search results matching tag: Mother Jones

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (16)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (1)     Comments (13)   

newtboy (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

The New Republic.

Really -- Leftest owned and published rag. --- Clearly biased
Since 2016, TNR has been owned by Win McCormack, a co-founder of the left-wing Mother Jones magazine.


Yet another Big fucking nothing burger form the big zero himself.

Try again TOOLboy

newtboy said:

BTW- Trump’s closest advisors have testified that Trump, contrary to his claims, never told the rioters to leave or stay peaceful on Jan 6, Dan Scovino wrote the messages to “stay peaceful” and later “Go home. We love you. You’re very special.” while Trump wrote the incendiary comments like “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”
Smith has all the meta data proving who wrote what and when and it’s horrific for Diaper Don.
So much for that part of his defense.
https://newrepublic.com/post/177917/trump-january-6-tweet-peaceful-protest-defense-didnt-write-it

Hayes: NRA "Good Guy With A Gun" Theory Failed In Real Time

newtboy says...

Hard to find complete data on that timeframe….

There have actually been 212 so far just 5 months into this year alone with 251 deaths…if you extrapolate from this year’s rates, that’s 6000 dead in the last decade from mass shootings…but I think it’s less because mass shootings are on the rise since 2016.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?page=8

And here’s a list of over 10 years narrowed to incidents of 4 or more deaths that adds up to 601 in the last decade…so extremely conservatively at least double that if you account for the vast majority of mass shootings that end with <4 deaths, likely triple or more.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

No matter how you count, it’s more than Chicago over one year (including police shootings? Suicides?)
Apples to oranges anyway.

Wonder why you chose Chicago….hmmmmm….why could it be?….

St. Louis, MO (69.4 murders per 100000 residents)
Baltimore, MD (51.1)
Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
Kansas City, MO (31.2)
Memphis, TN (27.1)
Chicago, IL (24)

bobknight33 said:

Add all the mass shootings over last decade and then compare that number to Chicago's 2021 murder rate Of nearly 800 killing s

Warehouses: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

00Scud00 says...

Ever since I read that article in Mother Jones about working conditions in Amazon warehouses I feel kinda bad ordering stuff.
Although I do tend to order things that I can't find locally or is much cheaper online. But fucking Oreos? seriously? I still go to the store for things all the time, really it won't kill you (usually).

The Shocking Way Private Prisons Make Money

RedSky says...

It is incredibly disturbing how it seems like you need dress up this morally reprehensible issue with glitzy production values and comedy to even make people aware of what's going on.

If you're interested in reading a long article, I would recommend the following Mother Jones report on an investigative reporter who took a job as a private prison security guard:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer

newtboy (Member Profile)

bareboards2 says...

Thanks for the promote and the comment on Mother Jones searing little vid.

Surely the rest of the country, other than those who allow their brain action to stop at the lizard fear-based level, will be swayed by information like this.

Black Man Vs. White Man Carrying AR-15 Legally

Mordhaus says...

While 99% is obviously a bit high, I did a quick search and found some data. Out of 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012, mass being more than 4 victims per incident, 11 shooters were black. In the other cases, 45 shooters were white males, 1 was a white female, and the rest were asian or latino.

So 18 percent of the mass shootings during that period were done by blacks. A whopping 74 percent were white.

You can find the list here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

mxxcon said:

i'd like to see those statistics.

The Newsroom's Take On Global Warming-Fact Checked

notarobot says...

"All of these things are predicted by the IPCC—I mean, not the permanent darkness thing, I don't think that's meant to be scientific. But yes, as we reported in May this year, Europe faces freshwater shortages; Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms; North America will see increased heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop yields will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide.

So, in all, well done Newsroom. Informative, accurate, if a little heavy-handed on the doom and gloom." /Mother Jones fact check

*Quality piece, Newsroom.

Israeli crowd cheers with joy as missile hits Gaza on CNN

ShakaUVM says...

You should get your news from places other than HuffPo and Mother Jones.

"The wrong side of history"? Seriously, can you even say that with a straight face? Just because your echo chamber all believes the same thing doesn't mean that Israel isn't in the moral right here.

Yogi said:

You need to read a bit more to understand how complex this situation is. Hamas are by no means saints and they are cripplingly stupid. But there is a reason why there are dozens of votes at the UN that are every other fucking country in the world against Israel and the US. Because they're on the wrong side of history. Israel is running an apartheid state and will continue to do so as long as there's people like you who support them.

Peter Schiff vs. Cornell West on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360

bmacs27 says...

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.


Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

Congresswoman Shot In The Head Point Blank 6 Others Killed

Constitution gives us the right to travel

NetRunner says...

I wanted to see if I could find the real court finding, to see on what basis they decided in his favor.

I had some trouble with that. It would be an understatement to say that this man has spent a lot of time in court over the last decade. Here's a decent summary from Mother Jones; it's Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan.

So, I found the opinions of him being laughed out of court for claiming that his property taxes are unconstitutional pretty much every year for as far back as the court has records. He's tried to get cases up to the SCOTUS on illegal passage of the 16th amendment (that's the one that permits income taxes), he's trying to make a case that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. He also tried to sue that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were illegal because they were undeclared.

All that said, I haven't found any record of him winning a court case about a "right to drive" except this Youtube video, and it's accompanying article on the local TV station (which is basically a transcript of this video), and a blog entry by Donald Sullivan telling a story about how his son got arrested for refusing to answer an officer's questions when pulled over. He did this because the officer first read him his Miranda rights and then asked for license and proof of insurance (at which point the son exercised his right to remain silent).

Regardless, I think all rights have limits. You are free to speak, but you may not incite people to violence. You are free to "bear arms" but I'm pretty sure land mines are not permissible. You are guaranteed the right to a trial, but you do not have the right to infinite appeal.

People should indeed be able to move about without restriction. This does not mean I may use a 3000 lbs. device to convey myself without limits on how that device is used and operated.

Personally, I think if you want to take a "right to free movement" to some sort of extreme, the real meaning would be that trespassing shouldn't be a crime, and things like locks and fences should be illegal since they restrict people's freedom of movement.

After all, if you cause no damage to the person's property, it's a victimless crime...

Family: We Want Little Hitler Back

longde says...

To subject your child to a lifetime of hate and ostracism IS child abuse. No different than naming a little boy "B***h Mother****** Jones", and sending him to school for 12 years.

If you are going to raise a racist, at least give them the plausible deniability that the modern racist coasts on.

"1.21 GIGAWATTS?!?!?!?"

zor says...

>> ^Payback:
It's disgusting when 76.5% of the world's people live without any electricity at all.


I think it's disgusting I don't have a time traveling DeLorean. I don't pity people who don't have electricity or think I'm disgusting for having it. In fact, some people in the US live 'off the grid' and they like it just fine. Mother Jones magazine has lots of good articles about it and they are good to read. What we're trying to do is educate people who live in areas that don't have electricity about ways to get clean water, use basic solar energy and do other things. They live comfortably.

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon