Printable View
You don't have to hate the rich to see that they distort the political system to advantage themselves. This is true of all societies at all times, the only question is how much they manage to get away with.
For an American example of this you only need to look at the light post financial crisis re-regulation and then look at campaign contributions, to both sides.
Q-F-GORRAM-T.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
I was terrified by a mere thought that americans coulud actually have that sleezebag of shit Romney as their new president. How does such a mass-hamster deceiver get that much popularity? He changed his opinion of... EVERYTHING all the time, effectively having no position on any issue; and I suspect his lies during this campaign could actually solve the world hunger.
Just meh :/ It's nice for once to see that human race isn't completely fucked and can make a good decision or two sometimes. w00t.
P.S.: although I got no idea what God has to do with this.
FTFY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
He flip-flops so much that he can debate himself. ಠ_ಠQuote:
Originally Posted by Kknewkles
Because the main issue was, by a probably unprecedented majority, "Jobs. Jobs. Jobs." and the economy. And that's where Obama is absolutely HORRENDOUS. Similiar to the last election, where it was "Anybody but George Bush"Quote:
How does such a mass-hamster deceiver get that much popularity?
Ahhhhh, there is hope for you yet grasshopper. You are also very enlightened.Quote:
What I don't quite get is how this is our solution. As far as I can tell, this simply buys us time to come up with a proper solution, unless there's something else that I'm missing.
My post was sarcasm. Extending a recession DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HELP THE PEOPLE. It only helps the politicians look as if they were doing their job when they weren't. That's why sheep like Squibb think socialist economies are doing well, until they crash into a firy calamity.
Of course, but that wasn't the issue. VoK made the sweeping generalisation that "the rich" (He was no more specific than that) abuse "other people's money". Which implies a massive bias. Plus, he agreed with OWS, which, while some are fine, far too many of them are complete idiots. When the movement first started I was so fucking happy, even though I am a "retail investor" (Small, independent stock investor) because I thought the people would finally rise up. No, rationale complaints turned into "20$ minimum wage with insane benefits and future-proof, unfireable employment" that even the ridiculous French would laugh at.Quote:
You don't have to hate the rich to see that they distort the political system to advantage themselves.
I know that the group was made to look worse by the media because of the people it threatened, but DAMN, some of them were just plain ridiculous.
Nah, I have to say that, at the moment, the Democratic party is iquite a bit better than the Republican party. It's shame that you have to chose between logical economics, irrationale policies and irrationale economics, and logical policies. If the Democratic party had any person except for Obama, I would've been much, much, much more in their favor. The Republican party is a ridiculous bunch nicely summed up with the Clint Eastwood speech, "Old, angry, senile, and out-of-touch with the current." But, the main issue was economy, so you have to focus on that.Quote:
FTFY.
While I agree whole-heartedly with Romney being a flip flopper, for this video, in his defense, he changed his mind because the situation had changed. Not many people disagreed with stimulus when it first started. The problem is that there are many examples of times when stimulus reaches an inflectionm point and you have to put much more money into the economy for get the same amount out. America reached that long, long ago. Probably around late 2009, early 2010 by many estimates. Yet, here we are, still "stimulating" the economy. So, Mitt's early statements were correct, as well as his later statements. For example, in the great Land of Stimulus (China) they have to pump 4.5$ into the economy just to get 1$ back. That's because of far too much stimulus. When it first started, you could easily get 10-20-30% more money out than you put in. I have no idea what America's ROS (return on stimulus) but it's probably getting ridiculous as well.Quote:
He flip-flops so much that he can debate himself. ಠ_ಠ
Everything else was inexcusible though.
This isn't bias. This is a perspective. We could say that wealth is produced by the hands that produce it, or by the people who had the idea of investing money on production or something (I don't know how do people justify this). Perspectives, unlike biases, don't change, add or ignore facts. Alternative interpretation isn't bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Then again, I don't understand how rich people wealth can't be considered "other people's money" since other people produced it, but that's not the current topic...
Thank you United Stadians for not ellecting the guy who doesn't care about Third World lifes, but doesn't lustfully wants to kill our babies either. Also not sure what God has to do with this mess.
If you don't know what God has to do with it, you've never seen Glenn Beck.
Not a legitimate one at any rate.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
No. A perspective is something that is based on the parameters of a situation (location, experiences, information presented, etc.) A person's perspective can alter their opinion (bias) but it is not the same thing as their opinon. A bias is an opinion that is skewed away from facts by something other than linear reason, i.e. emotion. If you had said that his statement was an opinion, not a bias, then you would be correct since it is an opinion of my mine that his opinion is a bias, nothing more. The word 'bias' is nothing more than a "derogatory" term for an opinion since all opinions are biased. However, you used the word perspective which is completely wrong. I hate to nitpick with semantics with a non-native speaker but, hey, you started it.Quote:
This isn't bias. This is a perspective.
This is why Brazilians are poor, but that's not the current topic...Quote:
Then again, I don't understand how rich people wealth can't be considered "other people's money" since other people produced it, but that's not the current topic...
Part of the reason that OWS never settled on a specific program is that the problems of the United States (as in any large country) are complicated and reform is blocked by established interests. Any attempt by them to create a specific program would have instantly fractured the movement and been ridiculed by whoever the reform threatened.
One of the characteristics of the left is they put principle above practicality.
One of the characteristics of the right is they put power above principle.
That is why the right usually win.
Legitimate concerns but those were also realities in every single revolution that ever occurred in history. Granted, not every one of them had the same amount of success. My point is that complaints should eventually lead to a clear action plan instead of more complaints. Otherwise, protests are but an exercise in futility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rake