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.

(USA Today)   Baby Boomer Jonah Goldberg complains that the Greatest Generation is coddled and selfish, and the cost of providing their unsustainable entitlements will bankrupt their descendants   (usatoday.com) divider line 337
    More: Ironic, Jonah Goldberg, ageism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Civilian Conservation Corps, entitlements, G.I. Bill, legacy costs, bankruptcy  
•       •       •

8910 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 02:15:10 PM

MattStafford: The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods.  Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way.


I'm a libby libtard, and this is an absolutely terrible suggestion. You're like a caricature of what the conservatives think all liberals want.

In your scenario there isn't even the unbelievable facade of contributing to the greater good that socialism has on the surface. Even talented, motivated people would stop producing in a scenario like yours. I would honestly rather be dead than to live in the world you describe.
 
2013-03-11 02:21:43 PM

GoldSpider: mongbiohazard: We're getting exactly what was intended, and we've been voting for the people who want things to play out this way.

No argument there. But what's your short-term solution? Torches and pitchforks?


Lurching from one short term solution to the next is part of how we got here. When you're so busy worried about which politician is going to put out the latest fire you're not as likely to notice that they are the ones holding the gas can and matches. We need real solutions, not bandaids.

A large component of what we need is a new political party devoted to protecting the interests of the common American with policies to match instead of platitudes and the same old bullshiat policies which the LAST guys tried to no avail. I'd also throw public campaign financing and an end to gerrymandering in there on the new party's platform.

GoldSpider: I agree that voters need to be better educated about the economy and national budget. However pretending that there aren't a lot of people who have no idea how to manage their personal finances doesn't solve anything at all.


Again, that is a red herring. You're bringing up some theoretical person you can feel superior to, but that person does not control the macroeconomic forces which are plaguing us. Someone buying lunch too often instead of bringing it home doesn't have anything to do with the wholesale, disgusting plundering of average household wealth and income we've allowed here in America since the late 70's.

It's not a solution, it's a talking point which is part of the problem.


PsiChick: That's not what I'm arguing--I'm arguing that treating people who lived through the Depression like the people who actually did help liberate Europe is insane. Praising their support is good, but the Depression? Yeah, that's a seperate topic. Not better or worse, just different, and they need to be treated differently.


First, you're talking about a lot of the very same people. The national motivation and government spending from the war is part of what pulled us out of the depression.

Second, I'm gathering that you're unfamiliar with a lot of what went on back home during the war - which is what both Goldberg and the farker you were responding to was talking about. There was a concerted national effort at the time, and people here at home suffered quite a bit. Everyone pitched in, like one big team, unlike the wars of today. Life at home in the US was severely affected in material ways for most people.

"Victory gardens" were a thing not because everyone had cushy lives and needed a hobby... they were a thing because there were shortages of FOOD. It wasn't just the troops that won the war... the whole society pitched in together to win it. American soldiers didn't necessarily have the best equipment per se.... what they had was the strongest economy back home supporting them with an unending stream of goods and services, and it was this which allowed us to prevail.
 
2013-03-11 02:26:37 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Goldberg? Gold...berg? Huh. You know who else had a country full of Goldbergs?

Seriously, the greatest generation also includes those who grew up in the Depression--we were a country devastated by an economic system that couldn't give a crap about most of the men and women who fought so hard to save that economic system. Things were so bad (my ancestors ate boiled chicken feed for hot cereal) that countless men who volunteered to serve before or just after Pearl Harbor were turned away because of medical problems caused by years of deprivation. No teeth, rickets, bad lungs, bad spines, numerous problems associated with no shoes, no proper clothing against the cold, riding the rails for years on end, poor diet.

We made a deal with that generation. Social Security, bank reform, Civil Conservation Corps, the WPA and any number of things that gave a American youth a safety net to grow up in. And when we sent them to war to fight against fascism (and against many businesses that were tied to American corporations) we made sure that if they came home, they could buy a safe house with a reasonable mortgage, go to college and get an education, etc. We owed them that much for the sacrifices they made before the war and during it.

Pliny the Elder said "Home is where the heart is". That was a popular phrase during the Depression because many of that generation didn't have a home except a patch of grass or the floor of a freight car.

Jonah has no idea.


Just dropping in to say, "this is what the tea party wants to take us back to." When they're talking about taking the country back, it's to the conditions you have described above. They essentially want to roll back the safety net and slam everyone who draws from it as 'entitled losers.'

Fark them, and fark Jonah Goldberg. When the teapublicans/conservative wackjobs talk about social security being "broken," they are not complaining, they are bragging. They broke it.
 
2013-03-11 02:31:09 PM

nmemkha: I agree with you that we are going to need to embrace socialism or face a period of global unrest.


No one asked me, but we are going to have to face global unrest either way. International big business, especially American big business, has the radio off and is not going to respond even to shrinking profits till too late.
 
2013-03-11 02:31:44 PM

Sybarite: Boomers end around '64. Born in 1969, Goldberg is firmly Generation X.


Dude... No.  We do not want that shiat.  Take it somewhere else.
 
2013-03-11 02:31:52 PM

mongbiohazard: PsiChick: That's not what I'm arguing--I'm arguing that treating people who lived through the Depression like the people who actually did help liberate Europe is insane. Praising their support is good, but the Depression? Yeah, that's a seperate topic. Not better or worse, just different, and they need to be treated differently.

First, you're talking about a lot of the very same people. The national motivation and government spending from the war is part of what pulled us out of the depression.

Second, I'm gathering that you're unfamiliar with a lot of what went on back home during the war - which is what both Goldberg and the farker you were responding to was talking about. There was a concerted national effort at the time, and people here at home suffered quite a bit. Everyone pitched in, like one big team, unlike the wars of today. Life at home in the US was severely affected in material ways for most people.

"Victory gardens" were a thing not because everyone had cushy lives and needed a hobby... they were a thing because there were shortages of FOOD. It wasn't just the troops that won the war... the whole society pitched in together to win it. American soldiers didn't necessarily have the best equipment per se.... what they had was the strongest economy back home supporting them with an unending stream of goods and services, and it was this which allowed us to prevail.


The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, partially because women entered the workforce and caused a huge economic problem since there weren't enough jobs to go around, partially because wars are expensive, partially just shiat luck. I did mention that those who were working on the homefront deserve credit, but the Great Depression was  not WWII, did  not involve victory gardens, and  is a totally different subject.
 
2013-03-11 02:33:30 PM

PsiChick: mongbiohazard: PsiChick: That's not what I'm arguing--I'm arguing that treating people who lived through the Depression like the people who actually did help liberate Europe is insane. Praising their support is good, but the Depression? Yeah, that's a seperate topic. Not better or worse, just different, and they need to be treated differently.

First, you're talking about a lot of the very same people. The national motivation and government spending from the war is part of what pulled us out of the depression.

Second, I'm gathering that you're unfamiliar with a lot of what went on back home during the war - which is what both Goldberg and the farker you were responding to was talking about. There was a concerted national effort at the time, and people here at home suffered quite a bit. Everyone pitched in, like one big team, unlike the wars of today. Life at home in the US was severely affected in material ways for most people.

"Victory gardens" were a thing not because everyone had cushy lives and needed a hobby... they were a thing because there were shortages of FOOD. It wasn't just the troops that won the war... the whole society pitched in together to win it. American soldiers didn't necessarily have the best equipment per se.... what they had was the strongest economy back home supporting them with an unending stream of goods and services, and it was this which allowed us to prevail.

The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, partially because women entered the workforce and caused a huge economic problem since there weren't enough jobs to go around, partially because wars are expensive, partially just shiat luck. I did mention that those who were working on the homefront deserve credit, but the Great Depression was  not WWII, did  not involve victory gardens, and  is a totally different subject.


What?
 
2013-03-11 02:33:35 PM
<I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?
 
2013-03-11 02:36:49 PM

numb3r5ev3n: What?


Tigger: <I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?


...And, after Googling, my history textbooks are their usual fail. Well. Nm, then.

(insert pie pic here)
 
2013-03-11 02:39:15 PM

PsiChick: The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII.



crow202.org

Good advice! You should try it sometime!
 
2013-03-11 02:44:05 PM
Anyone who calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" either doesn't understand how it works or is deliberately lying about it in service of some agenda (usually keeping taxes on the rich unsustainably low).
 
2013-03-11 02:45:19 PM

Pangea: I'm a libby libtard, and this is an absolutely terrible suggestion. You're like a caricature of what the conservatives think all liberals want.

In your scenario there isn't even the unbelievable facade of contributing to the greater good that socialism has on the surface. Even talented, motivated people would stop producing in a scenario like yours. I would honestly rather be dead than to live in the world you describe.


I'm not suggesting that there wouldn't still be jobs and the possibility of upward mobility.  Just that the average person is less and less necessary to produce the goods demanded by society.
 
2013-03-11 02:48:28 PM

mongbiohazard: You're bringing up some theoretical person you can feel superior to


Theoretical?  That person was me up until two years ago.  I had no idea how much money I was spending or what I was spending it on.  All I knew was that I was barely breaking even on my best months.  Then I started budgeting, which led to cutting unnecessary expenses, which led to having some money left over to put away for home improvements and retirement.

No, it didn't change the world, but it changed MY world.  At least more so than sitting around, bitter and hopeless about how the man was keeping me down, wishing for an altruistic third party to show Washington the error of its ways.
 
2013-03-11 02:54:31 PM

Pangea: MattStafford: The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods.  Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way.

I'm a libby libtard, and this is an absolutely terrible suggestion. You're like a caricature of what the conservatives think all liberals want.

In your scenario there isn't even the unbelievable facade of contributing to the greater good that socialism has on the surface. Even talented, motivated people would stop producing in a scenario like yours. I would honestly rather be dead than to live in the world you describe.


3.bp.blogspot.com

It's ridiculous to assume everyone would drop their dreams and aspirations because they get $10/hr for laying in a hammock. In fact, a guaranteed minimum income would probably turn a lot of wage slaves into risk-taking entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors.
 
2013-03-11 02:59:26 PM

Wendy's Chili: It's ridiculous to assume everyone would drop their dreams and aspirations because they get $10/hr for laying in a hammock. In fact, a guaranteed minimum income would probably turn a lot of wage slaves into risk-taking entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors.


Exactly
 
2013-03-11 03:00:47 PM
After WWII, a number of institutions went about crafting a myth of "The Greatest Generation"  for various self-serving reasons.

Myth #1:  The vast majority of Americans were all hot to kill Hitler.   The truth is that the majority of Americans didn't give a shiat about Hitler   Most Americans wanted to avoid involvement in another European war.  The majority were probably just as suspicious of the UK and USSR.  Most Americans were also not very concerned about the Jews.

Myth #2:  Americans happily stood in line to join the military.   This was true for a few months after Pearl Harbor, but most American WWII vets were draftees.   The US government was very careful to avoid large scale US causalities.  The US public would never have accepted the kind of causalities suffered by the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.  Even with the relatively low casualties, American Armed Forces came to near mutiny on several occasions.   During the Battle of The Bulge, there were were so many US AWOLs, desertions and shirkers, that the US Army actually executed one hapless GI for desertion, so as to set an example......Google, "Pvt. Eddie Slovik".

Myth #3: Americans on the "home front"  all pulled together and sacrificed.  The reality is that Americans working in defense industries demanded worker protections and union representation.  People expected to be taken care of for their "patriotism".   In a way, even the military needed to bribe soldiers with the GI Bill.

The 1% of the day were terrified of guys like Hitler and Stalin....so terrified, that for the first time in history they were willing to compromise with the cannon fodder and  serfs that they needed to save their rich asses.   Things stood more or less that way until the 80's when the Soviet Union began to falter.   Today, with no real enemies on the horizon, the 1% have gone back to the traditional ways of owner-worker relations.  Enjoy your serfdom.
 
2013-03-11 03:06:38 PM

PsiChick: numb3r5ev3n: What?

Tigger: <I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?

...And, after Googling, my history textbooks are their usual fail. Well. Nm, then.

(insert pie pic here)


That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????
 
2013-03-11 03:14:24 PM
They're the greatest generation because A) fighting in World War 2 (or staying at home and supplying the war effort) and B) putting up with their babyboomer dipshiat kids.

Sorry, the only group that feels like they are entitled are the boomers.
 
2013-03-11 03:18:49 PM

Tigger: PsiChick: numb3r5ev3n: What?

Tigger: <I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?

...And, after Googling, my history textbooks are their usual fail. Well. Nm, then.

(insert pie pic here)

That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????


Well, first it was Christian history, then it was a shiatty Aventa program. Protip: Aventa? Sucks ass.
 
2013-03-11 03:21:06 PM
The only part of the article that I agree with is that the "Greatest Generation" is overrated.

/IMO, everyone thinks their parent's generation is the greatest.
 
2013-03-11 03:33:41 PM
I support not making kids just born today have to pay for the debt the Boomers have run up.
 
2013-03-11 03:34:52 PM

Wendy's Chili: It's ridiculous to assume everyone would drop their dreams and aspirations because they get $10/hr for laying in a hammock. In fact, a guaranteed minimum income would probably turn a lot of wage slaves into risk-taking entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors.


There is no risk take if you have 1/300,000,000 of the GDP no matter what. Anything you could conceivably produce is redistributed offering no incentive to produce it.

How do you get access to funds over your allotted portion in order to pursue your dream? To accumulate anything more than your portion would be to offset the balance of wealth-distribution, which would then immediately need to be redistributed.The only way to accomplish pooling of resources is to offset the balance of the distribution, which is then divided back up.

This idea isn't even utopian. It's absolutely absurd. It's not a guaranteed minimum income. It's a guaranteed allotment regardless of contribution. In fact the post I'm replying to asserts that it is preferable for people NOT to produce, rather than to have to do something just because they're able.
 
2013-03-11 03:37:42 PM
I'll concede that my reaction was over the top.

Instead I'll just say that I hate the idea of wealth-redistribution via government mandate and I consider myself a social liberal.
 
2013-03-11 03:37:45 PM

Pangea: There is no risk take if you have 1/300,000,000 of the GDP no matter what. Anything you could conceivably produce is redistributed offering no incentive to produce it.

How do you get access to funds over your allotted portion in order to pursue your dream? To accumulate anything more than your portion would be to offset the balance of wealth-distribution, which would then immediately need to be redistributed.The only way to accomplish pooling of resources is to offset the balance of the distribution, which is then divided back up.

This idea isn't even utopian. It's absolutely absurd. It's not a guaranteed minimum income. It's a guaranteed allotment regardless of contribution. In fact the post I'm replying to asserts that it is preferable for people NOT to produce, rather than to have to do something just because they're able.


No one ever said that the the entire GDP would be distributed equally.  There would be a safety net to ensure that people had the bare minimum.  The wealthy would be taxed, but they would still be way better off than the person who is receiving the GMI.
 
2013-03-11 03:42:59 PM

Tigger: That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????


I remember a previous thread where she was surprised to learn that the Korean War actually happened... So, yeah, when she says her history books sucked, I'd believe it!
 
2013-03-11 03:44:03 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-11 03:47:06 PM

PsiChick: numb3r5ev3n: What?

Tigger: <I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?

...And, after Googling, my history textbooks are their usual fail. Well. Nm, then.

(insert pie pic here)


lol, well that would certainly explain the confusion then. That's a heck of a textbook though... It wasn't one of those home-school jobbies with a picture of a dude riding a raptor in place of the Earth's natural history section, was it?  ;)


GoldSpider: mongbiohazard: You're bringing up some theoretical person you can feel superior to

Theoretical?  That person was me up until two years ago.  I had no idea how much money I was spending or what I was spending it on.  All I knew was that I was barely breaking even on my best months.  Then I started budgeting, which led to cutting unnecessary expenses, which led to having some money left over to put away for home improvements and retirement.

No, it didn't change the world, but it changed MY world.  At least more so than sitting around, bitter and hopeless about how the man was keeping me down, wishing for an altruistic third party to show Washington the error of its ways.



So because YOU were bad at managing your money that means the reason the average household can no longer survive on one income, and Americans can no longer save for retirement, and all the other macroeconomic data are all cause because everyone is bad at managing their money.

You're projecting. Really. I'd be hard pressed to invent a more obvious example, actually. I mean you pretty much all but just came right out and said "I'm projecting".

The income for the vast majority of Americans has been in freefall for decades. Ordering pizza too much is not the cause of that... and in fact ordering pizza too much is more demand which, would actually help bolster the economy. That money doesn't just go nowhere, it circulates through the economy. Same as when the minimum wage is raised and the usual knuckleheads come out against it - because supposedly it will hurt business for their customers to have more money to spend, which pretends like money given to the poor is money that has dissapeared from the economy. When in reality savings - especially all that dynastic wealth being built up in utterly obscene amounts by the new age robber baron class - are money that leaks out of the economy.
 
2013-03-11 03:53:00 PM

Tigger: PsiChick: numb3r5ev3n: What?

Tigger: <I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?

...And, after Googling, my history textbooks are their usual fail. Well. Nm, then.

(insert pie pic here)

That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????


Welcome to the Obama Nation.

/slavery is freedom
//strength is ignorance
///peace is war
 
2013-03-11 03:53:11 PM

MattStafford: No one ever said that the the entire GDP would be distributed equally.  There would be a safety net to ensure that people had the bare minimum.  The wealthy would be taxed, but they would still be way better off than the person who is receiving the GMI.



I hear those words a lot differently than I hear wealth distribution, but I still struggle with the anecdotal evidence I see around me.

Especially given that 35% of my gross wages go to rent, utilities, and health care for my modest lifestyle and I make significantly more than average. I presume those are the exact things that fall into the safety net category.

Perhaps this just reinforces your claim that the poorest are REALLY struggling. Now my brain is full of fark.
 
2013-03-11 03:56:09 PM

MattStafford: Suppose the work that used to be done by 30 thirty skilled people can now be done by one person (unskilled) pressing a button. Are you suggesting that the wages for that company should increase?


The wages for that company DO increase, they are called profit. Often this is not matched by an increase in wages for the staff. Why should more profit be made yet your wages not increase?

That`s not fair. Are you saying it is?

/on a seperate note, lots of money in a few hands is bad for the economy, which thrives when many hands all have money to spend.
 
2013-03-11 03:57:11 PM
Each generation has its share of winners, losers and slugs. The bulk of each generation consists of regular, hard-working folks.

What about Korea and Vietnam? Also, my dad is a boomer and he was in Iraq. Many others were in Panama, Grenada and Somalia as well as other theaters. The article was honed in on ww2 like it was the only thing that happened for 50 years.

Too much misplaced outrage in this article. Could have been simplified to "Quit paying with checks in the express lane!"
 
2013-03-11 03:57:26 PM

Pangea: Wendy's Chili: It's ridiculous to assume everyone would drop their dreams and aspirations because they get $10/hr for laying in a hammock. In fact, a guaranteed minimum income would probably turn a lot of wage slaves into risk-taking entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors.

There is no risk take if you have 1/300,000,000 of the GDP no matter what. Anything you could conceivably produce is redistributed offering no incentive to produce it.

How do you get access to funds over your allotted portion in order to pursue your dream? To accumulate anything more than your portion would be to offset the balance of wealth-distribution, which would then immediately need to be redistributed.The only way to accomplish pooling of resources is to offset the balance of the distribution, which is then divided back up.

This idea isn't even utopian. It's absolutely absurd. It's not a guaranteed minimum income. It's a guaranteed allotment regardless of contribution. In fact the post I'm replying to asserts that it is preferable for people NOT to produce, rather than to have to do something just because they're able.


We must be talking about two different things.

Pangea: I'll concede that my reaction was over the top.

Instead I'll just say that I hate the idea of wealth-redistribution via government mandate and I consider myself a social liberal.


So... you're against Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public schools, public roads, and essentially all government spending, but you think gays should be able to marry?
 
2013-03-11 03:58:06 PM

mongbiohazard: lol, well that would certainly explain the confusion then. That's a heck of a textbook though... It wasn't one of those home-school jobbies with a picture of a dude riding a raptor in place of the Earth's natural history section, was it?  ;)


Some. Most of it was Aventa, it's a really crappy 'online' textbook written by idiots.

Tatterdemalian: That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????

Welcome to the Obama Nation.

/slavery is freedom
//strength is ignorance
///peace is war


Aventa was written pre-Bush,actually...
 
2013-03-11 03:59:13 PM
mongbiohazard

Fine.  We are all powerless serfs with no ability to adapt our behavior to changing circumstances.  Is that how I extract myself from this pointless conversation?
 
2013-03-11 04:01:06 PM

Pangea: I hear those words a lot differently than I hear wealth distribution


"Wealth (re)distribution" is just Frank Luntz's way of saying "anything done by the government". Don't attach too much weight to the words.
 
2013-03-11 04:03:00 PM

Tatterdemalian: Tigger: PsiChick: numb3r5ev3n: What?

Tigger: <I>The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, </i>

jigga what?

...And, after Googling, my history textbooks are their usual fail. Well. Nm, then.

(insert pie pic here)

That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????

Welcome to the Obama Nation.

/slavery is freedom
//strength is ignorance
///peace is war


NO, No, no. If we were really living in an analogy of 1984 then there would be loads of surveillance within your national border and there would be media reports about an invisible enemy hiding within the population that we are all told we should feel afraid of.

It can`t be right because Bush started The War Against Terror, not Obama.

The
War
Against
Terror

seems better that way.
 
2013-03-11 04:03:52 PM

Thunderpipes: There is nothing in that article at all but one sentence saying that.

Fail.


Yes, the article does indeed fail.
 
2013-03-11 04:08:31 PM

Wendy's Chili: So... you're against Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public schools, public roads, and essentially all government spending, but you think gays should be able to marry?


If that's what you got out of my statement, it's not what I meant. To me being a social liberal means that I actively encourage those programs in an effort to benefit society as a whole. Including increased funding for public schools and I have no children.

But I also consider it necessary to perform a task or contribute something on some level to be considered a part of that society. Contributing anything also does wonders for your sense of self-worth, in my personal experience.
 
2013-03-11 04:21:27 PM

PsiChick: mongbiohazard: lol, well that would certainly explain the confusion then. That's a heck of a textbook though... It wasn't one of those home-school jobbies with a picture of a dude riding a raptor in place of the Earth's natural history section, was it?  ;)

Some. Most of it was Aventa, it's a really crappy 'online' textbook written by idiots.

Tatterdemalian: That's not 'a small oversight', that's massively screwing up the first half of the 20th Century. What farking history text book do you have that says the Depression came after WWII??????

Welcome to the Obama Nation.

/slavery is freedom
//strength is ignorance
///peace is war

Aventa was written pre-Bush,actually...


You would think someone who was internet-literate, let alone psychic, would know better than to make claims about a course syllabus that is posted online and can be fact-checked by any sufficiently bored FARKer.

/"The American Pageant," 13th edition
//famously accused by James Loewen of Eurocentrism, anti-progressive presentation of historical facts, and a furtive neocon agenda
///but it does explicitly say that the Great Depression preceeded WWII
 
2013-03-11 04:27:17 PM

Pangea: But I also consider it necessary to perform a task or contribute something on some level to be considered a part of that society.


So the severely disabled should be dumped in international waters?
 
2013-03-11 04:34:10 PM

PsiChick: mongbiohazard: lol, well that would certainly explain the confusion then. That's a heck of a textbook though... It wasn't one of those home-school jobbies with a picture of a dude riding a raptor in place of the Earth's natural history section, was it? ;)

Some. Most of it was Aventa, it's a really crappy 'online' textbook written by idiots.



Were you homeschooled? I'm split on homeschooling... on the one hand I like the whole libertarian appeal of it, but on the other hand in reality there's just so much out there to teach that I can't see one person being able to realistically provide a quality K-12 education to their kids - and the invasion of creationist evangelicals into the home schooling movement can't exactly help things.


GoldSpider: mongbiohazard

Fine.  We are all powerless serfs with no ability to adapt our behavior to changing circumstances.  Is that how I extract myself from this pointless conversation?


We're not powerless serfs yet, but we do need to take action to save our country from the damage being done. Encourage political competition, and stop supporting the duopoly.
 
2013-03-11 04:48:34 PM

Wendy's Chili: Pangea: But I also consider it necessary to perform a task or contribute something on some level to be considered a part of that society.

So the severely disabled should be dumped in international waters?



My statement was in response to a line in a post regarding able-bodied citizens: "The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods.  Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way."

Additionally, the "severely disabled" person you allude to in your post would be covered under Medicare/Medicaid, which I already admitted I am in support of. You seem to be trying hard to out me as a heartless Republican but you've got me all mixed up.
 
2013-03-11 04:54:38 PM

vernonFL: I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

Um, really? I'm 40, all of my grandparents lived through the depression and the war by scrimping and saving and sacrificing, life was very hard back then.

To say that only the people actually fighting the war deserve credit is total bullshiat.


Not to mention WW2 was Total War where everyone was involved in the war effort. EVERYONE. From rationing gas and food to using less metal to turning off your lights to working an extra hour, you were part of the war effort whether you wanted to or not. In that respect, everyone fought the war whether on the frontlines itself or just walking to work instead of driving.
 
2013-03-11 05:03:40 PM

Pangea: Wendy's Chili: Pangea: But I also consider it necessary to perform a task or contribute something on some level to be considered a part of that society.

So the severely disabled should be dumped in international waters?


My statement was in response to a line in a post regarding able-bodied citizens: "The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods.  Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way."

Additionally, the "severely disabled" person you allude to in your post would be covered under Medicare/Medicaid, which I already admitted I am in support of. You seem to be trying hard to out me as a heartless Republican but you've got me all mixed up.


I'm just messing with ya.

I don't think you're a Republican. You strike me as one of those liberals who supports dumb stuff like a civil draft for high school grads or mandatory community service for welfare recipients without realizing how horribly regressive those ideas are.
 
2013-03-11 05:12:42 PM

PsiChick: The Depression--the  Great Depression--was the  result of WWII. It came after, partially because women entered the workforce and caused a huge economic problem since there weren't enough jobs to go around, partially because wars are expensive, partially just shiat luck. I did mention that those who were working on the homefront deserve credit, but the Great Depression was  not WWII, did  not involve victory gardens, and  is a totally different subject.


wat
 
2013-03-11 05:19:15 PM

mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing


You're sense of reality is wonkers
 
2013-03-11 05:32:03 PM

trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers


Not at all. It might suprise you to find out that I'm correct... but I'm absolutely correct. At least half your congressperson's day is spent fundraising.

In fact, I'm local to DC and it's an open secret that the buildings around the Capitol building are filled with second offices for our representatives. Since they are not supposed to fundraise from their offices they set up second offices across the street to fundraise from - which is how they spend more of their time then anything else.

You only THOUGHT you voted for lawmakers, but in reality you voted for fundraisers.
 
2013-03-11 05:36:00 PM

trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fun dr aising_n_2427291.html
 
2013-03-11 05:37:29 PM

trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers


And just in case you need a second source to back that up... Here you go. Also "Your" not "You're".

So now who has the wonkers sense of reality, hmmmnnn?
 
2013-03-11 05:39:18 PM

mongbiohazard: trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers

Not at all. It might suprise you to find out that I'm correct... but I'm absolutely correct. At least half your congressperson's day is spent fundraising.

In fact, I'm local to DC and it's an open secret that the buildings around the Capitol building are filled with second offices for our representatives. Since they are not supposed to fundraise from their offices they set up second offices across the street to fundraise from - which is how they spend more of their time then anything else.

You only THOUGHT you voted for lawmakers, but in reality you voted for fundraisers.


Hell I worked for the AOC, it was very well known that happened.  What a lot of people don't know is that senators get a private lounge in the Capitol...for each of them.   Guess who pays to decorate that?  we do.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report