I don't think there is any way to judge this comment unless we find out what Romney did with the factory after he bought it. I don't think he was bragging, and from what I've heard and read, his description of the fierce competition for jobs in China is accurate.

Why is the sarcasm button checked on this comment? Isn't this exactly what they are doing?


>> ^charliem:

"....we feel if you use the word 'angry' enough, people will associate it with an angry black man....gangs, violence, and it will bring up the racist bigotry that so fiercely drives our base.....without actually saying racist things...its like saying nigger without saying nigger.....so say angry.....not nigger.."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Very interesting, *quality video and discussion. I would say there is probably some under-reported aggression and violence in Japan- but in general a whole hell of a lot less than anywhere else I have lived. In 3.5 years there- never saw a fight, never saw any violence that I remember - there was one crazy guy who was running around yelling at people - but that's it. Violence by Yakuza does happen, but it seems aggrandised from films. I think Yakuza are mainly loan sharks, brothel owners and black marketeers.

For whatever reason, violence is baked into the US culture - tied in maybe with a rugged frontier individualist spirit. Americans love their guns. My family too. My dad always carried a nickel-plated '38 under his car seat, which he called his "merging assistance device".

>> ^legacy0100:

I would have to partly disagree on this one. I believe high density does attribute to more aggression. Dr. Frans de Waal points out that high density alone does not always lead to aggression, and that there are other factors that attribute to reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. This much I agree with. However, this should not be used to throw away the immense impact over population has on human aggression.
He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.
I also would like to point out that there's generally a lot less food intake and physical activity in urban Japanese society. Your typical Japanese sushi portions can testify for that, as well as various hikikomori symptoms people suffer in overly populated Japanese cities.
Dr. de Waal says there's less crime in Japan, but this simply isn't true. He is overly reliant on only the statistics reported by the government, and he isn't are of the deep rooted cultural practices that mask these aggressions to the outside world. Dr. De Waal never mentions about the various odd symptoms and personal sacrifice everyone must make in order to maintain the order there. Violence is everyday life in Japanese society, including the fairly well known presence of Yakuza. Japanese people often get bullied by the Yakuza, but they do not report these events because for one, they are afraid of retaliation, and two, Yakuza has deep rooted connections with the government. Yakuza usually do not engage anyone foreign simply because it would get the embassies involved, and they do cannot exert any influence in foreign lands. So they only stick to bullying Japanese people, and stay clear of foreigners. Even in high school physical violence is rampant. Students fight or bully each other all the time, but it is not seen as a crime, but merely 'part of growing up'. Nobody reports anything, so the crime data remains low.
Compare this with cities in Netherlands. It is highly populated, but enjoys abundance of resources thanks to laxed attitude toward drugs and sex, which are themselves ways to alleviate aggression. People in Netherlands are also very mobile because of their well developed transportation infrastructure including extensive bike lanes, roads and trains. They are also in close proximity to larger open areas in Germany or France where they regularly escape to thanks to their abundance in resource, while in Japan people are very much confined to their own living quarters and their workplace, who usually cannot afford to take frequent vacations due to high expectation from bosses as well as fierce competition towards promotion. Imagine regular US/UK office space antics times ten.
Overall I find Dr. de Waal's argument only partially credible and would like to look into his experiments and his citations before acknowledging this as fact.
I remember Dag and his wife saying they used to live in Japan. I would like to hear their opinion about this issue and Japanese society being used as proof to this theory.

I would have to partly disagree on this one. I believe high density does attribute to more aggression. Dr. Frans de Waal points out that high density alone does not always lead to aggression, and that there are other factors that attribute to reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. This much I agree with. However, this should not be used to throw away the immense impact over population has on human aggression.

He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.

I also would like to point out that there's generally a lot less food intake and physical activity in urban Japanese society. Your typical Japanese sushi portions can testify for that, as well as various hikikomori symptoms people suffer in overly populated Japanese cities.

Dr. de Waal says there's less crime in Japan, but this simply isn't true. He is overly reliant on only the statistics reported by the government, and he isn't are of the deep rooted cultural practices that mask these aggressions to the outside world. Dr. De Waal never mentions about the various odd symptoms and personal sacrifice everyone must make in order to maintain the order there. Violence is everyday life in Japanese society, including the fairly well known presence of Yakuza. Japanese people often get bullied by the Yakuza, but they do not report these events because for one, they are afraid of retaliation, and two, Yakuza has deep rooted connections with the government. Yakuza usually do not engage anyone foreign simply because it would get the embassies involved, and they do cannot exert any influence in foreign lands. So they only stick to bullying Japanese people, and stay clear of foreigners. Even in high school physical violence is rampant. Students fight or bully each other all the time, but it is not seen as a crime, but merely 'part of growing up'. Nobody reports anything, so the crime data remains low.

Compare this with cities in Netherlands. It is highly populated, but enjoys abundance of resources thanks to laxed attitude toward drugs and sex, which are themselves ways to alleviate aggression. People in Netherlands are also very mobile because of their well developed transportation infrastructure including extensive bike lanes, roads and trains. They are also in close proximity to larger open areas in Germany or France where they regularly escape to thanks to their abundance in resource, while in Japan people are very much confined to their own living quarters and their workplace, who usually cannot afford to take frequent vacations due to high expectation from bosses as well as fierce competition towards promotion. Imagine regular US/UK office space antics times ten.

Overall I find Dr. de Waal's argument only partially credible and would like to look into his experiments and his citations before acknowledging this as fact.

I remember Dag and his wife saying they used to live in Japan. I would like to hear their opinion about this issue and Japanese society being used as proof to this theory.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Porksandwich honey -- you are missing who this video is directed to. It is directed at non-trolls. Period.
Speak up, is all it is saying.
There is more and more bullying in the world and people have stayed silent long enough.
I'm not going to repeat this amazing man's point of view. He says it brilliantly.
Why don't you listen to it a couple of times, and see if you can figure out what he is trying to say, instead of constructing a false argument? And doesn't he even address this tendency in comment streams? I don't remember.
Anyway. This guy is great.
And thanks to @messenger again for being a fierce advocate of it. I am grateful.


Shrug, I guess show me a couple cases where trying to debate against people who show an unreasonable -ist, -ism, etc of any kind on the internet and has made someone change their opinion. Changing one person's mind is hard enough in person, doing it on the internet when they are being reinforced by a group who has similar beliefs........you're going to wear out keyboards. By all means if you feel strongly about it, go ahead. But like I said, doing it because this guy says to or him saying that it needs to be done...you're just bringing a lot of stress upon yourself trying to engage or speak out against people who won't listen to what you have to say.

Ignore/approval/administration/sanction/ban tool improvements would serve you better. And if moves beyond the internet, that's where the police should come into play...doing anything about it at that point would be breaking the law more than likely.

Plus until someone asks for it or clearly needs the help, it's really not your place to get involved. Hell they might get some twisted pleasure out of troll baiting and be doing it on purpose. It's just not worth it until it's clear that what is happening is against THEIR sensibilities and beyond their ability to deal with it. Much like stepping into a fight between a husband and wife, arguing might be their "thing" and you just end up with two people pissed at you.

IE, If I were having a private conversation on someone's wall here and neither of us were telling the other to stop. I'd be really pissed and very offended if they were reading private messages that don't involve anyone else but me and said person. If they stepped in to defend the other person from me and banned/sanctioned/whatevered me... does it make sense?

If it involves you, someone you know who would expect you to do something about it, or something you have ownership or involvement with, great go at it. If it's someone else's stuff, or a conversation not involving you.........you're sticking your nose into things looking for an argument. IE, going around looking to be offended, is going to end up with you being offended.

And it's not that I don't get pissed at when people mock many groups of people, especially if I am of that group. But it's just unrealistic to stop that activity on every site you visit, you'd be lucky to control ONE website that you own due to how many IPs, handles, etc ways there are to connect and post. Give yourself a stroke trying to stamp it out, it'd require thought crime technology to effectively stop it. Defend the corners you visit, but realize. Like Youtube, if it's very popular, it's unlikely. Keep reasonable expectations. I realize lots of things are wrong, but I also realize there is shit-all I can do about a lot of them. Internet commentary is definitely one of those. Ignore said person and move on.

@Porksandwich honey -- you are missing who this video is directed to. It is directed at non-trolls. Period.

Speak up, is all it is saying.

There is more and more bullying in the world and people have stayed silent long enough.

I'm not going to repeat this amazing man's point of view. He says it brilliantly.

Why don't you listen to it a couple of times, and see if you can figure out what he is trying to say, instead of constructing a false argument? And doesn't he even address this tendency in comment streams? I don't remember.

Anyway. This guy is great.

And thanks to @messenger again for being a fierce advocate of it. I am grateful.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Kylie Minogue has a fantastic arse


Was thinking the very same thing about every five minutes ago which brings me to the POINT:
Madonna bared her withered stank-ass nipple in Turkey (irreverent cunt) on this same tour and now her schtick it seems is to exhibition her wares throughout the remainder of her talent-less career. Proof positive here though that she still has few years stripping for change.

Kylie?? She's of another realm altogether. Showgirl. Talented. Stylish. Hard and soft, fierce yet fragile. Minogue embodies the essence of showmanship and decorum. No compromise, unchanging. One of the shining gems of stardom that we are fortunate to have been witness to.

Madonna?? You may benefit from the part of the recluse for the rest of your tenure. Or else grow the fuck UP! Oh, you suck at acting as well. Try some lessons.

For the reference:

Numbers 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

Upvote even though my back itches something fierce now...

That is one fierce kitty!

Fierce!

This is a flawless example of police escalating the situation completely unnecessarily. I seriously think cops should get way better salaries, and in return, submit to fierce internal policing and stricter job requirements, especially re: intellect.