Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS aren't morons....today.Follow

#202 Jul 15 2014 at 6:18 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Not to pick on you, but I'm catching up and it's easier to reply to one person.

Gbaji wrote:
AA is just an extreme example of this. It's done to win over black votes.


That's a very shallow thought. Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, Democrats actually believe in what they propose? I know politicians tend to do exactly what you are implying, but to believe that any support for AA is false is shallow.

Gbaji wrote:
Obama's "help" of illegal minors via DACA had everything to do with winning Latino votes. The long term effects (often negative) on those being "helped" is secondary to those immediate political benefits.


Likewise with the Republicans. There is no incentive to fight for the immigrants as Republicans fear of losing their base. You're trying to pretend that Republicans are some special type of politician that don't do the same things that you accuse Democrats for doing.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#203 Jul 15 2014 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Elinda wrote:
Affirmative action treats a symptom, not the disease.
If the disease doesn't affect someone then doing anything else is just an overpriced expenditure. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#204 Jul 15 2014 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts
It's a tough call

No it isn't. Or did you mean in The Land of Make Believe where institutional racism isn't still a crippling dynamic in US life? There it might be a tough call, I guess. In the shared reality we all actually exist in, it's a miserable compensation for the oppressed victims of racism who manage to rise up in spite of it. A miniscule advantage only post hoc overcoming racism that it's almost embarrassing in it's inadequacy.

Poor white people are disadvantaged, but nothing even vaguely comparable to poor black people, or really, middle class black people in most cases. Yeah, Sasha Obama might be eligible for AA and that's sh*tty, but there's not a fairer way to do it at present. Life is like that.

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 1:10pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#205 Jul 15 2014 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Yeah, Sasha Obama might be eligible for AA and that's sh*tty, but there's not a fairer way to do it at present. Life is like that.


What if you had separate jobs and university spaces set aside just for black people?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#206 Jul 15 2014 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts
What if you had separate jobs and university spaces set aside just for black people?

Yeah...and water fountains.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#207 Jul 15 2014 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What if you had separate jobs and university spaces set aside just for black people?

Yeah...and water fountains.
The solution to Detroit's problems!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#208 Jul 15 2014 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
If it wasn't for civil rights we wouldn't have water problems in Detroit. Seriously people, the 50's were awesome, do you need more proof?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#209 Jul 15 2014 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Senator McCarthy certainly seemed to enjoy them, at least the first few years.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#210 Jul 15 2014 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Really? I heard he found them quite trying.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#211 Jul 15 2014 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Helpful image for gbaji:


That's cute, as long as one doesn't realize that the picture labeled as "justice" isn't justice. Justice offsets injustice. Meaning that it only exists within the context of unjust actions. If I take something from you, justice would require (at a minimum) that it be taken from me and returned to you. Justice does not act to offset natural conditions. The tall person did not take height from the short person. Thus, no system of justice would require that his box be taken from him and given to the short person in order to balance out their respective heights.

This, in a nutshell, is where most people go wrong with the concept of rights, liberty, justice, etc. They fail to understand the difference between naturally occurring conditions and those imposed on one by someone else. Government can and should act to adjust for the latter, but while it *may* act to adjust for the former, it is not required, and it's absolutely not "unfair" or "unjust" for it not to.


The image is helpful at illustrating how people apply incorrect labels to things though. So thanks, I guess.


Well, if it wasn't so taboo, almost all of us could be tall, and allocate boxes for the few who weren't. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the only solutions are moving around of the boxes or leaving them where random chance allows them to end up.


Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#212 Jul 15 2014 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts


Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.


Magic beans! Plant magic beans and the short people can climb the magic beanstalk. You don't have any magic beans? Don't worry, we've developed a policy of putting higher and higher fences up which will give the tall people incentive to drop beans on the ground! Why hasn't it ever worked in the history of humanity, this waiting for the advantaged to help the disadvantaged? WE DON'T KNOW!!! We all agree how nice and generous everyone is, it's just one of God's mysteries.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#213 Jul 15 2014 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.

How, exactly, would that apply to the issue we're discussing? Eliminating the hurdles and barriers present? Great idea, let's just eradicate all prejudices and biases in our culture and society. Presto! Equality for all.


Edited, Jul 15th 2014 5:46pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#214 Jul 15 2014 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.

How, exactly, would that apply to the issue we're discussing? Eliminating the hurdles and barriers present? Great idea, let's just eradicate all prejudices and biases in our culture and society. Presto! Equality for all.


Edited, Jul 15th 2014 5:46pm by Debalic
The point would be to lower the effort to succeed to the point where any yahoo with a couple of brain cells could make a decent living, and the incentives for making more than is necessary are minimal. Basically success would be such a guarantee that it wouldn't matter what shortcomings you had, and those that were better off wouldn't really get a better view of the game.

Failing that we throw a big party and give everyone a trophy. Smiley: nod

Edit: For the record I have no idea how we get there, or what this has to do with conservative ideals. So obviously we should give all our money to the scientists so they can invent awesome fence-lowering devices.

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 2:58pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#215 Jul 15 2014 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.


I didn't know eecummings was a conservative forum troll.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#216 Jul 15 2014 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
The point would be to lower the effort to succeed to the point where any yahoo with a couple of brain cells could make a decent living, and the incentives for making more than is necessary are minimal. Basically success would be such a guarantee that it wouldn't matter what shortcomings you had, and those that were better off wouldn't really get a better view of the game.


So, bring back manufacturing jobs. Great! Get on that.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#217 Jul 15 2014 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Samira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
The point would be to lower the effort to succeed to the point where any yahoo with a couple of brain cells could make a decent living, and the incentives for making more than is necessary are minimal. Basically success would be such a guarantee that it wouldn't matter what shortcomings you had, and those that were better off wouldn't really get a better view of the game.


So, bring back manufacturing jobs. Great! Get on that.
Naw that wouldn't even scratch the surface. Besides to do that we'd have to bomb an awful lot of people first, and the liberals would have a hissy fit about it. Smiley: disappointed

What we really need is some way to get free food, water, shelter, health care, security, transportation and entertainment (am I missing anything?) to everyone. Then the fence will be gone. Whoever made this world didn't do a very good job of documenting the cheat codes.

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 3:28pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#218 Jul 15 2014 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Tirith wrote:
I don't think that the policies to help those races should be targeting them by race though.


Again, in an ideal scenario. You can't create laws that target races negatively, then say "oh, we can't create laws that target races positively to undo wrong doing, because that's wrong". Should have thought of that BEFORE enslaving a group of people.

Tirith wrote:
The legitimate concern is that what happens to these laws as things do get better?


They change.

Tirith wrote:
You would have benefits coded into law for specific races, when do they disappear?

When the situation changes.

Tirith wrote:
And then what happens when there are people stuck in a similar location, possibly even neighbors, who aren't the right race to get the benefits?

We change the law. Besides, no one is in the same scenario. Every struggle is unique.

Tirith wrote:
The focus should be on the economic position the people are in. The issue being that the past racist policies have left the a disproportionate number of minorities in these poor conditions. Truly help the poor, you help the minorities, but in a way that could evolve to help anyone stuck in those positions rather than just specific races.


The racial policies haven't left though, that's the problem. you think Shaniqua Thompson or Muhammad Thompson are getting a phone call over Sarah or Mike Thompson?


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#219 Jul 15 2014 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

What we really need is someway to get free food, water, shelter, health care, security, transportation and entertainment (am I missing anything?) to everyone.


Could do this tomorrow if the ultra wealthy would accept only having 10000 times more assets than the median instead of 20000. Obviously it will never happen because people are horrible and no amount of suffering or death of other people isn't worth the tiniest advantage for themselves.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#220 Jul 15 2014 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Ahh now there's the question, how can we make money meaningless enough that they'd part with it without a second thought? Maybe this whole removing the fence idea is kinda starting to sound more liberal than conservative. Smiley: rolleyes

That's it, gbaji is a closet communist! Where's McCarthy when you need him? Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edit: Speaking of "where's", where's your generic MMO when you need it? You log in, you get your starter gear, the keys to your own house and access to the chat channels, entry areas, and basic events and such. If only life was like that...

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 5:13pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#221 Jul 15 2014 at 4:47 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

What we really need is someway to get free food, water, shelter, health care, security, transportation and entertainment (am I missing anything?) to everyone.


Could do this tomorrow if the ultra wealthy would accept only having 10000 times more assets than the median instead of 20000. Obviously it will never happen because people are horrible and no amount of suffering or death of other people isn't worth the tiniest advantage for themselves.

B-b-but Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and the **** Brothers and Steve Jobs are giving away half their billions! To private charities! Surely this will solve all our ills??
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#222 Jul 15 2014 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

Of course. The party that is *not* passing legislation that directly targets minority groups for benefits will always appear this way. But that's because the GOP is *not* being racist, not because we are. The problem is that we're being judged by a standard that is itself inherently racist.
Two points:
1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.
In gbajiland, if those Africans had just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps (sandalstraps?) they wouldn't have been slaves in the first place.

Kavekk wrote:
Really? I heard he found them quite trying.
Kao will shortly be sending you a sternly worded PM for getting all up in his schtick.

Samira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
The point would be to lower the effort to succeed to the point where any yahoo with a couple of brain cells could make a decent living, and the incentives for making more than is necessary are minimal. Basically success would be such a guarantee that it wouldn't matter what shortcomings you had, and those that were better off wouldn't really get a better view of the game.
So, bring back manufacturing jobs. Great! Get on that.
I mentioned that a while ago and gbaji wept for the shareholders. It was very moving.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#223 Jul 16 2014 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence.
That sounded a lot better in your head than it did written down, didn't it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#224 Jul 16 2014 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Helpful image for gbaji:


That's cute, as long as one doesn't realize that the picture labeled as "justice" isn't justice. Justice offsets injustice. Meaning that it only exists within the context of unjust actions. If I take something from you, justice would require (at a minimum) that it be taken from me and returned to you. Justice does not act to offset natural conditions. The tall person did not take height from the short person. Thus, no system of justice would require that his box be taken from him and given to the short person in order to balance out their respective heights.

This, in a nutshell, is where most people go wrong with the concept of rights, liberty, justice, etc. They fail to understand the difference between naturally occurring conditions and those imposed on one by someone else. Government can and should act to adjust for the latter, but while it *may* act to adjust for the former, it is not required, and it's absolutely not "unfair" or "unjust" for it not to.


The image is helpful at illustrating how people apply incorrect labels to things though. So thanks, I guess.


Well, if it wasn't so taboo, almost all of us could be tall, and allocate boxes for the few who weren't. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the only solutions are moving around of the boxes or leaving them where random chance allows them to end up.


Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.


If the conservative movement did that they would be in competition for my vote. They don't, though. In fact they often erect fences to ensure a competitive advantage or an opportunity for box sales for some.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#225 Jul 16 2014 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
The poors would get the left-over cardboard boxes that wouldn't hold up their weight.

Quote:
Justice does not act to offset natural conditions.
You made that up.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#226 Jul 16 2014 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
****, I can't be bothered to engage, so I'll instead post this clip that reflects where I am and why I don't care.

____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#227 Jul 16 2014 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.


If the conservative movement did that they would be in competition for my vote. They don't, though. In fact they often erect fences to ensure a competitive advantage or an opportunity for box sales for some.


I disagree. To me (speaking economically, although we could make a similar social analogy), the fence represents some kind of "minimum cost" to live a good life. Someone's height is their natural ability to earn a living. The Liberal solution to short people is to give them boxes to stand on, thus making them higher (analogous to various social programs designed to make up the difference between what people can afford and what people need). And that may appear to be a quick and easy solution to the problem. But to a Conservative, it's counter productive. We believe that what makes the fence taller is the cost incurred by paying to build the boxes to help people see over it. Also, while putting someone on a box allows them to be higher, it doesn't actually make them taller. As I mentioned earlier, you're treating the symptom, but not the actual problem.

Assuming we agree that the problem (different statistical status aligned by race) exists because of an historical set of actions which intentionally drove down (shortened) certain groups, then the solution needs to involve helping them grow taller. But you can't do that by putting them on boxes (yes, this is where the analogy breaks down, cause people can't choose to get taller). We believe that people get taller (again, this is just an analogy for improving their base condition) when they strive to do so. If you put someone on a box, and thus provide them the benefits of being taller without having to actually grow, they're not going to spend the effort to do so (or at least, do so slower and to a lesser degree than otherwise). So while in the short term you will see what appears to be good results, in the long term you are retarding the economic growth of the group(s) you are helping.


And in the case of social spending, it's a double whammy because every dollar you spend paying for someone's food, or housing, or whatnot, is a dollar that isn't floating around in the economy as an opportunity for true economic advancement *and* a dollar that has to be paid somehow (increasing cost of living, aka "raising the height of the fence"). That negative affects all of us, but obviously affects groups that are "short" the most. If you are already having a hard time earning enough money to live on, anything that increases the base cost of living is going to hurt you. In an ironic way, the "help" ends out mostly ensuring that those you've helped will continue to require help in the future.


That's the conservative view on this at least. You're free to disagree, of course, but then what you do think we're doing that is raising the height of the fence? You mentioned "competitive advantage or an opportunity for box sales", but I'm not sure how that translates to a higher fence. Competition tends to lower costs, not raise them. And "box sales" only makes sense in the context of a system in which we're using boxes to adjust people's natural height. The conservative answer is to not have them at all. Let everyone stand on their own two feet.

Edited, Jul 16th 2014 5:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#228 Jul 16 2014 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts
I disagree.

You misspelled "misunderstand".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#229 Jul 16 2014 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,616 posts
gbaji wrote:
the fence represents some kind of "minimum cost" to live a good life. Someone's height is their natural ability to earn a living.

Let's say that the fence is the cost of health care...And the box, or lack thereof is income.

gbaji wrote:
The Liberal solution to short people is to give them boxes to stand on, thus making them higher (analogous to various social programs designed to make up the difference between what people can afford and what people need).


Works for me so far.

gbaji wrote:
And that may appear to be a quick and easy solution to the problem. But to a Conservative, it's counter productive.


[tylerdurden]
Nope, Lou, you lost me
[/tylerdurden]

gbaji wrote:
We believe that what makes the fence taller is the cost incurred by paying to build the boxes to help people see over it. Also, while putting someone on a box allows them to be higher, it doesn't actually make them taller. As I mentioned earlier, you're treating the symptom, but not the actual problem.


But if paying for the health care (Fence) eliminates the income (Box) due to high costs, and potential lost work, I don't see a problem with having aid given to the individual.

gbaji wrote:
And in the case of social spending, it's a double whammy because every dollar you spend paying for someone's food, or housing, or whatnot, is a dollar that isn't floating around in the economy as an opportunity for true economic advancement *and* a dollar that has to be paid somehow (increasing cost of living, aka "raising the height of the fence").


But it is also a dollar that was spent to get an earner back on their feet, and back into the work force thus growing the economy (if we are still talking health care)

gbaji wrote:
That negative affects all of us, but obviously affects groups that are "short" the most. If you are already having a hard time earning enough money to live on, anything that increases the base cost of living is going to hurt you.


except that in my example, they are still alive/healthy/whatever

gbaji wrote:
In an ironic way, the "help" ends out UP mostly ensuring that those you've helped will continue to require help in the future.


gbaji wrote:
That's the conservative view on this at least. You're free to disagree, of course


Thanks I will

gbaji wrote:
Competition tends to lower costs, not raise them.


Like Medical costs in our country have been lowered by competition!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#230 Jul 16 2014 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
And lower costs means lower profit margins, which means lower wages, and firing employees..
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#231 Jul 16 2014 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,616 posts
Except that our medical costs are artificially inflated for a number of reasons, some of which are the cost of education, the "free market" medical equipment, supplies, and medicine model to name a few.

ETA: Word choice and verb tense

Edited, Jul 16th 2014 7:43pm by stupidmonkey

Edited, Jul 16th 2014 7:43pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#232 Jul 16 2014 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
740 posts
Quote:
The Liberal solution to short people is to give them boxes to stand on, thus making them higher (analogous to various social programs designed to make up the difference between what people can afford and what people need). And that may appear to be a quick and easy solution to the problem. But to a Conservative, it's counter productive


Yep; it is almost as stupid as giving hungry person a sammich.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#233 Jul 16 2014 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
angrymnk wrote:
Quote:
The Liberal solution to short people is to give them boxes to stand on, thus making them higher (analogous to various social programs designed to make up the difference between what people can afford and what people need). And that may appear to be a quick and easy solution to the problem. But to a Conservative, it's counter productive
Yep; it is almost as stupid as giving hungry person a sammich.

Which, as a "conservative", gbaji is totally against. I mean really, if you give a guy calories today he'll need more tomorrow. More efficient to let the man die.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#234 Jul 17 2014 at 3:01 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
xantav wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Libertarian blogger on libertarian site cites her libertarian book's use of libertarian studies from National Center for Policy Analysis and Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Sounds legit.

Its totally legit. Sure, the studies are almost 20 years old with 1996 being the most recent thing I've seen, but thats OK. Unlike science, economics is stable enough that it never needs updating.


It does and it doesn't.

Damnit, stop being so pedantic.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#235 Jul 17 2014 at 5:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
xantav wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Libertarian blogger on libertarian site cites her libertarian book's use of libertarian studies from National Center for Policy Analysis and Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Sounds legit.

Its totally legit. Sure, the studies are almost 20 years old with 1996 being the most recent thing I've seen, but thats OK. Unlike science, economics is stable enough that it never needs updating.


It does and it doesn't.

Damnit, stop being so pedantic.


Sorry, I'll be less obtuse. Economics doesn't change much over the years, especially in micro. Macro also doesn't really change, in truth, but the initial conditions that develop situations change. economics doesn't change but Economics does. Can't empirically prove what happens with a negative interest rate when policy hadn't pushed it there before. Models do say things, but they aren't always correct, and the problem is you need certain circumstances to test them, and testing them on a populace is generally unethical. Various strains of modeling thought that were devised with profound ulterior motivation have shown to incorrect in various circumstances, but the tail wags the dog there anyway.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#236 Jul 17 2014 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's the conservative view on this at least.
Your argument is emotionally manipulative and disregards all of reality.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#237 Jul 17 2014 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Except that our medical costs are artificially inflated for a number of reasons, some of which are the cost of education, the "free market" medical equipment, supplies, and medicine model to name a few.

ETA: Word choice and verb tense
I'd substitute "oligopoly" for "free market" and add in "idiot Americans who ignore their health until they're dying of heart disease or whatever then decide to throw their entire life savings at the problem to live an extra couple of extra months."
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#238 Jul 17 2014 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
If you actually really want to know which private charities are doing good with your dollars, this is a nice website. The worst charity on the website spends 85% of the money it raises on more fund raising. About 6% goes to the actual cause it supports.

The website lacks an average and certainly doesn't compare them with similar government related programs, but many private charities are basically scams.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#239 Jul 17 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
It's not always about the percentage though. If charity A raises 100,000 and spends 20% of that on fundraising, is that better or worse than a company that spends 50% on fundraising but raises 1,000,000?

Think of it like a business, there's a reason marketing budgets are quite large. Now that doesn't defend 85% marketing, it's certainly a balancing act.

Edited, Jul 17th 2014 6:36pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#240 Jul 17 2014 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
Oh yes I'm sure. None of the charities on the website get a perfect score, not even the most highly rated ones, because every NGO is going to need to have a budget and paid staff. Some of them are rated incredibly highly - food banks especially seem to do well with their donations. (I guess it's hard to use donated food for marketing purposes.)

I think it's a tool, though, that can help you discriminate between "this group wants to help people" and "this group is just kind of lining their pockets."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#241 Jul 17 2014 at 11:18 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
740 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Quote:
The Liberal solution to short people is to give them boxes to stand on, thus making them higher (analogous to various social programs designed to make up the difference between what people can afford and what people need). And that may appear to be a quick and easy solution to the problem. But to a Conservative, it's counter productive
Yep; it is almost as stupid as giving hungry person a sammich.

Which, as a "conservative", gbaji is totally against. I mean really, if you give a guy calories today he'll need more tomorrow. More efficient to let the man die.


How is that efficient? If we were talking any kind of efficiency, he would have any useful organs harvested and the rest would be thrown on a compost heap to give the hippy crowd the organic food they seem to like so much-- after he dies from hunger, naturally.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#242 Jul 17 2014 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Dying from hunger would damage his organs, better to cut to the cutting.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#243 Jul 18 2014 at 5:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It's not always about the percentage though. If charity A raises 100,000 and spends 20% of that on fundraising, is that better or worse than a company that spends 50% on fundraising but raises 1,000,000?

Think of it like a business, there's a reason marketing budgets are quite large. Now that doesn't defend 85% marketing, it's certainly a balancing act.

Edited, Jul 17th 2014 6:36pm by Xsarus
If you can imagine a limited pool of donation dollars, then the charity that takes a million bucks of it, but only gets half of that to the targeted needy cause seems pretty inefficient.

Also, I think there is just a thing that when people donate to non-profits they like to think the non-needy, the organizers and BoDs are not profiting....



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#244 Jul 18 2014 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Think of it like a business, there's a reason marketing budgets are quite large.
Peta and all those Sarah Mclachlan commercials seem to have too much money in their marketing budgets.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#245 Jul 18 2014 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
If you can imagine a limited pool of donation dollars, then the charity that takes a million bucks of it, but only gets half of that to the targeted needy cause seems pretty inefficient.

Also, I think there is just a thing that when people donate to non-profits they like to think the non-needy, the organizers and BoDs are not profiting....

Well, it's not really a limited pool of donation dollars though, at least not at this point. Salary isn't the same as profiting. If you have a goal, you need to adequately staff it with good people in order to actually accomplish anything. It's a fine line.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CST
Poldaran, Samira, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (46)