Page 10 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7891011121320 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 367
  1. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoooter
    A lot of these jobs aren't coming back, ever. We might lose 2 billion of them in the next 20 years. Eventually just about every job is going to disappear.

    As a society we have to come up with a better means of judging a person's worth than the scale, scope, and persistence of the menial drudgery they toil away at day after day.

    "Job creators" are mostly a myth, job destroyers are leading the way. And ultimately it's a good thing.

    The thing is, if your job is eliminated bc a machine can do it or someone overseas will do it cheaper, that typically means some fat cat in America is making his biz more viable by eliminating your salary.

    But it also means that product or service becomes more cheaply available to everyone who wants it. and if people want it, its obviosly a good business.

    So your job has been eliminated. but somebody's still making money at that company, and plenty of people throughout the country are still makin money. so figure out what they want to spend their money on, and go provide it. so many people in the USA just wait to be handed a job by the government, either directly or indirectly, and if they dont they complain and demand politicians who are more left wing. there are so many options of things you can do in exchange for money, especially if you have had the sense to develop a few skills over the course of your life.

    but unfortunately too many people in the middle of nowhere places just drop out and smoke meth in their folks basement, and too many people in urban places name their kids shawniqua and latrondel and dont even teach them how to speak english, and all these people end up having to be provided for. food stamps, health care, education for dey keyids. how can they work when they literally have no value?? america tolerates the white people who do it out in the boondocks bc nobody really sees it, and they tolerate the black people who do it in the city bc they're afraid to "come down on" minorities. but its gonna be the ruin of america. there are so many people out there right now in generation x, and even more following them in generation y who are going to be ill equipped to be useful in the years ahead. and they're going to require massive government support. its gonna be ugly yall.

    things fall apart. it happened to rome. its going to happen to america, because there arent enough people who will stand up for important things and have the guts to see them through. to get America back on the right track would require drawing a bold line in teh sand and having the balls to enforce it. and in a politically correct climate as Americas, it just probably will never happen. The ship will sink slow.

  2. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinNYC
    I'm a part time political junkie and a full time site specific textile artist.

    Ah, cool stuff

  3. #138
    NBA Legend Jailblazers7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,698

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Not vetoing the reduction of air traffic delays was a mistake by Obama. Other than that I didnt care much for that piece but I understand why people who dislike Obama would enjoy it.

  4. #139
    Perfectly Calm, Dude KevinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    10,990

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolball#52
    Ah, cool stuff
    Not the response I was expecting. Here's the original time we discussed my job.

  5. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jailblazers7
    Not vetoing the reduction of air traffic delays was a mistake by Obama. Other than that I didnt care much for that piece but I understand why people who dislike Obama would enjoy it.

    Too many people are caught up in the politics of the president. 80% of what the president does whether hes a republican or democrat is just posturing. its a dog and pony show for his "base". during obamas first term, he maintained war and occupation in the middle east, then extended the bush tax cuts. as re-election drew near and it was time to blast some rhetoric for his base full of dum-dums, he started claiming that the rich need to pay more, the taxes should be higher, troops will be coming home soon etc.etc. Then once he secured re-election he agreed that corporate taxes need to be lowered (which is true but contrary to his election message) and the occupation in the middle east continues on.


    Oh but he did turn around his stance on gay marriage. that was a nice little "here a bone for you, base" move. he implemented obamacare which I ultimately think is doomed to fail and be repealed but by passing it at least it makes it look like they tried to do something the left really wants.

    Bc the thing is, the people in washington dont personally have the same fundamental difference of opinion as people think they do. they're mostly all well educated, successful, of the same generation, etc. etc. and they generally agree on whats best for America. most of the arguing is just simply a show in order to keep their repping whatever district or state they do. but the crucial decisions that really shape americas future, are going to be agreed on behind closed doors and put into place, and it doesnt matter how which R or D is in what office. They'll just pretend there's a whole bunch of battling and bickering.


    Ppl need to stop playing tug of war with each other about the presidents reputaiton. they did it during bush, they're doing it during obama, and not even realizing its the same essential presidency. WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS. not enough people seem to want to take the time to think about major issues and come up with their own perspective methinks. as someone said, they just wanna sit back and eat popcorn, and occasionally jump in for their side. its just nonstop fighting.

    there are actual objective truths that everyone should agree on. hard work and being responsible for your children are two things america should demand from every citizen and not be flexible on except under very mitigating circumstances. low tax rates should be the norm, there is no justification for the government to spend its own peoples money unnecessarily or for political gain. all these debates taht often center around religion, such as abortion etc. should be left up to the states. let the people decide which laws they want in their own locality. this stuff shouldnt even be brought up in presidential debates.

    i dont know why Americans dont demand more pragmatism and far less bullshit. i guess everyone thinks its fun to watch keith olberman fight with bill oreilly, and they're too stupid or dont have the confidence to speak up on their own and say wait a minute, neither of these guys are right.
    Last edited by OldSkoolball#52; 05-07-2013 at 12:03 AM.

  6. #141
    rank sentamentalist
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    goodbyecruelworld
    Posts
    16,522

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    i dont know why Americans dont demand more pragmatism and far less bullshit
    because they have no idea whats going on

  7. #142
    Perfectly Calm, Dude KevinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    10,990

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolball#52
    Too many people are caught up in the politics of the president. 80% of what the president does whether hes a republican or democrat is just posturing. its a dog and pony show for his "base". during obamas first term, he maintained war and occupation in the middle east, then extended the bush tax cuts. as re-election drew near and it was time to blast some rhetoric for his base full of dum-dums, he started claiming that the rich need to pay more, the taxes should be higher, troops will be coming home soon etc.etc. Then once he secured re-election he agreed that corporate taxes need to be lowered (which is true but contrary to his election message) and the occupation in the middle east continues on.


    Oh but he did turn around his stance on gay marriage. that was a nice little "here a bone for you, base" move. he implemented obamacare which I ultimately think is doomed to fail and be repealed but by passing it at least it makes it look like they tried to do something the left really wants.

    Bc the thing is, the people in washington dont personally have the same fundamental difference of opinion as people think they do. they're mostly all well educated, successful, of the same generation, etc. etc. and they generally agree on whats best for America. most of the arguing is just simply a show in order to keep their repping whatever district or state they do. but the crucial decisions that really shape americas future, are going to be agreed on behind closed doors and put into place, and it doesnt matter how which R or D is in what office. They'll just pretend there's a whole bunch of battling and bickering.


    Ppl need to stop playing tug of war with each other about the presidents reputaiton. they did it during bush, they're doing it during obama, and not even realizing its the same essential presidency. WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS. not enough people seem to want to take the time to think about major issues and come up with their own perspective methinks. as someone said, they just wanna sit back and eat popcorn, and occasionally jump in for their side. its just nonstop fighting.

    there are actual objective truths that everyone should agree on. hard work and being responsible for your children are two things america should demand from every citizen and not be flexible on except under very mitigating circumstances. low tax rates should be the norm, there is no justification for the government to spend its own peoples money unnecessarily or for political gain. all these debates taht often center around religion, such as abortion etc. should be left up to the states. let the people decide which laws they want in their own locality. this stuff shouldnt even be brought up in presidential debates.

    i dont know why Americans dont demand more pragmatism and far less bullshit. i guess everyone thinks its fun to watch keith olberman fight with bill oreilly, and they're too stupid or dont have the confidence to speak up on their own and say wait a minute, neither of these guys are right.
    Not everyone shares your sense of "pragmatism." People have disagreements, hence politics. Also what cable package do you have where you watch Keith Olbermann.

  8. #143
    NBA Legend Jailblazers7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,698

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    I think you are taking some liberties with what you consider an "objective truth." Sure, individual and family responsibility is something I'm sure everyone can agree on as true but once you get into tax rates and other policy questions that becomes much more complex. One problem with the government is the spending that occurs but the fact that little is ever done to evaluate the performance of government programs. Nobody really wants to know how well the money is being spent because then they couldn't base their arguments on vague ideological positions.

    Pragmatism works in some instances but in other it isn't something either group is interested in. For example, gay rights and abortion aren't subjects that either side is particularly interested in pursuing a pragmatic solution.

    I try to always approach things from a policy perspective, which is why I tend to avoid opinion based media. It is very easy to get sucked into the emotion fueled melodrama constantly being played out.

  9. #144
    rank sentamentalist
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    goodbyecruelworld
    Posts
    16,522

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    i think pro-choice and civil liberties for all are absolutely pragmatic choices. they just happen to be principled on the side. or maybe it's the other way around. lol

  10. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinNYC
    Not everyone shares your sense of "pragmatism." People have disagreements, hence politics. Also what cable package do you have where you watch Keith Olbermann.

    Hence the tenuous position of America.

  11. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jailblazers7
    Pragmatism works in some instances but in other it isn't something either group is interested in. For example, gay rights and abortion aren't subjects that either side is particularly interested in pursuing a pragmatic solution.

    Well yes of course a lot of it is opinion, its hard to argue any policy is factually the best. but where the two party machines are on each side of the spectrum is purposely farther apart than what actually makes sense. its designed to force you to make a commitment to being on one party's side, which by design is so far away from the other that you won't stray. theres no actual point to having republicans and democrats except that it makes it easier on people who dont have the capacity to judge ideas for themselves. they basically need to be spoon fed their ideas and talking points so they can participate in the discussion and feel like they have a clue.

    as far as a practical approach to gay marriage, i'll tell you what my objective philosophy is. i accept homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals. i dont judge anyone based on their sexuality. i do feel that marriage as an institution evolved as a contract specifically tailored to opposite sex unions. historically marriage is based on a guy who wants sex, and a woman who needs security, and marriage sets out the ground rules. historically it basically protects a woman (and often her family) from being used for a few months by a man and then being left with no support. if he wants to bone her, hes gotta commit to her. thats why marriage exists. Nowadays there are a variety of things that go along with marriage such as medical power of attorney, visitation rights, and a whole slew of other things that one is able to do on behalf of their partner. IMO homosexuals should have these rights, except that there are a few possible exploitations I worry about. Will men "marry" their friends who are trying to gain citizenship? Will a guy with a good job out of college "marry" his friend who has no job and wants good healthcare? since same sex couples can't conceive, is there a need for them to use certain

    also, im trepid about the children of same sex couples. i think its best for a child to have both parents, but at the very least i think a kid should have a parent of the same sex around to be a role model and teach the child about becoming a man/woman. its not that im trying to discredit homosexuals or make them feel bad, i just feel thats objectively most optimal. i am a straight male, and while i have absolutely no problem with two ladies who wish to join as a couple, i would not want to have been raised by a lesbian couple. sure, a loving home with two lesbians IS better than an empty crack home a lot of kids unfortunately grow up in, but its still not the best way for most kids to be raised. im sure there are plenty of kids who grew up that way and didnt mind. but on the other hand i bet it is tough for a lot of kids.


    anyway, its a complicated ordeal to be sure, what im getting at is that i personally think we should just use civil unions that are 95% identical to marriage. basically, since marriage evolved as an institution intertwined to the opposite-sex dynamic, why not just implement a similar institution that is tailored to the same sex dynamic, which is mostly the same but still slightly different. This gives homosexuals what they say they want, which is the rights that go along with marriage (as opposed to just an 'equality' battle to fight) and it gives people on the right whatever peace of mind they want that marriage remains the same as its always been.

    to me this seems like a good compromise that ends the debate and gets everyone moving on to the next thing. but the thing is neither side wants to compromise. they want to fight, not only because of some deeply held virtue, but because they want the opportunity to taunt the other political side after they win etc. So many people are just trained monkeys. Thats all they are.

    now if i were a conservative, i would happily use somethign like this as a bargaining chip. if the left would make significant, meaningful cuts to entitlements, i would offer to personally marry a hundred gay couples myself. gay marriage really isnt a big DEAL either way, whether its there or its not. IMO people should either compromise on civil unions, or compromise by saying "we'll give you gay marriage if you give us spending cuts" or something of that effect.

  12. #147
    pronouns - he/haw Nanners's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    11,235

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolball#52
    to me this seems like a good compromise that ends the debate and gets everyone moving on to the next thing. but the thing is neither side wants to compromise. they want to fight, not only because of some deeply held virtue, but because they want the opportunity to taunt the other political side after they win etc. So many people are just trained monkeys. Thats all they are.

    now if i were a conservative, i would happily use somethign like this as a bargaining chip. if the left would make significant, meaningful cuts to entitlements, i would offer to personally marry a hundred gay couples myself. gay marriage really isnt a big DEAL either way, whether its there or its not. IMO people should either compromise on civil unions, or compromise by saying "we'll give you gay marriage if you give us spending cuts" or something of that effect.
    Just so I am not misunderstanding anything- your proposal is for the right wing to allow "civil unions" with tax benefits similar to marriage, and in exchange for this gift the left wing makes "significant, meaningful" cuts to entitlements?

    To quote KevinNYC: not everyone shares your sense of "pragmatism"
    Last edited by Nanners; 05-07-2013 at 01:36 AM.

  13. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanners
    Just so I am not misunderstanding anything- your proposal is for the right wing to allow "civil unions" with tax benefits similar to marriage, and in exchange for this gift the left wing makes "significant, meaningful" cuts to entitlements?
    No, I'm saying both sides, if they want a reasonable compromise on just this issue so that everyone can move on to something else, should agree to go the civil unions route. obviously i have not drafted any sort of civil union contract to be proposed so i couldnt tell you exactly how it would look, but i think if you include all teh basic inheritance, medical, decision making, legal, etc. etc. rights that come with marriage, but you dont necessarily include things like alimony, and whatever few marriage parameters that are based on the traditional man-woman dynamic, everyone should be happy, no? i mean the fact is, same sex relationships are not the EXACT SAME as heterosexual relationships. its not wrong to acknowledge that as fact, just like acknowledging that women are not physically equal to men as athletes. thats just teh way it is, no need to be sensitive. its not about denying anyone any basic fundamental rights, its just about creating a system tailored to same sex marriage. which is not GAY marriage. people confuse the two. right now, anyone gay or straight can marry the opposite sex. technically, that is equal. "gay" marriage is a misguided term because the word gay is ambiguous. same sex marriage is the issue and with a legitimately designed civil union contract, homosexuals or heterosexuals of the same sex could enter into a union. so in that way its designed to best suit that dynamic, while still being applied equally.


    As far as bartering same sex MARRIAGE, what im saying is if the right really wants entitlement reform (and typically when push comes to shove economic issues trump everything else) then the right should offer to drop the gay weddings fight in exchange for a significant entitlement overhaul.

    unfortunately tho, because i am not a particularly religious person, i think i am in the minority of how people who lean right see this. i think many of them see it as a significant blow to religion to allow two men to marry each other. which is why if the left just calls it civil unions, they can probably get just about everything they want out of it and the right will probably breathe a huge sigh of relief that its not marriage and they'll think they've won and move on. but then the left wont be happy. they want to be loud and proud and make a show of insisting they get the exact same thing as marriage.

    so on the one hand, people are digging in about preserving their religious tenets.
    on the other hand, people are digging in just to make a point about how everyone has to see them the way they want to.

    and so which side is gonna budge? probably neither. and people who should be discussing real issues with one another will just debate this thing to death here, there, and all across america. meanwhile nobody's offering any sort of input to their government representatives about things that the people themselves really should have more input and control over.
    Last edited by OldSkoolball#52; 05-07-2013 at 02:52 AM.

  14. #149
    Alpha Tarheel rufuspaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    23,262

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RidonKs
    krauthammer is in the game. so he talks about it like it's a game. calling bluffs and crying wolf and investing political capital. from king of the world to dead in the water. gag me with a fking spoon.

    it's pinheads like him who deliberately reduce the most important 'game' in the world to simple narrative, an easy to believe fantasy where two titanic's collide and the world munches on popcorn and comments on the explosion. it's bullshit. this stuff is important. it affects lives. pundits should comment on policy, explain potential consequences, offer their own views, and justify them with underlying values

    krauthammer is just another example of an asshole who makes an honest to god citizen despise the whole circus. this article is absolutely no different. i'm not seeing what you're getting out of it rufus.

    Because i knew if I posted that column everyone would attack the messenger and not the message. People on the left are just as predictable as people on the right.

  15. #150
    Perfectly Calm, Dude KevinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    10,990

    Default Re: The BigAss 2nd term thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rufuspaul
    Because i knew if I posted that column everyone would attack the messenger and not the message. People on the left are just as predictable as people on the right.
    Isn't that the whole point of credibility? If you want to sift through his bullshit, to find the occasional speck of gold dust, you're welcome to. I can think of better ways to spend your time.

    I mean if you're trolling, why not go hard and post some Glenn Beck or Alex Jones nonsense.

    His message is going to the same as his message five years from now about the next Democratic president. See this space in 2018.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •