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

*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

Page 17 of 39 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,275 of 2871
  1. #1201
    I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.
    haha wp

    I think this is a fair statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #1202
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    It is that easy.
    No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.

    Everyone comes from a perspective, and everything we say and do is colored by that perspective.
    Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.

    Ball's in your court to serve me some unbiased news, then.
    AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...
    Reuters would not be Reuters without freedom from bias. We are a “stateless” news service that welcomes diversity into our newsrooms but asks all staff to park their nationality and politics at the door. This neutrality is a hallmark of our news brand and allows us to work on all sides of an issue, conflict or dispute without any agenda other than accurate, fair reporting. Our customers and our sources value Reuters for that quality and it is one we all must work to preserve.

    We must always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side.
    That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.

    Yes, I know. It's a thing that is noble to strive for, despite it being an impossible goal.
    Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.

    Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.
    It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.

    No, they can only choose to highlight or suppress their bias; they cannot eliminate their bias under any circumstances.
    You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #1203
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Cocco - Recently you put forward the idea that the world should be ruled by one or a handful of super-governments. If we learn nothing else from the 20th century it should be the idea that the Utopia is an unattainable fantasy. The 9-figure body count should be enough to convince you but apparently you think that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao just fucked up the implementation. You've asserted that if things were done YOUR way, then the Utopia would arrive. If you were in Stalin's place, maybe communism would have worked out, hmm?
    This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense. Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings. For example, I was not aware that Stalin, Hitler and Mao were ever the elected leaders of a world government. I have definitely not asserted anything about doing things my way, I just objectively looked at the pros of having a more uniform governance, less overhead and vastly larger economies of scale. If I had been in Stalin's place I doubt I would have been able to weed out all the corruption and diminish the power of the oligarchs without any governance education or experience, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine how things could have turned out worse. They might have, but I'm not exactly sure why and how. Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    let me be abundantly clear to everyone here. If someone claims that they would have brought the Utopia if they had been given the opportunity to implement their chosen government policies, you should disassociate yourself with that person immediately. There are only two explanations for such a radical point of view. 1) Hopeless irreparable incompetence 2) Pure malevolence.
    I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that. Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that". If your argument is that concentration of power leaves more avenues for abuse of power, you could have just said that and I might have agreed.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  4. #1204
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense.
    Even if I agreed that it makes economic sense (it doesn't), you still haven't explained how your preferred policy of a single homogenized super government wouldn't lead to starvation, oppression, and massive widespread death. That's what happened whenever someone else tried that. What's your plan?

    On one hand, it's possible that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's possible that you are absolutely clueless with regard to history and human behavior. And that this utopian fantasy you have is born out of uninformed ignorance and naivete. That's why I said in my post that one of the two explanations for this opinion is "hopeless irreparable ignorance"

    The other explanation, "pure malevolence" stems from the possibility that you DO know what you're talking about. You're just deluded into believing that your particular playbook would not result in the hell-on-earth that everyone else's has. And that's a really really dangerous brand of evil.

    Those are the ONLY two explanations for your opinion on this. So don't tell me that I'm twisting your words when you've cornered yourself into a finite number of interpretations.

    Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.
    If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.

    Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.
    Of course you'll never admit to being a fascist. No one has ever tried to run a campaign on 'fascism'. No one has ever gotten a positive response by saying "Hey, here's a great fascist idea...". But your proposal of a single government, consumed by egalitarianism, and governing all people by "the same laws", is literally a fascists wet dream. If you can't see that, it's because you're the kind of evil soul who thinks that his ideas would work, and that the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were just symptoms of a poor implementation.

    I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that.
    It's precisely what you claimed.

    Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that".
    Fine, you didn't say it in those exact words. But that's the argument of a semantic prick. What you said was that a single planet-wide nationality would solve the world's economic problems and eliminate military conflict. The only question now is, why in the world do you think that?

    Either A) you were just ignorant and misinformed about human beings and history. or B) You're a delusional megalomaniac who thinks he has the answers to all the world's problems.

    So which is it? Ignorance or fascism?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-29-2018 at 09:45 AM.
  5. #1205
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.
    I said let your knowledge of that news agency's bias sink in and color all the other news you get from them. (If I said the other thing, then fine, that's an option, if the news source is particularly terrible, e.g. mainstream sources.)

    If you have identified that mainstream news gets to be mainstream because it is more about entertainment than news, then you're stating the problem in a manner which implies the experiment to solve the problem, which is excellence in thinking.

    Your final point is always true. No single source can ever be taken as conveying knowledge. Realizing this as pertains to news means you're maturing in your ability to root out when someone is trying to manipulate you in subtle ways, and that's a good thing. Excellent towning.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.
    Well said.
    There are terribly biased news sources and accidentally biased news sources. I'm introducing "accidentally biased" to address your next point, and to acknowledge that it's not appropriate for me to place intentional and unintentional bias under the same umbrella.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...


    That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.
    OK, I'll look into them more seriously. Thanks.

    I would say that actively trying to eliminate bias qualifies as ethical journalism. However, it doesn't change the biases I listed earlier, which cannot be eliminated. Let's call these "accidental biases," or perhaps "incidental biases," and put them on a lower, more acceptable tier of bias.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    They cannot eliminate that the choice to report expresses a bias, the choice on what tone to use expresses a bias, the choice of whom will present the story expresses a bias, the choice of what to include given a time frame expresses a bias, the choice of which sources to search and which to present expresses bias.

    Hunter S. Thompson exploded this wide open.
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.
    Don't be petulant, ong. The world doesn't owe us an easy time of anything, but throwing our hands up because life is challenging isn't a favorable long-term plan.

    Noble goals are the most worth striving for, whether or not their ultimate realization is possible. The act of reaching for the top, for constant improvement, is the awesome, practical goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.
    Yes, but that sentiment ignores that news is gathered and presented by fallible, biased humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.
    I've expanded on some things and changed my position on how we categorize different levels of bias.
    It takes intellectual effort on both sides to approach the "factual and accurate" standard. The news agency needs to actively attempt to eliminate all possible biases, but there are biases which cannot be eliminated. The consumer of news needs to be vigilant to find news sources which are doing the above, while not ignoring that there are always biases which spin the telling of every story.
  6. #1206
    So this philosophical tangent has been nice for forum-filling, but I don't see where you've addressed what was brought up originally as the issue.

    Is it accidental, or intentional bias to ascribe the "gun control = nazism" meme to Alex Jones, and not one of the other dozens of pundits and historians who have made the same parallel?

    Is it news reporting, or propaganda to cherry pick a baseless conspiracy theorist as your opponent
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-29-2018 at 11:53 AM. Reason: spelling
  7. #1207
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.
    You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing.

    Believe me. There's a super duper smart economist I love to read, yet he thinks in these terms outside his domain. He says silly things like Trump is evil because he praised a dictator. The bitch of a position one puts himself in when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool, just like that economist I described looks like a fool to people who don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
  8. #1208
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing..
    Where am I trying to get to?

    when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool,
    I am damn damn damn dog diggity damn sure I'm right on this.

    A single planet-wide government governing all people as a single homogenized group??? Can you imagine a worse kind of hell?? I mean seriously now. What Cocco is saying is literally dangerous. And I really don't care if he's offended by the language or the finger pointing, or if anyone else around here find the tone toxic. This point has to be made.

    Now I don't expect Cocco to relent in any way. But it's just slightly possible he will think twice before making this proposal to anyone else in his life. It's just slightly possible he reflects silently on what he's proposed and says "Shit, they already tried this in Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a dozen other places and all they have to show for it is widespread abject poverty and some 100+ million gravestones"

    If not, then it's just slightly possible that someone who found themselves nodding along with Cocco's post has now been pulled back from the brink of insanity and realized "Oh yeah, that sounded good, but now I see that Cocco's idea ignores basic human nature in a way that is profoundly dangerous"

    The worst thing that could happen is to treat that opinion with any respect, or dignity. It would be terrible if we sat around here discussing the pros and cons, and then refined the idea into something we think might actually be implementable. And then some of us go off and convince two friends that its a good idea. Then they go out and convince two friends. And suddenly these ideas seep into the public discourse. And that eventually seeps into policy. And then all it really takes is one hellbent ass hole to gain some influence and then boom....society goes down the fucking toilet.

    I know the timing sucks because everyone here is on an "I hate Banana" kick and is flat out determined to force themselves to disagree with whatever I say. But that's not going to stop me because this point has to be made.

    Cocco's ideas can NOT be allowed to propagate.

    They're evil
  9. #1209
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    Cocco's ideas can NOT be allowed to propagate.

    They're evil
    I can go on for days about the problems of government, and how those problems escalate as government grows and centralizes.

    However, I think it is important to point out that the historical examples of "evil" in big government appear to emerge from things other than big government. They appear to more deeply emerge from a popular belief of social justice. More specifically, it is the belief that there is a group of people that should be denied their freedoms at any cost, and that doing so is better for the collective. This theme is at the core of Nazism and Communism and virtually all genocidal totalitarian peoples. This manifestation of atrocity appears to be unique to societies that organize around such social justice ideals.

    Yet that doesn't mean that other "softer" ideals can't also end up with the same result. One could argue that we have that in small doses today and that it undergoes power creep. Something like taxation may be a philosophical equivalent to social justice, each differing at the core only in their yield curves of how atrocity emergent from them develops.

    So, I'm saying two things here:

    (1) If Cocco is not the kind of guy who thinks that some people should be mistreated for the promise of bettering other people, then he is NOT explicitly like the evil Nazism or Communism or related others.

    However, (2) a "soft form" of this can possibly exist as the type of collectivist ideals we have today, like that which manifest when people think it's fine and dandy to use government force to collect revenues for welfare.

    It is possible that both of these end up in the same place, but the historical evidence shows that the former is obviously "evil", while the latter is up in the air.


    In short, what I'm saying is as awful as big government is, it might not be big government alone that leads to true evil, but the popular belief of social justice at any cost that does.
  10. #1210
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    (1) If Cocco is not the kind of guy who thinks that some people should be mistreated for the promise of bettering other people, then he is NOT explicitly like the evil Nazism or Communism or related others.
    Stalin wanted to feed people in his cities. So he went out to the farms, and took all the grain. then the farmers starved to death.

    Cocco has already posited a scenario where one part of the world might need oil, and the government could just take it from another part of the world and give it to them.

    that might sound good. But this kind of redistribution generally leaves everyone with nothing. So we're seeing parallels between Cocco's utopia, and the utopian visions that killed hundreds of millions of people.

    In short, what I'm saying is as awful as big government is, it might not be big government alone that leads to true evil, but the popular belief of social justice at any cost that does.
    I've given Cocco the chance to address this. What does he intend to do with the 25% of the population that refuses to abide by "same rules" as everyone else? So far there hasn't been an answer to that, but it's not hard to imagine that there are really only two potential solutions here. 1) social justice at any cost, or 2) Kill all the muslims.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-31-2018 at 07:37 AM.
  11. #1211
    Democrats hate science

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...n-science.html

    discuss....
  12. #1212
    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
  13. #1213
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    That video is from december

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.
    LOL, some things truly don't change
    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
  14. #1214
    Good riddance to a cuck called Ryan
  15. #1215
    Rats leaving the sinking ship.
  16. #1216
    What's the sinking ship?
  17. #1217
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What's the sinking ship?

    The one that's about to get hit by a blue wave

    I'm not sure to whether be happy or sad, because most of them blue commies appear not to have learned their lesson the last time

    Sadly, it is now more apparent than ever that you guys are a one party system. Not even Coke and Pepsi; more like Coke and Diet Coke. No one will choose diet when you can have the full fat; both kill you anyways.
    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
  18. #1218
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.

    These are quite interesting times.
    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
  19. #1219
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    The one that's about to get hit by a blue wave
    It's gonna be interesting for sure. I don't have a position yet, probably because most of what's out there is not very good analysis.

    Essentially what makes midterm elections turn out the way they do is where on the spectrum we are between "anti-president enthusiasm" and "the goodness of the economy". The way things are now, it is really hard to tell which will be more powerful. There is a degree of anti-Trump enthusiasm in the Democratic base, but depending on how well perceived the economy is, that enthusiasm will grow or diminish enough to create a blue wave or nothing of the sort.

    If I have to bet on it, I would say signs are that there will not be a blue wave. But I'm not certain enough about it to express a position.
  20. #1220
    It will be interesting to see a blue wave and the reaction of the newly sore losers who were just calling the previous losers sore losers.

    To be fair, I think this short sighted vengeful-in-victory shit is awful and just foments a more partisan atmosphere.
  21. #1221
    Sadly for everyone, Trump's best hope now is war.
  22. #1222
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    To be fair, I think this short sighted vengeful-in-victory shit is awful and just foments a more partisan atmosphere.
    It's a big deal.
  23. #1223
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Trump's best hope now is war.
    Why is that?
  24. #1224
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.

    These are quite interesting times.
    weak sauce demagoguery

    First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.

    As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!

    That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?

    Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!

    Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm
    Last edited by BananaStand; 04-15-2018 at 08:49 AM.
  25. #1225
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    weak sauce demagoguery

    First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.

    As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!

    That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?

    Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!

    Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm
    Often when confronted by a fork in the road, where the ego must either rationalize something ridiculous or admit a thing it believes is wrong, the ego rationalizes.
  26. #1226
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.

    These are quite interesting times.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    weak sauce demagoguery

    First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.
    Consuming news is different than watching a show and executing their sole advice, time and time again

    Plus, you are the president. You have all the news at your disposal at all times from your own private sources. You are supposed to know what is going on much better than any TV show* out there.

    * Notice I said "TV Show" and not "News Show"

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!

    That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?

    Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!

    Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm
    Totally coincidental, I'm sure

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Apr 13, 2018, morning

    Fox & Friends Is JUST WONDERING if Trump Bombing Syria Would Distract From James Comey

    https://splinternews.com/fox-friends...ria-1825236104

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Apr 13, 2018, nighttime

    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
  27. #1227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Consuming news is different than watching a show and executing their sole advice, time and time again
    Agreed. And if someone in power was watching a single news source and "executing their sole advice" it would be a problem. However, if someone merely has their policy leanings influenced by public opinion, or has questions raised that are cogent to policy-making, then it's not a problem. You're conflating the two just so you can create a statement that sounds "true enough" and use it to attack the political opposition.

    That's called demagoguery

    Plus, you are the president. You have all the news at your disposal at all times from your own private sources.
    False

    You are supposed to know what is going on much better than any TV show* out there.
    Even so, how do you propose the president find out what his constituents think about what's going on?

    * Notice I said "TV Show" and not "News Show"
    LOL, wake up dude. It's 2018. There is no longer a line between "news" and "analysis and commentary". That's not a problem isolated to Fox.

    Totally coincidental, I'm sure
    If you're suggesting that Trump took military action against a hostile nation just so he could distract from a public relations nuisance then you're playing a retarded correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of. If you're suggesting that he couldn't formulate that idea on his own, but instead did it because he saw someone say it on TV, then you should probably just withdraw from this discussion because it's clear you aren't willing to keep your opinions within the realm of sanity.
  28. #1228
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Agreed. And if someone in power was watching a single news source and "executing their sole advice" it would be a problem. However, if someone merely has their policy leanings influenced by public opinion, or has questions raised that are cogent to policy-making, then it's not a problem. You're conflating the two just so you can create a statement that sounds "true enough" and use it to attack the political opposition.

    That's called demagoguery

    If you're suggesting that Trump took military action against a hostile nation just so he could distract from a public relations nuisance then you're playing a retarded correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of. If you're suggesting that he couldn't formulate that idea on his own, but instead did it because he saw someone say it on TV, then you should probably just withdraw from this discussion because it's clear you aren't willing to keep your opinions within the realm of sanity.
    First we need to establish he does watch it religously

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...hile-president
    https://www.axios.com/trump-tweets-f...810e6ff35.html
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.331849053a1f

    I know you hate Vox, but here goes. Broken clocks tend to be right twice a day. At the 3:31, earnhard or whatever her name is says this

    So what does the president need to do to change the narrative
    Same thing she said in the other video I linked. Take a guess as to what Trump did next in every case she or some of the others on the panel say(s) this.



    And I swear to god I did not know about this video until today. But there were countless examples of this exact phenomenon out there, in plain view except for those who literally refuse to see. It's not like it's the Zapruder film either

    Here are just a few samples you can continue refusing that happened, as apparently they are not "reality" nor "within the realm of sanity"

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...htmlstory.html
    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/1437...ox-and-friends
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...trumps-reality
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ck-loop-216248

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    False
    You've never heard of the Presidential Daily Briefing right?

    I hope that is not news to you, but you act as if you have no clue as to WTF it is

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    LOL, wake up dude. It's 2018. There is no longer a line between "news" and "analysis and commentary". That's not a problem isolated to Fox.
    I didn't claim Fox News is not news. They themselves know and admit this full well

    The news part of the name is just some cruel irony on its audience

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-Entertainment
    https://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27363


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Even so, how do you propose the president find out what his constituents think about what's going on?
    Is watching Fox and Friends the only way he can do this? Oh, here's a clue: it's a rhetorical question banana
    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
  29. #1229
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    First we need to establish he does watch it religously
    Why? Was that in dispute? "religiously" is your word. You're using it to conjure up images of inescapable ritual and faith-based reverence. And you're doing that because you feel it makes Donald Trump look stupid, pliable, and brainwash-able. I'm willing to establish that he watches "often", or even "very often". But please leave all that other shit at the door.

    I know you hate Vox,
    Again you're using your own words to convey a chosen meaning designed to fit into your chosen echo chamber narrative. I don't believe I've said that I "hate" Vox. I find them to be a peddler of demagoguery lacking in journalistic integrity. That's different. The video you've posted is a clear example of this.

    For example: Trump once tweeted a message of congratulations to F&F for winning some award or in some other way being recognized (by someone other than Trump) as being the "most influential show". Mr. Vox decided to play fast and loose with the facts there and say "Trump called F&F the most influential show". (0:48)

    Take a guess as to what Trump did next in every case she or some of the others on the panel say(s) this.
    Ok...I'll guess.

    Did he draft, sign and implement an executive order?
    Did he direct leaders in congress to change their legislative trajectory?
    Did he authorize the use of military assets?
    Did he appoint someone to a job who wasn't being considered otherwise?
    Did he fire someone for reasons that were only reported on F&F?

    I'm running out of guesses here.....

    Let's see....I'll try one more.....did he maybe put out a tweet that said something along the lines of "here's something on TV that I liked"

    And I swear to god I did not know about this video until today.
    I've seen it before. After all, how could I judge Vox if I never actually pay attention to them? Similarly, I would ask you how much Fox News you watch. And if it's not much, on what basis are you criticizing them?

    But there were countless examples of this exact phenomenon out there,
    This "phenomenon" can be observed in virtually every single news-consuming citizen on earth. Pick a person. Any random person off the street. Then evaluate their facebook page and internet history. See what they've "liked", reblogged, retweeted, linked, DVR'd etc. Vox could make a "zomg he's brainwashed" video about almost anyone.

    Here are just a few samples you can continue refusing that happened, as apparently they are not "reality" nor "within the realm of sanity"
    Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter. None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda. All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".

    If you're going to leap from there to a position in which you believe that Trump wakes up every morning not knowing what the fuck he's gonna do until he gets his priorities from F&F, then you have left the realm of sanity.

    You've never heard of the Presidential Daily Briefing right?
    Movium el goalposticus

    Your original statement says that Trump already has "all the news". As evidence you've cited an intelligence briefing. Not the same thing.

    Is watching Fox and Friends the only way he can do this? Oh, here's a clue: it's a rhetorical question banana
    I asked you a non-rhetorical question that you completely evaded with this bullshit, non-sensical answer.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 04-17-2018 at 02:58 PM.
  30. #1230
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Why? Was that in dispute? "religiously" is your word. You're using it to conjure up images of inescapable ritual and faith-based reverence. And you're doing that because you feel it makes Donald Trump look stupid, pliable, and brainwash-able. I'm willing to establish that he watches "often", or even "very often". But please leave all that other shit at the door.


    Note the second bullet point. Turns out it's possible for that particular word to mean something different than actually religion related.

    Nice strawman attempt tho


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again you're using your own words to convey a chosen meaning designed to fit into your chosen echo chamber narrative. I don't believe I've said that I "hate" Vox.
    Is this another Mandela effect on my part for not having been around in a long time? Cause I can quite vividly recall you claiming all sorts of shit about vox. I could search, but FTR's search function sucks and I'm too lazy to give a fuck, so I'll gladly take your word for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I find them to be a peddler of demagoguery lacking in journalistic integrity. That's different.
    Ironic word used there. We'll address that later.

    Quite the same as I think about Fox mostly. I even posted a thread on here uttering my dislike on Fox. Sure you can find it if you need any reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The video you've posted is a clear example of this.
    The video I posted is an example of Trump's behaviour. How Fox & Friends is currently affecting legislation in your country.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    For example: Trump once tweeted a message of congratulations to F&F for winning some award or in some other way being recognized (by someone other than Trump) as being the "most influential show". Mr. Vox decided to play fast and loose with the facts there and say "Trump called F&F the most influential show". (0:48)
    Yeah about that. That's why it's called a feedback loop. You are kind of making vox' point.

    This is the loop in action

    President Donald Trump favorite Fox & Friends has been named 2017's most influential show in media by news and opinion blog Mediaite, probably because the president himself tweets, talks about, and cites the show so often on his Twitter account.
    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-fox-fr...uential-755116

    I don't think I have to explain this in any more detail as it should be overwhelmingly an obvious point, even to you



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ok...I'll guess.

    Did he draft, sign and implement an executive order?
    Did he direct leaders in congress to change their legislative trajectory?
    Did he authorize the use of military assets?
    Did he appoint someone to a job who wasn't being considered otherwise?
    Did he fire someone for reasons that were only reported on F&F?

    I'm running out of guesses here.....

    Let's see....I'll try one more.....did he maybe put out a tweet that said something along the lines of "here's something on TV that I liked"
    I'm sure if I analyze the minutiae I could come up with a million examples of when he did, rather than just last week's one(s).

    I'm sure someone else is doing that at the moment though ...

    Oh would you look at that! A nicely written article on this subject! And "old" too!

    https://www.thenation.com/article/th...s-fox-friends/

    Just for shits and giggles, here's another recent example
    https://www.npr.org/2018/04/08/60061...ite-tv-channel
    GARCIA-NAVARRO: And reports he watches on "Fox & Friends" actually influence policy.

    (SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "FOX & FRIENDS")

    PETE HEGSETH: We talked about this group of migrants, 1,200 marching to America...

    GARCIA-NAVARRO: Just last week, after a segment on a caravan of Central American migrants, President Trump called his defense secretary to the White House. And he's now deployed National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Fox News may be the most important news organization in America right now simply because it has a devoted audience inside the Oval Office of one. David Folkenflik is our media correspondent and our resident Fox expert. He told me what the president sees when he turns on the network.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I've seen it before. After all, how could I judge Vox if I never actually pay attention to them? Similarly, I would ask you how much Fox News you watch. And if it's not much, on what basis are you criticizing them?
    I hate Fox News.

    https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...nt-154830.html

    In the meantime, they have just dropped all pretense and just tripled down on their *actual* demagoguery. I already linked to the why they themselves do not consider themselves to be a news organization, not gonna do so again as there is no use

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This "phenomenon" can be observed in virtually every single news-consuming citizen on earth. Pick a person. Any random person off the street. Then evaluate their facebook page and internet history. See what they've "liked", reblogged, retweeted, linked, DVR'd etc. Vox could make a "zomg he's brainwashed" video about almost anyone.
    He's the goddamned president. The one who holds the nuke codes. He should know better.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter.
    I just gave another which wasn't. I can go on, but there is no need

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda
    I just gave one that showed exact correlation between Fox and Friends saying and Trump doing.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".
    This is the tough part. I could wager that not all republicans favor Faux, but the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are republicans. Like 99:1.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If you're going to leap from there to a position in which you believe that Trump wakes up every morning not knowing what the fuck he's gonna do until he gets his priorities from F&F, then you have left the realm of sanity.
    That is the only rational conclusion one can take, judging by how he behaves himself. One morning he has position A on a subject, by night it's B, by next morning it's C and by lunchtime that day it's position D, and yet his base will argue everytime he has any one of those positions that that was his exact position all along! It's simply amazing.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Movium el goalposticus
    This is the president's job description:

    The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

    As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
    In those roles, he should be the one making the news. As such, he should not have any god damned time left to watch TV, let alone TV shows pretending to be news shows.

    If he needs to know what is relevant to him, what is actually going on, you know, the stuff that news doesn't know, that 's why he has the President's Daily Brief. He does not need to be told, ever, WTF is going on NOR how to act on anything by Fox News/& Friends.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Your original statement says that Trump already has "all the news". As evidence you've cited an intelligence briefing. Not the same thing.
    I wonder if you actually know the distinction between the two. Please enlighten us with your ever expanding wisdom. Do remember that time is precious and should be spent doing actually useful things, particularly when you are the president of any random country.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I asked you a non-rhetorical question that you completely evaded with this bullshit, non-sensical answer.
    What question? Like, really, 'cause I missed it apparently
    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
  31. #1231
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Nice strawman attempt tho
    Nonsense. You know exactly what you were doing.

    I can quite vividly recall you claiming all sorts of shit about vox.
    Did I use the word "hate" or not? Why is this important to you? Isn't "peddlers of demagoguery without journalistic integrity" enough?

    Ironic word used there. We'll address that later.
    You kinda didn't. You just kinda said "But I think Fox is demagogues"

    The video I posted is an example of Trump's behaviour. How Fox & Friends is currently affecting legislation in your country.
    Which legislation exactly? I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that says Trump did something he wouldn't otherwise have done but for F&F. You just keep presenting instances of a F&F piece leading to a tweet or statement of some kind. I really can't state it more clearly than I already have. So, I'll just quote myself here:

    Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter. None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda. All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".
    This is the loop in action
    "action" is kind of a loaded term here. Trump likes a show. That makes the show influential. That's why Trump likes it. etc. etc. So what? What outcome has that led to that you object to?

    I don't think I have to explain this in any more detail as it should be overwhelmingly an obvious point, even to you
    It should be obvious to you that Vox was playing fast and loose with the facts. And regardless, you still have NOT demonstrated any obvious consequence to Trump liking a show. Why is this so much worse than if his favorite show was 60 Minutes, or HeeHaw?

    I'm sure if I analyze the minutiae I could come up with a million examples of when he did, rather than just last week's one(s).
    That's a cop out. What you're really saying here is "yeah Banana, you're right. Trump watching F&F hasn't led to anything more than tweeting. I can't think of or find a single example of when a F&F story compelled Trump to take an action he wouldn't have otherwise taken. There really is no evidence that Trump is a blank-minded idiot who needs to be spoon fed his priorities from a bimbo, a square, and a guy who looks like a cabbage patch doll"

    A nicely written article on this subject! And "old" too!
    I call FOUL on this! The article opens with a few paragraphs about how Bannon is a jerk. Then goes on to call F&F "news for dummies". Where in this article are you seeing a direct causal link between a F&F story and a change in policy?

    this is the closest I could find:
    These people have substantial influence over the president’s policy agenda and day-to-day priorities. That is not a conspiracy theory but a demonstrable fact.
    It doesn't actually "demonstrate" any fact though. That sentence just contains a link to yet another story about a correlation between F&F and Trump's tweets.

    Just for shits and giggles, here's another recent example
    Are you really suggesting that if Trump had heard about the immigrant caravan from CNN, that he would have done something different? Or that he wouldn't have heard about the caravan had he not watched F&F that day? Is that what you're suggesting? Seriously?

    You're not telling me anything other than "Trump watches TV". You haven't demonstrated, at all, how it's influencing his thinking. Again, Fox is speaking, ostensibly, for Trump voters. When he acknowledges them with a tweet, he's saying "I'm listening". To infer anything beyond that, without a shred of evidence, is outside the realm of sanity.

    In the meantime, they have just dropped all pretense and just tripled down on their *actual* demagoguery.
    I'm not going to play the "who's a bigger demagogue" game with you here. I'm just going to say that if what you're implying with you're use of, and emphasis on the word "actual", is that Vox is NOT demagogue-ing, then you've left the realm of sanity.

    He's the goddamned president. The one who holds the nuke codes. He should know better.
    Know better than to what? Retweet things? Than to watch TV? Then to acknowledge his constituents when they speak to him?

    Explain to me why Trump tweeting something he saw on F&F is not simply an acknowledgement of "i'm listening". Explain to me why it just HAS to be caveman-Trump saying "Mmm, me like TV. Pretty girl say laws. Me go make what she say. Oooga booga"

    I just gave another which wasn't. I can go on, but there is no need
    No...you didn't.

    I just gave one that showed exact correlation between Fox and Friends saying and Trump doing
    .
    No...you didn't

    This is the tough part. I could wager that not all republicans favor Faux, but the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are republicans. Like 99:1
    That's kinda my point. People who vote for Trump-- republicans-- watch Fox. They watch Fox because they like what Fox says. When Trump watches Fox, he hears what his voters like. Why do you have a problem with that?

    That is the only rational conclusion one can take, judging by how he behaves himself.
    You have yet to show any "rational" link between a F&F piece, and a change in Trump's "behavior". I'll say it again. You're playing a really juvenile correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of.

    One morning he has position A on a subject, by night it's B, by next morning it's C and by lunchtime that day it's position D, and yet his base will argue everytime he has any one of those positions that that was his exact position all along! It's simply amazing.
    ^Demagoguery. Right there. You should go ask David Pakman if you can be on his show.

    In those roles, he should be the one making the news.
    I'm stunned right now. Are you saying Trump is not making the news? Are you really saying that?

    As such, he should not have any god damned time left to watch TV, let alone TV shows pretending to be news shows.
    I'm further stunned. If you're saying that you think it's best that the President not consume news media, you've left the realm of sanity. Even Washington read newspapers for fuck's sake!

    If he needs to know what is relevant to him, what is actually going on, you know, the stuff that news doesn't know, that 's why he has the President's Daily Brief.
    If you're saying that news media and the Presidential Daily Brief are redundant, please cite your source. Does the PDB tell Trump how his voting base *feels* about what's going on?

    He does not need to be told, ever, WTF is going on NOR how to act on anything by Fox News/& Friends.
    can you demonstrate, a single instance where Trump wouldn't have known something if he wasn't watching F&F? Furthermore, can you demonstrate a single instance where Trump acted differently than he otherwise would have had he not seen something on F&F? The only exception to that obviously being tweets. Even in the case of tweets though, that's not an act influencing policy. It's simply an acknowledgement of "I'm listening"

    I wonder if you actually know the distinction between the two. Please enlighten us with your ever expanding wisdom. Do remember that time is precious and should be spent doing actually useful things, particularly when you are the president of any random country
    Since time is precious, why don't you just cite me a source that says the PDB tells Trump how popular opinion is reacting to current events.

    What question? Like, really, 'cause I missed it apparently
    Really? You quoted it! Here it is again:

    How do you propose the President remain in touch with popular opinion regarding current events and government policy?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 04-17-2018 at 09:51 PM.
  32. #1232
  33. #1233
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  34. #1234
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    That "Happiest Country" study is the biggest, smelliest, most disgusting lie going right now. Seriously....it's just garbage.

    How about they do another study.....

    Go to Finland, stop people on the street, and ask "Would you like it if we moved you, your family, and your job to the United States right now?"

    If you get more than 30% to say "no", I will suck Bernie Sanders' taint.
  35. #1235
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Go to Finland, stop people on the street, and ask "Would you like it if we moved you, your family, and your job to the United States right now?"

    If you get more than 30% to say "no", I will suck Bernie Sanders' taint.
    Deal. I'll even throw in some listerine.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  36. #1236
    Suicide rates per 100,000...

    UK - 6
    USA - 10.1
    Finland - 16.5
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #1237
    That one was 2005, I found a more recent study though from 2015...

    UK - 7.4
    USA - 12.6
    Finland - 14.2

    Ok Finns are getting happier, it seems. Still, happiest? If you ask the happy people, sure.

    I figured this out before anyway. High suicide rate means more dead unhappy people, or less alive unhappy people. So... makes sense that Finland turns up a happy place.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #1238
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    The premise is solid. Scandinavia includes some of the most freedom oriented policy in the world. I'm not sure why the rest of the video discussed policies that aren't those policies.
  39. #1239
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Suicide rates per 100,000...

    UK - 6
    USA - 10.1
    Finland - 16.5
    UK so low only because Brits only feel okay when y'all depressed.
  40. #1240
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That "Happiest Country" study is the biggest, smelliest, most disgusting lie going right now. Seriously....it's just garbage.
    The Pareto distribution is legit. 20% of Fins might do 80% of the good in Finland. If policy is to take a bunch from those 20% and give to the 80%, the average "happiness" might go up. Sounds like a plan! A few problems though: it's not sustainable, and it's incredibly unfair.
  41. #1241
  42. #1242
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The Pareto distribution is legit. 20% of Fins might do 80% of the good in Finland. If policy is to take a bunch from those 20% and give to the 80%, the average "happiness" might go up. Sounds like a plan! A few problems though: it's not sustainable, and it's incredibly unfair.
    My complaint was with the specific instrument used to measure "happiness" in the first place. They asked people to imagine a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is the worst possible life in your country and 10 is the best possible life in your country. Then they asked people to rate their own life on that scale.

    Cracked bullshit

    If you have a boatload of egalitarian policies, then EVERYONE has the "best" life. That doesn't mean it's actually all that good.

    Imagine if your 1 to 10 scale were a ladder. In Awesome-land, the ladder is really tall and there are large spaces between rungs. In Egalitarian shit-holes, the ladder is really short and the rungs are very close close together. The short-ladder countries can create the illusion of prosperity by showing A) almost everyone is near the top and B) mobility is really high. But those are only illusions because A) Everyone is ALSO near the bottom, and B) mobility is really easy when the rungs of the ladder are so close together.

    In other words a 5 in America might be a 7 in Finland. That doesn't mean that the Fins are "happier".
  43. #1243
  44. #1244
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    He hasn't, and he won't.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  45. #1245
    Are you saying NK won't ever cease its nuclear testing, or that NK won't ever get rid of all of its nukes?
  46. #1246
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    it's not sustainable
    Economic policy is a reaction / control between what is wanted and what is available, right?
    Economic policies are temporary by the nature of people changing their values over time, right?

    So what do you mean by sustainable?
    Or what does it matter if something is temporary, but works for a while?
  47. #1247
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Are you saying NK won't ever cease its nuclear testing, or that NK won't ever get rid of all of its nukes?
    Which one fits the definition of denuclearize?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  48. #1248
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Which one fits the definition of denuclearize?
    Whichever one Trump can claim as victory, even when it is just promised and doesn't really happen.
  49. #1249
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Which one fits the definition of denuclearize?
    I'd say they both do, but after you said what you said I had a sudden realization that we might be talking about two different things.

    I don't think NK is going to give up its nukes. I do think NK is going to give up its nuclear ambitions (i.e. its R&D). Lots of people have been calling the latter denuclearization, though I see now how that term is very ambiguous and a better one could be used.
  50. #1250
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Economic policy is a reaction / control between what is wanted and what is available, right?
    The play between what is wanted and what is available is a great way of describing economics in its most fundamental terms. Policy is, as you say, something implemented based on desires and constraints.

    Economic policies are temporary by the nature of people changing their values over time, right?
    I'd say that's true. It kinda has to be true.

    So what do you mean by sustainable?
    Perhaps a decent way of describing what I mean is when there isn't good enough reason to think that a system is fragile, then a system is (as far as can be known) sustainable. I think the Scandinavian welfare system is fragile, which means that even though it looks like it might be working now, effects occur that result in unraveling.

    Or what does it matter if something is temporary, but works for a while?
    I'd say that's fine if it's meant to work for a while and meant to be temporary. I don't think the welfare systems we're discussing fall into those categories.
  51. #1251
    Courage: noun. Fucking a rich guy for personal gain, getting it, and then demanding more money.

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...hollywood.html

    I'm shaking my head here West Hollywood. Shame.
  52. #1252
    Roseanne's show got some buzz when it first came out. But I haven't heard anyone talk about it since. Probably because it wasn't Hannity-like enough to either engage the right, or piss off the left.

    Then that fat harpy said some mean things on Twitter.

    Now count how many times you hear her now cancelled show called "alt-right".
  53. #1253
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Roseanne's show got some buzz when it first came out. But I haven't heard anyone talk about it since. Probably because it wasn't Hannity-like enough to either engage the right, or piss off the left.

    Then that fat harpy said some mean things on Twitter.

    Now count how many times you hear her now cancelled show called "alt-right".
    b b but I posted about it. It was pretty good too, shame to hear it's cancelled.
  54. #1254
    I can't believe they cancelled Roseanne after Wanda Sykes' racist tweet! She was just the "consulting producer"!

  55. #1255
    So......who does steal wallets??
  56. #1256
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So......who does steal wallets??
    That's enough critical thinking from you, mister!
  57. #1257
  58. #1258
    I just can't shake the feeling that the entire tone of this story would be 180 degrees different if the driver was black.

    It doesn't actually mention race in the story, but there's just no way he's black.

    http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/06/...uch-worse.html
  59. #1259
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Whites are truly the most oppressed race in the history of america. Maybe ever.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  60. #1260
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Whites are truly the most oppressed race in the history of america. Maybe ever.
    The sad thing is I just want to know what scene the left part is from.
  61. #1261
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Whites are truly the most oppressed race in the history of america. Maybe ever.
    Tbf that's about as long as the Germans thought they were on top for.
  62. #1262
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I thought it was from a movie. The girl looks like Emma Roberts, who was fantastic in The Blackcoats Daughter. Turns out it's just from some russian girls instagram.
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BcxriKhlSWs/
    Last edited by oskar; 06-28-2018 at 09:10 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  63. #1263
    I like her, she's not taking any shit.

  64. #1264
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I like her, she's not taking any shit.
    She's a low IQ individual
  65. #1265
    Waters 2020!
  66. #1266
    She is too old to get pregnant I think.

    Trump will/has done more to fire enthusiasm in democrats than any democrat could/would.
  67. #1267
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Trump will/has done more to fire enthusiasm in democrats than any democrat could/would.
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    Cmon man, you're smarter than this...
  68. #1268
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    Cmon man, you're smarter than this...
    I'd say the media has done more to move people who have acknowledged that the media is trying to mislead them from the Democrats, and also the media has done more to move people who have not acknowledged that the media is trying to mislead them towards the Democrats.
  69. #1269
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'd say the media has done more to move people who have acknowledged that the media is trying to mislead them from the Democrats, and also the media has done more to move people who have not acknowledged that the media is trying to mislead them towards the Democrats.
    Wait, how does realizing Fox News is a propaganda machine turn people into R voters?

    It's not the media who is separating kids from families, holding them in 'camps', making them swear allegiance to a flag Orwell style, and putting them on trial.

    Seriously, (most) people fucking hate that and they're going to remember it in November.
  70. #1270
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    they're going to remember it in November.
    No they won't
  71. #1271
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's not the media who is separating kids from families, holding them in 'camps', making them swear allegiance to a flag Orwell style, and putting them on trial.
    It's the media making you think there are people that disagree.

    Nobody wants kids to be mistreated. Everybody wants it to not happen and much has been done to try to make sure it doesn't.
  72. #1272
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's the media making you think there are people that disagree.

    Nobody wants kids to be mistreated. Everybody wants it to not happen and much has been done to try to make sure it doesn't.
    I believe YOU don't want kids to be mistreated, but the actions of your government suggest applying that same moral to EVERYONE is being generous. It's hard to see this as some unintended side effect of immigration policy. It wasn't happening under Obama (at least not on a large scale), but now it's happening under Trump.

    So do you think this is all just a big mistake or accident? And if it is just a mistake, then how does a mistake like this happen - i.e., when someone says 'let's jail these illegal immigrants', doesn't someone else ask 'what about the ones with kids?' And if they don't ask that then why aren't they getting sacked?
  73. #1273
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I believe YOU don't want kids to be mistreated, but the actions of your government suggest applying that same moral to EVERYONE is being generous. It's hard to see this as some unintended side effect of immigration policy. It wasn't happening under Obama (at least not on a large scale), but now it's happening under Trump.
    It's not new with Trump. And "it" isn't even what "it" is supposed to be. The media has reported a bunch of false things and has certainly not reported any of the facts of how things work and who does what.
  74. #1274
  75. #1275

Posting Permissions

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