Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 85 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3575838485868795 ... LastLast
Results 6,301 to 6,375 of 8309
  1. #6301
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ooooh, don't make me dig up some post where you slagged Ong for being on benefits.
    Do you want to dig up all the ones where I fully support his decision to do what he wants with his life whilst you're at it? They will be a lot easier to find.
  2. #6302
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Do you want to dig up all the ones where I fully support his decision to do what he wants with his life whilst you're at it? They will be a lot easier to find.
    Ok well you've contradicted yourself then. But if you say this is your current opinion then I'll accept that.
  3. #6303
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ok well you've contradicted yourself then. But if you say this is your current opinion then I'll accept that.
    I've just got what you meant, I don't feel like holding the position of Ong should be able to doss about on benefits and not thinking that those benefits should exist in the first place are contradictory positions.

    It's not even that I don't think those benefits should exist in the first place I just don't think people should be having to pay for shit they don't want to and that is in essence how this is funded.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-23-2017 at 04:08 PM.
  4. #6304
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Where have I contradicted myself?
    It's possible I'm mistaken, but I thought you had a go at him before for being on benefits. If not then I apologize.
  5. #6305
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's possible I'm mistaken, but I thought you had a go at him before for being on benefits. If not then I apologize.
    lol maybe my edit is wrong then but it is very unlikely I have done this in a serious manner.
  6. #6306
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I just don't think people should be having to pay for shit they don't want to and that is in essence how this is funded.
    I can sympathize with the idea but ya it's not going to happen really is it. If it did we'd have a lot fewer submarines.
  7. #6307
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I can sympathize with the idea but ya it's not going to happen really is it. If it did we'd have a lot fewer submarines.
    I'm under no illusion that what I believe, or anything close to, is ever going to happen in my lifetime on anything resembling a large scale.
  8. #6308
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Actually the only moral argument I've heard ITT is that he's a flawed individual because he doesn't work for his money. My question is if someone else doesn't work for their money also, but has a lot more of it, why aren't you outraged about that?
    Both Person A's and B's money was worked for, just not by them. Person A's money was worked for and earned by his parents (at least that's what I recall the original hypothesis was), and they passed it onto him. Person B's money was worked for and earned by Persons A-Z (excluding B) and then taken from them and given to Person B.

    In the Person A situation, the earned money operates as investment capital, savings, and some other stuff. 10m creates a lot of jobs even when sitting in the bank.

    Person B is a different situation. We have to subtract a small amount of productive capacity from Persons A-Z (minus B), and then also subtract Person B's potential productivity that he would have if he wasn't given Persons A-Z's (minus B) money to be unproductive. If Persons A-Z (excluding B) were not taken from and given to B, all A-Z (including B) would be more productive. In the other hypothetical, if Person A didn't have the 10m for whatever reason, he would be less productive (by a lot) and Persons B-Z would be unchanged*.


    On a side note, a neat thing is that Person A, if he just sits on the money, is actually being very smart. In a lot of ways, when you have a lot of money, you don't want to mess around. Letting it act as investment capital and diversifying might be the smartest thing you could do in that situation. Person A, by having a huge amount of cash, has a comparative advantage in not trying to do anything with it himself and instead letting the experts (banks, intermediaries) match his capital with entrepreneurs.


    *They would be changed, just indirectly and in ways we're not discussing here, like less productivity from Person A means less productivity elsewhere due to less spillover.
  9. #6309
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Morally, they are equivalent.
    False. The difference has to do with where each of their money comes from.
  10. #6310
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    ok, then let's go back to my original question:

    Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.
    I dunno. I tend to see some dislike for both. It's not like Paris Hilton is popular. And some people like the idea of getting by on little.

    Where I see an surge of dislike for the person living on little is if other people are paying for it by force, i.e., they're being taxed. But if you can live a meager life by your own wits and be happy, I'm kinda envious.
  11. #6311
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Where I see an surge of dislike for the person living on little
    This dislike is also rampant for people with a lot when they are viewed as not deserving it or whatever. Lots of people really do believe capitalism and any sort of wealth accumulation is evil. They text about it from their smart phones. The classy bohemians.
  12. #6312
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I dunno. I tend to see some dislike for both. It's not like Paris Hilton is popular. And some people like the idea of getting by on little.
    Paris Hilton's ditzy behavior has more to do with her not being respected than the fact that's she's fallen bass-ackwards into money imo, though certainly the latter doesn't help her image. I also think that in general, Person A is far more respected than Person B.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Where I see an surge of dislike for the person living on little is if other people are paying for it by force, i.e., they're being taxed.
    That sounds more like someone who has a beef with the government than with Person B. And that I can understand. I have a beef with a lot of things the gov't does with my taxes.
  13. #6313
    If Trump is playing 3d chess on healthcare, it's a testament to how well he's playing since I think he is but I'm too uncertain to call it.

    What I think he's been doing from the beginning: Boosting Ryancare solidly (but not to his normal fervor) knowing that it will fail. Then Ryan gets delegitimized and a new Speaker gets chosen. It would probably be somebody from the Freedom Caucus, like Meadows. Normally it would never fly, but with Ryan's failure, his backers would have no steam and Trump could tell them he tried real hard and they tried real hard and it just didn't work. Then they could actually get a good bill that repeals Ocare.

    Or, failure of the bill is meant to galvanize support against the Dems and GOPe for 2018, as Ocare will still be in place and will be much more audibly exploding. I suspect it's the first option though.


    Or, I'm hallucinating. I don't know. This is a tough one. Some shit really does not add up at all. It doesn't help that many of my quality Trump sources are keeping quiet and half his base is split, half thinking this is a wicked play and the other half bobbleheading with Trump's words.

    Ultimately, this bill can't become law. There is no way Trump thinks that if he signs something like this he will win reelection, though it's possible the plan is to change the bill significantly after House passing. Trump has to know that putting his mark on any law like Ryancare means we'll be saying hello to President Pocahontas in 2020.
  14. #6314
    Could be that Trump put Ryan in this place to get Ryan to bend over to save face. So a deal could still be made here but with much better terms than Ryan wants for his beloved Obamacare.
  15. #6315
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    ok, then let's go back to my original question:

    Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.
    In this specific example, few see a difference. There are some who would say that Person A has a moral obligation to use his wealth. It's a mentality like, "people who can help, should help".

    But you left the part out where Person B gets to live off of everybody else's labor. Thats where the jimmies get rustled. I don't care if Person A wastes their fortune away. I do care if someone is taking advantage of me. It's like the roommate who never buys groceries but eats all your food. Jimmies rustled.
  16. #6316
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Most of those are people like stay-at-home moms with children and disabled. Most that don't have jobs because they get enough welfare to be happy enough to not work would work if they didn't get the welfare.
    Ok well this is a slightly different argument to the one I'm engaged in. There's probably a cross-over in the demographics though.

    I mean I don't think there's many people arguing that a mother with a disabled child is milking the system by not getting a job. Also, lots of stay-at-home mothers have partners who are working, so the state at least gets a rebate in the form of tax. It gets a little more tricky to analyse these people and their circumstances.

    I'm talking mostly about the 800k or so people here who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months, and thus are deemd "long term unemployed". I don't know how many stay-at-home mothers are in this figure, but the bulk of this figure is single men with drink and/or drug problems.

    One of the main reasons for difficulty in-between jobs is the existence of the safety net in the first place. It disincentivizes savings and other smart behavior. Unemployment insurance is a good thing when the policyholder pays for it.
    Sure, but this seems like a minor problem compared to the problems we'd face if there were no safety net at all. Very few people are smart or disciplined enough to save... in fact, not many people have the disposable income to be saving anything significant. How many people can really afford to put 6 months of bills and expenses in a biscuit tin under the bed?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #6317
    As for insurance, well we kind of have it... National Insurance. I say "kind of" because it's not really insurance, it's an income tax. But it's much easier for people who have paid enough National Insurance to get benefits. There are less conditions for them to fulfill, at least for a given time relative to their contributions.

    I don't see what's wrong with the system as is, at least from my pov. The only people who would be happy to live on the money that I live on would be unambitious people who don't care for material possessions. That is a very small minority of the population.

    I anticipate serious problems with security and homelessness if we remove the benefit system. That seems worse to me than a few people milking the system.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #6318
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure, but this seems like a minor problem compared to the problems we'd face if there were no safety net at all. Very few people are smart or disciplined enough to save... in fact, not many people have the disposable income to be saving anything significant. How many people can really afford to put 6 months of bills and expenses in a biscuit tin under the bed?
    Everybody used to save. 100 years ago in the US you would be hard-pressed to find a family that didn't save. Look at China today. These poor, uneducated, and often people with a history of childhood malnourishment have savings rates of up to 90%.

    People don't save today because the government does it for them*. And the government does it VERY stupidly. Social Security and Medicare are absolutely idiotic retirement strategies, for example.

    *Not only does the government doing the "saving" for people encourage people to act stupidly, it does that mostly for the LEAST CAPABLE of people, thereby increasing the gap between rich/poor and smart/stupid. Even with government "savings" programs, higher intelligence/cultured people still save similarly to how they would if the government didn't intervene. It's the lower intelligence/culture people who stop saving when the government intervenes.


    Ong, question: you're not a fan of being a pawn of the government right? Government intervention into welfare is arguably the single biggest factor into turning members of the populace into pawns of the government. What do you think about that?
  19. #6319
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    As for insurance, well we kind of have it... National Insurance. I say "kind of" because it's not really insurance, it's an income tax. But it's much easier for people who have paid enough National Insurance to get benefits. There are less conditions for them to fulfill, at least for a given time relative to their contributions.

    I don't see what's wrong with the system as is, at least from my pov. The only people who would be happy to live on the money that I live on would be unambitious people who don't care for material possessions. That is a very small minority of the population.

    I anticipate serious problems with security and homelessness if we remove the benefit system. That seems worse to me than a few people milking the system.
    They're unambitious largely because they're not working.

    Stop feeding the willful homeless and like magic they'll get real damn ambitious.
  20. #6320
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Ong, question: you're not a fan of being a pawn of the government right? Government intervention into welfare is arguably the single biggest factor into turning members of the populace into pawns of the government. What do you think about that?
    I think there's no getting away from being a pawn. If you stay at home, you're a pawn. Go to work and pay tax, you're a pawn. The only way to not be a pawn is to be a bigger piece. Or don't play chess. I try not to play, but that's near impossible.

    Stop feeding the willful homeless and like magic they'll get real damn ambitious.
    Yes, but "ambitious" doesn't mean "get a job", it might mean "rob someone", because they might not be able to get a job.

    Are you going to employ someone who has had no fixed address for five years? How about no references or qualifications? Perhaps someone who has been in prison? Fair play if you say yes, you're in the minority.

    It's not just about creating jobs. It's not just about creating incentives for people to get jobs. We need to create incentives for employers to give jobs to those who are left behind. This sounds like it could get expensive, like government subsidised wages... might as well just have unemployment benefits ffs.

    They're unambitious largely because they're not working.
    I don't think so. They're unambitious for a number of reasons... drugs, qualifications, traumatic life, not quite right in the head, whatever. I couldn't tell you why I'm unambitious. I always have been, even when working. I think it's just my nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #6321
    This is my last post on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you'd like.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think there's no getting away from being a pawn. If you stay at home, you're a pawn. Go to work and pay tax, you're a pawn. The only way to not be a pawn is to be a bigger piece. Or don't play chess. I try not to play, but that's near impossible.
    Let's put a stop to that by limiting government intrusion into personal lives.

    Yes, but "ambitious" doesn't mean "get a job", it might mean "rob someone", because they might not be able to get a job.
    Welfare reduces the supply of jobs. Regulations and bad monetary policy reduces the supply of jobs. Taxes reduces the supply of jobs.

    Jobs were PLENTIFUL back before the government starting fucking peoples lives up. And the crazy thing is that productivity was garbage then compared to now. The potential supply of jobs today is vastly greater than the supply of people, but we will only get there if government stops hurting people.

    Are you going to employ someone who has had no fixed address for five years? How about no references or qualifications? Perhaps someone who has been in prison? Fair play if you say yes, you're in the minority.
    There are plenty of employers that would do this.

    It's not just about creating jobs. It's not just about creating incentives for people to get jobs. We need to create incentives for employers to give jobs to those who are left behind.
    The ONLY way to do this without leaving MORE people behind is for employers to benefit from the labor more than it costs. The best known mechanism to do this is the free market. If you choose to involve the government, unless you have discovered something that nobody else has (how to have government only reduce asymmetric information in markets), you will increase the costs of labor and thereby you will share responsibility in people being left behind.

    I don't think so. They're unambitious for a number of reasons... drugs, qualifications, traumatic life, not quite right in the head, whatever. I couldn't tell you why I'm unambitious. I always have been, even when working. I think it's just my nature.
    Economists model this stuff. Your lack of ambition is directly tied to how much money the government gives you.
  22. #6322
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    Economists model this stuff. Your lack of ambition is directly tied to how much money the government gives you.
    Do economists model the fact if their money was cut off some proportion of those on benefits would become homeless people, and another proportion would become criminals? Or do they just assume they'd all become wage earners?
  23. #6323
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Do economists model the fact if their money was cut off some proportion of those on benefits would become homeless people, and another proportion would become criminals? Or do they just assume they'd all become wage earners?
    Yeah those are in the models, at least in ways. The main ones I've seen are showing effects on utility and labor/leisure trade-off depending on wages and subsidies. If somebody gets more utility from 24 hours of leisure and an income of 0 than he does of his next best option (which would be something like washing dishes part time for a low wage), then he'll take the 24 hours of leisure/0 income option. Most people, however, won't get more utility from the 0 income choice. And the guy who does get more utility from it, gets even more utility from 24 hours of leisure and a welfare check, which is why he takes the welfare check. For these guys, it is very likely that if they did not get that welfare check, they would get more utility by exchanging some of their 24 hour leisure for labor.

    Those who legitimately get more utility from 24 hours of leisure and 0 income than if they decreased leisure and increased income are people with disabilities, like a quadriplegic or alzheimer's patient. Or they could be children or retirees. If you're able-bodied and able-minded, it would be VERY atypical to get more utility out of 24 hours of leisure and 0 income than <24 hours of leisure and >0 income.
  24. #6324
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Yeah those are in the models, at least in ways.
    The model you described seems to assume everyone on benefits is employable for one, and will be able to find a job if they want to for another, and thus will only become homeless if they value their leisure so much that they prefer a life of leisure living rough on the street to a life that involves any work at all. I don't find this credible.

    It also seems to assume that everyone seeks either 0 income or legal employment (and again assumes they are employable and can find a job), and wouldn't ever end up a criminal. I don't find this credible either.
  25. #6325
    Teh model accounts for both of those. "Unemployable" people get more utility from not being employed. The labor/leisure trade-off doesn't inherently distinguish between documented and undocumented labor. The model shows how individuals' choices regarding making money/not making money change based on an input change given a set of preferences.
  26. #6326
    Reading the news/punditry bloviate about Trump and healthcare is fascinating. A whole lot of them have been wrong every step of the way regarding Trump, and they're saying one thing. The few who have been right every step of the way are saying something else. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
  27. #6327
    Quote Originally Posted by wuf
    This is my last post on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you'd like.
    Fair enough.

    Economists model this stuff. Your lack of ambition is directly tied to how much money the government gives you.
    My last word is this... there isn't an economist in the world better placed than I am to tell you why I lack ambition. And I couldn't even tell you with any certainty. But it has fuck all to do with money.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #6328
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39397938

    Those god damn laptops. When will it end?
  29. #6329
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7650636.html

    Angela Merkel will reportedly ignore Donald Trump’s attempts to extricate £300bn from Germany for what he deems to be owed contributions to Nato.
    The US President is said to have had an “invoice” printed out outlining the sum estimated by his aides as covering Germany’s unpaid contributions for defence.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  30. #6330
    Fake fucking news!

    The US President is said to have had an “invoice” printed out outlining the sum estimated by his aides as covering Germany’s unpaid contributions for defence.
    "is said to have"....by whom? Fake fucking news.

    White House press secretary has denied reports that Mr Trump gave Ms Merkel a bill during their meeting, telling Business Insider: "No, this is not true."
    Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch Spicer in this lie if there actually was an invoice.

    What's wrong with Germany paying their fair share anyway?
  31. #6331
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    What's wrong with Germany paying their fair share anyway?
    Who are you to decide what their "fair share" is? They pay more than most. In terms of spending, they are 4th highest contributors. Per capita, they're spending more than some other similar sized nations, such as Turkey and Italy, although they're behind France. They have more committed soldiers than even the UK. They're slacking when it comes to expenditure relative to GDP.

    Who do you think is paying their fair share? USA, naturally. UK probably, France too. Estonia do remarkable for a tiny country. Poland and Greece are at or above 2% GDP. After that, Germany outperform pretty much everyone else.

    I'd slap them in the "average" pile and call that "fair share".

    source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
    Last edited by OngBonga; 03-27-2017 at 09:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #6332
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'd slap them in the "average" pile and call that "fair share".
    That's cause you're thinking with the same lib-tard brain that thinks you're not hurting anyone because you use consume less government benefits than some other people. Just because something isn't the worst possible form of a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    they're spending more than some other similar sized nations,
    So? Who said Germany was the only one being stingy?
  33. #6333
    Just because something isn't the worst possible form of a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem.
    But I'm talking from a mathematical average point of view. How else are you defining "fair share"?

    It's important that you realise that your measure of "fair share" is not necessarily an accurate measure. I sense it's more based on rhetoric coming from the Trump camp, rather than any actual research and analysis to determine just how much they do chip in. It didn't take me long to think "they don't do so bad".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #6334
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But I'm talking from a mathematical average point of view. How else are you defining "fair share"?
    By all accounts, the US pays a portion of the costs that is disproportionate to the benefits it receives by being a member of this treaty.

    That fucks up your average

    Also, if the US is paying more, then it means someone is paying less, or in other words, an UN-fair share.
  35. #6335
    The funny thing about this is that whether it's true or not, it's the kind of thing you can see Trump doing. That pretty much says it all.
  36. #6336
    I don't think banana understands averages.

    That fucks up your average
    Not at all. It just means USA are above average. And I didn't say "mean", which is one kind of average. There's the median and mode, too.

    Furthermore, different nations get different value from NATO. For nations like Estonia, it's all about deterring Russian influence. For nations like USA, it's more to do with maintaining geopolitical dominance. These motives hold different values. How much do you want America to carry on being the dominant superpower in the world? Enough to pay more than what you call a "fair share"? Do you really give a fuck about how much Lithuania value their security vs how much you value your nation's superpower status?

    Iceland pay next to fuck all. Their contribution is $4.5m. They don't have an army though, and they only joined on the condition they would never be expected to form one. Their value is purely geographical. They don't need to contribute more, they would leave if they were expected to, because they know they would still enjoy the unconditional protection that being an important neighbour of the UK grants them. WWII showed us, and them, how important their island is. If Iceland is occupied by the enemy, then that is a direct threat to both USA and UK. So USA and UK have an obligation to financially prop up Iceland, simply because it's more in our interests than theirs for them to be a member state.

    Iceland provides one example of a nation that doesn't pay their "fair share", and it demonstrates that it's not a simple exercise of saying "let's divide the cost equally". Not everyone enjoys the same value. That's why it's a diplomatic minefield.

    Also, if the US is paying more, then it means someone is paying less, or in other words, an UN-fair share.
    We're not sharing a pizza.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #6337
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who are you to decide what their "fair share" is?
    They are. And they have done so by mutual agreement. Germany and most of the rest of NATO are not living up to the terms which they agreed upon.
  38. #6338
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    They are. And they have done so by mutual agreement. Germany and most of the rest of NATO are not living up to the terms which they agreed upon.
    And what terms are these? I was under the impression that the terminology was pretty loose, something like "with the aim to spend 2% of GDP", which doesn't actually commit to doing so. If there is a contractual obligation they are failing to live up to, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not how I understand it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #6339
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And what terms are these? I was under the impression that the terminology was pretty loose, something like "with the aim to spend 2% of GDP", which doesn't actually commit to doing so. If there is a contractual obligation they are failing to live up to, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not how I understand it.
    It's 2% or more, and the terms aren't that disputed (at least in the US). From what I've seen from outside US, the terms aren't disputed.
  40. #6340
    Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #6341
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?
    Because the US globalists want it that way. European dependency on the US is big thing in many different fields, not just military.

    Trump is a change of foreign policy doctrine.
  42. #6342
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office?
    I'm surprised you don't see it. NATO's sworn enemy is Russia. So undermining NATO helps Trump's bro-mance with Putin. Being Putin's friend is the only reason Trump ran for president in the first place, duh.
  43. #6343
    Insightful analysis of Russia you might like

    https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/think-vladimir-putin/
  44. #6344
    I think it's more likely that Trump is just saying the kind of stupid shit that resonates with people like Banana, while knowing he has no way of actually enforcing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #6345
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Insightful analysis of Russia you might like

    https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/think-vladimir-putin/
    I prefer this kiddo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  46. #6346
  47. #6347
    Quote Originally Posted by VanDam View Post

    You'd think dying in the first month would cinch the worst start ever title.
  48. #6348
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You'd think dying in the first month would cinch the worst start ever title.
    I agree with you, no president could ever top the great William Henry Harrison.
  49. #6349
    So it's coming out now that the FBI knew about Russia's meddling for almost a year. Comey wanted to write an OP-ed about it, in hopes of heading it off before the election. The Obama administration wouldn't allow that. Instead, according to Farkas, they collected everything potentially damaging about Trump and made sure it was disseminated as widely as possible.

    Surveillance, illegal unmasking, and leaks. All done on purpose.

    And in nearly a year, there hasn't been a shred of incriminating evidence against Trump or his campaign staff.

    Bad time to be a democrat.
  50. #6350
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And in nearly a year, there hasn't been a shred of incriminating evidence made public against Trump or his campaign staff.
    FTFY.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  51. #6351
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Got a third of the way through it before I fell asleep. Does it say anything interesting by the end?
  52. #6352
    lol BBC being linked as a reliable unbiased source.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #6353
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Well shit if Fox is viewed as one I think they handily qualify.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  54. #6354
    Yeah I mean BBC > Fox but that really isn't saying much.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #6355
    Fox being trash kinda goes without saying, the problem with the BBC is that a lot of people think it is an unbiased and reliable source of news.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #6356
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  57. #6357
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    lol BBC being linked as a reliable unbiased source.
    The BBC is pretty great tbf, it tends to be terrible government that worsens it. How many news sites do you know that run articles about itself being bias?

    I mean look at this, brilliant.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090
  58. #6358
    I'd also say that the BBC is a very reliable news source. Unbias, no, but I think that the idea of having no bias in any form of news is simply a myth and an impossibility.
  59. #6359
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I think that the idea of having no bias in any form of news is simply a myth and an impossibility.
    +1

    There's a level of bias that goes from meh to worse to much worse to tinfoil hatters. BBC bias is pretty meh - it's pro-British but wtf do you expect? At least their announcers are just calmly reading the news without going into hysterics.

    Fox is on the level of much worse - they don't have a single commentator who isn't right wing, but they aren't quite on the level of tinfoil hatters that some of the other 'news' sources are.

    CNN is like Fox for the left. MSNBC is on the same level and possibly even a bit worse - afaict they are pretty much 24 hour anti-Trump propaganda.

    What's funny is when someone from Fox interviews Trump and they come seriously close to criticizing him; that's when you know he's done something more or less indefensible.
  60. #6360
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What's funny is when someone from Fox interviews Trump and they come seriously close to criticizing him; that's when you know he's done something more or less indefensible.
    I don't like this line of logic. It just means he's done something they don't like. It's like when people say "My friend doesn't really like x in general but even he liked specific thing belonging to x so it must be good", well no. That isn't true at all.

    But yeah back to the point maybe aiming for little bias is a good thing in general but the more important thing is for people to be aware of bias and how it works. That shit is empowering. Assuming the news has no bias just results in there being a hole to exploit.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-30-2017 at 03:53 PM.
  61. #6361
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    they don't have a single commentator who isn't right wing,
    False
  62. #6362
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I don't like this line of logic. It just means he's done something they don't like.
    Nah. When he just does something they don't like they ignore it and talk about something else. When he does something completely idiotic or unhinged they can't just let it slide and they have to question him on it, however tactfully they might go about doing it.
  63. #6363
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Got a third of the way through it before I fell asleep. Does it say anything interesting by the end?
    Oops, sorry for not responding. Got a third of the way through it before I fell asleep.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  64. #6364
    BBC bias is pretty meh - it's pro-British but wtf do you expect?
    It's massively pro-Tory, massively anti-Corbyn, and parrots whatever's going on over the other side of the pond, such as anti-Trump hysteria, and all the anti-Russia bullshit too. I can deal with a pro-British bias from a British agency, that's fine. But there should be no political bias, at least not systematic. It's ok for a journalist to have a poltical opinion, but they all have a pro-Tory agenda. There's no balance. An unbiased news source would employ journalists with various political opinions.

    I don't expect unbiased reporting from individual journalists. But it's entirely possible for an agency to be unbiased, and they should strive to be. And journalists need to be honest about their agendas, rather than pretending (badly) to be unbiased.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #6365
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's massively pro-Tory, massively anti-Corbyn, and parrots whatever's going on over the other side of the pond, such as anti-Trump hysteria, and all the anti-Russia bullshit too. I can deal with a pro-British bias from a British agency, that's fine. But there should be no political bias, at least not systematic. It's ok for a journalist to have a poltical opinion, but they all have a pro-Tory agenda. There's no balance. An unbiased news source would employ journalists with various political opinions.

    I don't expect unbiased reporting from individual journalists. But it's entirely possible for an agency to be unbiased, and they should strive to be. And journalists need to be honest about their agendas, rather than pretending (badly) to be unbiased.
    I think this post is funny for two reasons.

    1 - Literally everyone on the right says the BBC is left wing.

    2 - You're going for the whole why can't people just be nice and be nice and I don't get why people are nasty just be nice angle which you should have grown out of by now.

    I can go into a bit more substance but the BBC employs people who are right wing, have you never heard of Andrew Neil?

    Aside from that yeah political influence on the BBC is bad but exists for very obvious reasons what we should be aiming for is getting rid of this, unfortunately what is happening is getting rid of the BBC.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-30-2017 at 07:37 PM.
  66. #6366
    Also actually look at what the BBC does in terms of it's scope, it's pretty mental. Yes front page BBC news may not be the most objective thing in the world but that is literally a snowflake on the iceberg that is what they do (I read a book recently hence the poetic literary skills).
  67. #6367
    1 - Literally everyone on the right says the BBC is left wing.
    I don't even know what it means to be left wing anymore. Once it was socailist, you know, like worker's rights, NHS, railways run by government. Now it's batshit fucking naivity, open door immigration, shout down politics, call every rival a bigot. Yes, the BBC fits the bill there, but it doesn't fit the bill of "left wing" when it comes to Corbyn, which is what left wing used to mean.

    I really don't know what left wing is anymore. The BBC is left wing yet pro-Conservative? How the fuck does that work? They're about as left wing as, ooh Labour before Corbyn, as in, slightly left wing, more centralist, and pretend centralist at that, like, right wing as fuck when it comes to business, yet left wing as fuck when it comes to immigration. I think it was a "centralist" party by average. The average of one and a billion is half a billion. Central. Labour now is true left, at least the left I understand. And that is not the direction of bias that the BBC show.

    The BBC are under the control of government. They'll show bias to whichever party is in power. It's British state TV.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #6368
    And you're abusing the word "literally". That's a word you're supposed to use when the thing you are saying is factual, it's not an alternative to "virtually", or perhaps "practically".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #6369
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And you're abusing the word "literally". That's a word you're supposed to use when the thing you are saying is factual, it's not an alternative to "virtually", or perhaps "practically".
    I hate people who say this (literally everyone who does is a bellend*). It is clearly used as a device to put emphasis on something. It has been used so for years, the dictionary literally* defines it as such.

    *In this case I mean it in the very formal sense.
  70. #6370
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I really don't know what left wing is anymore.
    Yeah, it shows. Goalposts move (you have the same problem with literally).

    Most people in general and over time have been centre right. This has been true for basically all my life. Obama isn't really left wing, New Labour is a media device which was basically centre right politicians parading as if they had a conscience.

    The BBC is very centralist (annoying so) it may be slightly liberal but that's a different story.

    The reason that people have a problem with Corbyn is because he is actually left wing and literally no one else is. Most people who are part of trade unions aren't left wing it just so happens the people that run them are and have a good enough scam going on that they represent working people.

    In terms of this the BBC mainly reports on what is happening so when there has been nothing but a hate campaign from both political parties (arguably more so than labour) it's very hard not to come across badly. Personally I think corbyn looked fantastic for quite a long time but has reacted to very strong press coverage by making himself look weak rather than pushing his message so I imagine he'll slowly drift out.

    For the record I think Ed Miliband is actually quite representative of centre left but due to the political climate even he was pushed as being very left wing.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-30-2017 at 09:18 PM.
  71. #6371
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I hate people who say this (literally everyone who does is a bellend*). It is clearly used as a device to put emphasis on something. It has been used so for years, the dictionary literally* defines it as such.

    *In this case I mean it in the very formal sense.
    I'm sure I've told you loads of times... you literally take me too seriously. I mean this must be the fifth time I've said that exact shit when you've said literally before, which is literally your favourite word.

    You're right about the bell end bit though.

    The reason that people have a problem with Corbyn is because he is actually left wing and literally no one else is.
    I suspect this concept will be challenged at the next election. Do I expect Corbyn to win? No, but I expect a better performance than Miliband, which would imply that a hard-left agenda resonates more with Labour voters than a centrist position.

    Most people who are part of trade unions aren't left wing it just so happens the people that run them are and have a good enough scam going on that they represent working people.
    This is a fair observation though. I don't think it matters though. Voters are what ultimately matter, not trade unionists.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #6372
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    The US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to eliminate ISP privacy rules, following the Senate vote to take the same action last week. The legislation to kill the rules now heads to President Donald Trump for his signature or veto.

    The White House issued a statement today supporting the House's action, and saying that Trump's advisors will recommend that he sign the legislation. That would make the death of the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules official.


    The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules "shall have no force or effect" and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future.
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...wsing-history/

    Get the lube ready. Republicans at their finest.

    The House’s vote Tuesday approving a resolution that would allow internet service providers to sell data about their customers’ browsing history split nearly along party lines. The final vote was 215-205, with nine members not voting.
    The Democrats voted against the resolution as a block. On the Republican side, 15 members split from their party and opposed the bill.
    The resolution — which was approved by the Senate last week — blocks a Federal Communications Commission rule that would bar ISPs from selling customer data, including app usage, browsing history, even Social Security numbers, to marketers and others. Widely praised by privacy and consumer advocates when it was finalized last year, the rule hadn’t yet taken effect. Now — assuming President Trump signs it, as he’s expected to — it won’t.
    And not only that, but under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, which was the mechanism used by Congress to negate the rule, no such rule can ever be issued again.
    Welcome to 2017. Everything is for sale.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...t-privacy-res/
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  73. #6373
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    At least in Minnesota, something is being done about it

    Legislation approved by the Minnesota House and Senate this week would prevent ISPs from collecting personal information without written approval from customers. The quick action came in response to the US House and Senate voting to eliminate nationwide rules that would have forced ISPs to get consent from Americans before using or selling Web browsing history and app usage history for advertising purposes.When the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday discussed a budget bill, it added an amendment that says ISPs may not "collect personal information from a customer resulting from the customer's use of the telecommunications or Internet service provider without express written approval from the customer." The amendment would also prohibit ISPs from refusing to provide services to customers who do not approve collection of personal information.
    The Minnesota House added a similar amendment to its own budget bill on Tuesday, according to a Pioneer Press article.
    Democratic state Senator Ron Latz proposed the amendment in the Senate. While the amendment doesn't specifically mention browsing history, the text may be broad enough to cover such collection, and a statement from Latz said his intent is to prevent ISPs from selling "browsing history, health data, financial information, online purchase data, app usage and geo-location."
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-in-minnesota/
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  74. #6374
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Nice job, Minnesota.

    It's not often I see a legislature think fast on its feet.

    IDK if this will be effective, but I gotta hand it to them for the swift response.
  75. #6375
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker


    The Establishment fought back. Hard.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA

Posting Permissions

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