This whole thread is an exercise in a lack of accountability.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on December 11, 2012, 03:53 AM/me does secret pre-patch wormer handshake with KRDQuote from: zippeurfou on December 10, 2012, 01:45 PMDo you think the community is not smart enough to read between the line and see when someone is being a jerk ?
Clearly, clearly, clearly, as evidenced by the very thread we're posting in, this community is not smart enough to tell obvious lie from truth. What's more, it doesn't even care that that's the case anymore.
In true TUS tradition, I vote we blame it on secret societies or something.
Quote from: DarkOne on December 10, 2012, 11:16 PMSo the guy flipping burgers and working the drivethrough at McDonalds should run the company, because in all reality, theres nothing that CEO's do. They don't even show up to work, and just cash multi-million dollar bonus checks.
How do you know that they've worked harder? Did they have night shifts? Did they have to work multiple jobs like minimum wage workers?
I'm really trying to be reasonable here, but this:Quote from: DarkOne on December 10, 2012, 11:16 PMWhat is it that these people do, anyway?
Quote from: Crazy on December 11, 2012, 12:08 AMWalrus, I'm curious, what do you think of the way the case of Anders Breivik was handled? He was sentenced to atleast 21 years in prison for killing 77 people. Would you rather have seen him take the death penalty? In prison, Breivik can access a computer, he's got books to read, he has his own room to work out in, and he is currently studying political science. What do you think about this?I'm not an advocate for the death penalty. I am appalled to hear that he only recieved 21 years in prison. Under what system of law does a man that dangerous have a chance of being unleashed upon society again at some point? I wouldn't kill him, but there should have been no way he was afforded a computer or books. The liberties he now enjoys are the ones he stole from his victims. That isn't justice. That isn't rehabilitation. That is a gross missapropriation of justice. I still can't believe that. You meant sentenced to 211 years in prison, I hope.
Quote from: ANO on December 01, 2012, 10:24 AMLeadbelly, Howlin' Wolf, and Robert Johnson are my favorites from the delta.
<3 tom waitsssssssssss
xD
Quote from: DarkOne on December 09, 2012, 06:06 PMYeah, the monster bonuses to CEO's are pretty terrible, I'm torn because as a CEO, you should be paid many times more than the average worker in my opinion. The 'many times' has become exponentially astronomical, though. I think they've worked harder than others to achieve their position so they do deserve more. I can't really offer a solution, as I don't believe in governments telling private companies how to structure their pay system. Regulating minimum wage is one thing, that is a government issue, I do not believe capping bonuses paid in a private corporation should be a function of government. Once you start with that, where does it end? What would government end up not controlling in private enterprise? I don't want to be a business owner trying to turn a profit with a government telling me where to spend what money and what to pay which workers.Quote from: TheWalrus on December 09, 2012, 10:02 AM
You have to consider the current state of the economy. In a vacuum, your plan would work just fine, but basic economics tell you that in the short term, it significantly makes things worse.
What you're saying is that in a bad economy, companies should have to spend less on wages to compensate for the smaller income. Sounds legit.
Here's an idea: spend less on bonuses: http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/2012-investment-banking-bonuses/
Tesco is mentioned as an example here: a news report from 4 days ago mentions that Tim Mason is leaving the company and with his departure receives 5.7 million pounds (at the current rate, that's $9.14 million). How many year salaries is that? What kind of work does he do for that kind of money anyway? High profile assassination? It's not like his own money is at risk with his work, anyway. If the company goes bankrupt, he gets to keep all his money (in contrast, in Japan, if a company goes bankrupt, the director loses everything). Basically, the guys at the top get the rewards while the guys at the bottom run the risk. That's messed up, man.
Quote from: DarkOne on December 09, 2012, 09:46 AMI agree with everything you said Dark, its just that there is a time and a place for these proposed changes of yours. You cant expect a blanket change like that to be implemented at any old time, and expect results. You have to consider the current state of the economy. In a vacuum, your plan would work just fine, but basic economics tell you that in the short term, it significantly makes things worse. The same thing goes for reining in inflation. Reducing inflation is a problem when you have to increase interest rates. When the US approaches the so called 'fiscal cliff', increasing interest rates is the last thing you want to do to sustain or promote growth. Shy, Mab, and yourself have descent ideas, it is just nearly impossible to push through sweeping changes right now, as they will produce diminished returns with the state of the economy. The US needs a stopgap plan, things are going south in a hurry and implementing incremental long term solutions is a incredible gamble when the economy is sensitive enough to change as it is. I think you are all missing the boat when it comes to what is needed at this exact moment.Quote from: TheWalrus on December 08, 2012, 10:43 PM
Raising the minimum wage is just a flat out horrible idea Dark, companies are hurting enough without the government pricing low wage jobs over the market.
How do you expect people to consume if they don't have enough money to spend? Less consumption = less profit.
At any rate, your sales pitch is kind of tough to sell if you consider that the average salary at goldman sachs in 2009 (including everybody that worked there - banktellers, janitors, professional pencil sharpeners, security etcetera) was $700k (ballpark).
When we're talking about minimum wage, it shouldn't go up if you ask the big boys in corporate America. When we're talking about the salary of the guys at the top, it has to go up and taxes have to go down according to them.
These are also the guys that didn't see the credit crunch coming because they didn't realise cashflow isn't infinite. If doctors f@#!ed up on this scale, there would be riots and we would be lynched. Just saying.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 09, 2012, 04:13 AMI claim laziness. 1 graph with 2 variables = easier than 2 graphs with one variable. What do I look like, a statistician? It's amazing i even put in the time to enter all the integers in the first place. Take it for what it is, a meager attempt at visualisation. If you want to make a better one, im all for it.Quote from: TheWalrus on December 08, 2012, 10:43 PMQuote from: DarkOne on December 08, 2012, 05:13 PMlol, my shitty graph wasn't trying to illustrate a trend, I think you got that part at least but Shy is clueless. I was just trying to show visually how many of those countries' populations on that list are smaller.Quote from: ShyGuy on December 08, 2012, 11:00 AM
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
Well, I just copy-paste the first [ quote] bit and end with [/ quote]Make ctrl-c and ctrl-v work for you!
Quote from: TheWalrus on December 08, 2012, 05:43 AM
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
Short answer: yes. ShyGuy handled this one already.
Face it, Wally, we take better care of our own people in Western Europe and there's a simple reason for that: the upper class (man, that term leaves a nasty taste in my mouth) can't function on their own without the lower and middle class (same there) doing what they do. I can't do my job if there weren't truck drivers bringing supplies to the hospital, carpenters and masoners who built the hospital I work in, built the road I use to get to work, architects who designed them, the work force at the power plant to provide electricity, nino's slaves who provide bull meat, etcetera, etcetera. Society would collapse without them, so why the hell won't the guys at the top take better care of them in the US?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Numbers don't lie. Costs of living have increased, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. It took a democratic congress in 2006 to finally raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years.
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
I was just confused as to why you would make a graph with two variables if you weren't trying to establish a trend
Quote from: DarkOne on December 08, 2012, 05:13 PMlol, my shitty graph wasn't trying to illustrate a trend, I think you got that part at least but Shy is clueless. I was just trying to show visually how many of those countries' populations on that list are smaller. Also, I've never heard anyone referencing western europe when talking about prosperity before, lol. France and Spain are in deep, deep shit.Quote from: ShyGuy on December 08, 2012, 11:00 AM
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
Well, I just copy-paste the first [ quote] bit and end with [/ quote]Quote from: TheWalrus on December 08, 2012, 05:43 AM
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
Short answer: yes. ShyGuy handled this one already.
Face it, Wally, we take better care of our own people in Western Europe and there's a simple reason for that: the upper class (man, that term leaves a nasty taste in my mouth) can't function on their own without the lower and middle class (same there) doing what they do. I can't do my job if there weren't truck drivers bringing supplies to the hospital, carpenters and masoners who built the hospital I work in, built the road I use to get to work, architects who designed them, the work force at the power plant to provide electricity, nino's slaves who provide bull meat, etcetera, etcetera. Society would collapse without them, so why the hell won't the guys at the top take better care of them in the US?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Numbers don't lie. Costs of living have increased, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. It took a democratic congress in 2006 to finally raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years.
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
Quote from: Husk on December 08, 2012, 06:42 AMFallout new vegas got that patched, but i know exactly the crashes you are talking about in Fallout 3. Still my favorite game. I always saved often.
don't get fallout 3 or fallout new vegas on xbox, get them on pc... they tend to freeze every half hour on xbox and ps
Quote from: DarkOne on December 08, 2012, 05:05 AMNo I get that the total population doesn't influence these specific numbers. I am arguing that the larger the population, the harder it is to maintain the standards that are measured in that study/page/collection, whatever it is. Surely you can't believe that providing excellent healthcare to all of your citizens is the same in a country like Monaco when compared to the US. Nobel laureates per capita is certainly an interesting characteristic, but the same argument stands. The very reasons why it is hard to maintain a 'happiness' standard for 8 million versus 300 million are the same for why the US is the world leader in science. I'm not arguing that we have the smartest man or woman scientifically, merely we overwhelm with numbers, and our technology is basically superior across the board because of the large amount of scientific minds. You are right about one thing, the times are changing, and the world is catching up. China is going to have a hard time getting past the US, even with their incredible ability to steal. They are the kings of intellectual property theft, a veritable world leader. They would be leading in that metric if it were part of that study
The total population has no influence at all with these numbers. It says income per person, divorce rate per 1000 people, life expectancy (again, per person), unemployment rate (percentage) etcetera.
You could argue that population density could play a role, but if you look here, you can see that this also doesn't explain away the rankings.
As for the US leading the world in science, that's also debatable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita
Clearly, the countries with only 1 or 2 laureates make for an unreliable number for laureates per capita, but the amount of Nobel prizes going to Switzerland is quite baffling for such a small country. Well done, SPW!
You could also say that politics are involved with Nobel prizes, and rightly so. It's a travesty that dr. Kolff never got a Nobel prize. The guy invented the artificial kidney and was instrumental in developing the artificial heart. How much more awesome can you get?
If you're going by volume, then yes, the US wins. More inhabitants, more scientists, more scientific papers, simple math. I won't deny the role of the US in the scientific world, though, it's a major player. Someone apparently made a comparison of scientific papers per capita: http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2008/01/10/science-papers-per-country/ and in that category, the US is not on the #1 spot either. China's working bloody hard to get past the US too.
Quote from: darKz on December 08, 2012, 04:43 AMhaha you would think so darkz, but not in this lifetime. you forgot which board you were posting on.
Toxic said he was in b2b before, I told him he was not (even in a very diplomatic fashion), then he was being rude so I got back at him. And now Komo is making a drama out of it. Everything went as one would expect. Case closed?
Quote from: ropa on December 07, 2012, 10:21 AMFirstly, thanks for posting that, Ropa, its actually pretty good information. I'd say the United States is doing pretty well to be perfectly honest when stacking it up against other large countries. Germany seems to be doing the best among densely populated countries. I'm going to do a little research on Germany, i know general information from national news but I could stand to learn quite a bit. I think much of the problem with why the US is down the list involves our school system, we are saved by the fact that the US still attracts highly talented immigrants from other countries. We are still leading the world in science at the top, but losing the battle for tomorrow at the very bottom. Frankly, It's a tough comparison when the country at #1 has a population of 8 million, and the US has over 300 million citizens. An interesting list though, nonetheless.
Ultimately the best way to rank a country's success is its citizen's quality of life.
Things like safety index and health care systems have never seen the US rank above 7th in public studies (http://www.google.es/search?client=opera&rls=es-ES&q=quality+of+life+index+2012&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest) and it's only recently it's gone up from lower than 10th positions (mainly due to other countries being struck harder by the economical crisis (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf))
What do you think of this, Walrus?
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMYou are a little bit all over here, Shy, so im going to attempt to clarify while staying inside the bounds of the original discussion. Let's drop the idea of unregulated capitalism where no labor laws or pollution controls exist, because no one in this thread is for that from what I can see. Tying capitalism to slavery and the civil war is prepackaged rhetoric, and again is a topic that involves a great deal of issues, very few of which relate to the dialogue here. Lets stick to the basics. If you want to revisit that later, im game, but lets cap the current discourse first. The most important point you address is the privatization of healthcare and schooling, we'll get back to that. The most important part of my endorsement of privatization is that private enterprise is, at a base level, infinitely more efficient than the government. My measure of efficiency in this case is capital, or more specifically, currency. Private enterprise can provide cheaper schooling the government can, and a switch to privatization can allow for total reform of the unions that strange our public schooling system. By doing this, taxes can be lowered, which will result in more jobs. With enough flexibility in the job market, these so called 'unfortunates' with 'no hope' can enjoy gainful employment which results in a more productive society.
I didn't read all of that, but since you asked me in the first post to say stuff, I will.
Unregulated capitalism has been the cause of a lot of suffering (slavery, Civil War, why we're in the Middle East). Corporations are outsourcing more than ever, the top 1% controls something like 40% of the countries wealth, and the gap between lower and upper class is growing larger everyday. Your idea of private schooling and private healthcare further f@#! over these people and prevent them from contributing to society. There are things called positive and negative externalities in economics. The existence of negative externalities is a reason in itself while capitalism is flawed. For example, in unregulated capitalism, a business could cut corners and pollute, something that effects everyone even if they support the business or not... That's a negative externality and that is why government regulation is needed... I mean, isn't it enough to look at American history before labor laws? Anyway, people staying alive and being educated to contribute to society is considered a positive externality, and when you make people pay for things like school and healthcare, you're always going to be excluding the poorest of people. So not only does privatized everything create negative externalies, it reduces the amount of positive externality output.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMThe history of oppression is our country is long and its legacy is deeply engrained in our society. Blacks still suffer because of the sins of our fathers (as we are white), and have less opportunity than whites. Again, this is mostly a social issue, and not really part of the main discussion here. There is an economic difference, but im sure we can agree this is mostly because of social standing and prejudice, and no amount of money appropriated by the government is going to solve that. The blacks aren't the only ones that are born into poverty-like conditions with strikes against them. See: Indigenous Native Americans. Lets drop racism for now, again something we can revisit later. You are taking an issue in a totally different direction, and it confuses the issue at hand.
Yet with this knowledge, people (like Walrus) say poor people are lazy and socialism will just take hard earned money from hard workers. Let me ask you this; How come the vast majority of people who are born into poverty stay into poverty and the vast majority of people who are born into wealth stay wealthy? You call it lazy but in actuality it is the result of being paralyzed by an oppressive system. Look at the history of African Americans in the United States. They've been slaves well into the 20th century. Even after the Civil War, the greedy white men in power oppressed them so they couldn't have basic rights. The aftermath of such oppression carries over from generation to generation. A common example - you are born into poverty in an urban area, you turn to crime to feed yourself, your father is in jail and your mom is a junkie and you sling dope for a living. Many of these destitute people are in a psychological cage where they believe they will never become anything. Not to mention the amount of racism still in this country, not only individually, but in the justice and school systems. Justice system and the death penalty are extremely racist, present day and historically. Poor urban area schools get shit tier funding, therefore they aren't producing much success. These are the people who decide not to go see a doctor for a medical problem because they can't afford it, further digging them a hole in society. Meanwhile, the people who are being raised in wealth get meals all day, high quality schooling paid for by parents, and don't hesitate going to the doctor for the slightest problem. Not everyone is created equal - we have different strengths, weaknesses, abilities, talents, etc. So what is wrong with the idea that everyone in the country gets an equal opportunity to make a success out of himself? That's the basic credo of socialism. Healthcare is free, schools are free (and with more revenue coming in, these will actually be quality schools), etc.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMI can't refute your assertion that becoming wealthy is mostly luck, its an important point. Most people who have risen to prominent positions (CEOs, ect.) will attribute much of their success to luck, being at the right place at the right time. Alternatively, you have to work hard to put yourself in the position to even have luck be a factor. This applies to people of any color, from any walk of life, from any income bracket. Unfortunately, taxing the sit out of the top bracket isn't a real solution. I'd love for someone from France on these forums to come in here and tell you how the proposal to tax the wealthy at a 75% rate is going. The proposal from Francois Hollande has the wealthy scrambling, as a 75% tax rate should. The wealthy affected are ready to leave the country entirely, taking their businesses with them. So how is that going to help? Especially with the rise of foreign direct investment these days among the rich in the USA, who is to say your tax proposals won't drive them out of the country entirely. Mexico for years have based much of their economy on becoming attractive landing spots for american companies. Your 1% will depart for Mexico long before they pay any sort of crazy rate you are envisioning. And for the record, anyone can be successful through hard work as long as they have a job. Your proposals don't create any jobs. Companies don't create positions when they are taxed more heavily, rather when they are taxed at a lower rate. Why do you think that one of Obama's first significant decisions in office was to extend the Bush tax cuts?
How do they get free? Tax the shit out of the top bracket. This should not be seen as a punishment for being "successful", although it is by the right who have an individualistic mindset rather than a collectivist mindset. Look at a standard, successful corporation. The heads of the company these days are making hundreds of times more than their employees as opposed to before Reagan when they were only making about 10 times as much as their employees. So, are you trying to tell me these CEOs have really started working super duper hard sitting at their office chairs to be earning 100s and sometimes 1000s more than their employees? What changed to make you think they are so much harder workers than everybody else? First of all, whether you want to admit it or not, becoming really wealthy is mostly luck. Lucky if you were born into it, lucky if you were in the right place at the right time, etc... Rarely are they ever working much harder than everyone else in society. If you refute that idea, then I'll ask again to answer why people born into poverty stay into poverty and people born into wealth stay into wealth. That's the main problem with the premise of a lot of libertarians.. they believe everyone is equal when they aren't, and they believe anyone can become successful through hard work. The research and statistics clearly show this premise to be false.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMI envision government as a entity working in tandem with its citizens to provide freedoms directly outlined in the constitution. Government should be responsible for providing protection for these freedoms in terms of a strong national army and stout militia at a local and state level. Your argument for government funded studies holds no water. There are plenty of studies done by private companies that have been just as influential on the direction of life and health, as you put it. There is no reason to believe government is the only body capable of executing and producing results of studies. If you want examples i'll cite them, but theres no reason to at this point, its a universal fact. I bet you are furious that your liberal contemporaries are selling off the development and upkeep of roads to private companies, especially with your mandate of this being a job of government. As far as your points you've made so far, you've stuck with facts. But when it comes to Reagan, you are dead wrong. Under Reagan, unemployment fell more sharply then it ever had in US history, and the economy grew exponentially. Reagan cut taxes indeed like you said, but in his second term, with the help of congress, pushed through the single largest tax increase in US peacetime history. He then presided over several more tax rate hikes in his first term, the most notable were for social security and credit card debt? I think? Fact check me. The economy grew, more people had jobs, social security was strengthened for the future retirees. Criticizing Reagan is a terrible place to start if you want to rail on someone for ruining the economy. Start with Jimmy Carter.
Also, no one becomes a millionaire in a bubble. Show me someone who has not taken advantage of government funded entities, such as roads, schools, police, fire department, etc. My favorite thing to bring up is how we live our lives today in regards to health awareness. Did we not learn a shit ton about life and health because of government funded studies and research? Some of your daily health activities are probably the learned result from government funded studies. The point is, it is impossible to make it ANYWHERE without the mass amount of help of your community and government. So what is the problem with being taxed and giving back to the community for later generations to benefit? Keep in mind, mainly the top bracket earners would be getting taxed large amounts, and even being taxed an amount such as 70% of your income would still leave these people with millions of dollars to "survive" on. Before Reagan, the largest brackets were being taxed as high as 70% and the economy was booming, the infrastructure was great, quality of life and satisfaction index rose, etc... Then Reagan came along and cut taxation on the upperclass by a shit ton, and what happened? This is history, it's all there for you to see. Reagan created a huge national debt because he didn't have enough taxes. All he did was help his rich friends.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMGreed is a poor choice of words, ill recant that statement. It's entitlement I think socialism creates. Also, if you want to argue against the two party system or foreign wars, I'm game. I'll stand next to you and echo your exact sentiments. I support an isolationist foreign policy and a forced reform of the two party system. I think the country needs a little revolution now and then, like Jefferson said, "Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Obamacare and the forced mandate of healthcare eliminates the power of choice, choice that doesn't interfere with the rights of others should never be forced upon anyone. It's an infringement on my rights as a private citizen of the US.
Walrus, when you say socialism's core element is greed, it's totally false. It's the exact opposite. Capitalism is ALL about greed. Democrats and Republican both care about nothing except money. USA historically - slavery, Civil War, we're in Afghanistan for their poppy fields, we took out Hussein because he was going to buy oil with the euro, oil wars, the list goes on and on... All of these things are unregulated capitalism. Not only are the motivations behind these wars capitalism and greed, but the methods and means of acting these wars out further hurts the people the system is oppressing! We spend trillions on the military to fight these greed-ridden wars, that is money that could be put into schools and healthcare. A society can't be sustained without large amount of taxation. Well, I guess it would be an aristocracy for the lucky ones. Look at the Articles of Confederation - why did they not work? Taxes were practically optional, and that system crumbled HARD.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMBy 'a lot' you mean Scandinavia. How are Italy, Spain, and France doing with their sky high taxation rates? It's no surprise that the countries with your pure socialist models have almost no armed forces and rely upon coalitions of the world if they were ever attacked. They rely on the United States and like countries to defend them if they were attacked. You can argue for ceased aggressions, but we all know that will never happen, its human nature. Wars will always be fought, these countries are all gambling that other countries will defend them. It's hard to find an effective country that is well rounded on all fronts, I would probably say Germany is doing pretty well with its pseudo-socialist policies. Germany cracks the mold somehow, the effective socialist countries tend to be sparsely populated, Ropa posted a list of global satisfaction, its no surprise the top 10 are all very small countries population-wise with little military save for Germany.
Final notes: 1. A lot of European nations use a form of democratic socialism, and these countries consistently top in the rankings for education, healthcare, low crime, quality of life, satisfaction, etc. Look at the Scandinavian nations. If these principles are doing so well for these countries, why be so against the idea of it all? I understand these are different countries with different cultures, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss their governments as being flawed in our country. It would take a lot of time and reform, I understand these aren't thing you can just throw into the mix and expect to work.
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMCorporations are not whats wrong with lobbying, that is a stupid argument. The system is broken, and where there are cracks in the foundation, people will take advantage. This extends from welfare and unemployment all the way up to lobbying. Corporations drive the lobbying, yes. But when politicians are having their campaigns funded by special interests, where is the problem, really? Is it the special interest group, or the law that allows them to perpetrate the US political system? Come on, Shy. Don't let your feelings cloud the actual issues.
2. I absolutely hate how the United States still follows a piece of paper that was written over 200 years ago. It is seriously flawed and out of date. The electoral college makes a complete mockery out of the ideas of democracy and the way voting is set up in this country ensures that change is almost impossible through the voting polls. It's a f@#!ing plutocracy. All-or-nothing voting doesn't appropriately represent the people's opinions the way that proportional voting does. How much money do politicians spend on campaigns? That's right, you only get to vote for the people rich enough to advertise their election. Oh yeah, and now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and can fund political campaigns, lobbying is that much easier. Corporations get to lobby politicians around into making legislation that benefits them, but hey, that's all fair game in capitalism. For f@#! sake, gay marriage is outlawed in almost every state because insurance companies lobby the hell out of politicians to keep the status quo. Do you see how capitalism tends to work at the expense of human rights? All of this made possible by the Constitution that basically set this country up for failure (breeding corrupt judges, not setting term limits, creating an atmosphere where getting votes means more than doing what's best for society).
Quote from: ShyGuy on December 07, 2012, 08:36 AMPretty much all television and print media involves bias. Pretty hard to quote news or even reference news without referencing the bias that comes packaged with it. Just take it with a grain of salt. Pretty sure your hair on your back wouldn't have bristled at the idea of me quoting an MSNBC story.
3. I saw some things up there about Fox News... I skimmed it.. Just want to say Fox News is clearly an entertainment business. My concentration at college is in media production, and every professor I've talked to said that the journalism community is in complete agreement that Fox News is a sham and has no journalistic integrity... Not sure if that's what you guys were talking about, was too lazy to read... Never cite Fox News for anything, EVER.
Also, going with Walrus's book recommendations, I have a watching recommendation for fellow enthusiasts: HBO's The Wire, a television show with an extremely realistic portrayal of urban life in various facets of Baltimore - often cited as the greatest television show ever made and one of the greatest literary achievements of the 21st century.
