If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   After-tax pay drops to lowest level since 1959. That change you voted for? Better check the couch cushions   (bloomberg.com) divider line 185
    More: Fail, U.S., discretionary income, personal incomes, consumer spending, stock-index futures, berg survey, Conference Board, durable goods  
•       •       •

2260 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2013 at 10:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-03 01:31:41 AM

whidbey: John Henry Eden: [xtupload.com image 660x437]

30 years of proof positive that trickle down economics has been a complete failure, and this picture sums it all up.

Well, if you think about it,  what incentive does the 1% have to share its bounty with the masses who got them to the top in the first place?

Nothing legally compelling them.

And I guess they feel that throwing a bone to the rabble works every now and then to at least keep our society appearing to look brim with commerce.



1.bp.blogspot.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

And when Bastille Day II comes and the 1%'s assets are seized and they are the first up against the wall, they shouldn't act too surprised about it.
 
m00
2013-03-03 01:33:04 AM

whidbey: And while I would also agree that both parties are heavily influenced by big business if not outright controlled, the Democratic Party is the only hope we have of changing the paradigm. The biggest reason why their policies are watered down is not because of business lobbying, but because the people who voted them in by and large do not take responsibility past checking "Yes" at the ballot box.


Well, there were recent movements that tried to change both parties -- OWS tried to change the Democratic party, and the Tea Party tried to change the Republican party. They actually wanted the same thing. Yep. In the beginning of the Tea Party movement Sarah Palin's big speech was railing against "Corporate Crony Capitalism." AKA, government colluding with big business to screw over everybody but the elites. This is exactly what OWS also wanted to stop. The media had to work pretty hard to keep both movements at each others' throats -- FOX making OWS look like unwashed hippie hooligans, and NBC (owned by GE, think about that) making the Tea Party look like crazed gun nuts. This gave the parties enough time to squash the movements. Tea Party was taken over by the establishment, and OWS was marginalized.

I don't think we can change either party at this point. Big business controls each, and controls the media.

Also, I seriously doubt the Democratic party wants Republicans to disappear. Who else would they blame when money kept being funneled to the .01%?

whidbey: That might be true, but the "conservative elite" doesn't even believe in man-made climate change. Or that we should even have a progressive tax system. I don't understand the need to force these kinds of comparisons


I guarantee you that the conservative elite believes in man-made impact to their environment (lets leave out "climate change" here). This is another example of using mass media to obscure the problem to maintain the status quo. The problem is that resource extraction is messy and damaging to the environment. Whether you want to call it "climate change" or "we can't breathe the air or drink the water and our food supply is also poison" is immaterial. But the focus is on this thing called climate change, which is harder to prove. Why? Because as long as there is a "debate" the status quo can be maintained by the conservative elite, while the liberal elite can appear to be "doing something" (all the while benefiting from the same resource extraction). But if Democrats really wanted to put an end to this, they'd drop the climate change and just say "yeah... extracting resources makes people sick. Oil spills make people sick. Fracking makes people sick. Pollution makes people sick. Chemical runoff from factories contaminate ground water. Rich people make money by killing you." But then there would be no debate, because you can't argue that.  Instead it's all about climate change, because it's a debate neither side can win. The media is part of the scam, they set topics and talking points that voters of both side troll either with.

I really can't talk to voters of either side at this point. You know... Republican voters actually believe that people voted for Obama because they "want free stuff" and that 47% of the country are "takers." It's insane. But it's no more insane than Democrat voters who think Republicans votes the way Jesus wants, and that Republican voters don't care about the sick or poor, and have some sort of irrational gun fetish, and want to go back to some idealized 1950s lifestyle.  These are all beliefs that stem from the media propaganda machines. Meanwhile, GE isn't paying income tax and Wall Street is stealing your money to give themselves bigger bonuses, and they use the savings to fund political campaigns to preserve their good fortune. The deck is stacked against us serfs.
 
2013-03-03 01:33:59 AM

John Henry Eden: And when Bastille Day II comes and the 1%'s assets are seized and they are the first up against the wall, they shouldn't act too surprised about it.


Honestly I wouldn't support that solution.  It's worse than the problem.
 
2013-03-03 01:36:18 AM

utharda: I figured it out!

To get the trickle down to work, we need to punch holes in the job creators so their holy juices can pour over us.


i.imgur.com

/Sufficiently obscure?
 
2013-03-03 01:38:35 AM
All I know is that I didn't pay shiat for taxes this year (legally).

After all the deductions and credits, my federal income tax came as a whopping 3% (mostly due.to installing solar panels on my house). My state has no income taxes. I bought a new car this year, and paid zero sales tax (electric cars are tax free in my state). Having a solar powered house means I pay almost zero taxes to my utilities. Having an electric car means I pay no gas taxes. And heck, keeping my boat at a tribally owned marina means I pay no taxes on that either.

Pretty much the only taxes I paid this year was $1,200 in property tax on my house. Anyone complaining about too much taxes is simply doing it wrong.
 
2013-03-03 01:39:14 AM

GranoblasticMan: utharda: I figured it out!

To get the trickle down to work, we need to punch holes in the job creators so their holy juices can pour over us.

[i.imgur.com image 343x600]

/Sufficiently obscure?


At least Broomhilda  was hot

www.blackfilm.com
 
2013-03-03 01:42:02 AM

Rabbitgod: Max pay law.

CEO pay must be equal to or less than 100 times average company employee pay.

If the CEO is receiving maximum pay allowed but wants a raise, he needs to up the average pay by giving everyone else a raise too.


Okay by me!

Now, we'll tie the CEO bonus to continuing to screw the employees, then pass the savings to the Board of Directors and stockholders!

CEOs making the big bucks are doing so at the blessing of Boards of Directors. They aren't autonomous.
 
m00
2013-03-03 01:42:26 AM
Also Whidbey, I can explain why this sequester thing is complete and utter fabricated nonsense designed to be a win/win for the ruling class (which are comprised of both parties working in cooperation). :p
 
2013-03-03 01:43:06 AM

Emposter: Yeah, this is totally Obummer's fault, not at all the fault of the party that is constantly not only refusing to implement a rational progressive tax policy but also trying to shift even greater burdens onto the non-rich while cutting taxes for the rich, trying to repeal the minimum wage and block increases, and working to get rid of overtime, among many other wonderful proposals that totally aren't a class war against the middle class when THEY do them.


I had a co worker complain last month about his property tax going up due to a mill levy increase for the schools. He blamed Obama.

Long story short, he thinks the president approves and signs off on every tax in the nation at every level. That's why the tax code is so big.
 
2013-03-03 01:46:06 AM

John Henry Eden: And when Bastille Day II comes and the 1%'s assets are seized and they are the first up against the wall, they shouldn't act too surprised about it.


Their assets, and asses, will be offshore getting drunk on $1,000/bottle having sex with underage slaves while watching us go nuts on each other on t.v.

They already know a day of reckoning is possible and they worked very hard to make sure that this time around the only people that will feel it is us plebs.
 
2013-03-03 01:49:09 AM

m00: I don't think we can change either party at this point. Big business controls each, and controls the media.


I disagree.  Again, we are not seeing any substantial break in the apathy.  Progressivism is not seeing anywhere near the level of support.  Even Obama's moderate policies are seen as insane extremism.

I guarantee you that the conservative elite believes in man-made impact to their environment.

If they do, they don't care, or are intentionally blind to the real problems.  But that's splitting hairs.

But the focus is on this thing called climate change, which is harder to prove

It's not hard to prove. Progressive-leaning Democrats find it an uphill battle because public support is not strongly organized, and  social conservatives still believe in using fossil fuel for practical uses and for the commerce it brings.

You're still refusing to acknowledge that the real issue is public apathy.   Not what Congress is/isn't doing.

I really can't talk to voters of either side at this point. You know... Republican voters actually believe that people voted for Obama because they "want free stuff" and that 47% of the country are "takers." It's insane. But it's no more insane than Democrat voters who think Republicans votes the way Jesus wants, and that Republican voters don't care about the sick or poor, and have some sort of irrational gun fetish, and want to go back to some idealized 1950s lifestyle.

It's not insane.   They want to privatize Medicare and eliminate other social safety nets.  The abortion "question" keeps coming up, as does talk of repealing the Civil Rights Act.

You make some good points, but I suspect you're not going to budge from the "both sides are the same/do it/are bad"  false equivalence I've frankly become tired of refuting.
 
2013-03-03 01:50:12 AM

MurphyMurphy: Their assets, and asses, will be offshore getting drunk on $1,000/bottle having sex with underage slaves while watching us go nuts on each other on t.v.


Fark Party.
 
2013-03-03 02:05:29 AM
You mean GOP austerity measures haven't brought about utopia yet?
 
2013-03-03 02:16:23 AM

shotglasss: cretinbob: [freethoughtblogs.com image 500x607]

That stat has been thoroughly discredited. Thanks for playing though.


I'm sorry, I missed where you provided the correct stats.

I will be waiting.
 
2013-03-03 02:16:54 AM

m00: But it's no more insane than Democrat voters who think Republicans votes the way Jesus wants, and that Republican voters don't care about the sick or poor, and have some sort of irrational gun fetish, and want to go back to some idealized 1950s lifestyle


It's much more insane because the GOP refuses to do anything to suggest it doesn't want that stuff.
 
2013-03-03 02:19:10 AM

randomjsa: Lionel Mandrake: The President controls wages?

Oh, right, he's a dictator!  He should dictate that greedy executives pay workers more!  Come on, Chairman 0bongo, dictate the f*ck out of those greedy capitalists like the tyrant you are!!

Obama the Blameless strikes again. It's always a mystery to me how Bush was responsible for <b>everything</b> bad that happened while there's always an excuse for Obama the Blameless.


Just like Bush tanked the economy by putting 2 expensive wars on credit, and because of a lie.  I am still trying to figure out what Obama exactly did.
 
2013-03-03 02:22:23 AM

Without Fail: walkingtall: If some of you fark progressives have an answer I would love to hear it. Taxes arent it.

An extremely progressive estate tax that starts at 1 million. Within a generation the National Debt will disappear.

Do the math.


Tru dat! If you make millions because your rich uncle died then that income should be taxed just like any other income tax.
 
2013-03-03 02:24:48 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Notabunny: Emposter: whidbey: FAIL tag is for submitter, who would rather blame government because it needs to collect revenues instead of recognizing that huge corporations have been farking the American worker for decades now with deflated wages in spite of huge profit margins.

Heretic!  How dare you criticize the Sacred Job Creators, hallowed be their names?  Step back and realize that you strike out only in envy and jealousy.  Once you have realized this, you can set forth on the path of salvation, where you will give wealth to the Holy Job Creators, and perhaps, in their infinite compassion, they might allow a miniscule fraction of that wealth might trickle back to you.

[img.photobucket.com image 680x360]

productivity increase starting in the early 80s?

wow!  if there were only some machines and things that companies started to spend a lot of money on back then to increase productivity.


... Aaaand drastically falling wages are the natural byproduct of free market innovation?

Seriously, I'm not clear on your argument here.
 
m00
2013-03-03 02:30:33 AM

whidbey: I disagree. Again, we are not seeing any substantial break in the apathy. Progressivism is not seeing anywhere near the level of support. Even Obama's moderate policies are seen as insane extremism.


Obama is part of the same corrupt system. Voter apathy exists because nobody at the top benefits from engaged voters. All the outlets that traditionally engaged voters, are now drowning them with useless factoids. Oh look, a Republican took a drink during a speech. Lets play that clip 13 times in 24 hours (seriously).

Yeah well, Obama implemented Mitt Romney's healthcare system, which is a payout to insurance providers. If Obama was actually progressive, we'd have a system like Canada, or Norway, or Germany. So how fantastic is this... Obama implements the Republican plan, and we've wasted 2 years with liberals defending it to their dying breath and conservatives claiming it will be the end of society. Meanwhile, pay no attention to those drones overhead.

whidbey: If they do, they don't care, or are intentionally blind to the real problems. But that's splitting hairs.


Oh, they know. They just don't care. When you are a billionaire, or even a hundred-millionaire, you are going to survive whatever catastrophe you inflict on others. In fact, things might even improve for you personally, because you control the resources and they'll be even more scarce. Just look at the GM crop stuff. We've farked up the environment and ecosystem to the point where we're going to need GM crops just to filter out the chemicals in the soil. Guess who owns the intellectual property rights to GM seeds? It's like having a monopoly on raincoats, and being able to make it rain at will. This is what the elites are doing -- and it's not right v left. That is an artificial division created so that people are distracted while this goes on.

whidbey: It's not hard to prove. Progressive-leaning Democrats find it an uphill battle because public support is not strongly organized, and social conservatives still believe in using fossil fuel for practical uses and for the commerce it brings.

You're still refusing to acknowledge that the real issue is public apathy. Not what Congress is/isn't doing.


I don't want to get into a global climate change debate, because I'm not convinced of "man made global climate change." But I do agree we need to stop destroying our ecosystem, which means get off coal and oil and pursue sustainable energy, and sustainable farming and fishing while we're at it.

So think about that. I don't fully believe in global climate change, but I think we should be investing in sustainable energy. We should be driving electric cars. We need to stop mining coal and drilling oil. Other than climate change, there are at least 3 or 4 solid reasons we need to do this. So if the goal is to do these things, why is the public debate 100% focused on the climate change issue? As I said, think about that. It would be easier to convince conservative voters to implement exactly the same policy one would want to combat climate change if you dropped climate change from the debate. Just think about that one.

Oh, and I completely do acknowledge public apathy.

But I think mass media has created an apathetic public by making all news essentially entertainment, and not even good entertainment. And people are bombarded with "omg X politician from the other side is elected, the world is going end." It's like, I heard Republicans and Democrats say this (2012) is the most important election in our lifetimes! Really? It's always the most important election. It's ALWAYS the end of the world. The economy is ALWAYS doomed... because the other side is crazy, you can't reason with them!! It gets tiring, people tune it out. They get on message boards and hear people parrot talking points. Get talked down to. That's why they're apathetic.

It's like, when I debate a liberal they argue with me as if I were spouting conservative talking points. When I debate a conservative they argue with me as if I were spouting liberal talking points. That's what people have been trained to do. That's what is creating apathy. I close the browser, and say "fark this shiat."

whidbey: It's not insane. They want to privatize Medicare and eliminate other social safety nets. The abortion "question" keeps coming up, as does talk of repealing the Civil Rights Act.


Who is "they"? Republican politicians? Voters? Media pundits? There are some real unsolved issues, but unfortunately they never get debated. Just to pick abortion... I used to be pro-choice, but I moved to a (somewhat) pro-life position after really thinking about it over a number of years (no, I'm not religious). I kinda think there is no right answer, because there some seriously hard bioethics questions that I think should be discussed in the public forum, and sadly it's not. It's all slogans and strawman. Once we start actually being able to clone humans and human organs and making designer babies by gene selection (and that's coming in the next 20 years), these hard ethical questions about "what is a person" will really start to matter. But that's a whole different ball of wax.

whidbey: You make some good points, but I suspect you're not going to budge from the "both sides are the same/do it/are bad" false equivalence I've frankly become tired of refuting.


Well, I don't self identify as either so it makes it easy for me because I'm not emotionally invested in either side. But I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying "they're just as bad"... I'm saying at the top -- amongst the genuine ruling class -- there is no right and there is no left. There is just them, and us. Right and left are collections of arbitrary positions that were invented to create a distraction (and yes apathy) amongst the voting class. It's not real.

I'm not sure they hold any values, other than amassing power for its own sake. But this is every warlord and conquered throughout history, right?

Do you want me to say that Republicans are more "evil"? Sure.

But what I'm also saying is that it's a game of good cop/bad cop and they're both on the same side -- the side that is opposed to both you and me. It so happens that Republicans are the bad cop. But this doesn't make the good cop "good." Any more than in the interrogation room at the police station, that the good cop is your friend. He has the exact same job as the bad cop, and the exact same goals. See what I'm saying?
 
2013-03-03 02:34:02 AM

doglover: cretinbob: [freethoughtblogs.com image 500x607]

Japan also has a slave caste of people who work part time for peanuts. They ain't makin' no 1/11th of a CEO's salary.


You are really stupid and you should feel bad, but you are too stupid to know why you should feel bad.
 
2013-03-03 02:35:04 AM
ITT - Results of successful divide and conquer and misdirection campaigns

This has all happened before and will happen again, in one way or another. Maybe. It would suck if we ended up stuck in a 1984 type situation where the powers that be are so entrenched as to be immutable in perpetuity.

The thing is the founders worked really hard and spent a lot of time pondering how to make it so that this sort of corruption from within could be prevented, and failing that could still manage to be fixed without violence or a complete collapse of civilization. But it seems that any honest system is able to be (and perhaps is all but guaranteed to be) subverted on a long enough time line. The sad thing is the country is still quite young, relatively, and yet...
 
2013-03-03 02:38:07 AM
 

m00: genuine ruling class


Except there really isn't one.

Right and left are collections of arbitrary positions that were invented to create a distraction (and yes apathy) amongst the voting class

Might I suggest some history books?
 
2013-03-03 02:39:50 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: This has all happened before and will happen again, in one way or anothe


The French Reovlution and American Revolutionary war were about completely different issues.
 
2013-03-03 02:44:59 AM

WhyteRaven74: Eddie Ate Dynamite: This has all happened before and will happen again, in one way or anothe

The French Reovlution and American Revolutionary war were about completely different issues.


I suppose that depends upon how fine of a point you wish to argue. They do have their similarities in nature and cause.
 
2013-03-03 02:46:27 AM
If pay had been increasing for the last 33 years like it had increased for the previous 33 years we wouldn't have any debt issue to speak of, the deficit wouldn't be a problem either. Also we'd have fewer people relying on government programs to get by, which would have saved a bundle. But some people will insist it's all the government's fault, not the private sector's.
 
m00
2013-03-03 02:46:42 AM

WhyteRaven74: m00: genuine ruling class

Except there really isn't one.

Right and left are collections of arbitrary positions that were invented to create a distraction (and yes apathy) amongst the voting class

Might I suggest some history books?


0/10

See, I like Whidbey. Despite the fact we disagree, he's interested in having a conversation and I enjoy that because it makes me examine my own positions, as well as consider outside perspectives. Telling someone to "go read some history books" is exactly the kind of dismissive arrogant bullshiat that doesn't appeal to me.
 
2013-03-03 02:50:02 AM

m00: WhyteRaven74: m00: genuine ruling class

Except there really isn't one.

Right and left are collections of arbitrary positions that were invented to create a distraction (and yes apathy) amongst the voting class

Might I suggest some history books?

0/10

See, I like Whidbey. Despite the fact we disagree, he's interested in having a conversation and I enjoy that because it makes me examine my own positions, as well as consider outside perspectives. Telling someone to "go read some history books" is exactly the kind of dismissive arrogant bullshiat that doesn't appeal to me.


You don't like books?
 
m00
2013-03-03 02:56:07 AM

WhyteRaven74: If pay had been increasing for the last 33 years like it had increased for the previous 33 years we wouldn't have any debt issue to speak of, the deficit wouldn't be a problem either. Also we'd have fewer people relying on government programs to get by, which would have saved a bundle. But some people will insist it's all the government's fault, not the private sector's.


(from the NYT)

"[GE] reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion."


Is that GE's fault, or government's fault? Or both?
 
2013-03-03 02:56:08 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: They do have their similarities in nature and cause.


No they don't. The America Revolution was about getting a voice in representative government, which despite the usual perception, was something supported by a good number of members of Parliament, including a member of the House of Lords with the last name Cornwallis. The colonies just happened to have the benefit of being far away enough that there was no real way to put the squeeze on anything until it was too late. Though really had a few people over in England not overestimated their side, things could've been settled even after the shooting started. The French Revolution was about kicking down an entire social set up. Sadly the people in charge had the wisdom of retards and it got way out of hand and turned into genocide. That is after a nice case of unjustified and unjustifiable regicide. Killing Louis XVI was vengeance and blood lust pure and simple, and with him dead things got real ugly cause the people in charge discovered they could get away with it and worse, at least for the people of France, they liked it. Marat and Robespierre ended up being far worse than Louis XVI ever was or could have been. Then again between the two of them you had not even a clue as to how to actually run anything. Which is another difference between the two revolutions, one was organized and run by a fairly sizable group of people who knew how to run things. The other wasn't.
 
2013-03-03 02:57:38 AM

Bucky Katt: m00: WhyteRaven74: m00: genuine ruling class

Except there really isn't one.

Right and left are collections of arbitrary positions that were invented to create a distraction (and yes apathy) amongst the voting class

Might I suggest some history books?

0/10

See, I like Whidbey. Despite the fact we disagree, he's interested in having a conversation and I enjoy that because it makes me examine my own positions, as well as consider outside perspectives. Telling someone to "go read some history books" is exactly the kind of dismissive arrogant bullshiat that doesn't appeal to me.

You don't like books?


Apparently not. Anti-intellectualism  is a requirement to vote Republican.
 
m00
2013-03-03 03:00:25 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Apparently not. Anti-intellectualism is a requirement to vote Republican.


You realize, you kinda just proved me right. Right?
 
m00
2013-03-03 03:06:11 AM

Bucky Katt: You don't like books?


I love books, I just don't like trolls who desire to add nothing to a conversation.

Look, either "ha ha we're all on an anonymous message board and having a laugh" or "our country, and the direction that it's going, is seriously and fundamentally flawed." Whidbey talked about voter apathy... look I'm sorry but I don't take many things seriously but yeah this stuff is pretty important. If people are going to be a jackass about it, I'm just not going to engage. Sorry.
 
2013-03-03 03:07:37 AM

Stoker: Obama isn't the cause, just the continuation.


Hell, he's not even the continuation unless you (general you) want to blame him for the Republicans' microscopic boner for tax cuts, Ayn Rand, unparalleled obstructionism and tax cuts.
 
2013-03-03 03:08:06 AM
Not sure how submitter came up with that headline after reading the article. Possibly off his meds?
 
2013-03-03 03:09:02 AM

Zeppelininthesky: randomjsa: Lionel Mandrake: The President controls wages?

Oh, right, he's a dictator!  He should dictate that greedy executives pay workers more!  Come on, Chairman 0bongo, dictate the f*ck out of those greedy capitalists like the tyrant you are!!

Obama the Blameless strikes again. It's always a mystery to me how Bush was responsible for <b>everything</b> bad that happened while there's always an excuse for Obama the Blameless.

Just like Bush tanked the economy by putting 2 expensive wars on credit, and because of a lie.  I am still trying to figure out what Obama exactly did.


He was elected.  Twice.  This absolutely infuriates people to the point of irrationality.
 
2013-03-03 03:10:57 AM

m00: Telling someone to "go read some history books" is exactly the kind of dismissive arrogant bullshiat that doesn't appeal to me.


If you're not aware that what we label as right and left, and those terms have been used for a while, is nothing new and that even before the familiar terms right and left came around the positions existed, it's going to be awful hard to have much of a conversation. Also there's the matter of just what conservative and liberal mean within the context, in America these days we don't have any conservatives when it comes to the role of government vis a vis interactions between private entities. Zero. What we have are social conservatives, and worse, who act as if social conservatism is interchangeable with political and fiscal conservatism. Nothing about being a conservative in terms of government has anything to do with social views, indeed you could be a raging social liberal and yet conservative when it comes to the role of government. However being a conservative when it comes to the role of government does not mean everyone for themselves and those with money get their way because society owes them everything. Just the opposite really.

 Is that GE's fault, or government's fault? Or both?

What GE is or isn't paying in taxes is a completely separate from what they are or aren't doing as far as increasing employee pay. Irony is, if they paid their employees more they'd have less to worry about as far as taxes since taxes are assessed for businesses on what's left after they pay for everything. But even that is a diversion since fundamentally any business decision that's bad for the economy is bad for business, maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but down the road it is. And what GE is doing as far as salaries is wholly separate from any issue of taxes.
 
2013-03-03 03:11:03 AM

WhyteRaven74: Eddie Ate Dynamite: They do have their similarities in nature and cause.

No they don't. The America Revolution was about getting a voice in representative government, which despite the usual perception, was something supported by a good number of members of Parliament, including a member of the House of Lords with the last name Cornwallis. The colonies just happened to have the benefit of being far away enough that there was no real way to put the squeeze on anything until it was too late. Though really had a few people over in England not overestimated their side, things could've been settled even after the shooting started. The French Revolution was about kicking down an entire social set up. Sadly the people in charge had the wisdom of retards and it got way out of hand and turned into genocide. That is after a nice case of unjustified and unjustifiable regicide. Killing Louis XVI was vengeance and blood lust pure and simple, and with him dead things got real ugly cause the people in charge discovered they could get away with it and worse, at least for the people of France, they liked it. Marat and Robespierre ended up being far worse than Louis XVI ever was or could have been. Then again between the two of them you had not even a clue as to how to actually run anything. Which is another difference between the two revolutions, one was organized and run by a fairly sizable group of people who knew how to run things. The other wasn't.


Cool story, bro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection_magic
Alternatively -
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/see_the_forest_for_the_trees
 
2013-03-03 03:12:42 AM

red5ish: Not sure how submitter came up with that headline after reading the article. Possibly off his meds?


Long sentences are confusing!
 
2013-03-03 03:17:55 AM

m00: Zeppelininthesky: Apparently not. Anti-intellectualism is a requirement to vote Republican.

You realize, you kinda just proved me right. Right?


I agree with some of your points. People in this country on both sides of the political spectrum just don't give a crap anymore. The politicians only pander to the people to be voted into office. If the people don't want something, then the politicians must keep the people happy to stay in office. The problem is that sometimes the politicians make up an agenda, and then brainwash the people to support that cause. This is why 24 hour news and pundits have so much power. The pundits know this, and thy can get away with saying the same lies over and over. Eventually, people will start to believe the lie.
 
2013-03-03 03:23:09 AM

Lionel Mandrake: He was elected

while remaining unashamedly black and Democratic. Twice. This absolutely infuriates people to the point of irrationality.

/FTFY.
 
2013-03-03 03:35:56 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: Cool story, bro.


If you want to believe the two revolutions were about the same stuff, go ahead. Just don't tell a history professor.
 
2013-03-03 03:36:51 AM
Oh, since nobody's pointed this out yet:

i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-03 03:41:04 AM

Zeppelininthesky: m00: Zeppelininthesky: Apparently not. Anti-intellectualism is a requirement to vote Republican.

You realize, you kinda just proved me right. Right?

I agree with some of your points. People in this country on both sides of the political spectrum just don't give a crap anymore. The politicians only pander to the people to be voted into office. If the people don't want something, then the politicians must keep the people happy to stay in office. The problem is that sometimes the politicians make up an agenda, and then brainwash the people to support that cause. This is why 24 hour news and pundits have so much power. The pundits know this, and thy can get away with saying the same lies over and over. Eventually, people will start to believe the lie.


What about when the will of the people is outright ignored by those elected to represent them? Potential examples could include the legality of marijuana use at the national level, and here locally in NC we've got fracking.

While I don't have any polls to link to, my perception is that quite often the majority want things to go one way, and the law of the land goes the other. My perception could be wrong, of course. And there are systems in place to curtail tyranny of the majority from screwing people over or doing something like eliminating all taxes and paying everyone 100k a year, but I don't feel that goes far enough to explain why issues the majority of voters (see previous disclaimer re: perception) feel one way about see legislation or rulings come to pass that do the opposite.

This sort of thing happens enough and you've effectively disenfranchised entire blocs of voters, which makes it that much easier to sneak something past the next time around because of the apathy they've got no choice but to succumb to. Lather rinse repeat until you can laugh at the voters, to their faces, when they bring up issues that are important to them but that are not politically expedient for you.
 
2013-03-03 03:44:37 AM
It is actually really sad to think about where your country could be right now if the last 4 years had not been wasted on internal political war with the terrorist party instead of actually working for the good of the nation.
 
2013-03-03 03:46:48 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: What about when the will of the people is outright ignored by those elected to represent them?


If the American voters are stupid enough to vote based on advertisements and pundit-speak, they're too stupid to be trusted in their ignorant "will."
 
2013-03-03 03:48:30 AM

chiett: Don't worry. It is Never Obama's fault.
It is always the Republicans fault.


Don't worry. The Republicans will never blame the right party. It's always THE OTHERS' fault.
 
2013-03-03 03:55:45 AM

WhyteRaven74: Eddie Ate Dynamite: Cool story, bro.

If you want to believe the two revolutions were about the same stuff, go ahead. Just don't tell a history professor.


I'm almost certain you're trolling me, but it's late and everybody's asleep so I'm bored. I'll clarify my point for you one last time.

Both revolutions were just that, revolutions. Defined thusly - An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
Their natures were similar.

Further, they were both carried out by populaces who felt the current system of government not only didn't have their interests at heart, but that actively worked to keep them suppressed and subjugated.
Their causes were similar.

You can point out many ways in which they were dissimilar, but for my purpose as examples of previous governments gone awry regarding the will of the majority and the actions of those in power I believe they're sufficiently similar.
 
2013-03-03 04:28:47 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Eddie Ate Dynamite: What about when the will of the people is outright ignored by those elected to represent them?

If the American voters are stupid enough to vote based on advertisements and pundit-speak, they're too stupid to be trusted in their ignorant "will."


What if their ignorance is brought about by* government run schools who inadequately teach them the lessons needed for self-governance? Is it still okay to write them off as casualties of their own ignorance?

How about if we further muddy the waters by allowing a handful of not-benevolent entities to control the flow and dictate the nature of information available to them?

An educated and informed electorate being necessary for a healthy democracy, when the things that accomplish the educated and informed parts are subverted, intentionally or not, it's not really the ignorant's fault, nor is it justifiable to say they deserve what they get or that it's okay for them to not get what they want. At least, not based solely on the fact they're ignorant and encompassing all wants and desires. If they all want a constitutional amendment that gives everyone free monkeys and spinner rims then maybe you have a point.

If your counter-point would be that they're free to educate themselves, I'd like to point out that a certain level of ignorance on any given subject is to be expected in a society with division of labor, especially as technically advanced as ours has become. Increasing levels of ignorance in a population are justified and even expected when they're overly stressed and preoccupied with the every day struggle to have food, shelter, etc.

To simplify what I'm trying to say, because that got really damn twisted...It's not necessarily the people's fault they're ignorant, and punishing them for it or not allowing them adequate representation is wrong. It does make it easier to sleep at night though, because then you can just say they brought this hardship on themselves and perhaps even convince yourself that the world is just and everyone gets what they deserve.


*You can't really say the schools *cause* the ignorance...so what would you say? Failed to be cured of the ignorance by? Hopefully you get my meaning. Words are hard.
 
2013-03-03 04:59:06 AM
randomjsa (farkied: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): Lionel Mandrake: The President controls wages?

Oh, right, he's a dictator!  He should dictate that greedy executives pay workers more!  Come on, Chairman 0bongo, dictate the f*ck out of those greedy capitalists like the tyrant you are!!

Obama the Blameless strikes again. It's always a mystery to me how Bush was responsible for <b>everything</b> bad that happened while there's always an excuse for Obama the Blameless.


Roight, guv.  Those bombs falling on Iraq?  Act of God.  A bunch of rich guys got even richer off of those bombs, while more Americans died in Iraq than on 9/11, along with God knows how many Iraqis?  Pure coincidence.  A horse show judge in charge of FEMA?  Luck of the draw.  No negotiating prices for Medicare Part D?  Happenstance.

What should george w. bush have done about Iraq?  Nothing whatsoever.  Iraq was not our problem.  They threatened Israel?[citation needed]  Great, then Israel can bomb them.

What should george w. bush have done about Katrina?  Have someone in charge of FEMA who actually knew his ass from a hole in the ground.  And have the National Guard here at home to respond, and not in farking Iraq.

What should george w. bush have done about Medicare Part D?  Assuming it was needed, and it quite possibly was, let the SSA haggle over the price.  The only possible reason to let Big Pharma name its own price is a huge taxpayer giveaway to Big Pharma.  And you right wingers claim to be against taxpayer giveaways!

Now it's your turn.  What should B. Hussein Osama do about wages?  Cut taxes on the lower classes?  Wait, they need some skin in the game.  Cut taxes on the rich?  We've been doing that for 30+ years.  Still waiting for that trickle down.
 
2013-03-03 05:31:29 AM

Emposter:

Heh, it's cute that you believe that. Even better that you think spending being bigger than revenue is all a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

You call THIS "cute?"

www.intellectualtakeout.org
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report