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.

(The Raw Story)   Fox News hosts drop the pretense and articulate their real vision of what they want for average Americans "That's what we should have - no labor law and no minimum wage, they work for a dollar a week"   (rawstory.com) divider line 285
    More: Obvious, Fox News, Eric Bolling, Bob Beckel, Andrea Tantaros, dollars  
•       •       •

5873 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Apr 2014 at 2:15 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-16 04:01:18 PM  

sendtodave: Tigger: sendtodave: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: No one ever offers a real explanation why the Northern European model wouldn't work in the US, only some vague crap about how it won't scale to a country the size of the US. But every time two corporations want to merge they use the rationale that "economies of scale" will result in more efficiency and lower costs. But you can't upscale the Swedish model to fit the US because it will result in less efficiency and higher costs. Smells like BS to me.

The Scandinavian model works as long as everyone is Scandinavian.  Even there, friction comes up once you introduce a growing minority population of Brown People.

This is one of my all time favorite bits of right wing anti-american farkwittage. "It's just too hard for us to do here". farking man up and say "I just don't want that". Don't pretend it can't happen for bullshiat reasons you' just invented. farking OWN YOUR POSITIONS.

Who, me?  I'd love it.

I'm just not going to pretend that racism doesn't exist, and wouldn't be a real barrier, though, when it kinda even is in the model country.


How do you explain the UK then where there are huge immigrant populations going back anywhere between 1,000 years (Normans) and a couple of years (poland and romania)
 
2014-04-16 04:02:26 PM  
This isn't news - it's comic opera.
 
2014-04-16 04:02:39 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Oh yes.  Take labor practice concept from China.  That's a great idea.  It'll be a boon to the Suicide Prevention Netting Company of Toledo, Ohio.


No one will ever accuse Eric of being a rational human being, he qualifies for neither.


Why not?  Their ideal leader is Tits Putin
 
2014-04-16 04:03:09 PM  
What could be done to address this? It will probably take generations.

* a tax on wealth

* eisenhower era tax rates

* estate taxes progressive enough to ensure no one is born a billionaire in a dynastic oligarchical family

* educating kids to think

* buy from folks as local as possible

What else? Roll over and take it?
 
2014-04-16 04:03:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: French Canadians don't exactly see themselves the same as other Canadians, and vice versa.

Most Brits I've met don't have a high opinion of Bangladeshi immigrants, etc.

And yet they manage to continue to have a universal healthcare system, do they not? Or am I missing something here?


Are we talking specifically about that?

Oh, sure, we can have that.  As soon as we agree to have it, of course.  That'd be mandated and enforced by authority.

I though we were more talking about the reasons as to why Sweden already has these systems.  They already agreed to have them, because they already said "Everyone is like me, and everyone should have these things."
 
2014-04-16 04:04:10 PM  

sendtodave: Are we talking specifically about that?

Oh, sure, we can have that.  As soon as we agree to have it, of course.  That'd be mandated and enforced by authority.


Just like anything else.
 
2014-04-16 04:05:11 PM  

Tigger: How do you explain the UK then where there are huge immigrant populations going back anywhere between 1,000 years (Normans) and a couple of years (poland and romania)


Explain what?
 
2014-04-16 04:06:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: Are we talking specifically about that?

Oh, sure, we can have that.  As soon as we agree to have it, of course.  That'd be mandated and enforced by authority.

Just like anything else.


Pretty much.  Not sure why everyone jumped in my shiat.

The hard part is getting everyone to agree to it.
 
2014-04-16 04:06:53 PM  

sendtodave: Tigger: sendtodave: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: No one ever offers a real explanation why the Northern European model wouldn't work in the US, only some vague crap about how it won't scale to a country the size of the US. But every time two corporations want to merge they use the rationale that "economies of scale" will result in more efficiency and lower costs. But you can't upscale the Swedish model to fit the US because it will result in less efficiency and higher costs. Smells like BS to me.

The Scandinavian model works as long as everyone is Scandinavian.  Even there, friction comes up once you introduce a growing minority population of Brown People.

This is one of my all time favorite bits of right wing anti-american farkwittage. "It's just too hard for us to do here". farking man up and say "I just don't want that". Don't pretend it can't happen for bullshiat reasons you' just invented. farking OWN YOUR POSITIONS.

Who, me?  I'd love it.

I'm just not going to pretend that racism doesn't exist, and wouldn't be a real barrier, though, when it kinda even is in the model country.


Wat

A barrier?  Maybe.  Possibly.  You could, in theory, present an argument, though I'd be surprised if it ended up holding any water.

But...this... this is the reason we can't even farking talk about it, let alone study or implement it? This is the reason "socialism" is all-but a dirty word in this country?  Seriously?  Give us a goddamn break and GFY.

/i need a nap
 
2014-04-16 04:07:47 PM  

sendtodave: Aldon: The point is...YOU see them as homogeneous, THEY have split themselves up in ways you will never know.

Sure.

AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL DOMINANCE THEORY
The trimorphic structure of group-based social hierarchy

Social dominance theory argues that societies producing stable economic surplus contain three qualitatively distinct systems of group-based hierarchy: (1) an age system, in which adults have disproportionate social power over children; (2) a gender system, in which men have disproportionate social, political, and military power compared to women; and (3) an arbitrary-set system, in which groups constructed on ''arbitrary'' bases, that is, on bases not linked to the human life-cycle, have differential access to things of positive and negative social value. Arbitrary-set groups may be defined by social distinctions meaningfully related to power, such as (in various contexts) nationality, ''race'', ethnicity, class, estate, descent, religion, or clan. Parallel trimorphic structures (based on age, sex, and coalitions) are found in chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and baboons (Kawanaka, 1982, 1989; Nadler, 1988; Rowell, 1974; Strier, 1994). Such a social organisation may help primate societies transmit skills, knowledge, and ideas, while also transmitting roles and power.

There are a million arbitrary in-groups and out-groups.  Race is just one.  Just it's a big one.


That's why the idea that we are not "homogeneous" therefore we cannot do as well at X is BS.

Somehow we have done much better at many things without being as "homogeneous" as European countries.

...and some countries in Africa and Asia are probably more "homogeneous" than European countries and have achieved much less.
 
2014-04-16 04:08:53 PM  

sendtodave: The Scandinavian model works as long as everyone is Scandinavian.  Even there, friction comes up once you introduce a growing minority population of Brown People.


It's been a long time since everyone was Scandinavian. We're still doing fine.
 
2014-04-16 04:08:58 PM  

sendtodave: You were expecting something else?

Homogeneity breeds a sense of oneness.  Again, look at China.

"Harmonious society."


I grew up in southern California and never had any problems with my Hispanic neighbors. I played with their kids, dated their daughters, and worked with their sons. The only thing that stands out in my memory where we diverged was that I could never get used to menudo which they teased me about relentlessly.

You know where I did have a problem with me neighbors? The midwest. I wasn't local. I was an outsider. Sure I was as pale as the rest of them but I wasn't from around those parts. It wasn't enough that I was white and had a good job and a family, I grew up somewhere else and so I was an outsider. Hell, even the South is more welcoming to a southern California transplant. What's funny here in the South is that the Hispanic transplants are surprised as hell to hear me address their kids as mijo and mija.
 
2014-04-16 04:09:24 PM  
Conservatives want the US to be like China, what a surprise.
 
2014-04-16 04:10:40 PM  

Will-Mun: Also FTA: "It would be nice if we had that luxury," co-host Dana Perino answered. "But the baby boomers have made sure we are going to be tied to our jobs for the rest of our lives and not benefit from Social Security and Medicare like they did."

Did.. Did a small nugget of truth, however intentional, slip out of a Fox News Host's mouth?


Perrino was part of the George W. Bush team who were trying to destroy social security.  She's still mad that they didn't succeed.
 
2014-04-16 04:11:33 PM  

Dansker: sendtodave: The Scandinavian model works as long as everyone is Scandinavian.  Even there, friction comes up once you introduce a growing minority population of Brown People.

It's been a long time since everyone was Scandinavian. We're still doing fine.


How are these right wing parties gaining ground lately?
 
2014-04-16 04:11:58 PM  

Aldon: sendtodave: Aldon: The point is...YOU see them as homogeneous, THEY have split themselves up in ways you will never know.

Sure.

AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL DOMINANCE THEORY
The trimorphic structure of group-based social hierarchy

Social dominance theory argues that societies producing stable economic surplus contain three qualitatively distinct systems of group-based hierarchy: (1) an age system, in which adults have disproportionate social power over children; (2) a gender system, in which men have disproportionate social, political, and military power compared to women; and (3) an arbitrary-set system, in which groups constructed on ''arbitrary'' bases, that is, on bases not linked to the human life-cycle, have differential access to things of positive and negative social value. Arbitrary-set groups may be defined by social distinctions meaningfully related to power, such as (in various contexts) nationality, ''race'', ethnicity, class, estate, descent, religion, or clan. Parallel trimorphic structures (based on age, sex, and coalitions) are found in chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and baboons (Kawanaka, 1982, 1989; Nadler, 1988; Rowell, 1974; Strier, 1994). Such a social organisation may help primate societies transmit skills, knowledge, and ideas, while also transmitting roles and power.

There are a million arbitrary in-groups and out-groups.  Race is just one.  Just it's a big one.

That's why the idea that we are not "homogeneous" therefore we cannot do as well at X is BS.

Somehow we have done much better at many things without being as "homogeneous" as European countries.

...and some countries in Africa and Asia are probably more "homogeneous" than European countries and have achieved much less.


It's almost as if it has no categorical effect whatsoever, outside the minds of people who assume everyone classifies people like they do.
 
2014-04-16 04:13:55 PM  

GoldSpider: sdd2000: Yes let's go back to this.

[img.fark.net image 500x358]

and this

[img.fark.net image 250x220]

Talk to any union shill and he'll tell you nothing has changed since then.


Oh, bullshiat...

Any "Union Shill" is going to be talking about the changes in the country since those days and how the unions were instrumental in ushering in those changes.

They might complain that the efforts from certain quarters in this country are trying to bring back those days (and they may have a point in some instances), however.
 
2014-04-16 04:14:16 PM  

ongbok: What always gets me about these people when they say these things is that they don't seem to realize that they are working for a paycheck also. What is to stop their employer from deciding that they only need to be paid peanuts also? They for some reason think that they are special and don't realize if you can make one person work for peanuts, the same can be done with their job.


As long as they made 10 peanuts to your one, they'd be happy.
 
2014-04-16 04:14:23 PM  

GoodDoctorB: Wat

A barrier?  Maybe.  Possibly.  You could, in theory, present an argument, though I'd be surprised if it ended up holding any water.

But...this... this is the reason we can't even farking talk about it, let alone study or implement it? This is the reason "socialism" is all-but a dirty word in this country?  Seriously?  Give us a goddamn break and GFY.


Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'd say that, yes, that is the reason.  Socialism is seen as giving more handouts to minorities.

Welfare queens and their "entitlements" *spit*
 
2014-04-16 04:15:34 PM  

sdd2000: Yes let's go back to this.

[img.fark.net image 500x358]

and this

[img.fark.net image 250x220]



4 dollars a month? I'm thinking more like this....

static.guim.co.uk

www.neh.gov

And the article mentions social security/medicare? No need to worry about all that.. most of us would be dead within a month if the masses didn't kill each other fist
 
2014-04-16 04:16:58 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: Are we talking specifically about that?

Oh, sure, we can have that.  As soon as we agree to have it, of course.  That'd be mandated and enforced by authority.

Just like anything else.

Pretty much.  Not sure why everyone jumped in my shiat.

The hard part is getting everyone to agree to it.


I only jumped on your assertion that racism was a reason we couldn't implement a social democracy in America. It doesn't stand up to logic, except to say that racists would constitute an opposing force against social progress as seen in the "welfare queen" rhetoric endemic to the Right, because they see people of other races as subhuman.

We've beaten the racists before, and there's no reason we can't again. The argument that Nordic countries have some distinct advantage as far as the administration of a robust social welfare program is so much bullsh*t, and I'm tired of seeing it dredged up.
 
2014-04-16 04:17:56 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: We've beaten the racists before, and there's no reason we can't again.


pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-04-16 04:18:10 PM  

GoodDoctorB: It's almost as if it has no categorical effect whatsoever, outside the minds of people who assume everyone classifies people like they do.


Oh, no, the assumption is just that everyone categorizes in some way or another.

Different places categorize differently.

In China, for example, it's Chinese person, and non-Chinese person (foreigner).  All other races are "foreigner."  Secondarily, urban vs rural.  Etc etc on down until you just are at "my family, not my family"

In Scandinavia, it's also foreigner (Muslim immigrant) versus native, it seems.

Here, too.  And we also have lots of fun race relations.

But, anyway, socialism works when everyone see  most everyone else as part of their in-group.  Whatever that in-group criteria is.
 
2014-04-16 04:19:07 PM  
All I'm gathering is that this Fox Correspondent loves chinese communism.
 
2014-04-16 04:20:16 PM  

sendtodave: GoodDoctorB: It's almost as if it has no categorical effect whatsoever, outside the minds of people who assume everyone classifies people like they do.

Oh, no, the assumption is just that everyone categorizes in some way or another.

Different places categorize differently.

In China, for example, it's Chinese person, and non-Chinese person (foreigner).  All other races are "foreigner."  Secondarily, urban vs rural.  Etc etc on down until you just are at "my family, not my family"

In Scandinavia, it's also foreigner (Muslim immigrant) versus native, it seems.

Here, too.  And we also have lots of fun race relations.

But, anyway, socialism works when everyone see  most everyone else as part of their in-group.  Whatever that in-group criteria is.


It works wherever it's instituted. The practicality of the system is not tied to the level of its acceptance. Unless you reach a point where the majority wants to scrap it just to spite the "others", it's still working as intended, even if with vocal opposition.
 
2014-04-16 04:20:26 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: The argument that Nordic countries have some distinct advantage as far as the administration of a robust social welfare program is so much bullsh*t, and I'm tired of seeing it dredged up.


I wasn't arguing that they had an advantage.  I was arguing that they are at an advantage, because it's easier for people to see everyone else as like themselves.

Well, it was until those poor brown moochers, who talk funny and don't go to our churches, started flooding in, anyway.
 
2014-04-16 04:20:45 PM  

keylock71: Any "Union Shill" is going to be talking about the changes in the country since those days and how the unions were instrumental in ushering in those changes.


Then why are they always bloviating like we're on the edge of regressing into turn-of-the-century industrial lawlessness?
 
2014-04-16 04:21:50 PM  

sendtodave: UrukHaiGuyz: The argument that Nordic countries have some distinct advantage as far as the administration of a robust social welfare program is so much bullsh*t, and I'm tired of seeing it dredged up.

I wasn't arguing that they had an advantage.  I was arguing that they are at an advantage, because it's easier for people to see everyone else as like themselves.

Well, it was until those poor brown moochers, who talk funny and don't go to our churches, started flooding in, anyway.


You mean as far as initial implementation? Once you leap that first hurdle, entitlements are pretty damn hard to kill, racists notwithstanding.
 
2014-04-16 04:22:39 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: It works wherever it's instituted. The practicality of the system is not tied to the level of its acceptance. Unless you reach a point where the majority wants to scrap it just to spite the "others", it's still working as intended, even if with vocal opposition.


But it tends to have failed when it required social control and central management to try and make it work.

BE EQUAL OR FACE HARSH CONSEQUENCES.

You basically have to reprogram people.
 
2014-04-16 04:23:14 PM  

El Pachuco: Why can't* the US do what Sweden does?


Because roving bands of murderers have more in common with each other than the people who suggested they leave Europe in the first place.
 
2014-04-16 04:23:28 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Once you leap that first hurdle, entitlements are pretty damn hard to kill, racists notwithstanding.


Yes, that is true.

That's their advantage, I think.  They were homogeneous when they decided to go with socialism.
 
2014-04-16 04:24:01 PM  
And as the American economy, and world economy collapses, the ones that still have money say "F*CK YOU, I'VE GOT MINE!"
 
2014-04-16 04:24:03 PM  

sendtodave: GoodDoctorB: It's almost as if it has no categorical effect whatsoever, outside the minds of people who assume everyone classifies people like they do.

Oh, no, the assumption is just that everyone categorizes in some way or another.

Different places categorize differently.

In China, for example, it's Chinese person, and non-Chinese person (foreigner).  All other races are "foreigner."  Secondarily, urban vs rural.  Etc etc on down until you just are at "my family, not my family"

In Scandinavia, it's also foreigner (Muslim immigrant) versus native, it seems.

Here, too.  And we also have lots of fun race relations.

But, anyway, socialism works when everyone see  most everyone else as part of their in-group.  Whatever that in-group criteria is.


Frankly, even if that's true (citation needed), fark that.  We can, and should, do better.  Period.  It's a piss poor excuse, and you should feel bad.
 
2014-04-16 04:24:06 PM  

GoldSpider: Then why are they always bloviating like we're on the edge of regressing into turn-of-the-century industrial lawlessness?


you're asking how hyperbole is used to push a  narrative in a fox news thread?
 
2014-04-16 04:24:10 PM  

GoldSpider: keylock71: Any "Union Shill" is going to be talking about the changes in the country since those days and how the unions were instrumental in ushering in those changes.

Then why are they always bloviating like we're on the edge of regressing into turn-of-the-century industrial lawlessness?


Because we have corporations beholden to no-one, who are now legally able to all but outright buy Congress, who regularly flaunt financial and environmental laws with near impunity. Also because wealth inequality is pretty much back at Gilded Age levels. How can you not see the parallels?
 
2014-04-16 04:24:58 PM  

Serious Black: Part of the problem with raising the eligibility age for SS and Medicare is that life expectancy is correlated to income


My god!  Are you suggesting people with poor health don't earn as much as healthy people?  The deuce you say!
 
2014-04-16 04:25:48 PM  

coyo: What could be done to address this? It will probably take generations.

* a tax on wealth

* eisenhower era tax rates

* estate taxes progressive enough to ensure no one is born a billionaire in a dynastic oligarchical family

* educating kids to think

* buy from folks as local as possible

What else? Roll over and take it?


Universal education. If you aren't getting a post-secondary education, it shouldn't be because you can't afford it.

Universal healthcare, with special emphasis on mental health.

End the War on Drugs, decriminalizing of many drugs like marijuana. Certain drugs like LSD should require a license to purchase, similar to alcohol. Drugs which are made through intense manufacturing, e.g. cocaine, should stay illegal. All non-violent drug offenders should get rehabilitation.

Overturn Citizens United, limiting the amount of money political campaigns can receive.

Reinforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
 
2014-04-16 04:26:43 PM  

sendtodave: UrukHaiGuyz: It works wherever it's instituted. The practicality of the system is not tied to the level of its acceptance. Unless you reach a point where the majority wants to scrap it just to spite the "others", it's still working as intended, even if with vocal opposition.

But it tends to have failed when it required social control and central management to try and make it work.

BE EQUAL OR FACE HARSH CONSEQUENCES.

You basically have to reprogram people.


You also don't apparently understand the Northern European model very well.
 
2014-04-16 04:26:52 PM  

sendtodave: UrukHaiGuyz: It works wherever it's instituted. The practicality of the system is not tied to the level of its acceptance. Unless you reach a point where the majority wants to scrap it just to spite the "others", it's still working as intended, even if with vocal opposition.

But it tends to have failed when it required social control and central management to try and make it work.

BE EQUAL OR FACE HARSH CONSEQUENCES.

You basically have to reprogram people.


Pretty much exactly what the courts said re: integration. How is that a failure? The system's still in place, and people adapt to new norms over time.
 
2014-04-16 04:28:09 PM  

GoodDoctorB: Frankly, even if that's true (citation needed), fark that.  We can, and should, do better.  Period.  It's a piss poor excuse, and you should feel bad.


You need a citation on a self-evident assertion?

People go along with things when they feel that those things benefit them (their tribe, insiders, in-group, their race, whatthefarkever), and do not benefit those that they are competing against (outsiders).

Americans, on the whole, don't feel invested in socialism.  Because of welfare queens and stuff.
 
2014-04-16 04:28:48 PM  

GoodDoctorB: sendtodave: UrukHaiGuyz: It works wherever it's instituted. The practicality of the system is not tied to the level of its acceptance. Unless you reach a point where the majority wants to scrap it just to spite the "others", it's still working as intended, even if with vocal opposition.

But it tends to have failed when it required social control and central management to try and make it work.

BE EQUAL OR FACE HARSH CONSEQUENCES.

You basically have to reprogram people.

You also don't apparently understand the Northern European model very well.


I was referring more to the Eastern models, there.
 
2014-04-16 04:30:26 PM  
The World Economy is Not Collapsing. The sky is Not falling.
You heard it here first.
Stay Calm
and
Fark On.
 
2014-04-16 04:31:12 PM  

sendtodave: GoodDoctorB: sendtodave: UrukHaiGuyz: It works wherever it's instituted. The practicality of the system is not tied to the level of its acceptance. Unless you reach a point where the majority wants to scrap it just to spite the "others", it's still working as intended, even if with vocal opposition.

But it tends to have failed when it required social control and central management to try and make it work.

BE EQUAL OR FACE HARSH CONSEQUENCES.

You basically have to reprogram people.

You also don't apparently understand the Northern European model very well.

I was referring more to the Eastern models, there.


So you're criticizing apples by describing oranges.
 
2014-04-16 04:31:15 PM  

sendtodave: The Scandinavian model works as long as everyone is Scandinavian.  Even there, friction comes up once you introduce a growing minority population of Brown People.


Ahh yes.  I'm sure by *Brown People* you meant Tea Party.
 
2014-04-16 04:35:30 PM  

Headso: you're asking how hyperbole is used to push a  narrative in a fox news thread?


A fair point there, but nobody but pundits would float such ideas and be surprised when they aren't taken seriously.

UrukHaiGuyz: How can you not see the parallels?


Because working conditions now don't bear any resemblance to then, due in no small part because of the efforts of unions.
 
2014-04-16 04:35:42 PM  

GoldSpider: keylock71: Any "Union Shill" is going to be talking about the changes in the country since those days and how the unions were instrumental in ushering in those changes.

Then why are they always bloviating like we're on the edge of regressing into turn-of-the-century industrial lawlessness?


You didn't say "on the edge", my friend... You said they were saying "nothing has changed". Get your bullshiat straight, will you.

Also, who is "they"? Feel free to provide some examples of unions claiming "nothing has changed" since the days of the robber barons, child labor, and unregulated capitalism.

As I said, you might hear some of them claiming certain segments of American society are trying to bring us back to those days.
 
2014-04-16 04:38:15 PM  

sendtodave: UrukHaiGuyz: The argument that Nordic countries have some distinct advantage as far as the administration of a robust social welfare program is so much bullsh*t, and I'm tired of seeing it dredged up.

I wasn't arguing that they had an advantage.  I was arguing that they are at an advantage, because it's easier for people to see everyone else as like themselves.

Well, it was until those poor brown moochers, who talk funny and don't go to our churches, started flooding in, anyway.


The funny thing is that if you are talking about things like Christmas paid holidays and official languages you do have an advantage dealing with those issues if most people think alike.  But things like big social advances or programs, it is better to realize not all people think like you so you can vote for what is better for the whole society.

That's the problem we have in the US illustrated in the healthcare debate.  People who have never been without health insurance or really sick think most people think like them and don't want the government to help with health insurance.  Anyone who thinks differently is a freeloader or lazy.

The point is realizing that people are different, have different experiences and needs helps with getting social programs working.  Thinking everyone is like you hurts the process of implementing social programs.
 
2014-04-16 04:40:46 PM  

sendtodave: Who, me? I'd love it.

I'm just not going to pretend that racism doesn't exist, and wouldn't be a real barrier, though, when it kinda even is in the model country.


This reminds me of the people in 2008 who were going on TV and saying things like "Oh, I would absolutely vote for a black president, I just don't think the rest of the country is ready."
 
2014-04-16 04:41:10 PM  

GoldSpider: UrukHaiGuyz: How can you not see the parallels?


Because working conditions now don't bear any resemblance to then, due in no small part because of the efforts of unions.


And here we are discussing an article where pundits are openly advocating the repeal of those hard-won gains. I'm not saying it's perfectly analogous to the turn of the last century, but the levers of power have shifted dramatically back in favor of capital and against the workers. The backlash should be unsurprising to anyone with a sense of history.
 
2014-04-16 04:42:01 PM  

udhq: sendtodave: Who, me? I'd love it.

I'm just not going to pretend that racism doesn't exist, and wouldn't be a real barrier, though, when it kinda even is in the model country.

This reminds me of the people in 2008 who were going on TV and saying things like "Oh, I would absolutely vote for a black president, I just don't think the rest of the country is ready."


To be fair, based on the reactions, a lot of people weren't.
 
Displayed 50 of 285 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report