents' fault the baby is crying, but it's their responsibility to at least try to get him to be quiet.
Which the president did. The analogy isn't the same. A baby doesn't possess reason, adults do. The adults in the House chose not to use it and to act like babies.
This reminds me of the 2010 BP Oil Spill incident. Remember how the CEO, Tony Heyward, was asked to step down because of the incident? He wasn't on the oil rig when it blew up. He didn't press the wrong button to cause the explosion. But he was the leader, and like it or not the buck stopped with him. He took the fall for something that wasn't his fault because he was in charge and that's what happens.
Except it WAS his fault because his company, under him, CREATED the conditions and greased the wheels to make that unsafe rig operate...you really need to stop talking about things you don't know about.
So....
While we're at it, this thread doesn't need to exist. We have a shutdown thread already, you're not offering anything new, so yeah...thread locked, feel free to respond over in the shut down thread.
At 10/2/13 05:53 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the monthly premium, though I do have one of the nicer plans even though I haven't made a claim minus the annual doctor check ups. it better to have it and not use it then not have have it and need it.
That's not necessarily the ACA though. My premiums have gone up every year that I've had my own insurance through my employer (and yes, I've had the same employer the entire time I've been off my parents insurance coverage). Premiums would still be going up even without Obamacare because insurance companies raise prices, companies cover a less of the premiums. Plans change, always have, always will. If you've got an issue you should do what I advised a friend to do when he's hit with copays when he never was before: Get a hold of your insurance company and find out why they're doing it.
At 9/26/13 01:48 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Just figured you'd have as much pride in your ability to earn an income as your ability to spend others' for them.
Actually I thought it more likely you'd just build a straw man out of it if I said anything other then "I own my own business and it is the size of other major corporations in America" so you could then try to scream that I'm a liberal who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
Also I'm dangering veering off I know but...I'm tired of the argument that makes "income" sacred, and acts like we're somehow earning it in a vaccuum. Income is a myth. Money is a myth. It is a thing we created, we assigned value to, and we set up a government to enforce and reinforce that it has value. To me the point of having these systems should be a social contract where we're trying to improve our lot as a society. When we start holding up this imaginary concept as some sort of deified ideal, and those that don't have it as some kind of unworthy or untouchable caste...I think we've veered widely off the rails of what society is supposed to be. That's one of the key reasons why you and I will probably never find common ground on this subject.
At 9/25/13 11:26 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Only time will tell. It all depends on the Ayatollah. Just because Rouhani's fresh face doesn't mean too much.
True, but Iran is in a precarious spot here. The Ayatollah has been fighting this fight for about 30 years or so and as more crazies get into government here, it's not a good idea to keep pushing them and giving even the moderates the impression that you are a credible threat. Also Iran is yet another Arab country with a younger populace that isn't such a fan of the religiously conservative government they live under...I really think it's in the Ayatollah's best interest to at least publicly soften his stance.
Actions speak louder then words...but the words are encouraging. Iran has been under increasing pressure and scrutiny from the West, and with Iraq and Afghanistan winding down there will certainly be hawks demanding that we then commit to a war with Iran or at least some military action. It's possible (though unlikely) that Rouhani may actually be speaking with the voice of the Ayatollah here insofar as that while I doubt Khomeni has discovered any new love for the West, he may have simply decided to have his country be less openly hostile to them in an effort to discourage action against it.
At 9/24/13 10:31 PM, Armissea wrote: You know what really grinds my gears? New Jersey
We hate you too :)
At 9/25/13 07:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: When you think like a liberal, I'm sure it hurts to understand that others don't actually care how you feel.
Ad hominem aside...what hurts me is not so much that a rich guy like Papa John doesn't care how I feel, I understand that to a degree since he's no different then the owner of every other big business. What "hurts" is that average joe workers like myself will gleefully and continually side with these assholes who don't care about them, who prey on them and fuck them over and then use them as the mouth pieces to go "how can I be the bad guy? Joe average over here is agreeing!". That's what hurts. That people continue to rail against their own best interest.
If you honestly believe fucking over customers is their endgame, you're delusional.
I never said it was their endgame. Their endgame is more profit, I know that, you know that. The endgame is the fundamental problem with unchecked capitalism "he who dies with the most toys wins...me me me, fuck everybody else". What I said was the CONSEQUENCE which is CLEARLY evident in the statement when you remove the corporate speak is that the consumer will be harmed (or at the least, inconvenienced) by price increases in their goal to do that. But hopefully the consumer will do the simplest solution: Not buy the product for the increased price. It's what I plan to do myself.
The other stuff you wrote isn't too stupid . . .
You're too kind...*eye roll*
but still, obscene amounts of money mean nothing when they aren't YOUR obscene amounts of money. If they were, you'd hire a good lawyer to tell you how much moolah you can legally keep using government-endorsed pogroms and loopholes.
You don't know me, and you don't know how I would handle "obscene amounts of money". You don't know how I'd run a business, you don't know my value system, and you don't know what I hold dear and what I don't. In short, you made an assumption you can't back, and that is why this part was singled out to be highlighted for dismissal.
Spending other people's money is easy, which is a large part of why we have a record debt and deficit...
Oh wonderful, another conservative economic expert that continues to ignore debt can actually be an asset...
the federal government doesn't actually produce anything;
Military, postal service, jobs related to those and other departments and services but...yeah, when I ignore all that, the government does nothing and gives me nothing. They just steal all my money down a hole...those fucks.
it's supposedly still around to protect our borders (open-border policy, contrary to states' attempted enforcement) and regulate interstate commerce.
Our borders are in fact being secured. Illegal immigration is down to just about (if not) zero right now...straw man that isn't even straw since it's just factually untrue.
Does this mean bailing out bankrupt states who've chosen to empty their coffers on campaign promises?
Who? Where? When? I haven't heard of any states declaring bankruptcy and getting bailouts lately myself.
Maybe, but using universal healthcare as the cover and making that coverage mandatory is, in my view, an overreach.
Cover? Cover for what? For this bankruptcy fantasy talk? Has anyone on your side considered that the simple reason Obama championed health care in his campaign, then passed the healthcare law is because he honestly just wanted people to have access to healthcare? That he actually believed it was the right thing to do? That's not to say there aren't flaws (they've been pointed out very well elsewhere in the thread by folks smarter about the law then me), but they can be corrected. I mean, it's kind of like how a lot of the left in demonizing Bush forget all the aid he gave to Africa for famine relief and such.
Also, why do you think bad press isn't a concern?
They seem willing to brace it and deal with it...if they weren't, they never would have released the memo (which anytime you put communication in writing there is a risk of a leak). Maybe I shouldn't have said it isn't a concern at all, but it certainly isn't a big one since they aren't suggesting this as a course of action but making it very clear that it is the decided course of action.
Not every job pays a living wage, there's the flaw in your argument.
I never claimed it did. I think that's a major problem too, but I honestly didn't see the relevance of that to what we were discussing. Nor do I see the relevance now.
I see you conveniently ignored his opening post talking about that.
There you go assuming again. You could have just asked me why it wasn't brought up instead of assuming I had a bad intention.
Maybe you didn't notice all the businesses cutting hours and hiring more part-time employees.
I have! My job has been doing it for years. Most jobs are tending towards that. That trend was prior to Obamacare though, so please don't try to do the patently false math of saying the two are not only related, but that one caused the other.
You are an internetter though, so maybe you don't get out much.
I get out quite a bit actually. I just hang around here in my spare time. Geez, you have a lot of assumptions and prejudices in you don't you?
What do you do for your living wage, if I may ask?
You may not because it's a straw man and has no bearing on our discussion :)
We do import from China. Alot. How do you level that with your current worldview?
What do imports have to do with Korriken's assertion that business should be allowed to do whatever it wants? Explain that please and then we can happily deal with how I feel about imports.
k, bye
I just meant with him. But if you don't want to talk to me then...why reply to my post to begin with? Or was that just an attempt to try and be witty?
At 9/25/13 05:39 PM, Korriken wrote: in other words, doing their job to protect their shareholders' best interests, like they're supposed to.
Did you read the statement? Because take the corporate speak out and what you have is this: "We are comitted to fucking over our customers by charging them MORE for this product because of a law we don't like that forces us to treat our workers better and allow them to have a better quality of life and health, which would then theoretically mean less time spent away from the job. We don't care about the bad press this creates, we just assume the public are nit wits and we can continue to make obscene amounts of money for ourselves that you the investor get a small piece of". Yep, makes perfect sense.
businesses don't exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money for its investors.
First, not all businesses have investors, that's a flaw in your argument. Second, any business above a certain size or selling a certain product DOES need to provide jobs because it needs other hands to make it run. They in turn provide those employees with a living wage, which they then spend propping up the economy. If you're argument is "businesses shouldn't give a fuck about creating jobs to provide income" then you don't understand even the most basic way an economy works.
What a business does is its business, not mine.
Frankly, that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and it's dangerous as hell. Under this logic you'd let polluters pollute, unsafe conditions prevail, a whole host of abuses really.
It's not like they're trapped there.
Ok, I think I have finally decided not to reply to any of your posts, or just flat out ignore you now because with this statement you prove you have no grasp of the realities of American life. You have bought into the Repub lie that class divide is merely there because some people are lazy, willfully stupid, etc. and if they'd just work a little harder a better life is just around the corner. Money isn't an object! Where you live isn't a factor! None of these things matter, ignore all facts to the contrary!!!
Ugh..done...
At 9/24/13 12:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, are we to take it that by ardently sticking to the race card distraction that you ave admitted defeat in the actual matter at hand?
I feel like somebody made a post about this already...oh wait, me. Seriously, it's his tried and true derail attempt, I would consider it a personal favor if people would ignore it because when that kind of silly shit isn't going on I'm actually getting some useful new info on what's happening and what's at stake.
Also Mono, would really appreciate it if you'd stop trying to tell people what to do or running them off the topic publicly. The moderators (like me) make those decisions, we're more then happy to discuss concerns with you via PM and such (my box is always open to concerned users). Please make use of it, thank you kindly. Back to topic.
At 9/23/13 06:57 PM, Feoric wrote: Weird, right? It's always on their mind. I wonder why.
If nothing else it's proved an excellent derail when someone arguing against Obama and his policies hit a wall and the facts or figures won't back them. Simply start throwing around the race card and screaming that a small minority of Obama supporters constantly harp on it and that his opposition must be racist, extrapolate that to act like ALL Obama's supporters believe it...argument derailed and now it's all about the straw man of whether or not race is a deciding factor in discourse about Obama and his policies and are the supporters racist, or are the detractors racist? It's really got nothing to do with most (if not all) of what gets discussed about Obama and his policies. It's just a cheap derail tactic that seems to work pretty consistently.
At 9/19/13 08:11 PM, Ranger2 wrote: You take the idea of "American Excellence" too far.
Or he can just do the most basic of extrapolations on what it is that those espousing "American Excellence" are actually saying. Especially how hard they rail against America apologizing or admitting fault for anything that it does.
I don't see why it's wrong for people to say "my country is the greatest in the world." If someone in France were to say "I love France and I wouldn't live anywhere else," that'd be fine with me.
You realize you just put up two similar, but not comparable statements right? Saying "my country is the greatest in the world" is a statement of fact, or intended as such to be. To make such a statement, one would then need to prove the assertion. When someone says "I love my country and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else" this a statement of fact also...but it is the opinion of the individual, that for them the facts of their situation vs. the situation they could have elsewhere leads them to the conclusion that where they are is the best place for them. See? Very similar, but not the same statement.
You're from Croatia; I wouldn't care one bit if you said "Croatia is #1, I love Croatia," so why should you take offense to when Americans do it?
You wouldn't care, but in reality, you wouldn't be able to say Croatia is #1 overall unless you could prove it. You can easily prove your personal love for Croatia, and more power to you for it. But there's no reason to try and turn patriotism into jingoism. That road leads to all sorts of bad ends
If it were any other country you wouldn't care.
That is a statement you can't make since you aren't able to read the minds of others.
