Stupid Republicans
No doubt you have heard of the controversy surrounding Republican Congressman Todd Akin's comments about rape.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php But now another one has come out and made even more ignorant claims. King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php?ref=fpb President Obama had this to say about Akin: "The views expressed were offensive," said Obama. "Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me. So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/obama-todd-akin-rape_n_1812140.html |
10:02am 22/08/12 Permalink
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.That sounds so seedy. "Where did the bad man touch you?" "Oh yeah... that's hot" |
10:30am 22/08/12 Permalink
It is degrading to society for people like this to have the potential to be in charge and decide how it is. These kinds of idiots have in the past made laws and decisions that make or break peoples lives. Millions of peoples lives!
|
10:56am 22/08/12 Permalink
nah, pretty sure he is just saying that women should be able to make decisions on their own healthcare, rather than being told what they can and can't do
last edited by funky at 11:12:56 22/Aug/12 |
11:09am 22/08/12 Permalink
I am far more interested in American than Australian politics, and that is a sad thing.
|
11:14am 22/08/12 Permalink
Also obama using the term 'health care decisions' when talking about pregnancy or rape is bound to s*** some women.
|
11:16am 22/08/12 Permalink
Also obama using the term 'health care decisions' when talking about pregnancy or rape is bound to s*** some women.Don't think it will be as bad as what these Republicans are saying. What I want to know is how do these people get into running positions with their clearly medieval thoughts and discussions. What makes someone vote for a person who believes rape is essentially okay, and that its the victims fault? |
11:20am 22/08/12 Permalink
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest. Doesn't read the news much does he... http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/12/23/va1237347276964/Joseph-Fritzl-6412047.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Philip_Garrido_2009_mugshot.jpg last edited by ara at 11:52:53 22/Aug/12 |
11:45am 22/08/12 Permalink
The only people who would take any offence to what Obama said are people who already hate him because he is black and wouldn't vote for him in the first place. Oh and on top of all this there was also a bill that was shot down that would of let doctors lie to their paitents if it stopped an abortion. Thing is about these hardcore pro-life people is once the baby actually comes out they don't give a f*** about it and won't help fun any type of program that the mother could use if she isn't filthy rich.
The republicans have done a masterful job at convincing people that they aren't poor, just temporally down-trodden and that their time to be millionaires is coming, and all they have to do is vote for their spoon fed rich prick of a nomination and he'll make everything better for them. Like Bill Maher says, I understand why republicans get 1% of the vote, but I can't understand the other 49% |
12:26pm 22/08/12 Permalink
that would of let doctors lie to their I see you're writing a whole bunch of intelligent commentary then omgzzz.. WOULD HAVE, WOULD'VE NOT WOULD OF jesus f*****g christ the internet is killing me one grammatical error at a time. props for using correct their.... |
12:48pm 22/08/12 Permalink
YEAH ALL REPUBLICANS THINK THIS. WHAT A HEAD.
|
01:16pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I think he is being sarcastic, he thinks you're stereotyping republicans, and head is short for d*******.
|
01:48pm 22/08/12 Permalink
If incest never led to pregnancy, how do they account for the existence of tv shows like The Shire or Jersey Shore?
|
02:15pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Wow Obama actually nailed that response, unlike Romney.
Also obama using the term 'health care decisions' when talking about pregnancy or rape is bound to s*** some women. No no, that was a clever swipe at their pro-life stance. Also their opposition of his contraception proposals in his health care reform. I am far more interested in American than Australian politics, and that is a sad thing. Same. |
02:24pm 22/08/12 Permalink
American politics is more interesting because of all the stupid things they do and say. I like to think we are smarter than that. Sure we get our share of screw ups happen but I can't imagine someone getting up in parliament and saying that rape never results in pregnancy, therefore abortion should be illegal. That takes a special kind of stupid.
|
02:52pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Vote Abbott in and we'll see DM....
|
02:53pm 22/08/12 Permalink
what specific policy of abbott's are you referring to thermite?
|
02:55pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I dont think thermite mentioned any of Abbott's policies, but Abbott certainly has a pretty damning record on these issues
- he is "pro life" - he has tried to block the introduction of morning after pills - is opposed to stem cell research - makes creepy remarks about his daughters' virginity - is anti gay marriage - anti euthanasia He has a record of being incredibly regressive when it comes to his stance on social issues relating to sexuality and health. |
03:05pm 22/08/12 Permalink
YEAH ALL REPUBLICANS THINK THIS. WHAT A HEAD.Ohhhh so touchy and defensive. Somebody say something bad about your little team and it make you all mad? :( Not every conservative thinks like this, but you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't hold a similar backwards, anti-science belief somewhere in their list of ideals. I mean, you are okay with torturing people as long as they are brown and savage right infi? |
03:09pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I am far more interested in American than Australian politics, and that is a sad thing. Why is it sad? Naturally people are more interested in American politics because it has a much bigger impact on the world who has the power there. |
03:29pm 22/08/12 Permalink
So now you have extended your false quotation to include torture, fpot. You're poor memory and incompetence know no bounds! What a head.
- he is "pro life" abbott funded abortions while he was health minister. - he has tried to block the introduction of morning after pills he approved the funding eventually. - is opposed to stem cell research so is labor afaik - makes creepy remarks about his daughters' virginity you're an idiot - is anti gay marriage so is gillard. - anti euthanasia so are most australians, so is gillard. the hipster, social progressive brigade need to understand that even though they THINK they are extremely enlightened and know what's best for society, it is not determined by them but by the general populace who are essentially conservative. both gillard and abbott know this. |
04:05pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Just because the majority of people are stupid doesn't mean that I'm not enlightened.
he approved the funding eventually. And no he didnt actually approve the funding for the morning after abortion pill, because parliament voted away the health minister's rights to legislate on that issue because he was SO INSANE. btw saying that Gillard also thinks the same way doesnt make it any less stupid, you should know that :P |
04:17pm 22/08/12 Permalink
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/ArticleswrittenbyTony/tabid/87/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3653/RATE-OF-ABORTION-HIGHLIGHTS-OUR-MORAL-FAILINGS.aspx
^ Did Abbott actually say this because uhhhhhhh |
04:35pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Abbott is a religious nut-bag, if you think he is any better than those idiots in the the US, then your just as dumb as they are.
|
04:45pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I'm at a loss for words
http://i.imgur.com/jmD3y.png |
05:14pm 22/08/12 Permalink
HAY GUYS I THINK EVERYONE WHO VOTES A PARTICULAR WAY HOLDS THE SAME MORAL VIEW ON RAPE AND INCEST PREGNANCIES. BUT I AM NOT A BIGOT/RACIST - ALTHOUGH I LIKE TO DECRY BIGOTS AND RACISTS, AREN'T I COOL?
|
06:23pm 22/08/12 Permalink
06:28pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I can't understand republicans! Or how they 49% of the vote!?!?
This is like those republican dudes that wanted to pass a law that allows companies to know if their female staff are on contraception or not!? |
06:52pm 22/08/12 Permalink
We all know who decides the US Presidency...
|
06:53pm 22/08/12 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-01-27/abbott-defends-virginity-comments/310704 It's a beat up but it's just another little glance at how much of a loon he is.
When asked by the Australian Women's Weekly in a wide-ranging interview published today what advice he would give his daughters on sex before marriage, Mr Abbott replied that he would advise them not to give away their virginity lightly.He really is the worst. If he lets little gems like this and the link I posted before slip publicly, imagine what crazy little thoughts run around in that private little mind of his? |
06:59pm 22/08/12 Permalink
lol he said that? The greatest gift... to give away his daughters virginity? And this guy's party is the only alternative to the current government :(
|
07:04pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Are you reading the same sentence as I am?
Virginity is the greatest gift you can give to someone you love, don't whore youself out, save it for someone special. I'm not seeing the problem? |
07:05pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Virginity is the greatest gift you can give to someone you love, don't whore youself out, save it for someone special.Welcome to the 1950s. Please remember not to drink from the colored peoples' tap. |
07:07pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I don't hold virginity that highly, i didn't think the majority would. Perhaps religious crazies.
|
07:10pm 22/08/12 Permalink
*+U
Wait until you have a daughter. |
07:14pm 22/08/12 Permalink
07:18pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Wait until you have a daughter.You're right. That thing that happened to you that completely removes your ability to look at something objectively invalidates every other person's point of view on it. At the expense of that objectivity though it does give you a different perspective. Whether that's for better or worse who can tell. The way I see it there is no such thing as 'whoring yourself out*' whether you are male or female. Do you really think the amount of sexual partners someone has is in any way tied to that person's morality or decency? What exactly do you define as whoring yourself out anyway? *edit: heh, except for literally having sex with people for money of course :P |
07:29pm 22/08/12 Permalink
That's why I said that and not a Nerfy styled long response. Your perspective may very well change. Remember when you were 16, trying to f*** anything that moved, if it didn't move you kicked it? Those unlucky hundred or so ladies you reamed cried lots when you made them bleed but then left straight after. If I could turn back time I think I would stay back for breakfast a couple of times. My advice to my daughters will be pretty much the same as big ears, don't give it up lightly. Meh.
I just don't think that comment is that oooeer when he has said so much worse. |
07:42pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Jesus! I'm warning my daughters about mental...
|
07:58pm 22/08/12 Permalink
This Thread is about Politics.
take your Home and Away teenage angst to another Thread. |
08:08pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Jesus mental!
I think there's a difference between telling your daughters that their virginity is the greatest gift they can ever give and just warning them about total a*******s like you seem to have been in your teens! |
08:29pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Remember when you were 16, trying to f*** anything that moved, if it didn't move you kicked it? Those unlucky hundred or so ladies you reamed cried lots when you made them bleed but then left straight after.The voice of experience? Come on, it's ok, you can tell uncle ausgamers what happened to you. We don't judge. |
08:30pm 22/08/12 Permalink
fpot, it's clear that it upsets you a lot that your great rival infi gets to be on the sane side of the argument 95% of the time.
|
08:51pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Na I was pretty tame in my teens, was just making the point I don't think the comment was that bad. Plenty of other comments from him that you could paint a pretty picture with.
|
08:55pm 22/08/12 Permalink
loutl you hit the nail there. I too wish to live in a world where imprisonment and torture of brown people is okay because they are savages, where science is nothing but a radical dogma producing conspiracy machine feeding the world lies to service a left-wing agenda, and where it's okay to condemn thousands of people to persecution/death for reasons no better than save the (white) children. And again, f*** brown people right?
When I reach this shiny utopia, I'll let you know. |
09:04pm 22/08/12 Permalink
fpot, it's clear that it upsets you a lot that your great rival infi gets to be on the sane side of the argument 95% of the time. I don't know if infi is religious, but Tony Abbott sure is. Are you saying religious people are sane? Fun fact: technically religious people are not delusional because a delusion is a belief that is not held by anyone else. |
09:30pm 22/08/12 Permalink
sure fpot, now that you've repeated your absurd accusations for 10,000th time maybe I'll believe you. Oh no guess not. I'm sorry, you repeatedly come off looking like the deranged one whenever you engage infi, especially with your constant harping on about brown people.
dais, I know you're trolling, but in the off chance you have actually come to believe that all religious people are insane then might I suggest a break from your usual internet echo-chambers to regain some perspective? |
09:43pm 22/08/12 Permalink
...infi gets to be on the sane side of the argument 95% of the time. Haha, I lol'd. Good joke loutl. |
09:55pm 22/08/12 Permalink
No no, religious people are not insane at all. The Earth was created in six days 6-10,000 years ago. We were all born from one man and one woman. God flooded the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights after Noah gathered two of every animal on the entire planet in to a boat made of wood and pitch. Then we all descended from his family.
God lives near a planet called Kolob. Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's VP nominee: http://i.imgur.com/xNUPH.jpg |
10:00pm 22/08/12 Permalink
sure fpot, now that you've repeated your absurd accusations for 10,000th time maybe I'll believe you.haha yeah DAMN I always go ahead and make absurd accusations. Thanks for letting me know about that. If only there was some way to access the comments he made using some sort of international network so people could see I am not just making s*** up! infi: unfortunately, savage treatment is all the savages understand. it is part of the middle-eastern culture which for some bizarre reason david hicks sought to ascribe to.Oh there it is. In this thread. (hope I got that HTML right) Now infi gets really mad whenever I post that and after changing a word in it, he will try to claim it was taken out of context. Now I am sure you will buy that because you could never turn your back on ol' 95% infi, so I am posting the link just to show others the accusation is not quite as absurd as No no, religious people are not insane at all. The Earth was created in six days 6-10,000 years ago.Remember that not all religious people actually believe this. In Australia I reckon it would only be a small percentage that do. In the USA probably not lols |
10:10pm 22/08/12 Permalink
So if they don't believe that where does it end? Why do they get to pick and choose? That is half of the problem with it.
You can take the "morality" of The Bible on board without being religious. I'd say a fundamental aspect of most Christians is that they believe in Jesus Christ, the death and resurrection. Which in my book makes them nuts. |
10:18pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Who says they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose?
Which in my book makes them nuts.Well what is the general consensus (oh did that hurt loutl?) amongst mental health professionals? If you like science so much, shouldn't you be listening to their opinion on the matter? Oh you want to form your own opinion and pick and choose do you? (post on reddit less) |
10:21pm 22/08/12 Permalink
What makes it insane to me is that it takes so much of a person's time yet really achieves nothing.
One doctor's opinion: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201104/religious-beliefs-divine-revelations-or-mental-disorder |
10:39pm 22/08/12 Permalink
I suppose it is not really fair to say that all religious people have a form of insanity. Most were born in to it and stay with it without questioning it because of the social aspect.
There have always been religious influences in my life and as a child I assumed it was all real (without really knowing much about it) because the adults believed it. It was not until fairly recently that I actually put some thought in to it and started reading The Bible, turning me atheist. It is just so childish, I don't understand how anyone can truly believe it without having some sort of mental issue. last edited by dais at 22:49:51 22/Aug/12 |
10:47pm 22/08/12 Permalink
keep on with the bigotry stereotyping every voter's moral and religious beliefs. fpot is a racist/bigot just in another form. hypocrite nonetheless.
i repeat my version that you have deliberately taken that quote out of context as I was referring to the specific incident where taliban soldier executed a village police official in afghanistan. i object to you repeatedly and deliberately taking me out of context. i do not think afghanistanis are savages. i do think taliban and alqada terrorists are. last edited by infi at 22:56:04 22/Aug/12 |
10:52pm 22/08/12 Permalink
The beliefs are not necessarily the problem infi, it is people who use them to wield power over others and oppress their basic rights. Bigotry has nothing to do with it.
Plenty of people have had crazy beliefs without harming others, but these two Republicans are dangerous because they're in a position of power. |
10:54pm 22/08/12 Permalink
You are full of it infi. Other quotes from the thread.
trog, have you ever considered that virtually everyone of the Gitmo detainees unashamedly wants to see America destroyed off the face of the earth? what luxuries does america owe them if they get captured? in war there is a winner and loser. sucks to be the loser.What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz? He was held in Gitmo for years on baseless charges. But I bet he was the only one right? The rest were all totally terrorists. bulls***. an enemy combatant does not subscribe to the rule of law. they are not loyal to any country or uniform or flag. enemy combatants simply live to fight and destroy. therefore they have no right to the framework surrounding official war.So if one party doesn't subscribe to the rule of law, that means all bets are off and it's torture and orange jumpsuits for all! Schoolyard stuff. Now for the absurd accusations. Here is the exchange in full context. You were clearly responding to fade's post which had you quoted saying 'if they don't subscribe to the rule of law then we shouldn't have to then this - fade: two wrongs make a right? normally I'm on board with you infi but here I think that just because we are fighting savages stuck in the dark ages who deserve to be exterminated, it doesn't mean we can suppress the rule of law and resort to extrajudicial tribunals which are heard in closed courts and the like. Then in response you said - infi: unfortunately, savage treatment is all the savages understand. it is part of the middle-eastern culture which for some bizarre reason david hicks sought to ascribe to.Now I have bolded the part where you labelled an entire culture savage infi so you wouldn't get confused again. Even you think your pathetic little example where criminals blow up someone with an RPG is going to justify you calling an entire culture savage but unfortunately it doesn't. It just means some person murdered another person which happens everyday and they get charged/a trial/convicted. Now I know they are just brown savages infi but they might just be capable of performing that without any voodoo magic or anything so let's give them a chance. So there it is, in full context. Sorry about posting it all but I took your objection very seriously and I wanted to just clear the air between us. Just a question: why would you make comments on a public forum that you are so obviously ashamed of and willing to lie about? |
11:32pm 22/08/12 Permalink
so as you can see from your quotations, I was referring to lawless terrorists, engaged in terrorist acts who in the case of those detained at gitmo had been declared enemy combatants. i don't really care what sewer terrorists are locked in - as long as they are kept away from my family.
I have never used the term "brown savages" - that is an artifact of your own imagination, your warped memory suiting your own recollection of events. i referred to people engaged in terrorist activity, and these people subscribe to extremist philosophy of the taliban and alqaeda. as a super progressive inner city hipster you support these terrorists in their freedom fights, you probably even bought david hick's book. I am not ashamed of my post and I stand by it. Just read it in context instead of the way you would like it to read. You are just as delusional as Alan Wake. |
11:43pm 22/08/12 Permalink
So even with the bolded bit, you still got confused.
:( I was referring to lawless terrorists, engaged in terrorist acts who in the case of those detained at gitmo had been declared enemy combatants. i don't really care what sewer terrorists are locked inThis is what you want people to think after you blurted out the important bit which says 'savage treatment is all the savages understand it is part of the middle-eastern culture'. See? Not terrorists are savage, not taliban, but the middle-eastern culture. And even if someone does grow up in a f***ed up country where from birth they are indoctrinated with anti-western s*** and they inevitably grow up to become a terrorist, they still deserve a fair trial and a just sentence. There are human rights that are unalienable and last time I checked we are on the side that is meant to be fighting for them. Plus a system like Gitmo leads to plenty of false imprisonments like the one I mentioned. What do you think about them? I suppose it's okay if a few people get falsely locked up if it's for our safety (and they're brown) right? And to further add the irony of what you say. Boat people, the very people who are trying to flee conditions like this. Who want to embrace a western life which will provide healthcare and education for their families is something you are strongly against. F*** 'em and send them back to Indo where they can die/continue to live in hellish conditions! And then they grow up to be terrorists it's time to upgrade them to a torture suite at Gitmo. Your posts have a Poe's Law level of stupidity in them. |
11:44pm 22/08/12 Permalink
do you disagree that middle-eastern cultures (especially those subscribed to sharia law) tend to subscribe to belief and legal systems which involve retaliatory and corporal punishment? i.e. eye for an eye?
e.g. blow up your police commander with an RPG if he is not doing a good job? - kill or rape your dughter if she sleeps with a man she is not married to? - chop off a thief's hand? last edited by infi at 23:53:07 22/Aug/12 |
11:51pm 22/08/12 Permalink
do you disagree that middle-eastern cultures (especially those subscribed to sharia law) tend to subscribe to belief and legal systems which involve retaliatory and corporal punishment? i.e. eye for an eye?Yes I do. Thanks for finally having the balls to admit that you think the middle-eastern culture is savage though even if it was in a roundabout way. |
11:56pm 22/08/12 Permalink
Why dont you two ask each other a direct and specific question rather than trying to outwit and requote sentences chosen purely because you can take them out of context. This is less about opinion and more about public defaming another while attempting to portray yourself as being a politically correct authority. Seems more like a war of ‘who can create a watertight sentence’ rather than a discussion. One person is displaying an opinion and the other is simply ridiculing it and arrogantly providing nothing. Objectively, one is on the defense and the other provides nothing and attacks.
One user is questioned specifically about sharia law and lacks the knowledge to separate idealism from fact. The user's only opnion is an example of attempting to obtain support from a community equipped only with grandiose idealisms whilst ignoring documentation. Politicians do this repetitively. They do this to gain support from the lesser educated and it’s merely an exercise in slander. |
12:26am 23/08/12 Permalink
Your inspired little insight into the discussion so far was very invigorating. You even used the word whilst there to make it all smart sounding. Thank you for that. Now that's been said, we can get some real discussion done!
|
12:32am 23/08/12 Permalink
fpot gets off on making other people feel bad. he is the social progressive police. if one does not subscribe to his socially progressive and enlightened philosophy they are a bad person.
it's pretty much the standard tactic for the Greens. guilt others into handouts and making laws prohibiting things. |
12:34am 23/08/12 Permalink
Well I probably wouldnt bother in future. The opinion is uneducated and is nothing but defamation. Only point he could have had an opinion on was factually wrong and there were way too many words of nothing to get to that.
|
12:47am 23/08/12 Permalink
Everyone can relax, Todd Akin has issued an official apology.
|
01:10am 23/08/12 Permalink
Well I probably wouldnt bother in futureGood idea. |
01:21am 23/08/12 Permalink
Love the onion - Women votes can't help fawning over sexist gop
|
01:27am 23/08/12 Permalink
Who the f*** quoted me? You want an autograph?
|
02:14am 23/08/12 Permalink
do you disagree that middle-eastern cultures (especially those subscribed to sharia law) tend to subscribe to belief and legal systems which involve retaliatory and corporal punishment? i.e. eye for an eye? infi you are seriously ignorant and blatantly racist. You sound like one of those stereotypical inbred redneck American soldiers (yes I realise the irony of that statement) saying "hyuk bubba, we gonna get us some towelheads". It is not part of the middle-eastern culture, it is the policy of recent oppressive governments or dictatorships. That's like saying burning witches at the stake is part of British culture. Just because everyone is forced to go along with it doesn't mean they ascribe to it. I doubt women being stoned because they looked at someone the wrong way agree with it. This article gives some excellent perspective: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/03/taliban-sharia-pakistan Iran did not even have Sharia Law until 1979: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution ROFL @ The Onion |
08:18am 23/08/12 Permalink
Why dont you two ask each other a direct and specific question rather than trying to outwit and requote sentences chosen purely because you can take them out of context. This is less about opinion and more about public defaming another while attempting to portray yourself as being a politically correct authority. Seems more like a war of ‘who can create a watertight sentence’ rather than a discussion. One person is displaying an opinion and the other is simply ridiculing it and arrogantly providing nothing. Objectively, one is on the defense and the other provides nothing and attacks. I love how this is immediately dismissed by fpot. last edited by Hybr|d at 08:54:58 23/Aug/12 |
08:52am 23/08/12 Permalink
Pretty sure it was just completely ignored by infi.
One dismissed it immediately and the other pretended it wasn't said, it almost feels like a genuine political debate!! |
09:01am 23/08/12 Permalink
Just because everyone is forced to go along with it doesn't mean they ascribe to it. why do they even exist in the middle east and not in australia? |
09:04am 23/08/12 Permalink
fpot, lately you've become so obsessed with petty point scoring and lame one-upmanship that whatever legitimate points you may or may not have get lost in the same kind of hyperbole that you so enthusiastically point out in other posts.
imo, anyway. |
09:11am 23/08/12 Permalink
so there is no convergence at all between taliban and alqaeda organisations and their geographical area of support? there is no basis for stating that the taliban and alqaeda are predominantly middle-eastern phenomenon?
i know there are other "freedom movements" for other countries should i say terrorist organisations. I am referring to those two. |
09:12am 23/08/12 Permalink
God flooded the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights after Noah gathered two of every animal on the entire planet in to a boat made of wood and pitch. Isn't it rather redundant to say that the Earth was flooded for 40 nights if you've already said it was flooded for 40 days? I'm not sure I know anyone stupid enough to believe that that amount of water would receed nightly and not just still be there the next day. It is not part of the middle-eastern culture, it is the policy of recent oppressive governments or dictatorships. That's like saying burning witches at the stake is part of British culture. Actually that's more of a Danish thing. And I'm not talking about pastry. |
09:14am 23/08/12 Permalink
I always think of this when I hear 40 days and nights:
|
09:36am 23/08/12 Permalink
so there is no convergence at all between taliban and alqaeda organisations and their geographical area of support? there is no basis for stating that the taliban and alqaeda are predominantly middle-eastern phenomenon? How are they any different to warlords in Africa or cartels in South America? Less developed nations with unstable or inadequate governments allow for the rise of militia who take control of the area through force. |
09:50am 23/08/12 Permalink
I realise this thread has been completely derailed, but I wanted to let anyone still interested know that there's a very good post on LGF this morning which they should read: Todd Akin’s Comments Symptomatic of Bigger Problems For GOP.
|
09:58am 23/08/12 Permalink
i don't want my daughters to whore themselves out, and give up their virginity lightly.
OMG I'm a religious freak with narrow views who is a danger to modern society! |
10:33am 23/08/12 Permalink
Here’s the bottom line, according to Shadowbosses: government service is now more lucrative than the private sector. Federal government workers reportedly averaged more than twice the salary and benefits of an average private sector worker. Even more unbelievably, there are fully 459,016 federal workers who make over $100,000 in salary – one in five federal workers. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/20/Federal-workers-earn-twice-as-much-as-private-workers Smaller Government Lower Taxes Vote Republican |
12:01pm 23/08/12 Permalink
There's a difference between not wanting your daughter to be a whore and telling a national women's publication that "virginity is the greatest gift". It's not love that's the gift, it's an intact hymen.
edit - oh faceman, thank f*** that coked up idiot is dead. |
12:01pm 23/08/12 Permalink
Speaking of Abbott, watch our Tony sidestep every single question posed in this 10 minute interview on The 7:30 Report:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm |
02:38pm 23/08/12 Permalink
^^"Now if we stop and think about this for a secondly"
|
02:40pm 23/08/12 Permalink
He's talking to Leigh Sales - "for a second, Leigh."
|
02:53pm 23/08/12 Permalink
Ahh my bad, only saw it for half a second while channel hopping.
|
03:00pm 23/08/12 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: insulting s*** |
03:37pm 23/08/12 Permalink
07:16pm 23/08/12 Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/paul-ryan-said-something-_b_1832377.html
Last week, Paul Ryan gave an interview in which, defending his position that there should be no excuses for abortion, he referred to rape as a "method of conception." |
06:26pm 28/08/12 Permalink
I sure was crazy to ever think that a hardcore right-winger could have such a broken attitude towards rape.
|
06:38pm 28/08/12 Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/paul-ryan-said-something-_b_1832377.html Didn't actually watch the video did you. |
08:08pm 28/08/12 Permalink
Yes I did. That quote is from the article.
Unlike Romney he believes abortion should still not be allowed in the case of rape and incest, therefore it is still a valid "method of conception". It is an argument over semantics but that is not the problem. The problem is religious fundamentalists with power over a very large group of people and basing their decisions for an entire country on their insane beliefs. |
08:15pm 28/08/12 Permalink
basing their decisions for an entire country on their insane beliefs.Definitely with you on the insane this time. |
08:24pm 28/08/12 Permalink
It is an argument over semantics but that is not the problem. The problem is religious fundamentalists with power over a very large group of people and basing their decisions for an entire country on their insane beliefs. This part I agree wholeheartedly with. Yes I did. That quote is from the article. Despite the fact I don't agree with his stance, it doesn't change the fact that what he said is completely correct ("The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life"). |
09:28am 29/08/12 Permalink
He means it doesn't change HIS (and the Republican/pro-lifers) definition of 'life'. I agree with you that his view is internally consistent with the rest of his worldview, so at least he's not just flipping coins mentally, but I still think anyone (particularly a male) that tries to tell a woman what she can or can't do with a couple of cells in her own body - especially after a traumatic incident like a rape) - can go f*** themselves.
|
09:53am 29/08/12 Permalink
that tries to tell a woman what she can or can't do with a couple of cells in her own body at what point does it go from being "a couple of cells" to an individual awarded human rights? You're oversimplifying the debate Trog. |
10:33am 29/08/12 Permalink
at what point does it go from being "a couple of cells" to an individual awarded human rights? You're oversimplifying the debate Trog.Well, that is the part that me and the Republicans, and everyone else in the world, disagree on, because it's not something that has a clear-cut answer. This is a massive ethical landmine; I recently discovered (courtesy of TripleJ Hack) that there is an entire school of thought that has figured out a way to justify post-birth abortion (i.e., ending the life of a newborn child). Ethicist Peter Singer writes about it here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm . Here is a quick snippet, but it is a fascinating read: Some doctors closely connected with children suffering from severe spina bifida believe that the lives of the worst affected children are so miserable that it is wrong to resort to surgery to keep them alive. Published descriptions of the lives of these children support the judgment that these worst affected children will have lives filled with pain and discomfort. They need repeated major surgery to prevent curvature of the spine, due to the paralysis, and to correct other abnormalities.I think you really have to oversimplify the debate because it's simply not possible to have a discussion about it that everyone is going to agree on. My opinion is that a woman should be in charge of her own body, and if that means letting them abort whenever they want then I guess I'm probably prepared to grant them that. I would find a late stage abortion very distasteful - I mean, s***, you've had more than six f*****g months to sort your s*** out - and certainly would prefer that they didn't do it. But I can't authoritatively say "well, a fetus that is 6 months old is now a full human life and should have its own rights". Maybe its 7 months? Maybe its 9? I certainly don't think when it is a handful of cells indistinguishable from a blob of flesh that it should. I recently came across this interesting analogy/thought experiment: In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment: |
10:43am 29/08/12 Permalink
I reckon there should be like a grace period, after you have the baby, where you can dispose of it no questions asked.
|
10:51am 29/08/12 Permalink
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right. I've heard similar, but it fails to account for the womens actions that lead to the incident. in real life, the incident is much more likely that she knowingly agreed to help out the violinists doctor, knowing that the consequence of such an action could be that a violinist attached to the woman for 9 months but that it was much more likely to not match and you can go on your way feeling good because you tried to help(or just had a f***), and then withdrawing the support when it becomes inconvenient, leaving the violinist to die. also, you absolutely have a right to impose on others when its required for you to live. a mother can't starve a baby with impunity, just because its inconvenient. the poor impose on the rich to survive. etc. IMO, the crux of the debate is when a collection of cells turns into a human with all the rights afforded to it... before hand its treated as a growth, after it should be given the rights to life that the rest of us enjoy. also, we have access to the internet, its not hard to watch an abortion, it is absolutely killing something before removing it, they don't just "remove" the fetus. they kill it to remove it (or if its small enough, to let the body remove it) so obscuring the "killing" act is just a further removal from reality. I don't see anything wrong with abortion until the fetus has a functioning brain and can experience pain. That said I don't think it should be done willy nilly out of convenience.exactly how i feel really, I'm personally against abortion, i'd never reduce the spread of my seed deliberately. but i'm not against people aborting either in early stages, but after the first trimester it gets really messy really fast. |
11:22am 29/08/12 Permalink
I'm waiting for someone to meme th right to bear arms (and photoshop animal bear arms on someone)
|
11:26am 29/08/12 Permalink
I've never really understood the difficulty on the definition of human life.
No neurons, no person. In the same way that a corpse isn't a person, and a mind transferred to machine would be a person in the way which matters. A fetus has no brain, no mind, and is no different than replicating skin cells. You cannot measure by potential any more than digging up a seed is destroying a potential ten thousand year old tree - things are what they currently are. Of course, you have those people who get their answers from old jewish religions, some of who have evolved into that state of uber self deception where one claims that their source isn't their source, in the same way that a Jehovah's Witness happens to arrive at blood transfusions being bad, or a scientologist does with psychiatry. |
11:48am 29/08/12 Permalink
If you believe in parts of the human body that can't be easily defined in scientific terms, ie soul, then it changes the argument some.
|
01:08pm 29/08/12 Permalink
An argument which quotes magic isn't a valid argument though, it's 2012. :/
|
01:16pm 29/08/12 Permalink
If you believe in parts of the human body that can't be easily defined in scientific terms, ie soul, then it changes the argument some. Especially if you're a Mormon. Unlike Christians Mormons believe we are God's spirit children and our spirits already exist in Heaven before we are born. We choose our parents and come to Earth to live our lives. Romney is not anti-abortion in the case of incest and rape, but I wonder if that will last if he gets in. |
01:17pm 29/08/12 Permalink
or a JW, if you're not one of the 144,000 you're nothing.
An argument which quotes magic isn't a valid argument though, it's 2012. :/ Lol, dream on, apparently its 2012 and magic is still a totally valid argument :S |
01:34pm 29/08/12 Permalink
I hope that guy is in the shortlist for the Nobel Retarded Analogy Prize. |
01:57pm 29/08/12 Permalink
I hope that guy is in the shortlist for the Nobel Retarded Analogy Prize.FWIW, Thomson is a woman. I think the analogy is apt in the case of pregnancy caused by rape. These are ethical thought experiments that smarter people than I have been struggling with for many years. I don't have an answer but my default position is that the woman's body and everything in it belongs to her, and people (especially men) should probably stay out of their way. |
02:07pm 29/08/12 Permalink
These are ethical thought experiments that smarter people than I have been struggling with for many years. I don't have an answer but my default position is that the woman's body and everything in it belongs to her, and people (especially men) should probably stay out of their way. Bravo. I agree. And with that everything that belongs to her, everything relating to that is also her problem. I'm glad we finally cleared up the "child support payments for a kid the guy doesn't want" dilemma :) |
02:12pm 29/08/12 Permalink
That is what I've never understood, why are there men and woman out there that are so prevalent on telling woman what to do with their body? Are they unable to give birth (in the case of females) that seeing the destruction of what technically isn't "sentient" makes them angry because they can't/don't have the privilege?
Why are we so hungry for laws against abortion when they use to do it often in medieval times (and also biblical times) with herbs that would cause a miscarriage. Why do we shove beliefs down people's throats in order for them to see our way, instead of showcasing opinions and letting them choose? Also Raven I wouldn't agree on that stance. It takes two to tango, so both parents are held accountable for the child that they seed. |
02:15pm 29/08/12 Permalink
Also Raven I wouldn't agree on that stance. It takes two to tango, so both parents are held accountable for the child that they seed.So its fair to hold men accountable for the result of his actions, but its not fair to hold the woman accountable for the result of her actions? In the same way that a corpse isn't a personcorpses have neurons? i'm assuming you're talking about neurological activity, which both fetuses and ants have. so again, not really simple. why are there men and woman out there that are so prevalent on telling woman what to do with their bodyits not about the women's body, its about the other human life that she's hosting. pro life is about defending that "thing" as a human, pro choice is about defending the right to not consider that "thing" human and therefor is the responsibility of the woman alone. last edited by Captain Lateral at 14:34:31 29/Aug/12 |
02:30pm 29/08/12 Permalink
So its fair to hold men accountable for the result of his actions, but its not fair to hold the woman accountable for the result of her actions?As I said, it takes two to tango, so both parties must be accountable for their results. When it comes to abortion it will ultimately be up to the female because they are the ones actually bearing it and pushing it out of a tight spot. If males were the one bearing the child then they would have the greater say because it is their body. Yes the male should have a say in whether they would like to keep it or not, but you should never pressure a women into having an abortion or not because it is not your body, and never will be. |
02:35pm 29/08/12 Permalink
As I said, it takes two to tango, so both parties must be accountable for their results. When it comes to abortion it will ultimately be up to the female because they are the ones actually bearing it and pushing it out of a tight spot. Which is bulls***. Let's evaluate shall we: Male wants to keep child, Female wants to keep child: Child is born. Male wants to keep child, Female doesn't want to keep child: Abortion Male doesn't want to keep child, Female wants to keep child: Child is born Male doesn't want to keep child, Female doesn't want to keep child: Abortion Let's plot this a different way:
Hm, yes, perfectly fair system we have here. Now while I'm not saying a woman should be forced to have an abortion, what I *am* saying is that she has the *choice* to keep it or not. If a male indicates he has no indication of wanting to stick around, then the female should be making an informed decision with the understanding that ,em>she will be raising the child on her own - not with support of the male in any way - financial or otherwise. But no - men get no say. last edited by Raven at 14:59:50 29/Aug/12 |
02:58pm 29/08/12 Permalink
Men don't have to carry a child for 9 months at the risk of their life.
|
03:14pm 29/08/12 Permalink
When you're talking about it in the context of abortion, then yes, yes they do.
Interesting to note how much further to the right the GOP has shifted since Reagan came to power. Good NY Times article about it here. One party platform stated that Hispanics and others should not “be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.” It highlighted the need for “dependable and affordable” mass transit in cities, noting that “mass transportation offers the prospect for significant energy conservation.” And it prefaced its plank on abortion by saying that “we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general — and in our own party.” |
03:18pm 29/08/12 Permalink
That is what I've never understood, why are there men and woman out there that are so prevalent on telling woman what to do with their body? Abrahamic religion. corpses have neurons? i'm assuming you're talking about neurological activity, Not if it's had it's head blown off :P, but yes of course. which both fetuses and ants have. so again, not really simple Not initially where I expect most abortions would occur. Even up until birth I wouldn't care, because there is so not a person there that it's really a dull argument used to hide religious reasoning. I'd accept the argument if people were vegans, who didn't eat anything with much higher levels of brain activity than a fetus, but when it's only coming from Abrahamic religious people, eh. Waste of time when people can't be honest about their motivations. Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right. That is the most brilliantly concise way of looking at it that I've ever heard. I am not obligated to allow somebody else to hook themselves up to me to live. |
03:25pm 29/08/12 Permalink
This issue is not just limited to western religion, there are very similar religiously motivated arguments taking place in the east as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion Protip: Lots of buddhists also consider homosexuality unnatural |
03:41pm 29/08/12 Permalink
Which is bulls***. that might be true in a world without stairs, but truth is if a man doesn't want a child, and the woman does, there is a chance the man can still get her to abort (just not by choice, or without injury) |
03:50pm 29/08/12 Permalink
This issue is not just limited to western religion, there are very similar religiously motivated arguments taking place in the east as well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_abortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortionProtip: Lots of buddhists also consider homosexuality unnatural I'm aware, but these aren't relevant for why people do it here, they get taught these concepts from these old primitive books and latch onto/propagate them because of it. Also for those wondering why this might be relevant, abortion legality in Australia... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Map_of_Australia,_abortion_laws_updated.svg Only Victoria and the ACT have it as the woman's choice, the rest require rape/illness. Why? Because magic. |
03:56pm 29/08/12 Permalink
I'm not sure I understand why those arguments arent relevant here. To me it's exactly the same thing.
Some old book says some crap about the sanctity of life then all of a sudden we're having an argument about whether or not life begins at conception, and whether or not danger to a womans health or rape is a mitigating factor in the decision. |
04:06pm 29/08/12 Permalink
FWIW, Thomson is a woman. I think the analogy is apt in the case of pregnancy caused by rape.A very small percentage of all abortions then? These are ethical thought experiments that smarter people than I have been struggling with for many years. I don't have an answer but my default position is that the woman's body and everything in it belongs to her, and people (especially men) should probably stay out of their way.Are these so called smart people struggling with these thought experiments because they are useful-but-difficult or because they are absurd-and-useless? Honestly, the "thought experiment" (it wrankles me when people try to lend credence to stupid-beyond-belief hypotheticals by naming them "thought experiments") is not only stupid but impossible ans I don't see how anyone can take anything useful from it all. Remove the preposterous fiction from Thomson's screed and it seems her opinion boils down simply to her body her right. Not only has it not illuminated the debate a jot as far as I can tell, there are countless examples where someone has a duty of care to someone else, regardless of whatever "right" they have over their own body. Honestly, I don't see much to defend the even-if-it's-human-I'm-still-allowed-to-abort-because-of-my-human-rights argument. Which leads back to the when is it when isn't it debate. The 1 second religious answer is (almost) as retarded as the not-until-the-baby's-made-it-all-the-way-out Nerfy position. |
07:36pm 29/08/12 Permalink
Not initially where I expect most abortions would occur. Even up until birth I wouldn't care, because there is so not a person there that it's really a dull argument used to hide religious reasoning.I think the only reasonable inference from this statement is that you are every bit as psychotic and retarded as religious fundamentalists who kill doctors/aborting mothers. Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say there's no person there "even up until birth". I think you need to read up a bit on this... I'd accept the argument if people were vegans, who didn't eat anything with much higher levels of brain activity than a fetus, but when it's only coming from Abrahamic religious people, eh. Waste of time when people can't be honest about their motivations.There are many people who are not religious at all (of any flavour) who don't share your extremist views on full-term abortion (the vast majority I would say). That is the most brilliantly concise way of looking at it that I've ever heard. I am not obligated to allow somebody else to hook themselves up to me to live.And what of the obligation to the baby immediately following birth? How far does your lack of obligation to anyone else extend? Baby can fend for itself, I have rights dammit! My body ffs! |
07:47pm 29/08/12 Permalink
Remove the preposterous fiction from Thomson's screed and it seems her opinion boils down simply to her body her right.So what? You are just being obnoxiously objectionable and not infusing anything new into the argument. Maybe if you explain your issues with the thought experiment instead of just foaming and frothing at the mouth I could take anything else you said on the matter seriously A very small percentage of all abortions then?That is the context of the entire discussion and why we're talking about it in the first place last edited by trog at 20:24:24 29/Aug/12 |
08:22pm 29/08/12 Permalink
You are just being obnoxiously objectionable and not infusing anything new into the argument. Maybe if you explain your issues with the thought experiment instead of just foaming and frothing at the mouth I could take anything else you said on the matter seriouslyMy issues with the analogy: 1) It simply asserts the conclusion that it purportedly supports, "Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body". There is absolutely no need, and nothing is added, by constructing the violinist scenario in order to simply make this assertion. An assertion that applies directly the actual topic of the conversation - abortion. 2) It's a cheap emotive ploy, designed to somehow liken a gruesome Centipede style horror scenario with the state of a women being pregnant - a state for which it is actually designed (has evolved) to be in. The reality of the two situations is nothing alike, and the fact that a large majority might agree with the decision to unplug from the violinist is not informative of how those same people might consider the issue of abortion. If I object obnoxiously it's no more than it deserves, just as I would object obnoxiously to a thought experiment that ran, "You are told that there is a classroom of children that will be hideously tortured to death unless every day for the next 9 months you must clap your hands softly at least. You will also be paid $1million dollars a day if you comply." The same logic holds that there is nothing wrong by refusing to do this, as although the classroom has a right to not be hideously tortured to death, you are not violating their right by denying them the use of your body to which they have no right. Thus it is not by refusing to clap that you violate your moral obligation but rather if you do clap and keep the kids alive you are going beyond your obligations and are a good samaritan. Sorry, I still think the whole thing deserves scorn. |
10:06pm 29/08/12 Permalink
that wow patch is pretty decent yeah jim, it is pretty decent. |
11:06pm 29/08/12 Permalink
loutl you can obviously look at the situation objectively and from points of view other than your own, but unfortunately there are a vast amount of people out there who seem to have a complete inability to put themselves in other people's shoes. I think the point of the story is to try to help people see the situation from the pregnant woman's position, rather than to just emotionally manipulate people.
Aside from that, though, you do come across as a terminally cynical, arrogant and argumentative person, perhaps trying to act less so would cause people to be more open to your ideas. |
11:33pm 29/08/12 Permalink
I thought they'd worked out foetus's generally aren't self-aware or able to feel pain until 20 weeks or even later? You can get abstract philosophical about it and argue it's still a human being - but I think the quality of life/situation argument counters that fairly well.
|
11:50pm 29/08/12 Permalink
I have loutl down as a likely ultra right wing christian climate change denier, he fits right in my description of people who are painfully dishonest about their motivations for objecting to abortion. :P
|
03:22am 30/08/12 Permalink
Well well, President Barack Obama did an AMA on reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/ He even gets memes: http://www.barackobama.com/reddit |
11:27am 30/08/12 Permalink
My opinion of Obama has gone down since he uses dais' s*** website.
|
11:44am 30/08/12 Permalink
there are countless examples where someone has a duty of care to someone else, regardless of whatever "right" they have over their own body.I can't think of a single example where someone is legally bound by duty of care to put someone else's well-being ahead of their own. If that's what you were getting at of course. Sometimes it is hard to tell through all the flailing and froth. |
03:09pm 30/08/12 Permalink
Paul Ryan is in a fair bit of trouble with the media for lying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/fox-news-sally-kohn-paul-ryan_n_1842580.html http://i.imgur.com/r8qKM.jpg |
02:02pm 31/08/12 Permalink
Fox news attacking the Republicans? What the!
|
03:26pm 31/08/12 Permalink
Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/ The 533 lies are listed on an MSNBC blog. |
03:40pm 31/08/12 Permalink
i'm really glad that you are reposting everything from /r/politics to save me the trouble of browsing reddit myself
|
03:56pm 31/08/12 Permalink
For Pinky - http://youtu.be/OPHBlVvEX6E
|
05:12pm 31/08/12 Permalink
http://letsblogmore.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/austinpowers_125pyxurz.jpg
Ich hasse die Republikaner! |
06:07pm 31/08/12 Permalink
I watched that speech last night and even I found it awesome. Clinton is an awesome speaker
|
10:23am 07/09/12 Permalink
This has to be seen to be believed.
Some governer tries to get a motion supported declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. stick with it to the end. |
11:42am 07/09/12 Permalink
Wasn't Jerusalem always the capital of Israel? I'm not to sure I understand how America can influence what capital city a country has.
|
11:56am 07/09/12 Permalink
12:39pm 07/09/12 Permalink
Whenever I watch this s*** I'm so amazed at how obvious the split is:
Republicans (Raving/incoherent/backwards lunatics) vs. Democrats (Logical, reasonable, coherent, smart). Am I just a inherent democrat? |
10:04pm 07/09/12 Permalink
10:40pm 07/09/12 Permalink
Video that played during the DNC includes the line
"The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" umm... what was that ? |
10:49pm 07/09/12 Permalink
"governments...."
listen properly faceman |
10:57pm 07/09/12 Permalink
Democrats (Logical, reasonable, coherent, smart). While republicans do seem to have a monopoly (hell, the the modern right wing everywhere - I think that repeated investigations have actually shown a huge IQ difference), there are these... |
10:59pm 07/09/12 Permalink
Gay Marriage is important but not as important as having a Job.
If Americas economy ever turns around then that might happen. People are going to vote for a better Economy. Biden should have stepped down and someone with better economic credentials should have run with Obama. |
10:26am 08/09/12 Permalink
I'm still curious, do you have a job faceman?
|
10:27am 08/09/12 Permalink
10:43am 08/09/12 Permalink
Paul Ryan Cracks Joke As 71 Year-Old Citizen Is Forced To The Ground (VIDEOS): http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-cracks-joke-as-71-year-old-citizen-is-forced-to-the-ground-videos/
The second video is particularly bad. |
11:41am 08/09/12 Permalink
So much for separation of church and state: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/08/romney_god_coins_mitt_brings_god_into_speech.html
|
11:18pm 09/09/12 Permalink
Remember that Democrat resolution that didnt really get enough support but was declared to have passed ?
Well, the reason is that the person taking the vote/speaking was reading off a Teleprompter that had already been prepared. The Republicans did the same thing when they took a vote to silence Ron Paul. |
12:58am 10/09/12 Permalink
Russian missile defense deal more likely with Obama because of Romney's reckless comments: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/europe/putin-calls-missile-deal-more-likely-if-obama-wins.html?_r=1&src=recg
|
09:06am 10/09/12 Permalink
who f*****g cares if they're white. not me.
and to be fair, Mitt is rocking a pretty sweet tan. |
02:05pm 11/09/12 Permalink
I can't really see how anyone could logically vote for Mitt. Then again most people in america believe the bible is literally true word for word and Obama wasn't even born in america. I guess logic isn't a big thing in the US anymore and has been replaced by blind hatred and racism.
EDIT - Oh on the whole race thing, last I heard Mitt is polling at 0% with black people. Seriously 0%? Even as a joke 1 or 2 people should of said yes to the person asking the questions. last edited by DM at 14:20:12 11/Sep/12 |
02:19pm 11/09/12 Permalink
found that interesting DM so i looked for the poll. here it is
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/August_NBC-WSJ_Int_Sched.pdf nbc news quote Looking inside the numbers, Obama continues to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to 41 percent). http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13399788-nbcwsj-poll-heading-into-conventions-obama-has-four-point-lead |
02:51pm 11/09/12 Permalink
Romney’s attack on the White House on Wednesday caused well-known Republicans to distance themselves from their presidential candidate, saying the U.S. political system always puts aside partisan politics when facing terrorist attacks. However on Thursday, Romney expanded his controversial criticism of Obama’s foreign policy in a speech in Virginia, where he sought to portray Obama as weak on foreign policy. http://www.alternet.org/romney-continues-his-absurd-attacks-obama-suspects-libya-killings-are-arrested?paging=off It’s worth remembering that the opposition research report prepared by John McCain’s campaign for the 2008 Republican primaries where he ran against Romney said that Romney had no substantive foreign policy experience. |
10:24pm 15/09/12 Permalink
01:21am 16/09/12 Permalink
The republicans are losing themselves any possible chance at beating Obama, I wonder who their campaigns strategists are.. monkeys on typewriters?
Bit of a long one, but Michael Lewis has done a profile on Obama.. he had unrestricted access for a few months, is a pretty interesting read. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama |
08:16am 16/09/12 Permalink
That poll (aqt the very end) was taken after what happened with the Islam rioting.
Obama seems to have two big weaknesses. Gay Marriage and the perception he favors Islam and is soft on Iran. Hes not soft on Iran he knows a War with Iran will be a catastrophe with unintended consequences. Im sure Romney does too but Foriegn Policy is easy when you are in Oppostition. The first time Romney sits down with the Brains Trust at the Military they will educate him or err... replace him. |
11:00am 16/09/12 Permalink
Its f*****g creepy when violent protests increase Mitt Romney's approval. Ironic given he is the more crazy religious candidate.
|
11:37am 16/09/12 Permalink
will either of these candidates ens the fed and end the buying of mortgage backed securities by the fed. they are both duds imo.
|
12:38pm 16/09/12 Permalink
Romney just can't keep his foot out of his mouth
Unless the GOP campaign has something special up their sleeves its looking like 4 more years. The world breathes a sigh of relief. |
09:55am 18/09/12 Permalink
"There are 47 per cent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." Socialism buys the support of the people. How many Aussies are reliant on Government handouts ? Arent paying Income Tax ? "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" |
10:37am 18/09/12 Permalink
What do you have against people who are less fortunate than you Facey? There are people who are disabled or unable to work for a variety of reasons.
Why the hell shouldn't people living in a civilised country be entitled to free health care? |
10:54am 18/09/12 Permalink
Its where you draw the line dais.
Why do people with a full time job in this Country need Centerlink Benefits ? FTB a and B ? If they are on Benefits would they vote for a Government that might scrap them ? The Carbon Tax handout, the GFC handouts, Solar Rebates, Governments job is not to give away Taxpayers money. Its to create a fertile soil to grow Jobs. Anyone getting money from Government is unlikely to vote against that continuing so where does that end up ? Free HealthCare is not FREE Its funded by Taxpayers who pay for a product that has no competition. That means it will always be more expensive than it needs to be. last edited by FaceMan at 11:14:55 18/Sep/12 |
11:13am 18/09/12 Permalink
I do not understand how in 2012, we can say to a person, "I am not going to do this surgery unless you agree to work one full year entirely dedicated to paying me for doing this. And if you don't pay, I'm going to leave you unable to earn that as a living.".
That's effectively what it often comes down to - we're basically saying that when s*** happens, you have to pay someone an amount equivalent, often, to half a years salary or more, just for the hospital to be willing to help you. Guy gets stabbed in the leg, or drunk driver plows through a red light resulting in something where they have to either operate or amputate - nope, sorry, you don't have money. We're going to take the option that f**** up your life because of something that was completely not your fault. This is how f***ed up healthcare systems are. That for every patient, we need to pay the salary of about 13 caregivers. Plus the salarys of every board member that made every piece of medical equipment involved along the process. What barista, cleaner or teacher can afford that? |
11:24am 18/09/12 Permalink
When there is no competition they can charge whatever they like.
Universal Healthcare is not Free, Taxpayers are paying for it and Taxpayers are paying for the bureaucratic system that runs it. A system that also has no competition. The idea of UH is great but how its applied varies around the World. Whats the best system ? We are lucky to have a very good economy to fund ours, so far... |
11:47am 18/09/12 Permalink
Republicans have started airing this ad:
This was, frankly, the only applicable response I could think of: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/97682/fillion.gif |
02:31pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Two struggling out of work actors forced to do a ridiculous republican PAC ad against their will just to feed their families.
Oh the humanity! |
02:43pm 18/09/12 Permalink
free stuff isn't actually free. but welfare dependency and handouts has bred a generation of people who think it is.
|
03:45pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Free stuff is free, welfare pays for itself.
Politics, the only response to bulls*** rhetoric is more bulls*** rhetoric. |
03:49pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Is that dude in the ad the data guy from space trek?
Also, the cut @ 14secs really annoyed me. Its a totally different scene as her head completely change position from being like \ angle to / angle. |
03:52pm 18/09/12 Permalink
The healthcare situ in America does seem like a complete joke, what's it like in Aus?
For all it's problems and complaints, I think the NHS is great - I've used it a lot and always had a good experience and excellent medical treatment. I think it gets worse for more complex operations, but for min to medium healthcare it's a pretty solid system. Pretty much no-one will go without critical treatment. |
05:36pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Jump cuts hey. Interesting. Didnt know about that. I could see their appeal in horror movies but there are plenty of times i see what i think looks like s***** editing in TV shows/movies where they change camera shots and the person is in a different stance/facial expression etc. Just looks wrong to me.
EDIT: So i checked out that jumpcut link on wikipedia then got viewing on youtube. Im not a fan of the technique although id be interested to see if there was a video where i thought it was used well. Just makes the video seem choppy. If they wanna put together different takes dont they just change from person A then to person B then back to person A so you dont know that the shots of person A are different takes? Thanks for posting that eski, didnt know jumpcuts were a thing. |
06:00pm 18/09/12 Permalink
free stuff isn't actually free. but welfare dependency and handouts has bred a generation of people who think it is. itt, rich people who get million dollar handouts complaining about poor people getting handouts |
06:52pm 18/09/12 Permalink
itt, rich people who get million dollar handouts complaining about poor people getting handouts not me ya broney. i won a bunch of licenses on a competitive application process to go $25m into debt. if you think aged care makes money you should read up a bit about it: start with the grant thornton review into the pricing and profitability of aged care, or have a read of the Productivity Commission's report into aged care published last year. Aged care providers are the largest single industry employer in Australia, and they make a net return of approx 2% on assets deployed (less than the money in your savings account (not the fixed deposit one, the s***** everyday banking one). Not to mention Spooky that the licenses that you say are worth a "million dollars" were actually undersubscribed for the last 3 years i.e. the govt couldn't give them away because aged care providers have figured out how unprofitable the current system is. happy to talk all day how poorly paid aged care providers are and how in the next 25 years there is going to be a massive undersupply of aged care services for our ageing family members. So anyways, who pays for welfare Spook, given you are so fond of free cashola? |
07:35pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Interesting that you say that now when on your blog before Santo frantically told you to delete it you claimed to have 'hit the jackpot'.
|
07:38pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Infi took a risk and it paid off ?
fpot didnt take a risk and got jealous ? infi you didnt build that. Why should Romney produce his tax returns ? The man made a lot of money. so what ? Hes prepared to give that up and lead America. Id rather have a succesful businessman lead a Country than a jealous Socialist. |
07:53pm 18/09/12 Permalink
I just decided to research a little more detail re: the scandal with Santo and Infi and to be honest, appears to be very grubby business and Infi, I hate to say it but you come off rather opportunistic in the use of your political ties.
Whether that being the case I don't know but perceptions are everything. BTW, get rid of the photo of Abbott's budgie smugglers, you come across weird with that in your crop of photos. last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 19:58:41 18/Sep/12 |
07:57pm 18/09/12 Permalink
I am very proud of having a pair of Tony's budgie smugglers. I am awaiting his coming as the remover of welfare, emancipating us from the socialist state. (I just hope he dumps his maternity leave policy.)
Did you research at all into the profitability of aged care SFB, it's not the same as digging holes in the ground - that's for sure. Research all you like, I have been raked over the coals by better investigators than you or fpot. |
08:05pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Why should Romney produce his tax returns ? It seems I was wrong, he has finally succumbed to public pressure and decided to release them. So you can ask him why. http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/main Id rather have a succesful businessman lead a Country than a jealous Socialist. A successful businessman who has just thumbed his nose at half the country he plans to lead. Meanwhile Obama continues to talk about unity and bipartisanship. |
08:08pm 18/09/12 Permalink
Didn't say you were guilty of anything illegal, just a perception of using your political ties to your advantage. I don't approve of using politics to personally advantage oneself but I do acknowledge the fact each Political Party does the exact same thing.
One of the reasons I no longer bother with political debate and/or parties. They have become too self-indulgent for me. All I'm about nowadays is gearing up for retirement and never giving another s*** about work or politics. I'm going to pursue my hobbies; fishing, boating, archaeology, modern history, Astrophysics and most of all continuing to grow my vegetables. |
08:14pm 18/09/12 Permalink
The thing that we as Australians should be focusing on when it comes to the USA's imminent Presidential election is their foreign policy and desire to wage war (that we will no doubt commit to in some capacity).
Romney has blundered foreign policy repeatedly and is a warmonger. His views on Iran: The United States should restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. The United States should repair relations with Israel, increase military coordination and assistance, and enhance intelligence sharing to ensure that our allied capabilities are robust and ready to deal with Iran. The United States should also increase military coordination with our Arab allies in the region and conduct more naval exercises as a demonstration of strength and resolve. You don't need to threateningly and wastefully increase your military presence in an area to make it clear that you will go to war with them if they develop nukes. That is just yet more huffing and puffing to satisfy the racist, anti-Islamic right. last edited by dais at 20:18:33 18/Sep/12 |
08:16pm 18/09/12 Permalink
BTW, I'm currently growing:
Vegetables ---------- Lettuce (2 different types) Capsicum (3 different types) Chillies (3 different types) Snow Peas Beans Rocket Shallots Radishes Broccoli Herbs ----- Thyme Oregano Sage Lemon Grass Chilly Plant Mint Coriander Fruit ----- Tomatoes Strawberries F*** I love growing things. Used to be Native Plants now wholly veggies and herbs. I leave the garden to the missus now. last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 20:27:33 18/Sep/12 |
08:26pm 18/09/12 Permalink
pretty sure infi old chum, you're not building old peoples housing, because you like old people.
|
08:35pm 18/09/12 Permalink
That welfare quote was the tip of the iceberg from that fundraiser. It gets so very much worse. That's a satirical news site.. The best thing about it, though, is that evidently it's within the range of plausible expectation for something Romney would do. |
02:37am 19/09/12 Permalink
Yeah that was linked as legit and did the rounds before anyone check what that site was. Should have checked the link rather than go from quotes.
Full video is out now though and includes stuff on Palestine and keeps Romney off message for anther few days. |
05:54am 19/09/12 Permalink
"I'm begining to think that Romney might be a robot Democrats sent from the future to prevent anyone from ever voting Republican again. Its the only thing that makes sense at this point." Quote of the day. |
06:09am 19/09/12 Permalink
That's a satirical news site.. The best thing about it, though, is that evidently it's within the range of plausible expectation for something Romney would do. The hilarious thing is that another even more gaff worthy video from that fundraiser has actually has surfaced edit - what Chakas said... |
10:07am 19/09/12 Permalink
ROMNEY PAUL 2012!
Kickin' the can down the road. also, lol Romney Apologizes To Nation's 150 Million 'Starving, Filthy Beggars' |
10:44am 19/09/12 Permalink
The Government shouldnt have to provide those things.
Jobs should, people who are capable of working shouldnt need to rely on Government. More Jobs, less reliance on Government, more ppl are less at risk by voting against the Government. Surely none of you think higher unemployment and more ppl on foodstamps is a good way to run an Economy ? You know ours isnt run that way, right ? |
12:22pm 19/09/12 Permalink
Now That My Campaign Is Over, I'd Like To Talk To You All About The Church Of Latter-Day Saints - http://www.theonion.com/articles/now-that-my-campaign-is-over-id-like-to-talk-to-yo,29611/
|
07:35am 20/09/12 Permalink
The Government shouldnt have to provide those things. So what's the model of free market national health care we should be looking to? Who out there in the world is doing it right? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Universal_health_care.svg/800px-Universal_health_care.svg.png Green is countries with universal health care. Pink is those who are on the way. Looks like you want us to have a s***c*** country health system? |
07:51am 20/09/12 Permalink
They all do it differently though.
Universal Healthcare in Britain is different to Australia. The Pommys are currently trying to change their model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care When Australias worst Government ever is finally gone Ive no doubt ours will change too. Where will the money come from to fund the increased costs associated with an increasingly ageing population ? Someone has to pay for that Free Healthcare. |
12:52pm 20/09/12 Permalink
They all do it differently though. Yes it is, but it is provided by the State, which is what you rejected. Lets be clear here, you want Government out of healthcare, so don't f*****g dance about you mad c***. What I'm asking is where is the working example of a privately-run national health system that is equitable and accessible, delivering high quality outcomes at low cost? If it doesn't exist, why should we rush out and change ours, when compared to other OECD nations it is quite cost-effective? |
01:50pm 20/09/12 Permalink
^ Bravo Hogfather. I like it.
|
03:05pm 20/09/12 Permalink
delivering high quality outcomes at low cost? Universal Healthcare doesnt deliver that. It delivers 'outcomes' based on a no competion funding model. "the government is paying so who cares what it costs" It will always be more expensive. I like Universal Healthcare, i just think it needs more competition so the price remains competitive and most important of all, Sustainable. |
03:13pm 20/09/12 Permalink
Universal Healthcare doesnt deliver that. Huh? Of course it does. Compare out universal health care to the health care burden of the united states. Is low cost comparative to other OECD nation's health costs. Universal Healthcare doesnt deliver that. I give you that, it will be more expensive, but our combination of co-payment tends to reduce frivolous medical costs. While it may be less efficient, the operation also doesn't need to yield a profit! Seems to me you either pay for a bit of inefficiency or you pay for a bit of profit. Or in the case of the USA, a lot of profit. Like, DOUBLING the healthcare burden even while providing s*** coverage and outcomes for the nation. The free market is NOT a magical panacea for all of society's needs. There is a role for the Government in delivery of essential services. |
03:20pm 20/09/12 Permalink
yes, it's role is pumping up profits of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.
|
04:29pm 20/09/12 Permalink
yes, it's role is pumping up profits of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. What a complete load of s*** infi, the above is MOST applicable to the USA, the most privatised health care system in the world, whose chilling example of inflated health care costs should be a stern warning to tread carefully. And wtf, you work for the Government anyway lol, you lost any credibility to speak about the free market when it became apparent you are just on the public health system's tit. |
04:42pm 20/09/12 Permalink
Sometimes I think the reason a lot of people hate universal health care must just be selfishness – that they're absolutely terrified of even a cent of their own money ever going towards the benefit of someone besides themselves – or at least that's the impression I get when I hear about the healthcare debate in the US.
It seems like the same reason people do everything they can to pay as little tax as possible while happily using the infrastructure that taxes pay for. They don't particularly have any interest in being a constructive member of society, they just want to take as much from it as they can. Maybe it's just me, but there's something very morbid about the concept of healthcare being run to make a profit. It makes me wonder how many people have been denied important treatment because they couldn't afford it, but could have afforded it if prices weren't set to make a profit. |
05:18pm 20/09/12 Permalink
I hope this isn't too hippy for taggs but healthcare is a right that should be afforded to anyone. Even if you are homeless you should be able to walk off the street, go into a hospital and get the treatment you need. The only reason to think otherwise is selfishness and tinfoil-hattery.
|
05:21pm 20/09/12 Permalink
I would just insert 'essential necessary treatment' in fpot's statement to agree with it. I don't think everyone should have shiny, straight pearly whites for example.
|
05:34pm 20/09/12 Permalink
Essential necessary treatment is what I meant, yes.
|
06:14pm 20/09/12 Permalink
It seems like the same reason people do everything they can to pay as little tax as possible while happily using the infrastructure that taxes pay for. They don't particularly have any interest in being a constructive member of society, they just want to take as much from it as they can. I will admit its pretty tough going from earning naff-all and paying very little tax to paying half my income to the govt. My tax bill is now more than my annual paychecks pre-2006. I can see how people would start looking around for ways to avoid it. After all that's money that you can use to support your kids or other family members, its not necessarily done out of greed. Gotta suck it up though, Australia is worth the price of admission. |
06:15pm 20/09/12 Permalink
Eski, I know what you mean. I pay a stack load in Tax, probably more than most earn as an annual income but I'm left wwith more than I need to support a wife and three kids and overall I accept it costs a considerable amount to have a decent society.
|
06:34pm 20/09/12 Permalink
I dunno, I reckon every citizen is legitimately able to seek ways to minimise their tax obligations. Note, there is a BIG diff between minimimsing tax and avoiding it. You go to jail for avoidance, your account helps you to minimise your tax burden.
Its the Government's job to ensure the system is fair, equitable and that all breaks that exist are appropriate. |
06:39pm 20/09/12 Permalink
I dunno, I reckon every citizen is legitimately able to seek ways to minimise their tax obligations. Note, there is a BIG diff between minimimsing tax and avoiding it. You go to jail for avoidance, your account helps you to minimise your tax burden. I agree that you should understand/have an accountant understand the tax system properly to get the breaks that apply to you, those breaks are almost always there to ensure that things are more fair, such as not being taxed on business expenses. The problem is that it seems like many people do things that are not in the spirit of the tax breaks, like putting everything they can think of down as a business expense when it clearly isn't. |
07:46pm 20/09/12 Permalink
yes, it's role is pumping up profits of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. wow infi, you are so far removed from the real world its not funny. not everyone has grown up with a life of opportunity afforded to them by their old mans, old boy hookups bro some families out there work s***** jobs just to get by. one of the most awesome things about australia is that a base level of heath care is provided to these working families so that they can be looked after. |
07:54am 21/09/12 Permalink
Re: Spook,
"Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm." C. Wright Mills |
10:29am 21/09/12 Permalink
I had to turn off my filter for a second because of you Spooky :(
Anyway I agree with the sentiment, but its not an all-encompassing definition. At the risk of doing a cool sob story bro, my background is childhood poverty but I'm still a big advocate of the free marketplace for appropriate industries. The free market wrapped in the framework of basic social benefits like welfare, affordable education and healthcare is what has enabled me to succeed relative to my origins and hopefully continue! Without the welfare state I wouldn't now be running a business that supports several families, so IMO the system works and the benefits (especially for children) outweigh the odd bludger. |
11:05am 21/09/12 Permalink
he free market wrapped in the framework of basic social benefits like welfare, affordable education and healthcare is what has enabled me to succeed relative to my origins and hopefully continue! Without the welfare state I wouldn't now be running a business that supports several families, so IMO the system works and the benefits (especially for children) outweigh the odd bludger. hey, im not kidding anyone, ive had a pretty easy life, my parents both worked and we never went without anything. ive got a good job now and im making sure me and my family don't go without anything. im 100% for my taxes to go into things like heathcare to ensure that familes that arent as lucky as i have been dont have to go without. (for lots of little hoggy's running around) thats what makes infi super jerky, hes obviously never gone without anyhting, yet hes still angry that his hard earned tax dollars are helping poorer people. "why cant they just be richer like me?!" |
11:14am 21/09/12 Permalink
10:23pm 21/09/12 Permalink
im not usually a jon stewart vid, but yer, that was awesome
"ive been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out!?" lulz |
07:45am 22/09/12 Permalink
This is depressing,
Republican leaders teed up the Stop The War On Coal Act, H.R. 3409, as their last vote before lawmakers hit the campaign trail full time. It passed 233 to 175, with 19 Democrats joining nearly all House Republicans in voting for it. |
12:36am 23/09/12 Permalink
geez you must be racked with so much whiteman guilt, spook and nerfy.
anyone who achieves more than simply collecting a mediocre paycheck everyweek for doing insignificant work, is a rich c*** who automatically has to share everything they just created with the lazy parasites feeding of our country. while you go on hating people who take risks and create employment, you never did a single thing to help an unemployed person, as if judging people who create jobs somehow increase the number of jobs available. its a mediocre envious attitude, and doesn't advance anyone. |
01:07pm 23/09/12 Permalink
Can you give me some tips on how to win fat Government contracts infi? My parents are working class poor so I can't inherit an advantage.
My books tell me that > 95% of our revenue is from offering services to the free market, constantly quoting against our competitor's offerings and seeking competitive advantage. Its really f*****g hard, is taking ages to build relationships and get ahead. I reckon I'm dong it wrong. Got any hookups? Wink wink, nudge nudge. PM me bro. |
01:12pm 23/09/12 Permalink
i hire suitable people all the time matey, but i do it based on their merit, not that my dad knew their dad when they were at boarding school
|
01:16pm 23/09/12 Permalink
no hookups just hard work. there aint no shortcuts. aim big, dream to build something better than your competitors. there's no free rides, and no leeching allowed.
|
01:22pm 23/09/12 Permalink
01:23pm 23/09/12 Permalink
The irony which Faceman misses is that Obama is a genuine self made millionaire, unlike his predecessors and current opposition whose parents both either ran for or were president of the united states.
Regarding the crazy caricature of other people which infi has to create to not hear anything which he doesn't want to http://i.imgur.com/RnJPB.jpg I have started my own business, non inherited, and work more than anybody I know. Cry more about how I'm a communist for not agreeing with your crazy self glorifying bulls***. |
01:34pm 23/09/12 Permalink
As do you. ;) Testing web apps in a tab besides forums, which constantly require recompiling, will lead to that though.
|
01:45pm 23/09/12 Permalink
As do you. ;) Testing web apps in a tab besides forums, which constantly require recompiling, will lead to that though.The number of times I've gone 'oh this will take a few seconds so I can check THAT' and come back 15 minutes later is way too high. Have banned myself from QGL during the week. Sometimes I even stick to it. |
01:55pm 23/09/12 Permalink
At the risk of displaying my reddit ...
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/now-kith.jpg |
02:16pm 23/09/12 Permalink
I dont do the politics thing but just saw this on imgur you guys might/might not like:
http://i.imgur.com/0pqen.jpg First comment? For Americans, Tony Abbott is our Mitt Romney. http://imgur.com/gallery/0pqen |
10:32pm 23/09/12 Permalink
Abbott does usually speak after Gillard.
It must be a full flush. |
10:54pm 23/09/12 Permalink
no hookups just hard work. there aint no shortcuts. aim big, dream to build something better than your competitors. there's no free rides, and no leeching allowed.haha, oh dear. infi one day you should try posting something that isn't self-serving rhetoric drivel or a reddit meme that's as worn out as your Santo speed-dial button. |
04:37am 24/09/12 Permalink
What's this Santo stuff? Can someone link me please.
|
04:46am 24/09/12 Permalink
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/liberal-mates-windfall/story-e6freoof-1111112807708
infi = Russell Egan. But I am pretty sure it's not true because infi totally denies it. I mean, what are the chances of Santo who was busted for corruption doing a mate a million dollar favour using a system with zero transparency and no chance of getting caught? |
04:52am 24/09/12 Permalink
Universal Healthcare in Britain now resorting to rationing treatments
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html |
11:03pm 24/09/12 Permalink
Paul Ryan vs. The Stench - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81618.html?hp=r4
Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign, he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like, “If Stench calls, take a message” and “Tell Stench I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later." |
11:30am 26/09/12 Permalink
Universal Healthcare in Britain now resorting to rationing treatments This is because the UK Government is broke generally and needs to save money: Public debt as a percentage of GDP, 2011. Not because their NHS is particularly expensive: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png |
11:59am 26/09/12 Permalink
We seemed healthier back in the good old days of 1995
|
01:03pm 26/09/12 Permalink
Health represented 16% of the Australian budget in 2011 - just shy of $60b. On average Australians are taxed 22% of their income. That chart would therefore imply that the average income in Australia is somewhere around the $99,430/pa, which it clearly is not.
Going on those figures, about $3000 of my salary went in to Health - plus >$1000 in private health insurance. Plus everything I paid on health services directly, mostly dental. On average, you're paying about 3.5% of your annual salary towards our health services. So my question is this: How much of your annual wage would you be willing to have dedicated to health? |
02:12pm 26/09/12 Permalink
Who knew Powell was such a liberal and intelligent chap! Be interesting to see what he thinks of Obama now though.
Also, seen the latest, voter restriction laws passed into effect by Republicans, has triggered a Sarah Silverman led awareness campaign. Judging from the vid, it seems pretty ridiculous and designed specifically to restrict certain demographics. http://letmypeoplevote2012.com/ |
01:06am 27/09/12 Permalink
08:50am 27/09/12 Permalink
It’s no surprise that Ralph Nader isn’t a fan of former President George W. Bush. After all, the longtime activist ran against him in both 2000 and 2004. But Nader’s even less a fan of President Barack Obama, if only because he thinks Obama was capable of so much more. Are you guys comfortable with supporting a War Criminal ? |
02:03pm 27/09/12 Permalink
I see Nader's point but I would rather support someone who will end two wars than someone who is ready to start yet another one.
Nader gave Obama this much: He’s the lesser of two evils when compared to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. |
02:20pm 27/09/12 Permalink
U.S. Isn't Waiting for Pakistan's Permission on Drone Strikes - http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/us-isnt-waiting-pakistans-permission-drone-strikes/57285/
The reality is that the drone strikes are part of the "War on Terror", a war that America's allies will always support to some degree. In a sense the terrorists have already declared war (or jihad) on the USA and it is retaliatory. |
02:24pm 27/09/12 Permalink
Health represented 16% of the Australian budget in 2011 - just shy of $60b. On average Australians are taxed 22% of their income. That chart would therefore imply that the average income in Australia is somewhere around the $99,430/pa, which it clearly is not.I have no f*****g idea what you are saying here. Your derivation is stupid, ignoring non-income tax revenue for the government. The final conclusion is so bats*** crazy wonky I'm willing to give you a pass if you admit to being drunk or stoned when you came up with it. Let's see, the graph claims health burden of $3,400 per capita. DOES IT CHECK OUT?! $3,400 x 22,000,000 = $74.8B Which is the graph's asserted total cost of healthcare in Australia, $US PPP. You say the Government picks up $60B? Seems dead on, with the rest being gap fees and private health insurance. |
04:50pm 27/09/12 Permalink
10:14am 28/09/12 Permalink
12:04pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Why does a post being on reddit make it any more good or bad than it is independently? :S
|
12:18pm 28/09/12 Permalink
That video of Obama slipping up in his speech will be beaten worse than a dead horse that s**** out gold nuggets when it's hit by the right. They've been trying to find something terrible on him and best they can find is an old tape from like 98 sop this'll be the new proof that he wants to ship jobs overseas.
|
12:23pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Why does a post being on reddit make it any more good or bad than it is independently? :S Reddit is now the hip thing to hate on, even though it offers more originality now then 4chan. |
12:31pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Why does a post being on reddit make it any more good or bad than it is independently? :SIt's not a value judgement, but when referring to material that is posted elsewhere you should quote your sources, right? Reddit is now the hip thing to hate on, even though it offers more originality now then 4chan.I don't hate reddit at all, I recognised the posts because I read it way too much! But if you're going to blatantly rip s*** off other websites and repost it, then it should be sourced. PS. It's relevant and funny, therefore I don't give a s*** Hoggy.Repost content all you like mate, especially if its new on QGL. Just quote your f*****g sources, otherwise we're just as bad as 9gag. |
01:09pm 28/09/12 Permalink
I made a Mormon meme and posted it on exmormon. It got a good response so I made an image version and put it on imgur for people to post on Facebook, etc. Who gives a f*** where it came from?
They're just simple jokes, you don't give credit to the author every time you tell a joke. |
01:59pm 28/09/12 Permalink
They're just simple jokes, you don't give credit to the author every time you tell a joke. You should always give credit when you rip content off another website, especially if you lean on it as a source a lot. What does the nature of the content matter? You might think they are just memes or jokes, but reddit is a business and its costs a lot of dev time and money to run. The reason there's lots of easily found, entertaining / funny content there (both original and aggregate) is that they've built a sophisticated rating engine and large community. You're not just pinching the joke. Would you be happy if I set up a website and ripped the best tracks from danceblog without so much as a reference? |
02:08pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Is it plagiarism to repost a Meme ?
Sounds like an interesting Thread topic. |
02:10pm 28/09/12 Permalink
The internet is based on hyperlinks. If you want to know the source check the link, in this case the source is imgur.
As far as my site goes no I wouldn't care because the source of those tracks is usually SoundCloud. You are free to do what you want in that regard as long as you're not breaching copyright. Do you think the people who made those memes gave credit to whoever took the photos? In no way did I suggest they were my creation. Are you going to have a go at everyone who does this (most people on the internet) or is it just me? last edited by dais at 14:23:37 28/Sep/12 |
02:21pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Furthermore, how can you be sure the people who posted it on reddit are the original creators of the meme if it's been uploaded on imgur? Maybe they even heard someone else say it.I didn't say they did, I said you reposted s*** you found on reddit, and that you're doing it a lot. |
02:56pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Lol @ sourcing memes. What a load of hogwash.
|
03:52pm 28/09/12 Permalink
I didn't say they did, I said you reposted s*** you found on reddit, and that you're doing it a lot. The words you're looking for are: Gotcha b****[1] Works Cited --- [1] Face, Chode. "Reddit.com Gotcha B**** by Chodeface." Gotcha B**** - Reddit.com. Reddit.com, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. [http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/10jsum/gotcha_b****/]. 485 points (51% like it) 7,941 up votes 7,456 down votes |
04:29pm 28/09/12 Permalink
Romney gets still more low-down with remarks tying Obama defense reductions to military suicides - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/27/1137153/-Romney-gets-still-more-low-down-with-remarks-tying-Obama-defense-reductions-to-military-suicides
Military suicides do constitute a crisis. President Obama has not been remiss in recognizing this, both in his appointment of Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki and his taking a personal interest in the subject. And then there is the budget. Under Obama, spending for dealing with PTSD and traumatic brain injury as well as mental health services has been increased significantly. source: Google |
11:03pm 28/09/12 Permalink
if low income earners/unemployed were given mobile phone subsidy that is f*****g awesome. mobile phones change poorer economic areas
read a few bits on the indian gov introducing them to poor areas. did a quick search and found a piece by bill clinton. the article is apparently from the future Monday, Oct. 01, 2012 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2125031,00.html |
11:40pm 28/09/12 Permalink
11:44pm 28/09/12 Permalink
I'm presuming Faceman that she was talking about some sort of phone they handout to those in dire needs, such as been kept on food stamps or centrelink like payments. I don't believe it would be as flashy as say the iPhone 5, but it would be a functional phone to use for communication purposes or for emergencies.
|
11:45pm 28/09/12 Permalink
I think Obama came out pretty well in that export jobs gaff with his recovery - no doubt the republican media (fox *cough* news) will use the sound byte out of context.
Re: The military suicides, just another example of republican lies - they really do take it a bit too far! Still, I suppose it works with the average uneducated voter. |
03:53am 29/09/12 Permalink
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/28/viral-video-touting-obama-phone-puts-spotlight-on-16-billion-federal-program/ |
10:49am 29/09/12 Permalink
everyone's a stupid F*****T source 4chan
|
07:07pm 29/09/12 Permalink
08:41am 03/10/12 Permalink
Big story is breaking about an Obama 2007 speech in which he claims Katrina victims werent helped because, unlike Sept 11 and Hurricane Andrew, Katrina victims were black.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/ The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event. The real Obama: src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=I0ZXEyNjpnfCdoMXulS8XIOcpzf13thD&height=360&video_pcode=k4Nmw6Cri746xA2OsoSlngyrIudg&deepLinkEmbedCode=I0ZXEyNjpnfCdoMXulS8XIOcpzf13thD&width=640"></script> last edited by FaceMan at 14:28:19 03/Oct/12 |
02:24pm 03/10/12 Permalink
Joe Biden: The Middle Class has been buried the last four years (under Obama)
Romney gonna kick ass in the Debate. |
02:36pm 03/10/12 Permalink
Yeah he sure will. His own ass. Every time he opens his mouth something falls out that makes the republicans worried that he is the best they had.
|
02:45pm 03/10/12 Permalink
this thread made me LOL*
*LOL is a meme that means "laugh out loud", it was invented by 4chan circa 2009. |
02:54pm 03/10/12 Permalink
This thread is hilarious. The right wingers with misty eyes dreaming of the Howard golden years to come back. Oh wait.....
Middle class handouts is the Liberal way, instead of building infrastructure like a government should they sell off public assets to buy votes. First home buyer scheme Family tax benefit A Voluntary super contribs Fuel excise indexing stopped Now Tony Abbot wants fully paid parental leave. This is will be almost like the GST in that it helps out high income earners the most. Don't worry those that aren't as well off, it will trickle down when the rich create more jobs. |
04:21pm 03/10/12 Permalink
First home buyer scheme these are all liberal things? i like these things! krudd was the best hand outer though, ill never forget that free money he gave me. <3 kruddler, never 4get <3 |
04:52pm 03/10/12 Permalink
Rudd can't come back before the election, i have serious money on julia going to the election as leader.
but once Tony is PM I look forward to the traditional ALP blood-letting. |
06:06pm 03/10/12 Permalink
I don't think Tony Abbott will ever be prime minister. Support for Labor is steadily increasing as anger over the carbon tax subsides, meanwhile Abbott is still flogging it like a dead horse because he has nothing to offer but negativity.
Turnbull on the other hand is a possibility, though probably not next year. |
06:11pm 03/10/12 Permalink
I'm hoping liberals ditch abbott when *if he fails this coming election. I would vote for turnbull.
|
06:57pm 03/10/12 Permalink
I cannot support anyone that supports Abbott as their leader.
I really, really hope I have a good Indi to choose. |
07:29pm 03/10/12 Permalink
If anyone is interested, first debate is currently underway, http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/
|
11:12am 04/10/12 Permalink
Thanks Eorl, watching it now.
EDIT - politifact is doing live fact checking of the debate last edited by DM at 11:34:32 04/Oct/12 |
11:27am 04/10/12 Permalink
This debate moderator is a pussy. They are talking all over him and keep going when he stops them to try and keep things moving. Grow some balls old man.
|
11:53am 04/10/12 Permalink
Romney is at his best on the Economy.
Obama looks like he is trying to get through without making a big error. Romney could talk for the entire length of the Debate on the Economy. Its a carve up. |
12:12pm 04/10/12 Permalink
I really can't bring myself to believe him when he starts talking about that he cares about middle and low income families
EDIT - I love how Romney says that both sides need to work together. Who is the side that has made it public that they plan on obstructing everything Obama wanted to do? last edited by DM at 12:28:39 04/Oct/12 |
12:20pm 04/10/12 Permalink
"We're a nation that believes we're all children of the same god." Islam, Judaism and Christianity (and bahai) all believe in the same god. Native theologies and dharmic theologies are small when compared to the big 3 in America (mainly Christianity). |
12:25pm 04/10/12 Permalink
I'm no expert on this, but it feels like Romney has handled himself pretty well. Has been much more on the front foot, dictated terms, spun his way out of tricky situations, etc. Obama has been much more laid back and less forceful.
Agreed about the moderator - total pussy, has not taken control. |
12:30pm 04/10/12 Permalink
Islam, Judaism and Christianity (and bahai) all believe in the same god. According to the Bible they all believe in the God of Abraham but I don't know if Muslims see it that way. Obviously Jews do not believe in the physical incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. I was referring to the fact that Romney is a Mormon, Mormons believe in a literal Holy Trinity as three individuals, unlike Christians. last edited by dais at 12:36:06 04/Oct/12 |
12:34pm 04/10/12 Permalink
Mormons believe in a literal Holy Trinity as three individuals, unlike Christians. I used to be a protestant and still couldn't figure that out, if I'd stayed religious and raised kids the same way, I'd probably have invariably created yet another new schism/evolution of that never ending fairy tail. :p |
12:39pm 04/10/12 Permalink
I also thought Romney seemed to do very well compared to Obama, unfortunately he was full of lies. For example Obama said that it is illegal for a board of doctors to decide on a patient's treatment, yet Romney still pushed the point that they will do so under Obamacare.
Like Obama said, Romney will not offer the details of his policies and many people will not vote for him based on that. Because of that it seems to be a Democrat vs Republican election, not a Democrat policy vs Republican policy election. The only details Romney has really given are about what he's going to repeal. |
12:40pm 04/10/12 Permalink
Romney did seem to do well, despite him walking all over the moderator and seemingly having verbal diarrhoea where he had so much stuff he wanted to say he just couldn't want for Obama to stop so he could ramble on some more.
Then again it's easy to do well against someone in a debate when your stand on issues changes every day and people expect you to lie out your arse. He just did a better job of not looking like he was thinking of something to say. The only details Romney has really given are about what he's going to repeal Because he has no plan or anything in mind. At least nothing that would get him elected because no doubt he would try something that would f*** over most of the country to give more money to the super rich. People would flip out if he came out with that. |
12:52pm 04/10/12 Permalink
Yeah my thoughts exactly. Although he did say his state of Massachusetts has the best schools in the country, he seemed to get Obama with that point. I wonder if it's true?
He kept going on about leaving major decisions such as healthcare and education to the states. So in other words as president of the entire nation those things will no longer be his responsibility. That leaves him with the economy, foreign policy and defense. All he's had to say about those are his plan of removing exemptions on tax and increasing the strength of the military. He wants to spend two trillion on military and that probably means gutting healthcare and education. |
12:57pm 04/10/12 Permalink
Although he did say his state of Massachusetts has the best schools in the country, he seemed to get Obama with that point. I wonder if it's true? Not true. #1 4 years in a row was Maryland. Why lie about that? Unless your schooling system is ranked something like 40th why not just say what it really is? I also thought that he kept saying over and over, I want to leave it to the states. yeah because when you do that things go so well like state laws which allow police to stop any non-white person and demand to see proof they aren't illegal, or letting bosses fire women if they use birth control. See? that kind of stuff makes america a great place! |
01:06pm 04/10/12 Permalink
01:10pm 04/10/12 Permalink
Obviously Jews do not believe in the physical incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. In other words: He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy! |
01:39pm 04/10/12 Permalink
I was referring to the fact that Romney is a Mormon, Mormons believe in a literal Holy Trinity as three individuals, unlike Christians. Then say what you mean. Mormons believe in the same god, but as you pointed out are not montheistic. So ... your original statement ... |
03:50pm 04/10/12 Permalink
04:36pm 04/10/12 Permalink
holy s***, did the guy in that gif die?
|
04:40pm 04/10/12 Permalink
05:05pm 04/10/12 Permalink
11:13am 05/10/12 Permalink
Surely those homes shouldn't be given to the homeless faceman?
Those people haven't even worked a day in their lives. |
11:27pm 05/10/12 Permalink
There was a story out a few days before the debate where Romney visited a coal mine to do one of his rallies. The boss made it mandatory for all workers and those who refused would be fired. On top of being forced to sit on stage and listen to the wind bag, they got no pay for being forced off work for the few hours. That's pretty douche baggy.
last edited by DM at 00:13:42 06/Oct/12 |
12:09am 06/10/12 Permalink
Putting homeless people into homes wont help them pay the bills. Jobs help ppl buy homes and pay bills and purchase products. Not Welfare, food stamps and Obamacare. Theres a story floating around about illegal obama fundraising that will hit the news on Monday. Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday. http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2509895/#.UG68KpjA_Iv |
12:48am 06/10/12 Permalink
Jobs help ppl buy homes and pay bills and purchase products.Thank f*** those Republicans have been blocking all legislation designed to create jobs to make Obama look bad! |
10:13am 06/10/12 Permalink
Thank f*** those Republicans have been blocking all legislation designed to create jobs to make Obama look bad! So what ? you want a one Party State ? What makes you so sure such Policies would have created Jobs ? Sometimes bad Legislation needs to be voted down. WorkChoices was supposed to create lots more Jobs. Its failure led to Labor taking power in its own right. |
10:34am 06/10/12 Permalink
Oh no, god forbid politicians act dirty with their fundraising! I did not see that coming at all! *tinfoil hat*
|
10:40am 06/10/12 Permalink
Sometimes bad Legislation needs to be voted down There is a big difference between voting down what you believe is a bad piece of legislation and your entire party bombing every single proposal the president has because your party are sore losers and hate black people. The republicans were/are willing to destroy the entire economy, regardless of who it hurts just to make the president look bad. |
11:22am 06/10/12 Permalink
The republicans were/are willing to destroy the entire economy, regardless of who it hurts just to make the president look bad.Not being a huge follower of American politics could you post some links to examples of this? It sounds cartoonishly evil to me. |
12:26pm 06/10/12 Permalink
11:32am 07/10/12 Permalink
12:44pm 07/10/12 Permalink
Here's one for you FaceMan:
Why Did The DHS Just Order 450 Million Rounds of .40 Caliber Ammunition? - http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/16/dhs-order-450-million-rounds-40-caliber-ammunition-97771/ |
12:26am 08/10/12 Permalink
I missed half of this thread sorry, but didn't see this posted anywhere. They seemed to both make a few mistakes (Stewart confusing deficit for debt?) but also seemed to both have decent ideas. It's not really relevant for Australia, but is hilarious.
|
12:35am 08/10/12 Permalink
08:02pm 08/10/12 Permalink
Why Snoop Lion isn't voting for Romney: http://instagram.com/p/QYGWYpP9Pd/
|
01:25am 09/10/12 Permalink
Republican Senator, Vietnam Veteran Endorses President Obama - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-pressler/larry-pressler-obama_b_1948415.html
Behind closed doors with his donors, Romney made clear he'd write off half of America -- including service members and veterans -- because, as he said "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility for their lives." But there's no greater personal responsibility than to wear your country's uniform and defend the rights we all enjoy as Americans. We don't sow division between "us" versus "them." The Commander-in-Chief sets the bar for all to follow and fight for the entire country. Mitt Romney fails that test. As a veteran I feel written off. |
10:28am 09/10/12 Permalink
This guy takes the cake:
Bill Nye: Paul Broun 'Unqualified To Make Decisions About Science, Space, And Technology' - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/bill-nye-paul-broun-science-space-technology_n_1947125.html For someone who sits on a key congressional science advisory committee, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) seems to take a pretty dim view of science. |
10:37am 09/10/12 Permalink
haha kos
SMBC brings the goods as usual |
11:02am 09/10/12 Permalink
The Foodstamp President is on the way out
Mitt Romney’s commanding performance on the debate stage last week has generated a significant bounce for his presidential candidacy, according to national polls released Monday. http://tinyurl.com/8cnrwc3 http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/obama-new-yorker-cover_thumb.jpg last edited by FaceMan at 12:18:30 09/Oct/12 |
12:15pm 09/10/12 Permalink
Conflicting information, according to Gallup's daily poll Obama is now ahead by five points:
http://www.gallup.com/ |
12:41pm 09/10/12 Permalink
The Foodstamp President is on the way out Let's hope the public realises before it's too late that a Foodstamp President is still better than a Crazy A******* President. |
07:42pm 09/10/12 Permalink
Vice presidential debate could be a tale of two Ryans - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-usa-campaign-ryan-idUSBRE89902H20121010
|
04:19pm 10/10/12 Permalink
Artkansas politician says abortion bad, child executions good
The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:Literally bats*** insane. |
04:40pm 10/10/12 Permalink
What did you expect from someone called F*** You?
|
05:48pm 10/10/12 Permalink
This could be a big deal:
Owner Of Electronic Voting Machine Company To Be Used Across the Country Has Close Ties To Bain, Romney - http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/10/10/former-bain-employees-own-voting-machine-company-used-in-swing-states/ |
12:20pm 11/10/12 Permalink
Romney’s chance to win still only 28% - http://elections.americablog.com/2012/10/post-debate-romneys-only-has-a-28-chance-to-win.html
|
03:01pm 11/10/12 Permalink
But the Romney and Obama campaigns are neck-and-neck, Faux News told me so.
|
03:15pm 11/10/12 Permalink
If there is a genuine nationwide swing against Obama then I suspect I'll start to see Romney campaign ads here in Pennsylvania, because that'll be a big prize back in play for campaign with a lot of cash.
As I type this I'm watching an Obama ad and there have been 3 or 4 ads for local races, but nothing from Romney... yet. |
03:19pm 11/10/12 Permalink
Todd Akin: No science behind evolution, only faith - http://www.examiner.com/article/todd-akin-no-science-behind-evolution-only-faith
|
11:21am 13/10/12 Permalink
That is just as ridiculous as Obama's claim that the government creates jobs.
|
12:21pm 13/10/12 Permalink
"Hey Evolution"
"you didnt build that !" |
12:33pm 13/10/12 Permalink
Mitt Romney outlines 5 step plan to create jobs - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7420056n
|
12:33pm 13/10/12 Permalink
So basically all we learnt in this thread is dais just plays the copy pasta game from Reddit? Suits me fine, f*** reading Reddit. |
01:01am 17/10/12 Permalink
I do find Reddit a bit hard to navigate/read.
Looking forward to the next presidential debate tonight; hope Obama goes to town on the rommers. |
01:35am 17/10/12 Permalink
I went to this reddit-land, came back with this, feel violated.
The head of a charity in Ohio is not pleased with Paul Ryan's photo op at a soup kitchen in Ohio, saying that the Romney campaign "ramrodded their way" into their facility unannounced. |
02:15am 17/10/12 Permalink
If you're super keen you can watch the next debate live in half an hour: http://abcnews.go.com/
|
11:26am 17/10/12 Permalink
Its on Fox News right now
on ABC News 24 too |
12:50pm 17/10/12 Permalink
Headdesk.
Both are great at not answering questions, but Romneys strategy seems to be "blame Obama". Romney: "Government does not create jobs." Teachers? Police Officers? Doctors? Seems to be a lot of private sector jobs for them going. |
01:41pm 17/10/12 Permalink
This one was a lot closer than the first. In all honesty, felt pretty even to me, but a lot of the commentary I've been reading so far is calling it as an Obama 'win'. I would note a lot of these media outlets have a perceived left wing/democrat bias, so probably no surprises there.
|
03:31pm 17/10/12 Permalink
Who cares who claims which side these debates are a 'win' for. Inevitably Republican news sites are going to call it a Republican win, Democrat news sites will call it a Democrat win.
The only poll that matters is the November 6 poll. |
03:48pm 17/10/12 Permalink
I'm glad that we have a thread for this...
|
04:28pm 17/10/12 Permalink
I thought Obama was better but the the Debates clearly show Obamas weakness, The Economy.
|
05:13pm 17/10/12 Permalink
I thought Obama was better but the the Debates clearly show Obamas weakness, The Economy. Also gives Romney the spotlight to showcase his crazy anti-female rights and the push to tax less on the rich. |
05:21pm 17/10/12 Permalink
because higher taxes are currently creating more jobs in America ?
plenty of companies are moving their businesses back to America because Taxes are higher ? Romney wants to make it as cheap as possible for companies to create jobs. Jobs are better than Government dependency. A tipping point is coming where so many ppl will be relying on Government handouts that it will be impossible to throw out those who are 'buying' their votes. The fact that Obamas vote is still so high shows it may already be happening. |
05:58pm 17/10/12 Permalink
Sigh, American politics.
because higher taxes Income taxes for the wealthiest people in the US are near an all time low after the Bush tax cuts. http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c5b08ccd1d50779000000-394-330/us-income-tax-top-bracket.jpg Romney wants to make it as cheap as possible for companies to create jobs. So that's why he's focusing on making major cuts to things like the inheritance tax? Enhancing the least deserving and most unentrepreneurial way of gaining money is the GOP's new narrative for how you get entrepreneurial 'job creators'? Whereas Obama is cutting taxes to the people who actually do spend and save in the local economy, rather than shipping their money off overseas (as Romney himself does) or sitting on it because they have no outstanding entrepreneurial talents, when it was those who they inherited from who did. If you look at all the self-made business people who have any demonstrable ability to understand and succeed in the business world (rather than maintaining their inherited position, the same as any middle or lower class person who simply does what their parents did), they seemingly all support Obama's consumer driven approach. It's only these blood line inheritors who have drama'd up this narrative of 'anybody rich is an amazing hard worker being torn down by the lazy masses' bulls*** to overcompensate for the fact that they simply do not have the talent or abilities to improve their wealth in this best time ever to be wealthy in the US. http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb17c7f8b9a6218b70000-590/look-how-the-wealth-gap-grown-in-the-past-20-years.jpg The narrative of the 'anybody wealthy is a talented job creating individual' has to stop, it's killing opportunity for real entrepreneurs as more and more wealth is sucked out of the lower classes. Children of great people aren't going to possess the same natural gifts and life lessons, children of einstein aren't going to be successive great scientists, children of gates aren't going to be successive great programmers, children of great composers aren't going to be able to just do the same themselves, and one cannot claim their parents' successes and failures as their own. It takes working hard and being forged into a talented person to be an innovator, not simply 'having the money and investments already' end result, as these rinehart/koch/romney/jeb bush types would have the world believe. A tipping point is coming where so many ppl will be relying on Government But these people do rely on the government. They rely on the government to create roads and infrastructure, to police and put out fires, to educate workers, to protect their finances, and so on. If they hate government so much, why don't they piss off to somalia or some other government-free country, and show their amazing abilities to 'build it' from scratch without a government. No? Because it doesn't happen. Places with government programs are where all the successful people in the world come from. |
06:34pm 17/10/12 Permalink
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb17c7f8b9a6218b70000-590/look-how-the-wealth-gap-grown-in-the-past-20-years.jpg Pretty cool to see actual statistical evidence of the old adage "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Personally, I'll just be happy when the US is finally no longer a super power and we don't have to hear about all their political bulls*** because it won't affect anyone but themselves. Shouldn't be too long now (fingers crossed)! |
09:22pm 17/10/12 Permalink
I'll just be happy when the US is finally no longer a super power and we don't have to hear about all their political bulls*** because it won't affect anyone but themselves. Shouldn't be too long now (fingers crossed)! So how are those Mandarin classes going? |
09:38pm 17/10/12 Permalink
What is "capital income"? As far as I am aware, this would normally equate to profits from operating a business, trust distributions, company dividends, or interest from other investments.
Workers (including professional sportspeople, musical artists and Hollywood actors) typically earn a salary i.e. payment for labour, which does not comprise this form of income - salary is never capital income. So I would make two points I guess: 1. This graph has absolutely no bearing on determining wealth breakdown. 2. Wealth has no bearing on quality of life. The creation of wealth that has been seen especially in America has been the result of technological breakthroughs and service delivery to consumers. Nerfy is obsessive in his hatred of wealth accumulation. last edited by infi at 22:32:23 17/Oct/12 |
10:30pm 17/10/12 Permalink
1. This graph has absolutely no bearing on determining wealth breakdown. It specifically shows that, because it shows the returns from capital, i.e. wealth. Nerfy is obsessive in his hatred of wealth accumulation. Bulls***. I am in business, and work very hard to accumulate wealth, and am much more focused on it than anybody who I know. When you lot can't answer the hard questions calling you out on your bulls*** in recent decades, you just start attacking some imaginary communist class-warfare straw man and pat yourselves on the back. infi, if you haven't picked up on it, you absolutely fit the profile which I mentioned. You're one of the the living breathing expressions of such overcompensating self-congratulatory madness. But I'm not going to convince you, you're still going to rock up to your next libs meeting and rant about how you evidently pulled yourself up by your bootstraps by inheriting a business and knowing other wealthy people in office. And everybody else will evidently just be lazy for not having done similar, in your crazy over the top world. What I hate, are the fakes who try to claim my responsible lifestyle and sacrifices for themselves, despite never having done the same. And then go extremely nuts with it, making this whole crazy rinehart/koch brothers political cult out of it, when anybody who's been here knows that it's not that simple. |
10:53pm 17/10/12 Permalink
Wealth trickle down bulls*** has proven not to be true, and is just an excuse for the rich to become richer.
Share the wealthy's exploits of others. Vote socialism today. |
10:55pm 17/10/12 Permalink
The sitaution there is even worse than what the previous chart suggested:
http://www.dividendtree.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wealthdistribution1920-1998.gif But the narrative will be "the poor top 10% who holds nearly all the wealth doesn't have enough to make jobs" while sitting on essentially all of it in their bank accounts, or moving it offshore, while the bottom 90% is supposed to be able to innovate and make jobs with what exactly? Where are the crocodile tears for them? Real entrepreneurs have always risen from the normal people, rarely are they following in an amazing parent's footsteps. Yet the US is sucking the options dry of most of its working population, all for the inheritor-crowd's fantasy of being self-made. When actual self-made people such as Buffet weigh in, the fakes just call him a communist and continue on with their destructive and loud Randian cult. |
11:19pm 17/10/12 Permalink
You are f*****g clueless. Capital is not wealth. Every person contains inside them wealth (or wealth potential) because money is an exchange for labor and production. Some people own real estate, some people own factories, some people perform labour or creative arts. They are all wealth producing activities.
read a first year book about economics you donkey. secondly, if every person had wealth equally then how would anyone be allowed to accumulate wealth. if you are saying the current breakdown of wealth is not "fair" enough - then what breakdown is fair? Should the government pass a law mandating the "fair" breakdown? What exactly is the point of the comment you are making? You are in favour of wealth accumulation but you post statistics critically about its occurrence. The nature of the human endeavour will always be personal self-improvement. Some will be better at it than others. You would have the State intervene and steal from individuals to alter the outcome of those competitive pursuits. Nerfy's a bigot towards wealth accumulation while he personally engages in it - just on hate on everyone else that does it though. |
11:46pm 17/10/12 Permalink
Not bothering with all the straw man positions.
What exactly is the point of the comment you are making? That you rand-cultists impersonating the self-made are out of control, when you are seemingly exclusively the types who just inherited your positions and never rise above wherever you were born into, but equate any wealth with evidence of worthiness. Whenever an actual self-made person comes along and disagrees with your political positions, built up from a heroic narrative of the way that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, you get even worse and start calling them communists who wouldn't know anything about wealth creation (when they're the ones who have actually done it, inheriting wealth is not creating wealth). You are in favour of wealth accumulation but you post statistics critically about its occurrence. I'm critical of your type's bulls*** and tunnel vision, and attempts to paint anybody who doesn't share the crocodile tears for the extremely rich as an evil communist who is anti-capitalism or is your boogeyman lazy leech who lacks initiative. Tell me, infi, where are the crocodile tears for the majority of the population and their ability to 'create jobs'? If it's so bad for the top few percent who hold nearly all the wealth already, then the situation for the rest of the population - the vast vast majority of people - must be an absolute crime against humanity right? By your type's logic that we should create opportunities for people to create jobs, shouldn't the goal be cutting taxes for those who have to spend all their income just to survive and trying to inject as much opportunity into there as possible? Shouldn't those who already have nearly all of the opportunity be the very last priority? If somebody really has earned their way up the system, why would they need it to get easier as they go? That's the wrong way around for encouraging business, and only suits those who were born rich. If somebody can truly exceed during the hard part - where they're not wealthy, on equal footing with everybody else, and most of their wealth must be spent on surviving - then they don't need the help only after reaching the easy part when they're rich. As Buffet's pointed out, the very wealthy there pay a far lower effective tax rate than everybody else, and then don't have to essentially spend all of their money on local products which are taxed anyway just to live. Yet Romney comes along with his massive tax cuts for the very wealthy (specifically focusing on things like inheritance taxes), and you pretend-entrepreneurs who don't know the first thing about becoming self-made just lap it up with your self-congratulatory ideology. |
11:58pm 17/10/12 Permalink
If everyone was to create jobs then who would work in those jobs?
Secondly, not everyone wants to be a job creator - in fact most cannot put up with the various stresses of being an employer and more importantly do not wish to have the responsibility of being an employer. Finally, your argument suggests for any person who ever took a base of capital they did not create themselves and then made it larger, it is impossible for them to credibly argue in favour of wealth creation. You are filled with hatred and jealousy of people because of the way life is. I know it is your argument that every person's estate should be fully or largely donated to the state upon their death as a means of wiping the slate clean, but really what does that say about respect for property rights? Tell me Nerfy, what is a fair breakdown? How much should everyone get? Should the government pass a law for this and then steal from the wealthier to share it around (more than they do now). You must surely have a tangible target to this general grumble. It's such a pathetic throwaway line that any god-fearing american Democrat trots out every election. THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER. WE ARE THE 99% I also love how because you are self-made from scratch you are some sort of poster boy because you also trumpet wealth equality. 1. You accumulate wealth. 2. You despise accumulating wealth and those who grow it from generation to generation. Nerfy do you hope to endow something to your children? Do you hope to pay off your house? What actually is going on inside that kooky brain of yours??? |
12:16am 18/10/12 Permalink
or hit up http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/27347
|
12:19am 18/10/12 Permalink
Again, a million strawmans about wanting the government to do anything. It is those calling for tax cuts for the rich who are calling for the government to do something, they are the ones saying that the divide is not great enough. Going to throw in a 'you f***wit' here for good measure.
If everyone was to create jobs then who would work in those jobs? Yeah because that's the only outcome of not only pandering to the wealthy when talking about the opportunities required for potential job creators. Secondly, not everyone wants to be a job creator - in fact most cannot put up with the various stresses of being an employer and more importantly do not wish to have the responsibility of being an employer. This does not at all answer the question of why you only care about the job creating capabilities of the rich, and not the rest of society. In fact it only begs repeating it. Disturbingly, you seem to believe that people not born wealthy don't deserve an equal chance because they're not up to it, based on some sort of circle logic of 'well if they were up to it, they would be wealthy like me'. This is what's so infuriating about you inheritor types. Finally, your argument suggests for any person who ever took a base of capital they did not create themselves and then made it larger, it is impossible for them to credibly argue in favour of wealth creation. I specifically said otherwise, for those who never move higher. And it's dramatically easier to create more capital when you already have some, versus the vast majority who start with nothing. Where are you crocodile tears for them and their opportunities to create jobs? You are filled with hatred Correct, you guys are s***ting all over whatever meritocracy we had with your crazy self-congratulatory bulls*** for simply being born where you were. If things keep going your way, it will be back to blood line nobility and trapped working peasants. and jealousy Hahahaha, always the cop out for those who can't defend their bulls*** politics. Your out of control fantasy attitudes affect people like myself in the real world. But I'm very proud of actual self made people, I think that they represent the best of humanity. It's you fakes who try to steal their thunder and twist it into a political cult who infuriate me. I know it is your argument that every person's estate should be fully or largely donated to the state upon their death as a means of wiping the slate clean Da f***? Tell me Nerfy, what is a fair breakdown? How much should everyone get? Tell me infi, why are they arguing for more? I haven't argued for anything to change, only they are, and have been. As Warren Buffet said, “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” I also love how because you are self-made from scratch you are some sort of poster boy Nope. The point is that you fakes are not the self-made poster boys that you claim to be, and you discard the opinions of those who actually are. I'm not made yet, still trying. |
12:43am 18/10/12 Permalink
Correct, you guys are s***ting all over whatever meritocracy we had with your crazy self-congratulatory bulls*** for simply being born where you were. If things keep going your way, it will be back to blood line nobility and trapped working peasants. So respecting property law is now equivalent to medieval nobility. If you don't want anything to change then what exactly if your point? I don't want anything to change either? I like being free to enter into any employment or business I choose and accumulate as much wealth as I choose, and then to give that money to whoever I choose when I am done with it. What do you think should happen? Does it involve wealth redistribution of any sort? |
01:30am 18/10/12 Permalink
Oh FML, you've tried to create this straw man 3 times now and have completely avoided the questions.
Your ideology can only be defended against imaginary people who say what you want them to say. |
01:31am 18/10/12 Permalink
Guyz you're ruining the thread!! Lolcats.
Thought the debate was good, Obama was much more on form. Hope he smashes it home in the 3rd. I'm gonna go all out and predict a Obama landslide win. |
04:49am 18/10/12 Permalink
I totally may have reddit'd again and got this: Josh Romney
|
05:42am 18/10/12 Permalink
Hah, there appears to be a big furore in the states now about how not only was the moderator not supposed to participate in the debate by doing a live fact check on when Obama was talking about his speech in the Rose Garden, but that she got it wrong and made Romney sound foolish when he was actually correct in his assertion.
Also, that and twitter exploded when Romney inadvertently implied gun violence was caused by single mothers. |
08:48am 18/10/12 Permalink
Hah, there appears to be a big furore in the states now about how not only was the moderator not supposed to participate in the debate by doing a live fact check on when Obama was talking about his speech in the Rose Garden, but that she got it wrong and made Romney sound foolish when he was actually correct in his assertion. no he wasn't. |
10:03am 18/10/12 Permalink
No he wasn't correct?
Obama in his speech referred to acts of terror in a generic sense, but didn't call the embassy attack an act of terrorism as the wording can have legal consequence. It was a relatively minor disagreement in the debate, but the point was that the moderator is supposed to moderate, not take sides. |
11:04am 18/10/12 Permalink
The debates would be a lot better if the Moderators stopped them and called them on their bulls*** rather than let it slide. This is just the right having a b**** fit.
|
11:52am 18/10/12 Permalink
Nah, in a one on one interview sure, when a candidate spins porkies go for gold on calling shenanigans.
In a debate though a moderator is simply there to keep a candidate on time and on topic, something Jim Lehrer and Candy Crowley did to somewhat marginal levels of success. It's not the role of the moderator to call either candidate on their bulls***, that's up to their opponent. |
12:23pm 18/10/12 Permalink
02:02pm 18/10/12 Permalink
larry king is moderating the next debate and is asking for questions for the candidates on reddit.
|
03:00pm 18/10/12 Permalink
@Dazhel She fact-checking him on whether or not he said the day after that it was an 'act of terror' which he did say so Romney was wrong; in the same breath she told Romney he was correct on the wider point, that the administration had taken 14 days to confirm it was a terrorist attack.
It's hardly the fubar the Republicans are making it out to be; really just a good highlighted example of Romney twisting truthes to fit his pitch. Classic example of a lost debate, turn on the moderator. Have a read of The GOP's Candy Strategy |
06:36pm 18/10/12 Permalink
The Salt Lake Tribune (home of Romney's LDS "church") has endorsed Obama.
Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts - http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp |
07:57pm 20/10/12 Permalink
Obama's a decent comedian; least he's got a backup career plan!
Romney was also funny but a bit more barbed in his jokes. That's a good article, sums Romney up pretty well. |
09:14pm 20/10/12 Permalink
Obama seems to be naturally and spontaneously funny, whereas you never really hear Romney telling jokes outside of an event like this where they've been written for him. Although he may loosen up if he gets the job and doesn't have to spend all of his time criticising Obama.
Romney does have excellent delivery (and speaking ability in general) and I liked his jokes about what he was wearing and about Clinton. last edited by dais at 01:02:21 21/Oct/12 |
01:00am 21/10/12 Permalink
Romney had me in stitches. Obama felt like I had heard it all before.
|
03:08pm 21/10/12 Permalink
Scott DesJarlais, Pro-Life Republican Congressman And Doctor, Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/scott-desjarlais-abortion-pro-life_n_1953136.html
|
04:30pm 21/10/12 Permalink
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-zings-romney-fewer-horses-bayonets-022243626--election.html
Oh snap. "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. |
02:23pm 23/10/12 Permalink
Nonsense. The reason the military has fewer bayonets than 1916 is clearly because this president's policies have been working against bayonet creators.
|
03:14pm 23/10/12 Permalink
I haven't caught the 3rd debate yet, was it good?
The world wants Obama to win: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687 |
01:18am 24/10/12 Permalink
Trumps secret is The Obamas were going to get divorced before he made his successful WhiteHouse run.
|
01:27pm 24/10/12 Permalink
Trumps secret is The Obamas were going to get divorced before he made his successful WhiteHouse run. No wonder he was so desperately trying to drum up interest when it was something as unrelated to the election as that. |
07:24pm 24/10/12 Permalink
That idiot is actually a Governor? Everything that's' wrong with America right there.
|
03:33am 25/10/12 Permalink
Lulz, Trump's bombshell announcement was even dumber than the divorce papers rumour. He will pay $5 million to charity if Obama releases his college and passport transcripts. what a f*****g idiot, i can't believe he had an announcement to announce this as an announcement
|
10:10am 25/10/12 Permalink
Romney allegedly lied in court 10 years ago.
Friend's Ex-Wife Claims Romney LIED to Screw Her in Divorce - http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/24/mitt-romney-tom-stemberg-staples-lied-perjury-divorce-case-maureen/ |
10:50am 25/10/12 Permalink
Still putting the R in Republican. The right wing of the Right Wing.
These guys aren't too bright, and they seem to represent a significant proportion of US voters. Bunch of creepy old men. This is the party that helped to create the United States and end slavery, such a shame. |
11:38am 25/10/12 Permalink
Eski that article just makes my brain hurt. How can a man really believe that rape is an intended feature of humanity and that God is all cool with it. Just..ahhh.
|
12:12pm 25/10/12 Permalink
Probably because based of religious scripture god would be cool with it.
Has the far-right of politics ever been as bats*** insane as it is right now? It is bats*** in the states and here at the moment. Plus that Golden Dawn party over in Greece is literally Nazi Germany reincarnated. I know it sounds like I am invoking Godwin here but read up on them. Does their emblem look familiar to you? http://i.imgur.com/9JUHe.png |
12:25pm 25/10/12 Permalink
Eski,
I think that guy is just putting the S in stupid. Religious nutjob. People like fpot who see statements like that s***, then determine that his view represents what the right wing of politics thinks are just as dumb as right wingers who think the idioacy of Gillard and Swan represents the entire left wing of politics. Anyone that is far left, or far right is bats*** insane. Its really that simple. In fact, anyone that is either left or right is insane imo - don't understand how people just vote 1 way their entire life, its bizarre. |
12:51pm 25/10/12 Permalink
02:37pm 25/10/12 Permalink
That's roughly how I remember it.
|
02:58pm 25/10/12 Permalink
Yeah man there certainly are a whole bunch of level headed Republicans over in the USA atm. Even Romney the best of the bunch is someone who literally believes that god created man and the universe and all that jazz. It's cool for the average Joe to think that kind of thing but for a leader of a superpower to devoutly believe such things just seems crazy to me.
But hell, Obama maybe believes in at all too. From a few quotes I have read from him it may just be possible he is just paying lip service to it so the White House doesn't get overrun by Southerners with pitchforks. Sure would suck living in America. If Turnbull is leader of the opposition next election and there is no way that the NBN can be reversed I may just even vote for his party, but Abbott is pretty much as crazy as a Republican these days. You'd have to be a f*****g drongo to support him. |
03:36pm 25/10/12 Permalink
Moderate Christians are one thing, but the fact that the leader of the Republicans is a Mormon pretty much sums it up. Not only does he believe in God, he believes God lives on a planet near a star called Kolob and fathers us as spirit children there before we choose our parents and inhabit mortal bodies. This is the best guy they could come up with.
|
03:48pm 25/10/12 Permalink
Romney was given the equivalent of 1 million in today's dollars when he was a teenager, but describes himself as a self made man from humble beginnings. Guy's been drinking too much of the 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps' ideology koolaid, went and said that those not in the same situation as him are so for simply not taking responsibility in their lives. :/
|
03:55pm 25/10/12 Permalink
04:58pm 25/10/12 Permalink
11:50pm 25/10/12 Permalink
Colin Powell endorses Obama for second term - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-usa-campaign-powell
Powell endorses Obama for a second time. It must be because he is black. |
03:02pm 26/10/12 Permalink
No it's because of food stamps.
I think, I'm not really sure what facemans point was. |
04:29pm 26/10/12 Permalink
Fun fact: I learned today that over 7m Australians receive a payment from Centrelink.
|
09:29pm 26/10/12 Permalink
And you are lucky enough to get to sneer about it because you received a business from your father, and have never had to prove your supposed superiority on equal footing. ;)
|
04:05am 27/10/12 Permalink
Fun fact: I learned today that over 7m Australians receive a payment from Centrelink. so? i think its awesome that our government supports its people. |
06:32am 27/10/12 Permalink
Fun fact: I learned today that over 7m Australians receive a payment from Centrelink. yeah matey heaps of baby bonuses which your buddy john howard put in. |
09:37am 27/10/12 Permalink
i fully support and endorse baby bonuses!
|
10:13am 27/10/12 Permalink
11:18am 27/10/12 Permalink
And you are lucky enough to get to sneer about it because you received a business from your father, and have never had to prove your supposed superiority on equal footing. ;) I do not own my own business, I am but merely a paid employee Nerfy. I pay tax and pay for my own private health care - all the stuff workers do. But by all means continue to draw ASSumptions. |
11:52am 27/10/12 Permalink
Thats pretty rough Nerf, regardless of what you think its not cool to personally attack people like that.
|
12:24pm 27/10/12 Permalink
Way to miss the point infi, 'director' at your father's company, telling others that they're just lazy good for nothing leeches who clearly didn't work as hard as you.
Thats pretty rough Nerf, regardless of what you think its not cool to personally attack people like that. Well, I disagree. Personal experience is everything in how we get to these views, and the very sheltered and very pampered seem to have the most ludicrous "self made" fantasies which are hurting our society (see: Rinehart vs Palmer, the modern American republican platform espoused by people like Romney), and need to be called out on their bulls*** rather than left to build up their delusions. |
12:44pm 27/10/12 Permalink
03:51pm 27/10/12 Permalink
The disturbing thing is that some people must actually believe that ridiculous anti-reality hysteria to go to the effort to make those kinds of images, as if that's the only way that they can conceptualise the issues being discussed.
|
04:15pm 27/10/12 Permalink
i fully support and endorse baby bonuses! thought I read somewhere they are reducing the bogan bonus cause of the deficit |
06:15pm 27/10/12 Permalink
yo fpot, got that faceman stupidity filter handy? lul
|
06:49pm 27/10/12 Permalink
Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Colin Powell Aide, Blasts Sununu, GOP, As 'Full Of Racists' - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/lawrence-wilkerson-colin-powell-sununu_n_2027721.html
|
11:55pm 27/10/12 Permalink
This is the scariest thing I've heard a Republican say in a while. This guy is the chair of the House of Representatives science committee.
Ralph Hall Speaks Out on Climate Change - http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/ralph-hall-speaks-out-on-climate.html NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the earth to become warmer? It's doesn't really matter when someone like FaceMan denies climate change, but this absurdly deluded luddite is in a serious position of power. |
01:42am 28/10/12 Permalink
thought I read somewhere they are reducing the bogan bonus cause of the deficit yup, after the first baby bonus now, they are all reduced by a bit sound logic, after you have a baby, you already have a heap of baby gear you can reuse (glad i got my babies in at the full rate) |
07:22am 28/10/12 Permalink
(glad i got my babies in at the full rate) I could only read this as babies being about the same type of thing as big screen tvs :P (or alternatively www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rE0EakhG8&t=24s ) |
08:01am 28/10/12 Permalink
The fact that do many people need centre link support and food stamps in the US is insane. That's around 32% of Australia's population, and 15% in the US that can't even afford food on their own!? Australia's Centrelink payments aren't generally for direct survival afaik, more like special rebates/bonuses/etc as mentioned above, or for those studying/skilling up. The situation in the US is pretty nuts, the previous richest man Warren Buffet described it as class warfare by the rich (continuously lobbying to have their taxes lowered etc). Basically nearly all of the country's money has gone to a very small group, a few of who are now whining about the responsibility which they earned for themselves where somebody needs to pay for much of the working class's basic needs (as best I can tell). http://media.theunderstatement.com/005_B_us_wealth_distribution.png |
08:55am 28/10/12 Permalink
people who work subsidising people who don't.
the government tells community, it's ok even if you don't work or work in a low paid job, we will top you up. don't bother aspiring for the higher paid job - just sign up for the handout. Way to miss the point infi, 'director' at your father's company, telling others that they're just lazy good for nothing leeches who clearly didn't work as hard as you. so my comments would have been valid while I was an employee in private sector or as a public servant - but it becomes invalid when I work in a family company. That's some breathtaking logic right there - your own employment status dictates the validity of your logic argument. Keep the classics coming Nerfy - it all sounds like class envy - very bitter. You post many of these wealth hating charts Nerfy. I am sure if you posted a chart by real estate ownership it would be similar. Have you ever thought that is the inherent nature of humans. Are you suggesting that the chart you posted actually should be different? How should it be broken up? Who should determine this? Are you suggesting wealth should be stripped from high wealth individuals? What point are you exactly making from this chart? I will keep asking you this because you have not once yet answered me properly. last edited by infi at 15:56:40 28/Oct/12 |
03:53pm 28/10/12 Permalink
the government tells community, it's ok even if you don't work or work in a low paid job, we will top you up. Please explain infi. Are you comparing Newstart Allowance to having a high paid job? |
04:05pm 28/10/12 Permalink
Only on QGL could someone make a literal bootstraps argument with a straight face.
Only on QGL could the person making that argument be in a position where he inherited everything and been a part of murky little dealings to get there as well. |
04:10pm 28/10/12 Permalink
Don't bother saving for retirement, we'll pay for a nice bed in some nursing home somewhere....
|
04:17pm 28/10/12 Permalink
don't bother aspiring for the higher paid job - just sign up for the handout. Hahahaha. Says the guy who got the handout of there being a family company which would hire him for a higher paid job. Yeah, I'm sure that you were totally hired for a directors position at your father's company on merit, that wasn't at all a 'handout'. Newsflash you judgemental douche, I was helped via centrelink while aspiring for a better job and life when gaining my engineering degree. Being born less rich than you doesn't mean that I have any lower aspirations, it just means that it's a much steeper climb up, and that I will get almost no help along the way. people who work subsidising people who don't. And what about when they are working, while those such as Rinehart keep arguing to push the minimum wage down (on the 'earn your way like me' fantasy bulls*** which you also espouse), even below a livable rate? In your theoretical imagination version of what real life careers are like for most people, do you actually imagine that you would out-compete everybody else if you started the same? That you wouldn't be with us being judged as not being good enough in every political discourse by those in your current position? wealth hating charts No. Try again. How many times do I have to tell you that I am in business and work a great deal towards building wealth, and respect those that do, before you will stop repeating the same hysterical straw man like a retarded child who can't understand what real world issues are being spoken about? Maybe you should argue against Alan Greenspan, or all these guys, or palmer, on that one. it all sounds like class envy - very bitter. I'm not envious of you. If I had what you had I would turn out as shelteredly retarded as most of you rich kids and your insane self-serving randian egos, thinking that you actually earned your way while everybody else is just lazy. I am bitter, but not out of envy, mostly due to the constant demeaning bulls*** from your type who like to play pretend make believe at being what I actually am - a hard worker who is earning his own way - and continue to destroy the meritocracy not because you're greedy, but because you're just completely out of touch and actually believe that all anybody has to do to get to your position is whatever you did - i.e. be born into it. Have you ever thought that is the inherent nature of humans. What? What point are you exactly making from this chart? If you had actually read what I was responding to, you would know. Try again? |
04:48pm 28/10/12 Permalink
is nerf lord the new nerfy or is it someone else?
i can't keep up! |
04:55pm 28/10/12 Permalink
Nerf wears many hats.
Please explain infi. Are you comparing Newstart Allowance to having a high paid job? If you listen to people like infi/bill oreilly, you'd get the impression that being broke enough to qualify for government assistance is some glorious unearned lifestyle akin to their trust funds. |
05:00pm 28/10/12 Permalink
Thats pretty rough Nerf, regardless of what you think its not cool to personally attack people like that i remember the last time nerfy got called out he ended up having a f*****g cry and calling hoggy an internet bully or something MONEY HAAAATTTTTTTTEEEEEE lul |
05:27pm 28/10/12 Permalink
No. Try again. How many times do I have to tell you that I am in business and work a great deal towards building wealth, and respect those that do So that means if your business becomes successful you'll stop posting these banal charts? |
05:44pm 28/10/12 Permalink
MONEY HAAAATTTTTTTTEEEEEE lul You're as bad as infi/Rinehart/etc. Go tell the same to Greenspan/Buffett/etc So that means if your business becomes successful you'll stop posting these banal charts? Can you explain your question in a way which is relevant to anything which I was talking about? It makes no sense. |
05:57pm 28/10/12 Permalink
i'm not really, i've just watched you seeth at anything relating to someone with more money than you since you first signed up to this forum. it's quite hilarious
|
06:14pm 28/10/12 Permalink
its a bit funny, that someone who has been given so much (by daddy) rages over the government doing the right/same thing and helping out less fortunate types.
|
06:17pm 28/10/12 Permalink
i'm not really, i've just watched you seeth at anything relating to someone with more money than you since you first signed up to this forum. it's quite hilarious It's always been over this same attitude, which I've been encountering for years. Though I'm preettty sure that I've watched you be an ass to me over a million issues for several years, so pretty much doubt that you're really motivated by just that now. |
06:33pm 28/10/12 Permalink
Can you explain your question in a way which is relevant to anything which I was talking about? It makes no sense. You're railing against the wealthy but aspiring to grow your business and become wealthy yourself, yes? I was just wondering at what point the apparent jealousy streak would start to fade. I don't mind if you don't answer my question because it was tongue in cheek, but you glossed over infi's more substantial questions - Should the chart be different? If yes, how should the percentages look? Who gets to decide how it looks? Should wealth be taken away, and if so then how much and who should get it and why? In the case of the USA wealthy individuals paying a little more tax than they are now does sound like it's a bit overdue, but do you think that would change the percentages in your chart significantly? Simply pointing the finger at the wealthy and saying 'look how much they've got' also fails to address all of the other causes of income inequality such as reducing wasteful spending, investments in science, education, workforce participation and competitiveness. |
07:08pm 28/10/12 Permalink
You're railing against the wealthy but aspiring to grow your business and become wealthy yourself, yes? Hahaha no. You obviously haven't read anything that I said, instead seeing what you wanted to be there. I am not 'railing against the wealthy', I am railing against dangerous (and mostly insulting) ideologue bulls******s who make up a portion of the wealthy (the less meritable and more judgemental part), but also a lot of the non-wealthy (e.g. tea party'ists). In the same way that I rail against bulls******s in many areas. Again, my problem is with the derision of those not being born into money as being "obviously lazy and coddled by the government" when the people saying it are near exclusively those who were coddled and given freedom from ever having to compete. They're loud, insulting, and all around grade A f*****g delusional morons. How many times do I have to say that I admire many of the wealthy? You don't all get to hide under that banner, calling yourselves self-made hard workers, and screaming "an attack on me for my bulls*** is an attack on the wealthy!", because many wealthy people share my point of view. I suppose you think that Clive Palmer was 'railing against the wealthy' when he offered Gina Rinehart a reality check? Are 'the wealthy' a class so fragile and special, that they need to resort to that kind of cheap conservation stopper? you glossed over infi's more substantial questions Because he also can't read and took a completely different meaning to why I brought it up, because he's also not able to discuss any issues relating to this in an honest way, and so tries to twist the conversation for cheap attacks about positions which I don't hold, as you just did. Should the chart be different? If yes, how should the percentages look? Who gets to decide how it looks? Well according to Greenspan, Buffett, etc, yes, but I don't really care. It's irrelevant to anything which I've talked about. Simply pointing the finger at the wealthy and saying 'look how much they've got' And guess what, I never did that, it's just an anti-capitalist/hippie/jealous characterture which you types summon up to avoid having to face any criticism of your fantasy which you don't want to hear (e.g. when the most successful investor and capitalist in the world Warren Buffett was screamed at as being a socialist when he began to discuss the problem). |
07:32pm 28/10/12 Permalink
lol you types
I'm half agreeing with you, in America s***'s f***ed up yo and putting on the rose coloured glasses by going back to Reagan and Bush style policies is almost certainly a daft solution, though if anyone is summoning caricatures: They're loud, insulting, and all around grade A f*****g delusional morons. the fakes just call him a communist and continue on with their destructive and loud Randian cult |
08:07pm 28/10/12 Permalink
The super wealthy should pay a lot more tax.. that money is better off in the hands of the majority.. trickle down theory doesn't work
|
01:51am 29/10/12 Permalink
though if anyone is summoning caricatures: That's not a caricature, if you paid attention you would see that it actually happens, and that there are many people noticing it (Buffet on that, Obama on that). You can look at Rinehart, or Romney, or infi, etc, they all actually believe their bulls*** and say it with a straight face. That's the only way in which they can process their position in life, not by recognising their advantages and free gifts and freedom from having to compete, but by actively and viciously putting down everybody else as 'obviously lazy' and going on about how helping people will ruin them - despite these people having been helped more than anybody else on the planet. They actually believe that is how the world is, and not that those in the lower classes are also real people, with real aspirations, who face a dramatically tougher climb up with lower chances of ever succeeding. |
05:53am 29/10/12 Permalink
Upper/Ruling Class 101 - Don't tell the poor how to live\spend or squeeze them too hard, haven't they learnt anything from the French revolution!?
I agree; it seems, mostly due to the republican party of late, that the fundamental balance of wealth dispersal, mostly through taxation, has become quite imbalanced in the USA. If you look at the core of Obama's platform it's all about removing that imbalance and getting it more proportionate. I agree with it, and I think most people here do. When you add all the other gross social and structure issues the US has (healthcare, offshoring, unemployment, etc), it really compounds their problems. It doesn't seem like theres a similar state of affairs in Aus? Nerfy; you're coming across pretty frothy mouthed atm. You do seem to have a inherent hatred or resentment of the rich, this isn't abnormal though, most non-rich people have it to some extent. It's also true that infi seems a bit too classically ill-judged rich person; it is wrong to assume everyone is lazy and welfare or a social safety net of some version does nothing but perpetuate that. Upper/Ruling Class 102 - Understand the lower clases and the role they play! Or, keep the serfs occupied/happy. As always the answer is in the middle somewhere innit. |
07:58am 29/10/12 Permalink
Obama's platform it's all about removing that imbalance and getting it more proportionate. I agree with it Whereas Romney is specifically looking to cut the inheritance tax, as a comparison. Nerfy; you're coming across pretty frothy mouthed atm. I know but don't care, I am passionate for good reason. You do seem to have a inherent hatred or resentment of the rich Well I don't, having listed many who I admire. I only have an inherent hatred and resentment of demeaning idiots who keep trying to steal away capitalistic opportunity for the majority under the guise of being pro-capitalism, where really they're pro-plutocracy (the exact same as the richest capitalist in the world Warren Buffett pointed out - he also got called a wealth hating socialist). On a related note, Joss Whedon thinks that knowing about Parkour will be the sign of a survivor, and I've played a lot of Assassin's Creed II. |
08:06am 29/10/12 Permalink
That's fair do's, I'm anti-plutocracy and am somewhat in favour of social capitalism from the little I've read so far.
I also agree the 'trickle down' theory doesn't seem to work that well in practise, and as we've seen in abundance, many of the wealthy people trusted with that responsibility act irresponsibly or in their own interests and further detriment the society/economy. |
08:13am 29/10/12 Permalink
Invade Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity?
lol, because that was such a winning strategy in the Middle Ages |
12:58am 30/10/12 Permalink
Anne Coulter is awesome.
Id pay to see her on Q&A. |
02:46am 30/10/12 Permalink
Anne Coulter is some kind of completely nonsensical idiot.
Good to see Piers Morgan finally doing something semi-decent. |
03:34am 30/10/12 Permalink
Jesus she really does just come across as someone who is angry and very confused, and tries to be aggressive in an attempt to cover up those flaws, much like how Bill O'Reilly often comes across.
It's OK to use 'retard' even though people use it in a wholly offensive way because... the word police... but not n*****? Great logic! Yeah she seems awesome FaceMan!! Similarly the article you linked to makes almost as little sense, guys say to other guys to 'calm down' all the time, but if you say it to a woman then you're being sexist? And then in almost the same breath she apparently says that they should reconsider allowing young people and women to vote? |
04:46am 30/10/12 Permalink
RE: that Who Will Do More? ad for Romney
On the auto rescue, Mitt Romney has run out of answers - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-on-the-auto-rescue-mitt-romney-has-run-out-of-answers/2012/10/29/89cb21ca-21af-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html |
09:06am 30/10/12 Permalink
I think you guys are missin the point.
Infi is enjoying a cycle of Family Wealth, whilst most people are stuck on personal wealth. Family wealth > personal wealth. We should all be striving to build family wealth, so that following generations of family can have a wealthier lifestyle. Part of building family wealth is to be sure to teach your children (and thiers) the importance of it, so they continue on the building instead of blowing it all. It will take many generations for the lowest income earners to build any kind of family wealth, however if they don't start it wont happen. I personally belive the government should be setting up systems to build this kind of wealth. |
10:39am 30/10/12 Permalink
I personally belive the government should be setting up systems to build this kind of wealth. And give up the hungry docile mob whose vote they can rely on in exchange for tossing a few platitudes around? Are you insane? In any case, I've already purchased my copy of Atlas Shrugged so I'm all set. |
11:04am 30/10/12 Permalink
I don't think so, I agree with what he said. There is nothing wrong with being self made, but for example you have a huge advantage if your parents can send you to uni without you getting in to debt and having to waste precious study time in a menial job. Family wealth doesn't just necessarily mean you have to take over the family business.
|
11:20am 30/10/12 Permalink
I think you guys are missin the point. Nope, you have massively missed the point about what is wrong with the things which infi/rinehart/romney/bush/etc have said. That those pretend self-made entrepreneurs who were created from unimaginably massive handouts call everybody who is less advantaged as being evidently lazy handout-addicted bludgers without aspirations. It glorifies them for what they really haven't earned (on the false logic that all wealth is a sign of hard work in all cases), and insults everybody else (and looks to make dangerous political moves based on that broken logic). They even attack real and dramatically more successful entrepreneurs who don't play into their we-inheritors-are-heroes bulls*** narrative, e.g. Buffett/Obama/Gates/etc - people who are actually self made. It will take many generations for the lowest income earners to build any kind of family wealth, however if they don't start it wont happen. Yeah because that's totally going to happen with the growing separation of wealth, and the political bulls*** behind it. Family wealth > personal wealth I'm sorry, but after having seen the mess of recent decades*, some of us believe in simple things like a world built on some measure of merit and allowing our best to flourish, rather than returning back to peasants trapped under royalty. I for one believe in capitalism and entrepreneurialism, not classes and castes, it's led to some dramatically improving periods in human history. *e.g. Romney who was gifted with at least a million dollars in today's money while in college, goes on about how people have no initiative because of handouts, when it would take multiple lifetimes on government handouts while barely surviving to match the first handout which he got just while in college - the dude is outright crazy and his success is a sham, in a way which is becoming increasingly evident to many people. |
11:28am 30/10/12 Permalink
wow kos, ease up on the Misogyny.
|
11:57am 30/10/12 Permalink
kos: Ann Coulter saying women shouldn't get the vote really has little do with women's rights, it's simply about her political agenda. If more women voted Republican and just accepted their transvaginal ultrasound without complaining about it she'd have no issue.
I agree with Faceman, she'd be a fantastic panelist on Q&A. :D |
12:21pm 30/10/12 Permalink
If more women just accepted their transvaginal ultrasound without complaining Are you... endorsing that attitude? |
12:31pm 30/10/12 Permalink
Of course not, I'm highlighting the absurdity of a woman championing a political party that has a remarkable anti-women stance.
|
01:04pm 30/10/12 Permalink
Ann Coulter always talks with her mouth full of Republican c***.
|
02:23pm 30/10/12 Permalink
Family wealth doesn't just necessarily mean you have to take over the family business. and this is where nerfy's very spiteful comment is totally off target. if not for me my family's company would need someone else to run it with exactly my qualifications. i earn less than the industry average for my position. so i don't really get what nerfy's gettting at. i provide labour for money just like he does. he just hates the idea that some people inherit stuff later in life when their parents die. it is such an offensive idea to him. nerfy do you advocate death duties? what is the point of posting all of your wealth inequality charts? Nerfy are you suggesting we should have wealth equality? Are you suggesting that people go and earn a ton of dough and then be required give it to others (via the govt) so we can all have equal wealth? Should every person be given a house for example? Nerfy if you are hateful of people who accumulate wealth over generations but not hateful of people who are self made can you please answer these two questions: - are self-made people allowed to become "wealthy"? - what are self-made wealthy people supposed to do with their wealth in your wealth hating world. I AM PARTICULARLY KEEN ON THIS ANSWER I would be scared to live in Nerfy's world full of rules telling people what they can and cannot do with their own earned assets. Western civilisation developed out of a rule of law and respect for property rights. Now Nerfy wants to just take assets from people who have earned them and give them to people who have not earned. Nerfy also objects to the concept of hereditary assets. Nerfy are you saying that people cannot choose what they do with their assets? Do you suggest that on death they should all be forfeited to the government? Your quite frankly bizarre outlook on life intrigues me so I want to be perfectly clear with it. |
10:05am 31/10/12 Permalink
I don't know what the best bit of this thread is - hilarious comments made by far-right advocates, spidz occasional little sook about how we aren't being fair by mentioning far-left advocates as well, or infi's little 'me me me' tirades.
|
10:12am 31/10/12 Permalink
I think the worst part is where infi repeatedly tries to straw man me as holding positions which I don't, and have said so several times now, while completely avoiding the criticism of his bulls*** political positions and judgements of other people.
infi, learn to read dude, for like the 9th time now. Now Nerfy wants to just take assets from people who have earned them and give them to people who have not earned. The inability of your type to face what other people have actually said and criticized you for is embarrassing. Show me where I said anything about that, you two dimensional ideological crazyface? |
10:28am 31/10/12 Permalink
You can't answer very direct and simple questions.
|
10:40am 31/10/12 Permalink
You can't answer very direct and simple questions. Why do you want me to defend positions which aren't mine and have already told you a dozen times? Can your type really not stand up for your ideology and judgements without deflecting criticism to an interrogation of a two dimensional false characterture who was never here? |
10:45am 31/10/12 Permalink
If they aren't your position then answer then questions accordingly. Plenty of users on this board perceive you as a jealous wealth hating socialist who wants the government to control all our assets like2 they somehow know best.
Hey think of it like this: by answering my questions you will have an opportunity to post most wealth inequality charts! :) |
11:08am 31/10/12 Permalink
If they aren't your position then answer then questions accordingly. ... I did, by saying that those aren't my positions. Plenty of users on this board perceive you as a jealous wealth hating socialist who wants the government to control all our assets like2 they somehow know best. Yes, there are a few insane ideological morons on this forum who are very difficult to talk to about real world issues. I'm trying to understand how one of them possibly holds these positions in the face of criticism, but am just getting some extremely slippery hysterical bulls***. As expected really. |
11:11am 31/10/12 Permalink
Yes, there are a few insane ideological morons on this forum who are very difficult to talk to about real world issues. I hope the irony is not lost on you. |
01:39pm 31/10/12 Permalink
It is, unless you are confusing passion for idealogical ridiculousness such as responding to any criticism about the rubbish which they say with bulls*** like "jealous wealth hating socialist who wants the government to control all our assets".
|
01:45pm 31/10/12 Permalink
edit - scratch that, im not falling down this rabbit hole.
|
02:04pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Woah, that Ann Coulter is f*****g crazy.
Nerfy, you keep saying to infi 'your type' - what exactly is that 'type' you seem to be so happy to make generalisations about? |
03:35pm 31/10/12 Permalink
anyone who earns above minimum wage - the rich pricks!!!
|
03:53pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Nerfy, you keep saying to infi 'your type' - what exactly is that 'type' you seem to be so happy to make generalisations about? The pushers of the flawed and vicious ideology are those such as Mitt Romney, Gina Rinehart, the Koch brothers, the Bush family, etc. C. Wright Mills summed it up - "Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm." - basically they're liars, going on about hard work and merit got them to where they are, which others therefore obviously lack (see how Rinehart thinks that her wealth comes from hard work and not being lazy like most Australians, impossibly conveniently skipping over that she was the only child of Australia's largest mining magnate who gave her the world's largest iron ore deposit, or how the Bush family members each describe themselves as self made men. If you agree with them, then you would be wrong, and probably naive to the real world). Most of these people come from enormous handouts (in money and opportunity), yet go on about the evils of fractional sized equivalents to keep people off the street. They're a bunch of a******* who have pushed the political agenda in recent decades, and need to be told to stfu at every stop when they try to preach their bulls*** philosophy and further their delusions about being better than everybody else. Or has been said about many of these people - "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." The worst part though, is when self made men such as Obama, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc, disagree with them, these pretend capitalists/pretend entrepreneurs start screaming at the real ones (who are vastly more successful too) that they don't love capitalism, hate wealth, etc. (hell, infi pulled that right out of the hat today, calling me a 'wealth hater' (wtf?), because I don't agree with his classic inheritor's bulls*** view of the world). |
04:06pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Wow, what? You have to be Christian to understand the benefits of a strong family unit across multiple generations??? Also, at what point did I say anything about second-class citizens. All I said was that Family wealth is superior to individual wealth. I say this on the basis that with a well set up family trust (and a nurturing family upbringing) each generation will enjoy a stronger wealth position to the generation previous. Unless something stuffs it up, probably a greedy family member, hopefully the trust is set-up to mitigate any damages caused. Another way to put it. A large, growing sum of money can benefit more than one person across multiple generations that just happen to be a family (maybe even Christian). edit: Gees Nerf, you sound pretty pissed off you didn't get hand-me-down. Maybe instead of whinging about people who did, of which your whinging will fall on deaf uncaring ears, you setup your next-of-kin for when you pass. Seriously, you are not going to convince the Rhino of anything no matter how loud you shout or how angry you get. You best just get on with life and enjoy what it has to offer instead of getting so damn angry. last edited by Tollaz0r! at 16:20:46 31/Oct/12 |
04:11pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Nerfy's hatred for intergenerational wealth shows his complete disrespect for property rights.
He cites wealth inequality charts but doesn't suggest how it should be different. Nerfy states he is working for himself obviously trying to get ahead in the world yet he resents others who have done it successfully then want to hand it onto their children to expand their endeavours again? |
05:38pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Please tell me that you're trolling. Nobody with two brain cells could possibly still misunderstand so completely.
|
05:41pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Are you suggesting that people go and earn a ton of dough and then be required give it to others (via the govt) so we can all have equal wealth? Should every person be given a house for example?Just because you set up this bulls*** argument, doesn't mean that the exact opposite is now the correct way things should be. Western civilisation developed out of a rule of law and respect for property rights.Thats the only thing it developed out of? I'd say a small thing called communi |
05:42pm 31/10/12 Permalink
why did you cite the wealth inequality charts? just to have a woe is me grumble?
|
05:45pm 31/10/12 Permalink
why did you cite the wealth inequality charts? just to have a woe is me grumble? You serious? I've answered this how many times now? To a) Show that the whining about there not being enough capital opportunity for job creation by those who are already wealthy is laughibly rubbish compared to the opportunities which exist for everybody else, who's opportunities you lot never have a cry about. and b) Explaining why even people who are working may need to be on food stamps in the US, when most of the nation's productive wealth is going to a very small group, to the point where they may have to be taxed so that the royalty feed their working peasants. It's disgusting and not a society for generating entrepreneurs from anybody but a very small (and often sheltered and less meritable) group - either those who are real entrepreneurs and saying that they don't need it, or those who inherited their way and giving this huge spiel about 'hating wealth' and 'hating merit' and all this other irrelevant bulls*** which couldn't be further from the truth. |
05:46pm 31/10/12 Permalink
why did you cite the wealth inequality charts? just to have a woe is me grumble?Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the text located directly above it. |
05:47pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Romney's desire to dismantle FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and make it state level (or possibly private) is coming back to bite him in the ass.
Romney Has a Christie Problem and a FEMA Problem - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/romney-has-a-christie-problem-and-a-fema-problem.html |
06:19pm 31/10/12 Permalink
So Nerf, the tl;dr version is:
A section of wealthy individuals are hoarding and are either self deluded or being intentionally deceptive. It's purportedly not a good state of affairs for the working class and 'real' entrepreneurs. From what I can gather you have nothing against property rights and inter-generational wealth transfer so the first thing you'd propose to rectify the situation is ____________? |
06:26pm 31/10/12 Permalink
I hope you don't make too much money yourself that you leave any for your kids Nerfy.
Many of these 'trust fund' babies are nurtured and educated by their successful parents to understand the value of hard work, often while they are given every opportunity not neccessarily offered to everyone, they are still made to earn every dollar they ever get. I work hard so I can provide opportunities for my kids that I may not have had, and thats not saying my own parents didn't do the same - but there is a tipping point somewhere in the generational line where someone hits the jackpot and generations to follow get more opportunity. While Gina Rinehart for example, has been given a blessed life and opportunity, I don't think anyone with any knowledge of her business could say with a straight face that she doesn't work incredibly hard. Success often breeds success, some people by nature love to work and to build things. Why the hell does Rupert Murdoch still go into the office every day? Why the hell does James Packer or Lachlan Murdoch work 12 hour days? I'm not sure I can say categorically I would if I had been put in their positions, I probably would sit on my arse and do nothing. This is probably a sign that these guys have had the benefits of hard work instilled in them from a young age. Gina Rinehart didn't need to turn $100m and her Iron Ore deposits into a fortune potentially greater than any other. Kerry Packer didn't need to turn his inherited wealth into billions and so on. For every one of these people you despise so greatly for taking advantage of the opportunities they were afforded, there is probably 30 slackers who did inherit $100m, never worked a day in their life and may leave nothing for whatever unfortunate offspring they produce. For every Gina Rinehart, there are probably 30 Tamara Ecclestones, so your hatred is probably misdirected a little. |
06:35pm 31/10/12 Permalink
So Nerf, the tl;dr version is: It's right here, it's not that hard to understand what I'm talking about. Keep trying, eventually you will grasp it. :P spidz, you're still not following what was being spoken about. Take all the two dimensional ideological attack characters out of it, read again with an unbiased mind. I can't answer most of that because it's got sfa to do with what I said that my problem with them was. (And I'm sure that Rinehart worked very hard to make the price of iron go up after inheriting the largest iron ore deposit in the world and an established leading mining company, I should take tips from her when she calls people like me not wealthy like her due to my obvious laziness! If only we worked harder on the fantastic opportunities of each of our inherited largest iron ore deposits in the world, that's where she was so smart to not make our mistake, and her scathing advice is so informed and useful. The annoying bit is that you obviously discount the opinions of self made billionaires such as Clive Palmer who also agree with me on this, as I said that's how proponents of this fantastical reality-detachment ideology always operate) |
06:36pm 31/10/12 Permalink
It's right here, it's not that hard to understand what I'm talking about. Keep trying, eventually you will grasp it. :P I've read the thread and myself and others have asked numerous clarifying questions on where you stand, but you tend to avoid the questions and then post another wall of text on a tangent. If you don't have ideas or want to put any forward on how to alleviate the worlds economic problems, it's ok. Complaining about the state of affairs can give the impression that you have proposals in mind. If you simply want to indulge in a bit of whinging about entitled rich people Nerf, there's nothing to be ashamed about. Embrace it! |
07:18pm 31/10/12 Permalink
whinging about entitled rich people What is wrong with you? You keep sneering at me for not defending these two dimensional things which have nothing to do with what I've said? It seems that I may have upset the smug ideologues by pointing out how little their bulls*** holds up to a little criticism from reality. I keep clarifying what my position is, and then you guys keep going back to trying to say that I'm talking about something else (apparently saying that people like infi who are insulting many hard working people are full of s*** leads to you interrogating me on why I haven't also put forward an economic policy? As if you're dodging the point and trying to pin me on something completely different?) |
07:23pm 31/10/12 Permalink
That's what I'm seeing.
I also see this:
a) Rich people are spruiking bulls***, got it. b) Poor people are having to rely on rich people more and that's bad for everyone, got it. If you're not just having a whinge, then what do you propose we as a society do about these two problems? I'm not trying to pin you, I'm just asking a question. |
07:34pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Well that was about why I had posted the graph as infi kept trying to claim was about something annoyingly ridiculous, not what I was talking about in the rest of the thread, in relation to Romney-like views built on delusions, and the people who vote for them.
If you're not just having a whinge, then what do you propose we as a society do about these two problems? I've already said, stand up to their delusional bulls*** and call it out every time that they try to preach it, it's a huge political movement which just needs some dissenting voices. They've been misleading tons of people with their propaganda, I'd bet that half the of the passionate people in the tea party movement would switch the direction of their rage if they understood the breakdown of merit and handouts as I have come to. |
08:06pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Nerfy's view of the world reminds me a lot of Michael Moore: he loves to hate on people who are in his eyes making too much money. He doesn't mind making a bit of cashola himself though.
Nerfy still hasn't answered his views on hereditary passing of wealth. Since it is so offensive should it be legislated against? Should is be redistributed to more "needy" people? |
11:19pm 31/10/12 Permalink
Nerfy's view of the world reminds me a lot of Michael Moore: he loves to hate on people who are in his eyes making too much money. He doesn't mind making a bit of cashola himself though. It's pretty funny watching infi completely ignore everything Nerf says and just repeating the same bulls*** over and over. Though I suspect that's partly Nerf's fault for being so long winded and emotional all the time. As far as I understand it infi: - he doesn't have a problem with people making money at all, even f***loads of it! - he has a problem with people who make money from a privileged starting position of unearned capital claiming that people who haven't had the same privileged start are just lazy or haven't tried hard enough (whereas it's entirely possible that less privileged people have worked as hard or harder and just not had the capital to back it up). Or at least that's how I understand it from the vague skimming I've been doing. |
01:08am 01/11/12 Permalink
- he has a problem with people who make money from a privileged starting position of unearned capital claiming that people who haven't had the same privileged start are just lazy or haven't tried hard enough 1. that's a very specific point that has nothing to do with the graphs he has being posting. those cite an inequality which by implication he is alluding needs to be addressed. 2. it is a logically flawed point because its truth is reliant on the financial position of the subject. the laziness or otherwise of someone is not dependent on the wealth of the subject. |
01:24am 01/11/12 Permalink
A Nerfy Lord Halloween: Totally unsurprising video showing how children – by far the most selfish of people with no concern for the affairs of anyone but themselves – act in a very similar way to the Republican point of view. |
01:27am 01/11/12 Permalink
Yeah that's kind of the conclusion I came to from Nerfy's points.
Agree Infi is being a bit of illogical debater, oh you! he has a problem with people who make money from a privileged starting position of unearned capital claiming that people who haven't had the same privileged start are just lazy or haven't tried hard enough I think what he's really against is the people who do this and also abuse their position of privilege, e.g. being trusted with the 'trickle down' theory responsibility and waste it by furthering their own interests and not the economy/society at large. People that don't do this, and instead work hard with their privilege and don't actively seek to push the poor further into poverty are fantastic. At least this is how I see it and I agree with this; rich people who just increase their own wealth and actively detriment the economy/society are the problem, certainly when we're applying a 'trickle down' theory en-mass!! |
01:28am 01/11/12 Permalink
2. it is a logically flawed point because its truth is reliant on the financial position of the subject. the laziness or otherwise of someone is not dependent on the wealth of the subject.Isn't that his exact point though? That it is logically flawed? I think what he's really against is the people who do this and also abuse their position of privilege, e.g. being trusted with the 'trickle down' theory responsibility and waste it by furthering their own interests and not the economy/society at large. People that don't do this, and instead work hard with their privilege and don't actively seek to push the poor further into poverty are fantastic.Ah, that makes more sense, I don't think I read far enough into the thread to get to that. |
01:28am 01/11/12 Permalink
OK Nerf Lord (lol Lord, you know what the word means right? irony++) Anyway, Spidz mentioned a very well balanced point. These people did work hard. Rhino didn't need to do any work what-so-ever to live a lavish lifestyle. She chose to work and build her fortune up. Sure she didn't have to break ground with a pick axe, instead she did other stuff. Stuff you and I probably have no idea how to do. Yes the iron ore prices went up nicely. She jumped on the opportunity afforded to her, Lazy people tend not to do that. Anyway, your opinion is obviously set in stone and nothing will change it at all. So good day to you sir, may fortune prick you and you be open minded enough to see it. |
08:58am 01/11/12 Permalink
Yes the iron ore prices went up nicely. She jumped on the opportunity afforded to her How clever of her! To have the largest iron deposit in the world and sell it when iron ore prices went up. We should take notes, since we're all clearly such impossibly moronic people to not do that. Lazy people tend not to do that. You've drank too much of the ideological koolaid dude. 'Lazy people' all had the equivalent of the world's largest iron ore deposit and leading australian mining company which they just failed to make use of, am I right? All those teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, cleaners, small business owners, etc, don't work as hard as Gina, that's the significant explanation for the difference in their outcomes. /s Why is it so hard for some of you to grasp the simple reality that the world is not fair? Why do you have to pretend that it is and put down so many people? instead she did other stuff. Stuff you and I probably have no idea how to do. Worship her 'rich therefore obviously better' nature more. You'll notice that real self made innovators never stop creating new companies in a huge number of areas, e.g. Elon Musk with PayPal/SpaceX/Tesla, Steven Jobs with Apple/Pixer/Smart Phones/etc, Richard Branson with his line from music to space, Bill Gates from Software to Vaccines to Nuclear Energy, Clive Palmer from Real Estate to Coal Mining. Now Gina, who had a full company given to her with the largest iron deposit in the world already owned, who may have had some work to do (don't we all?), with a fleet of advisers, capital, and top notch education, still has never founded a single company. Yeah, she's a shining example of entrepreneurialism, innovation, and hard work. |
09:43am 01/11/12 Permalink
AHAHAH Wow.
Teachers, doctors, nurses and engineers would find it hard to get through their degree if they are lazy. Cleaners are certainly not lazy, in fact most people pale in comparison to those that do night shift cleaning everyone's filthy workplaces. Small business owners cant afford to be lazy. ETC. When did I ever say the world is fair? The only thing fair about it is that you have just as much capacity as Gina to allow what thoughts pass through your mind (and thus shape your reality). You have assumed, more then once, incorrect information about supposedly derived from what I have written. You have inserted, incorrectly, entire philosophical points such as
Again, I stress I never said it was fair, nor implied it. In fact the whole idea of Family wealth is to get an 'unfair' advantage over those that don't do it. My question to you is (and more for you to think on then answer); If you so easily made incorrect and very large assumptions about what I believe, what other assumptions have you made about people and what they have done with their life? Just to get you started, you have made an awful lot of assumptions about Gina of which you seem to take as truth. Those assumptions you probably don't have the facts available to judge correctly. Yer Gina said some rubbish, stuff I don't agree on. However I would say she has worked plenty to build her fortune up from what was well kick started for her. So stop your whinging and get on with life, play the cards you have been dealt to their maximum. As I would hazard a guess that people in 3rd world countries look at people like you, like you look at people like Gina. O also,
Again, a false assumption, I never said she is better than anyone. Building up and keeping her fortunes doing whatever it is she does would certainly take skills that I do not have, just as much as she would have no clue how to do my job. If you think you can do the job of a CEO's of major multi-billion company than why the hell are you not doing that, it certainly pays better? |
10:48am 01/11/12 Permalink
I've already said, stand up to their delusional bulls*** and call it out every time that they try to preach it, it's a huge political movement which just needs some dissenting voices. They've been misleading tons of people with their propaganda, I'd bet that half the of the passionate people in the tea party movement would switch the direction of their rage if they understood the breakdown of merit and handouts as I have come to. What delusional bulls***? Rinehart is probably a dumb example, because she really does say some stupid s***, but as I said earlier there are thousands of mega wealthy people who haven't lifted a finger in their lives that we never hear from, yet you choose to point out the flaws of the very few who are politically active, happened to be extremely wealthy (often from a good capital starting point) and think their opinion is of no value. As obscene to you as Rinehart, or Twiggy Forrest, or even self made men like Clive Palmer and Nathan Tinkler are - their opinions are very relevant. These people control private enterprise that is currently driving an economy that would otherwise be in recession, they are not just creating wealth for themselves, they are also some of Australia's largest job creators and employers who are making average joes who can drive a truck very very wealthy, more specifically, those average joes are are prepared to work boody hard. Your narrow minded and niaive view of Rinehart is mind boggling. If it was so easy, everyone else would have done it. Nathan Tinkler started with nothing, yet he apparently made 'easy money' by buying mining leases? Rinehart didn't just inherit a bunch of iron ore deposits, sit there waiting for the price to go up and then start mining them. They involved in exploration, maintenance and negotiation of mining leases that could possibly be worth nothing, raising of capital to actually dig the stuff out of the ground, turning tenous leases into revenue producing mines rather than captial intensive leases. some of her mining tenements in Roy Hill were actually secured by her, not her father or anyone else. She personally negotiated the Hope Downs exploration agreeement with the WA state Govt, she applied for the Roy Hill tenement after Lang Hanc*** died and it was secured 2 years after his death. Same goes for the Alpha Coal Tenements in the Gaillee Basin, secured in 1996, 4 years after he fathers death. She is also Australia's largest charity donor, which would be expected given she is the wealthiest person by some margin. All those teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, cleaners, small business owners, etc, don't work as hard as Gina, that's the significant explanation for the difference in their outcomes. /s I highly doubt Rinehart or other billionaires have a problem with doctors, nurses, engineers, cleaners or successful small business operators. I think people have a problem with people sitting on the couch collecting the dole watching Foxtel on their 50" plasma, then whining about how much money the bloke enxt door has. Sometimes working hard does not equal success. You start a small business, work as hard as you like, but if its a dumb idea it aint going to fly. You should own that, no handouts for you. |
10:54am 01/11/12 Permalink
Teachers, doctors, nurses and engineers would find it hard to get through their degree if they are lazy. Cleaners are certainly not lazy, in fact most people pale in comparison to those that do night shift cleaning everyone's filthy workplaces. Small business owners cant afford to be lazy. ETC. Yer Gina said some rubbish, stuff I don't agree on. Good, so we agree. However I would say she has worked plenty to build her fortune up from what was well kick started for her. Here's where you're missing the point. Most everybody works hard, yet people like infi/rinehart/romney/etc are trying to build a political platform on the assumption that most people are lazy scum, on the assumption that their position is a reflection of their superior hard work over everybody else. To say that hard work is the main factor in gina rinehart's position, or even one worth mentioning, is delusional. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. If you think you can do the job of a CEO's of major multi-billion company than why the hell are you not doing that, it certainly pays better? Hey I'm trying to work towards just that. Are you now saying that people like Gina get to their positions by merit? :P re: Spidz As obscene to you as Rinehart, or Twiggy Forrest, or even self made men like Clive Palmer and Nathan Tinkler are - their opinions are very relevant. You haven't really been reading haven't you? I've specifically been quoting Palmer who agrees with me on this, and don't find him obscene for his wealth. The rest of your ideological spiel is so far off the point that I don't know how to deal with your reading comprehension. |
10:56am 01/11/12 Permalink
Nerf are you still feeling insulted by Gina Rinhart's poorly conceived and poorly worded talking head rant about Australia's global competitiveness from a few months back? She was discredited at the time for making stupid comparisons so we've all moved on.
|
11:01am 01/11/12 Permalink
Nerf are you still feeling insulted by Gina Rinhart's poorly conceived and poorly worded talking head rant about Australia's global competitiveness from a few months back. She was discredited at the time for making stupid comparisons so we've all moved on. Oh look, it's Dazhel thinking that he's being clever again while having no idea what anybody is talking about. Romney said his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." The best quote which I've seen on this is "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." All I'm asking is that people start listening to the real entrepreneurs, not the fakes who are ridiculously spiteful out of their naive fantasies of being self made, confusing their being wealthy with necessarily having been better and more hard working than everybody else, failing to recognise that they were born into it and have never done anything particularly outstanding themselves for their enormous opportunities. |
11:08am 01/11/12 Permalink
Again, the assumptions. I didn't say it was a main factor, I simply said she probably does work hard.
No, instead they maintain their positions by merit. Plenty of rich people have lost their entire wealth because they were stupid. edit:
Have you not seen the reaction by the majority of people who hear what is said about these 'fakes'? Particularly the stuff you have highlighted? The majority point and laugh, then move on. The media plays it up a bit because it sells. In fact, people like you who keep harping on about month old, stupid quotes keep those stories in headlines further increasing the unlikely chance that some more people will take it seriously. When if you just let it go, the quotes will fade into obscurity rather quickly. As The Simpson's parody goes:
last edited by Tollaz0r! at 11:16:35 01/Nov/12 |
11:10am 01/11/12 Permalink
Are you now saying that people like Gina get to their positions by meritNo, instead they maintain their positions by merit. Plenty of rich people have lost their entire wealth because they were stupid. That's not what you said. You challenged me to just go out and get the same, implying that these things are obtained on superior merit and non-laziness, not that many are born into the family who owns the company (the ones who I'm complaining about due to what they've been saying in public - as I've said a million times, I'm fine with the guys who get there on merit! Hell, they could lecture me if they started with a similar background, but they don't, because they're not naive and delusional about the real world). In fact, people like you who keep harping on about month old, stupid quotes keep those stories in headlines further increasing the unlikely chance that some more people will take it seriously. When if you just let it go, the quotes will fade into obscurity rather quickly. Da f***? Have you seen the US polls? Romney is a viable candidate for some unholy reason, when he has no grasp of reality or real wealth creation, and holds opposing views to seemingly all major entrepreneurs. |
11:17am 01/11/12 Permalink
Oh look, it's Dazhel thinking that he's being clever again while having no idea what anybody is talking about. Mate, I'm quite able to understand what everyone is talking about. I hope that you claiming I have no idea makes you feel superior though. |
11:52am 01/11/12 Permalink
Here's where you're missing the point. Most everybody works hard, yet people like infi/rinehart/romney/etc are trying to build a political platform on the assumption that most people are lazy scum, on the assumption that their position is a reflection of their superior hard work over everybody else. Are they? I don't believe they are at all, which is probably why I find it hard to follow your rants. Thats like saying that crazy republican senator is building a political platform based on the assumption that rape is ok and women shouldn't abort pregnancies that are a result of rape. He isn't doing anything of the sort, he's just a crazy f*****g idiot sho should be laughed at. It's not a political platform, it's his personal (and reprehensible) view. |
12:04pm 01/11/12 Permalink
Mate, I'm quite able to understand what everyone is talking about. I hope that you claiming I have no idea makes you feel superior though. So why did you post what you did? Not superior, just frustrated with the always-irrelevant sneering from a few on this board, and bored enough to ask you to stop. Are they? You serious? The difference is that he's not the presidential candidate representing the party's platform... |
12:49pm 01/11/12 Permalink
Romney said his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." and yet Romney is polling equal or ahead of Obama. Why do you think that is ? |
01:17pm 01/11/12 Permalink
implying that someone that inherited a capital base cannot be an entrepreneur. lol you do realise that if you become wealthy and gift your wealth to your children they will not (by your logic) be able to carry on your moral crusade. the merit of the argument has nothing to do with the wealth of the person putting the point. |
01:34pm 01/11/12 Permalink
So why did you post what you did? I'm trying to get to the crux of your argument. I understand to be a political argument: "don't listen to or vote for parties or individuals to the right of centre because they're uncaring/evil/insulting/crazy or any mix, listen to and vote for parties or individuals to the left of centre instead". The message is mixed in amongst a bunch of verbose replies and tangents filled with assumptions and generalisations and you keep telling me I'm wrong so I can't be sure. |
02:15pm 01/11/12 Permalink
implying that someone that inherited a capital base cannot be an entrepreneur. lol I did not. Bill Gates is a child of multi millionaires, and is in my list of top real entrepreneurs, because he's a real entrepreneur. I understand to be a political argument: "don't listen to or vote for parties or individuals to the right of centre because they're uncaring/evil/insulting/crazy or any mix, listen to and vote for parties or individuals to the left of centre instead". Nope, it's listen to the right wing, just not the naive pretenders, they're useless and harmful. Do you think that Barack Obama is not right wing? The self made capitalist trying to invest in entrepreneurial opportunities and move back towards merit instead of inheritance, as supported by most of the top capitalists? As I've said, you guys have drank too much the ideological koolaid, and are embarrassing the rest of us in 'the right wing'. |
02:16pm 01/11/12 Permalink
So it's not a political argument, simply "don't listen to these influential individuals because they're uncaring/evil/insulting/crazy or any mix".
I'm intrigued by your distinction between so called 'real entrepreneurs' and 'fake entrepreneurs' - is it their level of arrogance for the little people that demarcates the fake from the real? All of those mentioned in your lists are risking capital in order to build it. How do I spot the real ones from the fake ones? |
02:30pm 01/11/12 Permalink
So it's not a political argument, simply "don't listen to these influential individuals because they're uncaring/evil/insulting/crazy or any mix". I keep getting false hope that you're not going to straw man me with some position which I don't hold. I'm throwing me hands up, you guys are amazingly slippery. So keen to defend the viciously judgemental lying inheritors who claim that hard work and not their inheritance or protection from competing in the real world is the notable reason for them being where they are, and ignore all those who have actually built businesses from scratch and done amazingly well for it, such as Palmer, Gates, Buffett, Obama, etc. |
02:35pm 01/11/12 Permalink
Oops I'm wrong again.
Did you not effectively say earlier in the thread "don't listen to Romney, Rinehart, the Koch brothers and the Bush family because they're uncaring/evil/insulting/crazy or any mix"? I'm paraphrasing from the various charts and youtube videos but you did refer to them as being delusional, liars and Ayn Rand cultists. |
02:59pm 01/11/12 Permalink
"Uncaring/evil/insulting" is not a paraphrasing of "delusional, liars", and you know that. I'm uncaring/evil/insulting sometimes, but that has no effect on the value of my opinions, as opposed to those of delusional liars.
I'd have the exact same problem with lovey-dovey hippies who base their political assertions on some untruth about them having cured cancer with some herbal powder. |
05:14pm 01/11/12 Permalink
one thing nerfy, you can just write 'drank too much of the koolaid' you don't need the 'ideological' in there because your meaning is obvious from the context of your sentences/argument.
the metaphor of 'drinking the koolaid' itself refers to the holding of beliefs without critically questioning them anyway, so you don't need the superfluous adjective. to be honest, you could simplify your language a HELL of a lot and maybe then you wouldn't have so many people 'misunderstanding' you. |
05:21pm 01/11/12 Permalink
The Jonestown massacre was actually powered by flavoraid not koolaid so get it right people.
|
05:23pm 01/11/12 Permalink
A lot of people are understanding me and have said so, seems clear as day to me that the ideological ones are just being difficult and trying to find a way to pin me rather than answering the criticism of their ideology put forward. I've seen it before, criticizing religious assertions gets "you just hate god", it's ridiculous.
edit: Interesting to know fpot. ;) |
05:24pm 01/11/12 Permalink
Verbosity does not = intelligence, quite the opposite in fact
|
11:01am 02/11/12 Permalink
Verbosity does not = intelligence, quite the opposite in fact Still so slippery, trying to avoid the criticism and pin the speaker. Why not just answer the concerns? In other related news, Romney on 'secular' opposition to abortion. |
01:22pm 02/11/12 Permalink
Still so slippery, trying to avoid the criticism and pin the speaker. Why not just answer the concerns? I wasn't aware of your crticism of me, or any concerns? I haven't inherited any money and my parents are not wealthy, so presumably I am an acceptable human being |
01:42pm 02/11/12 Permalink
I wasn't aware of your crticism of me, or any concerns? The criticism wasn't of you, it was of the people who you're rushing to defend. As I said, my criticism isn't aimed at wealthy people or anybody who has inherited (Bill Gates is an inheritor for example), it's those who hold these raging judgemental inheritors up as examples of entrepreneurs while ignoring the definitely real entrepreneurs. Ah f*** it, you know this, and I don't know why I'm trying. |
02:12pm 02/11/12 Permalink
Still so slippery, trying to avoid the criticism and pin the speaker. omfg pot kettle black. you are a joke. |
02:30pm 02/11/12 Permalink
how can he be so strong about representing his churches position and claim he isnt running as a mormon
religious nutjob gonna have his finger on the nuclear trigger... |
05:29pm 02/11/12 Permalink
omfg pot kettle black. you are a joke. I'd be intrigued if you would attempt to explain your logic here, I want to understand what's going on in your head. |
06:28pm 02/11/12 Permalink
:O at that video nerf
mitt romney was a mormon, dum dum dum dum dum |
07:04pm 02/11/12 Permalink
If legit, seems like it belongs in the thread... 68% of Republican voters believe in demonic possession, yet only 48% understand climate change
|
07:40pm 02/11/12 Permalink
this encapsulates Obama for me. businesspeople don't create business, government creates business. also let's have a bit of Halloween candy redistribution: |
10:28pm 02/11/12 Permalink
this encapsulates Obama for me. businesspeople don't create business, government creates business. Way to miss the point. What he's saying is that if you are successful it is partly because other people helped you get there. He's stressing the importance of people of all classes and how we help each other as a community. If you were successful somebody along the line gave you some help |
10:41pm 02/11/12 Permalink
this encapsulates Obama for me. businesspeople don't create business, government creates business. Wait... You disagree with what he said there? You? Of all people? Really? Have you seen a psychologist about your inability to handle the most basic facts of reality? |
10:41pm 02/11/12 Permalink
this encapsulates Obama for me.this encapsulates this entire thread, people read what someone says then in their mind add their own spin to it, then reply to that. |
10:50pm 02/11/12 Permalink
this encapsulates Obama for me. businesspeople don't create business, government creates business.He didn't say government creates businesses, he said businesses make use of government infrastructure and services, so a business' success is not a result of an individual effort. |
11:15pm 02/11/12 Permalink
we all use oxygen as well, so do we credit oxygen?
|
11:31pm 02/11/12 Permalink
this encapsulates this entire thread, people read what someone says then in their mind add their own spin to it, then reply to that. ^ FTW Infi you couldn't be more wrong with the way you've interpreted/spun that Obama line about businesses. |
11:33pm 02/11/12 Permalink
Obama says that without the government infrastructure there would be no business in America. The infrastructure governments build is for the enjoyment of every individual whether they own a business or not. And more often than not business are being taxed up to their eyeballs, and also industry specific infrastructure attracts userpayys charges.
Saying business wouldn't exist without government infrasturcture is like a car manufacturer saying you car wouldn't go unless we included tyres in it. It's supposed to have f***en tyres! And plus I paid for tyres! |
11:38pm 02/11/12 Permalink
we all use oxygen as well, so do we credit oxygen?No, but most people know well enough to call anyone who says "Oxygen did nothing for me" an idiot. That doesn't seem to be true for business people who claim "The government did nothing for me". |
11:39pm 02/11/12 Permalink
That doesn't seem to be true for business people who claim "The government did nothing for me". It doesn't seem to be 'business people' so much as 'people who like to play pretend at being business people without ever actually having done much of significant merit', who have this problem with delusion which Obama is addressing. I presume that to succeed in business you'd require some ability to grasp reality and real numbers (e.g. recognising that the tax rate for the wealthy in the US is hovering around an all time low). |
11:53pm 02/11/12 Permalink
"You didnt build that" is exactly what The MRRT is.
Its Socialists searching for a new vein. |
12:30am 03/11/12 Permalink
@Infi That's all kind of right in an abstract way, however is contradicted by the state of play in America which Obama was replying to when he made that speech. That of the Republicans pushing for a reduction in Government, that Government is too big and needs to be reduced radically. That means cuts in spending, programmes and infrastructure. Thus Obama is making the case that the very infrastructure which would be cut has played a valuable part in enabling the success of businesses.
Furthermore the Obama government has introduced more tax cuts for small and medium businesses in his term then any in recent terms, and more then the Romney platform would. The Romney platform would increase tax cuts for the upper tier of large corporations and businesses, not the middle class businesses, and we know that it's some of those very corporations and wealthy individuals who have prevented the 'trickle down' theory from working. E.g. They outsource all their jobs to China. |
01:16am 03/11/12 Permalink
This has been yet another very revealing infi moment, brought to you by infi.
|
10:37am 03/11/12 Permalink
Back to the topic of the thread -
and politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/02/2126219/nonpartisan-tax-report-removed-after-republican-protest |
03:12pm 03/11/12 Permalink
lol i think i made a thread about that a few years ago.
I wonder what "you didnt build that" sounds like backwards ? |
03:20pm 03/11/12 Permalink
That Obama video would actually be kind of funny/cool except I know there is a legion of internet conspiracy retards out there who would actually think it has some kind of significance.
|
03:34pm 03/11/12 Permalink
it would be kind of cool if it wasn't so retarded
|
03:40pm 03/11/12 Permalink
That Obama video would actually be kind of funny/cool except I know there is a legion of internet conspiracy retards out there who would actually think it has some kind of significance. And a large chunk of the non-net using adults in any given pentecostal church, in my experience. |
03:48pm 03/11/12 Permalink
What happens if Obama and Romney end up with an equal number of votes ?
|
09:02pm 04/11/12 Permalink
There is a doco on SBS at 9:30 tonight about how Obama became president.
http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/by-the-people-the-election-of-barack-obama/index.html |
10:00pm 04/11/12 Permalink
Malcolm Turnbull, my current political darling until he does something terrible, had a mention of our favourite topic here - http://www.facebook.com/malcolmturnbull/posts/431763126890976
|
10:12pm 04/11/12 Permalink
05:00pm 05/11/12 Permalink
Wait who's stupid in that one, the people telling them not to leave.. or them for not just walking out anyway?
|
05:27pm 05/11/12 Permalink
...
keep on noobing.. nothing to see here. Man I wish we could just ditch this instead of just making people who don't matter financially secure. I have really hated this - I really don't know why I still do it. |
06:54pm 05/11/12 Permalink
... Koopz are you drunk? |
08:25pm 05/11/12 Permalink
apparently there are 9 hour lines in florida to vote. jebus.
|
09:49pm 05/11/12 Permalink
hows that work? official voting hasnt even started yet i dont think.
|
01:55am 06/11/12 Permalink
Some states have early voting, and if I remember what they were saying on CNN last night, I think the suggestion was that in state like Colorado more people will vote before election day than on election day.
That's also part of the reason that there is a sudden ad blitz in Pennsylvania (where I am). We apparently have very little early voting here, so ad money is being shifted from places where a lot of votes have already been cast, to places like here where the vast majority of votes are yet to be cast. |
02:28am 06/11/12 Permalink
Here are a couple of links about how many early votes have been cast in swing states:
Link (Note: Over here people can register a party affiliation, but that doesn't mean they have to vote for that party... so the affiliation numbers are an indicator, but not a true measure of who might be leading in early voting.) And this one looks at early voting and why you might suddenly start fighting for Pennsylvania now: Link |
02:38am 06/11/12 Permalink
apparently there are 9 hour lines in florida to vote. jebus. election day is tomorrow, but I'm impressed in a country with optional voting that people would bother waiting that long |
05:52am 06/11/12 Permalink
... koopz dont operate in the same planes as us |
07:42am 06/11/12 Permalink
Man looking at the shambles that is the voting system in the USA makes me feel better about our system. At least our politicians aren't trying to stop people voting and telling democrats to go vote in the complete opposite direction.
|
08:16am 06/11/12 Permalink
09:17am 06/11/12 Permalink
Romney is going to be the next President.
Its over for Obama the FoodStamp President. Yes we can ? No, he couldnt. |
11:59am 06/11/12 Permalink
If Romney wins it will suddenly suck even more to live in the USA.
|
12:01pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Go and live in the Bahamas with your money.
|
06:19pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Romney is going to be the next President. Haha, you can always tell when FaceMan starts stating things as absolute fact instead of speculation that it's his last ditch attempt to convince people of something that is far from clear. Good old predictable FaceMan. |
07:43pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Romney is going to be the next President. I kind of want him to win, just to see the world burn. |
08:41pm 06/11/12 Permalink
nice troll Raven Romney is no different to Obama on Abortion.
|
09:10pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Like the world isn't f***ed with any US president. In fact, the only way the world can not be f***ed is if there is no US at all!
TIme to bring back the Ottoman Empire and reconquer Europe! Yeah i said it a******* get s***ted on poof pluggers. |
09:16pm 06/11/12 Permalink
nice troll Raven Romney is no different to Obama on Abortion. ? Romney's position is that "abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life was in jeopardy", which sounds like what Raven was saying? |
09:17pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Uh-oh I found this on reddit:
Whoever wins the election will get to preside over a growing economy and look like a genius - http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/11/romney_obama_and_economics_the_economy_s_already_recovering_so_whoever_wins.html |
09:17pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Romney is no different to Obama on Abortion As is the case with every other issue, no one knows where Romney stands as he changes his position on a state by state basis. How this man is POTUS material I have no idea. How this is a "tight race" as the media calls it is also beyond me. The fact he wont release more than 2 years of his tax returns should scare the s*** out of everyone as that probably means there is something so bad in there, he can't explain it away and may even be illegal. |
09:23pm 06/11/12 Permalink
see: America's voting system is a disgrace
in short, having politicians in charge of the election system = bad |
09:44pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Romney is no different to Obama on Abortion. There's that "throw enough s*** at the wall and hope something sticks" strategy again. |
09:53pm 06/11/12 Permalink
This is nice:
In pictures: Obama and Romney through the years - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20075984 |
11:05pm 06/11/12 Permalink
Fox News Update:
Joe Biden has just Voted. But they arent sure who he voted for. |
11:20pm 06/11/12 Permalink
After all the worries of votes being tampered with due to poor quality of the machines, it seems one doesn't need to worry about it being done secretly ;)
|
08:40am 07/11/12 Permalink
touch screen isn't calibrated. I doubt they'd be that obvious nerf :P
|
09:18am 07/11/12 Permalink
Yeah I was joking, though apparently people reporting on it said that the candidate below obama selected fine...
|
09:21am 07/11/12 Permalink
On a side note, I was looking up the actual powers of the President and found the following article. The phrase "finger on the button" has been used in conjunction with the POTUS for as long as I can remember, but this article highlighted for me the fact that "the button" has been a very real, physical presence and not just a euphemism for the mandated power to unleash a nuclear attack. From the article:
"During their presidencies, both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan preferred to keep the launch codes in their jacket pocket.[6] On one occasion, Jimmy Carter left nuclear launch codes in his suit when it was sent in for dry cleaning.[7]" How the hell did we survive the 80's? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football PS Gobama |
09:48am 07/11/12 Permalink
live results from who else, ABC analyst Antony Green
the US has far too many states (please eliminate three) |
11:03am 07/11/12 Permalink
Good luck to the up to the second live feeds and anyone calling this one - US elections are stupidly complex and some are saying there might not be a result for weeks.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/files/original/florida_hanging_chad_recount.jpg |
11:22am 07/11/12 Permalink
270 needed
Obama = 78 Romney = 71 O'Reilly says Ohio will choose the President. |
12:12pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Bill O'Reilly says a lot of things.
I've got a few different blogs open + CNN on the TV. Fair bit of disparity between the numbers between who is reporting it. |
12:38pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Ohio
Obama = 57 Romney = 41 Southern Ohio areas yet to be counted, favour Rep. |
12:47pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Some blogs/dashboards I am keeping an eye on...
Independent Google Politics & Elections Politico Republican leaning Fox News Democart leaning The Guardian You'l see what I mean in terms of discrepancies in terms of numbers. For example, at the time I am typing this... Google - 76 v 64 for Romney Politico - 67 v 64 for Romney Fox News - 88 v 78 for Romney Guardian - 76 v 64 for Romney CNN - just went on an ad break, missed it. Different to the above numbers though. |
12:53pm 07/11/12 Permalink
CNN are making their prediction the Republicans will keep control of the Senate. So even if the Democrats win this election overall, I would assume they are still going to have the same s***fight to get anything passed in the senate that they have for the last 2 years.
|
01:10pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Sorry, I mean the house, not the senate.
|
01:10pm 07/11/12 Permalink
BBC says 153 Romney
Obama 123 Florida is less than 1% to Obama, Romney closing gap Ohio votes now leaning towards Romney closing gap BBC = most boring coverage CNN = better Fox News = good Fox has a rolling banner showing states 54 44 now in Ohio 30% counted Fox says 147 O 149 R 270 target |
01:16pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Of course you think Fox is great Faceman, its tuned to your demographic. The sooner this election is over the better really, than we can truly see how bad Romney can run their country and people regret putting him in.
|
01:29pm 07/11/12 Permalink
There is no question that the main issue, the economy, is going to show improvement either way. If Romney wins the interesting and sad thing will be seeing how much worse the country can get on social issues. Then of course there are the wars.
|
01:37pm 07/11/12 Permalink
1:25pm – Obama is leading comfortably in Colorado and Ohio. If he picks up those two states he is home. From http://www.tallyroom.com.au/ Fox news is so unbelievably bad it's almost funny. Obama campaign should have just run this as an ad saying this is what Romney voters are like, do you want to be one of them? http://youtu.be/nY0M7IdNl7U |
01:43pm 07/11/12 Permalink
lol @ that voting machine that turned obama votes into romney votes.
americans are f*****g idiots if romney wins. |
01:44pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Ohio
Obama 51 Romney now 47 thats gonna be close |
01:57pm 07/11/12 Permalink
If the positions were reversed and the democrats had been not only accused, but some people had been found screwing around with votes and leading a campaign of misinformation to stop republicans from voting, can you imagine the s****torm the right would whip up over it? Where is the outrage over all the sleazy tactics the right is using to try and win?
|
01:58pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Can someone please explain to me how MSNBC, CNN and Fox have all called Wisconson for Obama even though he's down 46% to Romneys 53%, and only 10% of the votes are in?
Either way, looks like Romney lost Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania (by a lot), Michigan and New Mexico, of the ones that weren't clear or were thought to be Red states. Down overall at this very moment but it's looking encouraging, I count 259 votes without Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Iowa and Minnesota. Minnesota and one other state will keep the White House black. |
02:00pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Can someone please explain to me how MSNBC, CNN and Fox have all called Wisconson for Obama even though he's down 46% to Romneys 53%, and only 10% of the votes are in? prolly based on counties that usually vote democratic not having reported yet |
02:05pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Wow Bill O'reily, you are hilarious. Can understand why Faceman finds it exciting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/us-election-2012-results-live-blog This evening on Fox News, long-time anchor Bill O'Reilly, explaining why Obama was doing better in the voting than he anticipated, unleashed one of the most nakedly racist outbursts heard on national television by a prominent commentator. After first claiming that "50 percent of the people... want stuff" and thus vote for Obama because he gives it to them, O'Reilly added: |
02:06pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Obama campaign should have just run this as an ad saying this is what Romney voters are like, do you want to be one of them? They personally believe US Americans should vote for Mitt Romney because some people in the nation don't have maps and that their education like such as South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and they should our education in the US should help the US or should help South Africa and the Iraq and the asian countries and because he will be able to build up our future. |
02:24pm 07/11/12 Permalink
They personally believe US Americans should vote for Mitt Romney because some people in the nation don't have maps and that their education like such as South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and they should our education in the US should help the US or should help South Africa and the Iraq and the asian countries and because he will be able to build up our future. Hey, at least it wasn't as painful to read as it was to watch. |
02:48pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Its all over according to Fox News.
Ohio 50 - 49 Jeb Bush has surrendered Florida too Its over. Literally for America. |
03:16pm 07/11/12 Permalink
why faceman? Because Fox news says so matey. |
03:23pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Things basically stay the same Politically so nothing is going to change Economy-wise.
Too many ppl will be on welfare in 2016. They wont vote away their benefits. Romney got very close, Bush or Christie could have won. karl Rove says Obama is only 900 votes ahead in Ohio HOLD THE PHONES IT AINT OVER |
03:27pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Things basically stay the same Politically so nothing is going to change Economy-wise. Its okay Faceman, your backwards thinking Republican won't be in charge of an entire country so we can all relax. |
03:28pm 07/11/12 Permalink
03:29pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Totally the most approiate video on YouTube right now:
karl Rove says Obama is only 900 votes ahead in Ohio Oh Karl Rove says, that must make it true then. OR, you take the exact opposite of whatever Karl Rove says. I count 30,000. last edited by Raven at 15:38:03 07/Nov/12 |
03:36pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Everything is proceeding as Governor Christie has foreseen...ha ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
|
03:50pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Thank f*** for that.
Suck it Mormon! |
04:21pm 07/11/12 Permalink
someone's mad. from donald trumps twitter:
This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy! i bet he would be saying the exact opposite if romney had won. |
04:36pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Anyone got any polls for Clinton vs Christie 2016, not far off now
|
04:37pm 07/11/12 Permalink
news.com.au says Obama won, so it must be true
So is this future Korean City proposed which is also on their front page http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/11/07/1226512/242234-8city.jpg |
04:46pm 07/11/12 Permalink
I have strong regrets for clicking on Donald Trump's twitter link.
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7710/jesuschristp.png Why do I get the feeling that if I look at his bio I'm going to find that he's yet another person who didn't really build their business while acting like god's sent example to the lazy masses? |
04:50pm 07/11/12 Permalink
United we stand, divided, go f*** yourself. About sums up the right.
|
05:05pm 07/11/12 Permalink
geez after all that campaigning they get a result quickly.
|
05:06pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Why do I get the feeling that if I look at his bio I'm going to find that he's yet another person who didn't really build their business while acting like god's sent example to the lazy masses? Ahh jesus, I'm becoming too good at picking them. Trump is the son of Fred Trump, a wealthy New York City real-estate developer.[9] He worked for his father's firm, Elizabeth Trump & Son, while attending the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1968 officially joined the company.[10] He was given control of the company in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization. |
05:21pm 07/11/12 Permalink
hasn't trump gone bankrupt a few times?
|
05:23pm 07/11/12 Permalink
I have strong regrets for clicking on Donald Trump's twitter link.Obviously insane, but isn't he making a point about the electoral college/popular vote not aligning, i.e. you can have only 45% of the people vote you in but still win. And if so, the same thing happens in Australia, and has happened in the past in the u.s. and the side on the wrong end always cries about it, so he isn't alone. |
05:26pm 07/11/12 Permalink
yay, the good guy won, democracy works!
|
05:28pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Obviously insane, but isn't he making a point about the electoral college/popular vote not aligning, i.e. you can have only 45% of the people vote you in but still win.And if so, the same thing happens in Australia, and has happened in the past in the u.s. and the side on the wrong end always cries about it, so he isn't alone. I'm aware of that, but Obama won the popular vote last I saw, and that was only the topic of one of his many posts... Can we not do that s*** again please Nerfy? What? Talk about stupid republicans in the stupid republicans thread? :/ |
05:30pm 07/11/12 Permalink
no way, after all the rigging and money spent, even romney cant win
|
06:28pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Well the thread title proved correct.
|
06:43pm 07/11/12 Permalink
the good thing is when dems are in office they can help fix education.. and the more people that are educated.. the more that will vote democrat..
win win |
07:15pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Literally the truest and best thing you have ever said on here Superform.
|
07:24pm 07/11/12 Permalink
FaceMan said:
Romney is going to be the next President. I said: lol |
07:29pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Waiting for faceman to be wrong is as expected and inevitable as the rising of the sun.
|
07:38pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Don't say that, it means that in about 5 billion years FaceMan will be right about something :(
Also lol at Trump's major sore-loser outburst. I guess he's just upset that his blowing the lid on the massive, shocking "bombshell" news that a long time ago the Obamas had marital issues then resolved them didn't actually "change the course of the election" after all. |
08:36pm 07/11/12 Permalink
So relieved to see Obama win, pretty decisive win too.. though it is a close popular vote.
Check out the Fox News meltdown! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/5-amazing-fox-news-freak-outs-karl-rove-megyn-kelly-bill-o-reilly-and-more.html |
09:02pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Viper - the link you posted is bizarre. Some of the descriptions of the videos aren't accurate at all (the last Megan Kelly one for example). And the Karl Rove 'freakout' seems to be a beat up - I could understand the point he was making and he was very gracious and accepting he could be wrong. Bizarre.
|
11:12pm 07/11/12 Permalink
Yeah I think they got a bit carried away with that post.
Check these tweets from angry republicans for better hilarity. This is a decent opinion piece - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/06/a-thrashing.html |
12:22am 08/11/12 Permalink
Yeah I think they got a bit carried away with that post.Check these tweets from angry republicans for better hilarity.Bahaha: http://i50.tinypic.com/15wh4eh.png This is a decent opinion piece - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/06/a-thrashing.htmlThe biggest point I agree with in that article is regarding how far right the Republican Party has moved in the last 20 or so years. From what I've read it seems back in the Reagan era they were a lot more tolerant and not so pushy with their ideals. These days they come across as a really crazy-religious extremely conservative party and in today's age the majority of people understand how alienating that is to pretty much any demographic besides white males. |
12:40am 08/11/12 Permalink
$1 trillion+ deficit every year. Keep em comin. Obama is not solely to blame, congress have their head their asses too.
|
12:56am 08/11/12 Permalink
Yeah, seems like the $2 billion total spent on both sides of the election campaign itself could have also been better spent elsewhere.
|
01:09am 08/11/12 Permalink
Haha, quality from Conan. No more house cats in Kentucky!
http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-conans-state-by-state-election-results |
01:26am 08/11/12 Permalink
$1 trillion+ deficit every year. Keep em comin. Obama is not solely to blame, congress have their head their asses too. yer, im sure thats not going to be the case. but anyway even if it is, sometimes you have to spend money to make things better. |
06:10am 08/11/12 Permalink
Not to sure what conservatives are complaining about, they still have a right wing christian in charge.
|
08:00am 08/11/12 Permalink
The US Stock Exchange seemed rather upset at Obama winning, it went down a big 313 points, usually a move of 150ish is considered big.
Our exchange is going to be hammered this morning hehe |
08:04am 08/11/12 Permalink
Wonder how large of a drop Romney would have caused for the US Stock Exchange...
|
09:10am 08/11/12 Permalink
Not to sure what conservatives are complaining about, they still have a right wing christian in charge. exactly! I like this one going around the twitterverse http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii543/iamnotpeterpan/683702911.jpg |
10:31am 08/11/12 Permalink
haha spidz we aussies are almost as socialist as the UK. the US are so free they don't realise how good they have it even under Obama.
|
10:36am 08/11/12 Permalink
All of those things in spidz's image are good things infi. Well, they are good things unless you are retarded.
|
12:40pm 08/11/12 Permalink
'Freedom' must have two definitions, the one employed by the modern right wing seems to mean being able to take away freedom from women, homosexuals, people who want to live safely, freedom from the threat of being destroyed by solvable health concerns for those not born into money, etc.
|
01:19pm 08/11/12 Permalink
Or like the right-wing f***wits here - after the community has campaigned for years to upgrade the emergency section at the Wynnum Hospital, the LNP psychophants after what they say was "consulting the community" a code for telling the community to get stuffed, closes the hospital altogether and the nearby nursing home is also being closed. Why bother consultng us if you DON'T EVEN LISTEN.
This is after Symes campaigned in the last state election on upgrading it. My takes is Slymie, I mean Symes, will be a one term a*******. Especially after his copout wimpy statement on the above matter in the local rag and the renege on the overpass at Lindum crossing. Pack of lying right-wing a*******s. last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 15:23:14 08/Nov/12 |
03:20pm 08/11/12 Permalink
God tried his best by tossing a hurricane at polling booths in left leaning states and Romney still lost. What more could they ask for?
|
06:23pm 08/11/12 Permalink
australia is turning into a police state though..
|
06:28pm 08/11/12 Permalink
australia is turning into a police state though..welp! he is retarded again! :P |
10:07pm 08/11/12 Permalink
All of those things in spidz's image are good things infi. nearly all of them, I remain on the fence about compulsory voting. |
10:25pm 08/11/12 Permalink
i look forward to the latest south park episode, because the 2008 election episode was awesome
http://i.imgur.com/POrxT.jpg |
10:33pm 08/11/12 Permalink
2012 election episode did not disappoint |
10:37pm 08/11/12 Permalink
nearly all of them, I remain on the fence about compulsory voting.I was almost going to edit my post to say that but then I couldn't be bothered. To be honest I am totally neutral on it I will always vote regardless and people can just donkey vote if they really don't feel like voting. Sucks that they have to go to the polling booth, though. |
11:10pm 08/11/12 Permalink
Sucks that they have to go to the polling booth, though. Postal vote. ez. |
11:34pm 08/11/12 Permalink
12:01am 09/11/12 Permalink
That infographic just seems like a bit of a Republican ploy to try to undermine Obama's victory, according to the list here voter turnout in the US has been higher now than many occasions over the last 100 years.
That said I'm all for compulsory voting, as others have said you can quite easily vote informally if you really don't want to give your opinion. Having to leave your house once every few years to help decide the leader of the nation seems like a pretty small price to pay for having all the benefits of being a citizen. Or yeah, just postal vote. |
12:26am 09/11/12 Permalink
That infographic just seems like a bit of a Republican ploy to try to undermine Obama's victory Agreed. If 5/10 people didnt vote, then chances are most of them really dont give a f***. So instead of 3/10 approving of obama's actions, its actually 2/10 dont approve of his actions. I donkey vote. Does that mean i disagree with what julia does? No. I really dont give a f***. Misrepresenting stats, nice. |
12:35am 09/11/12 Permalink
there hasn't been greater than 60% turnout since 1968 and then back to the turn of the century for 70% or greater. further, while there was a slightly lower turnout than the 2008 general, it will still have been the biggest % voter turnout since that 1968 figure.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Voter_turnout.png/800px-Voter_turnout.png turnout has clearly been increasing over recent elections. the drop in this election could be partly attributed to excessive waiting times due to faulty machines or other reasons, coupled with those affected by the storm who either didn't have time to vote or were unable due to access. given all of this, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a lack of confidence in presidential candidates resulted in a below average voter turnout. |
12:40am 09/11/12 Permalink
of course, the most highly regarded opinions should be of those too uninformed, uninterested or stupid to vote.
|
01:17am 09/11/12 Permalink
Didn't Vote should be President. Completely false logic. No one actively picked Didn't Vote (which is a group of statuses including such things as people who passively chose to not vote, and those who weren't able to vote for any number of reasons) it was just the highest percentage out of the classifications of voting for Obama, Romney, Other or not voting. Plus they're not mutually exclusive, you can't support both Obama and Romney to be president but you can support Obama to be president and not vote. Not to mention the bit where it says only 3 out of 10 will have given their approval to the policies and wars carried out in America's name, which gives the totally false impression that if you voted for a candidate it means that you automatically approve of every decision they make during their term. And let's not ignore the fact that you're just butthurt because Obama won. You would never have brought any of this up if your poster boy Romney had won. |
01:26am 09/11/12 Permalink
And let's not ignore the fact that you're just butthurt because Obama won. You would never have brought any of this up if your poster boy Romney had won. Yeah, loving this Faceman rage. QQ moar. |
01:36am 09/11/12 Permalink
"didn't vote" is a tacit acceptance of the status quo so yeah, obama
|
03:38am 09/11/12 Permalink
If Nathan Lyon fails in this test series, I'd be confident FaceMan will be in contention as Australia's best spin prospect.
|
08:07am 09/11/12 Permalink
This is a great site for voter turnouts.
Australia in 2010 was 93% with only 5.6% invalid votes. (Donkey votes?) UK doesn't have compulsory voting and is normally high, 70-80% but has decreased in recent years to 60% |
08:19am 09/11/12 Permalink
even though I really really dislike Julia Gillard, this is why its at least nice to have an Atheist in office
http://www.news.com.au/national/officer-challenges-nsw-premier-for-inquiry/story-fndo4eg9-1226513383011 (apologies for linking news dawt com) |
09:18am 09/11/12 Permalink
Australia in 2010 was 93% with only 5.6% invalid votes. (Donkey votes?)That's me in that statistic! i put down Islam with a big number 1 against it but somehow i don't think Islam won the election. Until next time Australia, until next time.. |
10:11am 09/11/12 Permalink
donkey votes are counted - they're just 1, 2, 3, etc
invalid votes are where someone put islam or drew a wang on their vote |
10:39am 09/11/12 Permalink
The Stock market seems pretty upset with Obama winning too.
|
02:15pm 09/11/12 Permalink
02:42pm 09/11/12 Permalink
The stock market is worried that government spending will go down Faceman, they must be communists. ;)
|
02:44pm 09/11/12 Permalink
03:03pm 09/11/12 Permalink
03:10pm 09/11/12 Permalink
That Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow posted this on the facebooks, which fits in line with the title of the thread really...
http://i.imgur.com/g5uCk.jpg |
03:35pm 09/11/12 Permalink
Heh 'college education'. Their 'education' isn't about being smarter, it's about colleges indoctrinating students with a liberal bias. Hollywood does the same thing. People who live in the real world and have real world experience know that we live in a reality and need a government who can deal with real world issues.
|
04:00pm 09/11/12 Permalink
Says it all really. although in those other cases the democrats were the ones upholding slavery and racial segregation. The republicans are capable of good things, but everyone tends to forget that in this age of demonising your opponent. |
04:01pm 09/11/12 Permalink
New republicans != old republicans.
|
04:12pm 09/11/12 Permalink
although in those other cases the democrats were the ones upholding slavery and racial segregation. The republicans are capable of good things, but everyone tends to forget that in this age of demonising your opponent. If you have a hammer called Democrat and a hammer called Republican and you swap the handle on both hammers and then you swap the heads of both hammers, you don't actually pretend that the hammer you called Democrat is the still the same as it is now and the same with the Republican hammer. |
04:13pm 09/11/12 Permalink
