Are you afraid they would abduct and dissect you?


Let me explain the stupidity.
Right wingers want to reopen all businesses especially resturaunts, virus or not, asap
Low wage businesses like restaurants can't reopen because low wage workers aren't returning. Thousands of immigrants that 4 years ago would have been granted refugee status would LOVE to serve you for minimum wage or less and pay taxes, but work visas and refugee status have all but disappeared under Trump and Biden hasn't fixed that yet.

The right's position as I understand it, get us back to work fast, but for fucks sake don't give visas to brown skinned low wage workers to get it done. True story!!

Side note- The southern border states were once Mexico, so we are the alien invaders here, not Mexicans.

That is an awful argument......and it kind of makes you an anarchist. Let me explain.
No law ever has completely stopped the crimes they outlaw. By your measure, no law should exist.
E.g. speed laws don't prevent speeding by all cars, theft laws don't prevent theft by all thieves, bribery laws don't prevent bribes by all real estate tycoons, drug laws actually increase drug related crimes, but firearm laws must prevent all misuse of all weapons, not even just all firearms, or forget it?!

Your requirements of gun control are completely...insanely... unrealistic.

Also...crazy cat lady is "using those cats to claw your face" just like shooting wildly into a neighborhood is "using a gun to shoot you". Her irresponsibility directly created a situation that endangered the neighborhood and caused damage, no? Damage caused by firing unguided fur missiles is always the shooters responsibility, not the missiles'.

@MilkmanDan

i do not want to speak for eric,so i will just explain why i downvoted.

this video attempts to explain the syrian crisis,with almost zero critical examination.the video practically regurgitates the current american political narrative and never mentions the conflicts of information.

let me explain:

1.the video states this all started due to the arab spring,but totally fails to mention that the MAIN reason for the continued conflict is not arab spring,but the fact the both qatar and saudi arabia have been pushing syria to allow them to build a pipeline through syria in order for those countries to sell oil and gas to europe.

which would be in direct competition with russia,which is the main provider of oil and gas to europe.

2.this video claims..twice..that assad has used chemical weapons against his own people.while convenient for a western power which may,or may not,wish to engage militarily.there was no evidence in 2013,and there is no evidence this time (mainly due to time.i mean come on,TWO days? and BOOM.assad did it,nothing to see here.move along).

the only journalist in 2013 that challenged the narrative was seymor hersh.who was ridiculed and chastised,and ultimately vindicated in 2014 by the UN securities commission,that assad was not the perpetrator,but rather the al qeada off shoot el nosra.

which was barely covered,if at all,in american corporate media.

it is also important to mention that the assad regime,in full compliance with the UN,handed over all materials that could be used in chemical warfare.i.e:sarin gas.

3.while the video DOES mention it,it does so in a very slick way,and if you are not following this situation,you will miss it.

america IS supporting and funding "rebels",but pay attention to who those rebels are:they are the offshoot of al qeada,el nosra.

so in effect,america sis funding and supporting al qeada to fight against the assad regime.

i will give you time to allow that to sink in a moment.

these are only a few of the glaring inconsistencies in this video,but i will agree that the situation in syria is complicated,but the reasons for that complication are not being mentioned in this video..at all.

and one final thing to chew about before i go,because i think it is an important aspect to ponder,and as of right now,thats all it really is:speculation.

assad was set to meet with a UN peace council in a week to discuss possible diplomatic solutions.add to this that trump had just recently (last week) backed off obama's "red line" approach,and stated quite clearly that america is ONLY interested in dealing with ISIS,and had NO interest in dealing with assad.

question:

why would assad,with only a week to go before peace negotiations,commit politicial suicide by gassing his own people?

who benefits from this attack?

because it sure is not assad.

we all know the situation in syria is dire,complicated and grotesque,but the current narrative being fed to americans simply does NOT add up.

2+2 does not = 5

and this video does nothing to clear that up,it simply regurgitates american corporate media's narrative.

and i refuse to upvote that.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

I am German myself and I am disgusted how the German media and politicians are only blaming Greece. Some conservative papers (like welt.de) are ticking out completely and are turning to phrases that are very close to our Nazi history and are not allowing overly critical comments.

How Germans could chop down wages so quickly and without much opposition from the people and other parties?
The main reason is Hartz IV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept
Its a reform for the unemployed people, which at first sight doesnt have much to do with wages of the working people. But it does have everything to do with it. Let me explain:
Before Hartz IV unemployed people didnt have much to fear from the state. They got their unemployment (Sozialhilfe) money every month which was enough to live without much fear of anything. It didnt mean much to be unemployed. But people found a job if they wanted to. Of course, like every country, it was exploited by a tiny minority. People were happy with it and many countries were envious of that system because it provided so much social security that people got very peaceful and crime rates were pretty much non-existent.

Hartz IV was planned to cut the massive costs of that social system. The left wing government (which turned out to be massive hypocrites), a coalition of a socialist party and a green party, claimed it would decrease unemployment rates massively and save lots of tax money and they would force those lazy useless unemployed people to get jobs. They emphasized on "the hard earning people whos tax money is stolen by lazy unemployed" and used the tiny minority of exploiters to get Hartz IV under way. Hartz IV was basically a cut for unemployed people where they would barely have enough money to live from or pay the rent from it. It also allowed the government to use many tricks to adjust the unemployment rate. They for example excluded people who were unemployed at a certain age or people who were send on useless trainings (like how you write a job application or how you use a PC), which were forced on them from the government. If they didnt attend, they would get cuts on the already not enough Hartz IV money.

They got it through the parliament (since there was no oppositon of mention thank to their "democratic" coalition) and it went all downhill from there. Unemployed people were suddenly massively discriminated, even by the politicians, because they had created so much hate against unemployed and built many stereotypes in the process, supported by stupid fake shows in the media, just to push Hartz IV through. As I said before, they only used the minority that exploited the system before in their arguments, and didnt care about the majority. That also lead to companies falling for the created stereotype and not employing people who had been using Hartz IV at one time and even going as far as them looking at older employees as inferior. They got rid of them in a massive purge, which also led to the trick of excluding old people near pension-age from the unemployment statistics. Pensions dropped because those old fired people didnt get a job anymore and had to use Hartz IV. That meant that they had to use up their savings before they get Hartz IV money (that rule is part of Hartz IV), which drained old people of their money and also caused them to get caught in an even worse trap:
After a few years of getting Hartz IV money, they dropped to the lowest pension rate, which was barely above Hartz IV. It didnt matter if they worked 40 years of their life in a well paid job. Now they were poor and would never get a pension that was appropriate to their former job. That lead to a massive shift in wealth away from the normal people (middle class and poor), to the rich people. The buying power of Germans was destroyed, and it became even worse after the socialist/conservative government (yes, a stupid coalition like that is possible here) increased the sales tax by 3% to a whopping 19%. As result of this living costs exploded and black labor skyrocketed. Cost of energy of any kind, taxes, food prices, gas, rents, every day stuff you need increased massively. The Euro was to blame too, because prices of many things (especially food) were just exchanged 1-1 to the Euro. So for example if there was cheese before that cost 1 Deutsche Mark, it would now cost 1 Euro, even though 1 Euro was worth 2 Deutsche Mark. Wages collapsed, while everything got much more pricy. Hartz IV made all that worse.
Now for the main reason how Hatz IV pushed wages down:
The fear of dropping into Hartz IV (for the reasons I mentioned) was massive. Nobody ever wanted to drop into Hartz IV because they knew then everything was over. So they accepted extremely low wage jobs, even if that meant they would get less money than they would from Hartz IV, which already was barely enough to live a crappy live from. They took 2, 3, 4 shitty paid jobs instead, and the companies loved it, because they saved a lot of money with that. The problem with that was that even well educated people had fear of Hartz IV and accepted lower wages because of it. Wages didnt rise for 20 years (and they dont rise much now either). Yet living costs, as I said, increased massively. It all came together.
Germanys economy was very low at one point, yet they still tried to tell us that the unemployment rate dropped again (even 2007/08 and every year after that). People started to learn how they manipulated us and now we are here. Companies making revenue records after revenue records, yet nothing is arriving at the people. The media claims everything is well, the statistics still lie to us that the unemployment rate is low, but its not.
And now they are trying to blame the Greeks for our problems. Just like the unemployed Germans before, and the stupid masses fall for it again.
Yet they still wonder why Germans are a dying breed (population has been dropping for years now), and dont get that having children is very expensive in Germany and only few people still have money or time for that (since both women and men have multiple jobs to be able to live) because of these developments.

This video lacks a lot of salient details.

Yes, the F35 is aiming at the A10 because contractors want jobs (something to do).

However, the strength of the A10 is also its weakness. Low and slow also means that it takes you a long time to get to your troops. Fast jets arrive much sooner (significantly so). A combination of both would be ideal. F35 to get there ASAP, and A10 arriving later to take over.

It's not really worth debating the merit of new fighters. You don't wait for a war to start developing weapons.

Yes, our recent enemies are durkas with small arms, and you don't need an F35 to fight them - but you also don't even need to fight them to begin with - they aren't an existential threat. Terrorist attacks are emotionally charged (well, until they happen so often that you get used to hearing about them, and they stop affecting people), but they are nothing compared to say, a carpet bombing campaign.

The relevance of things like the F35 is to have weapons ready and able to face a large national power, should a nation v nation conflict arise with a significant other nation. In the event that such a conflict ever does, you don't want to be caught with your pants down.

Defense spending costs scale with oversight requirements.

Keep in mind that money pays people. Even materials are simply salaries of the material suppliers. The more people you put on a program, the more that program will cost.

Yes, big contractors make big profits - but the major chunk of their charges is still salaries.

Let me explain what is going on.

Remember the $100 hammers?
In fact, the hammer still cost a few bucks. What cost 100+ bucks was the total charges associated with acquiring a hammer.
Everything someone does in association with acquiring the hammer, gets charged to a charge code that's specific for that task.

Someone has to create a material request - $time.
Someone has to check contracts for whether or not it will be covered - $time.
Someone has to place the order - $time.
Someone has to receiver the package, inspect it, and put it into a received bin - $time.
Someone has to go through the received items and assign them property tags - $time.
Someone has to take the item to the department that needed it, and get someone to sign for it - $time.
Someone has to update the monthly contract report - $time.
Someone has to generate an entry in the process artifacts report, detailing the actions taken in order to acquire the hammer - $time.
Someone on the government side has to review the process artifacts report, and validate that proper process was followed (and if not, punish the company for skipping steps) - $time.

Add up all the minutes here and there that each person charged in association with getting a hammer, and it's $95 on top of a $5 hammer. Which is why little things cost so much.

You could say "Hey, why do all that? Just buy the hammer".
Well, if a company did that, it would be in trouble with govt. oversight folks because they violated the process.
If an employee bought a hammer of his own volition, he would be in trouble with his company for violating the process.
The steps are required, and if you don't follow them, and there is ever any problem/issue, your lack of process will be discovered on investigation, and you could face massive liability - even if it's not even relevant - because it points to careless company culture.

Complex systems like jet fighters necessarily have bugs to work out. When you start using the system, that's when you discover all the bits and pieces that nobody anticipated - and you fix them. That's fine. That's always been the case.



As an airplane example, imagine if there's an issue with a regulator that ultimately causes a system failure - but that issue is just some constant value in a piece of software that determines a duty cycle.

Say for example, that all it takes is changing 1 digit, and recompiling. Ez, right? NOPE!

An engineer can't simply provide a fix.

If something went wrong, even unrelated, but simply in the same general system, he could be personally liable for anything that happens.

On top of that, if there is no contract for work on that system, then an engineer providing a free fix is robbing the company of work, and he could get fired.

A company can't instruct an engineer to provide a fix for the same reasons that the engineer himself can't just do it.

So, the process kicks in.

Someone has to generate a trouble report - $time.
Someone has to identify a possible solution - $time.
Someone has to check contracts to see if work on that fix would be covered under current tasking - $time.
Say it's not covered (it's a previously closed [i.e. delivered] item), so you need a new charge code.
Someone has to write a proposal to fix the defect - $time.
Someone has to go deal with the government to get them to accept the proposal - $time.
(say it's accepted)
Someone has to write new contracts with the government for the new work - $time.
To know what to put into the contract, "requrements engineers" have to talk with the "software engineers" to get a list of action items, and incorporate them into the contract - $time.
(say the contract is accepted)
Finance in conjuration with Requirements engineers has to generate a list of charge codes for each action item - $time.
CM engineers have to update the CM system - $time.
Some manager has to coordinate this mess, and let folks know when to do what - $time.
Software engineer goes to work, changes 1 number, recompiles - $time.
Software engineer checks in new load into CM - $time.
CM engineer updates CM history report - $time.
Software engineer delivers new load to testing manger - $time.
Test manager gets crew of 30 test engineers to run the new load through testing in a SIL (systems integration lab) - $time.
Test engineers write report on results - $time.
If results are fine, Test manager has 30 test engineers run a test on real hardware - $time.
Test engineers write new report - $time.
(assuming all went well)
CM engineer gets resting results and pushes the task to deliverable - $time.
Management has a report written up to hand to the governemnt, covering all work done, and each action taken - documenting that proper process was followed - $time.
Folks writing document know nothing technical, so they get engineers to write sections covering actual work done, and mostly collate what other people send to them - $time.
Engineers write most the report - $time.
Company has new load delivered to government (sending a disk), along with the report/papers/documentation - $time.
Government reviews the report, but because the govt. employees are not technical and don't understand any of the technical data, they simply take the company's word for the results, and simply grade the company on how closely they followed process (the only thing they do understand) - $time.
Company sends engineer to government location to load the new software and help government side testing - $time.
Government runs independent acceptance tests on delivered load - $time.
(Say all goes well)
Government talks with company contracts people, and contract is brought to a close - $time.
CM / Requirements engineers close out the action item - $time.

And this is how a 1 line code change takes 6 months and 5 million dollars.

And this gets repeated for _everything_.

Then imagine if it is a hardware issue, and the only real fix is a change of hardware. For an airplane, just getting permission to plug anything that needs electricity into the airplanes power supply takes months of paper work and lab testing artifacts for approval. Try getting your testing done in that kind of environment.



Basically, the F35 could actually be fixed quickly and cheaply - but the system that is in place right now does not allow for it. And if you tried to circumvent that system, you would be in trouble. The system is required. It's how oversight works - to make sure everything is by the book, documented, reviewed, and approved - so no money gets wasted on any funny business.

Best part, if the government thinks that the program is costing too much, they put more oversight on it to watch for more waste.
Because apparently, when you pay more people to stare at something, the waste just runs away in fear.
Someone at the contractors has to write the reports that these oversight people are supposed to be reviewing - so when you go to a contractor and see a cube farm with 90 paper pushers and 10 'actual' engineers (not a joke), you start to wonder how anything gets done.

Once upon a time, during the cold war, we had an existential threat.
People took things seriously. There was no F'ing around with paperwork - people had to deliver hardware. The typical time elapsed from "idea" to "aircraft first flight" used to be 2 years. USSR went away, cold war ended, new hardware deliveries fell to a trickle - but the spending remained, and the money billed to an inflated process.

-scheherazade

I am copy-pasting my previous comment from here:

For those totally unfamiliar with Snooker, let me explain a couple of points: Putting the black earns you 7 points, but you'll have to put one red before putting another.

So there really is only ONE way to get 147. you have to put all the balls in exactly this order. red,black,red,black.... and so on until all reds are down, then you HAVE to do yellow,green,brown,blue,pink and finish it of with black. ONLY that order. He could NOT, for instance, pop down the blue or something in the middle there, it HAS to be in this particular order.

Now, most of you have probably tried pool. And if you think pool is hard (like me) try just looking at a snooker table, its about twice as big, and the balls are smaller, and the holes are f¤%&&ing IMPOSSIBLE to put into. Not only are they smaller, but unlike a pool table, they have these rounded edges that makes it even harder.

So when I said this is hard, I really, really mean it. Only an elite few in the world can do this, and it doesnt happen often. Even in big star games like this reaching 100 is considered really, really good. The fact that O'sullivan does this one in 6 and a half minutes, and another one in 5 minutes and 20 seconds, makes him one of the coldest sons'o'bitches on the whole planet IMO, and its one of the greatest sports achievements ever.

Points for the various colors:

red-1

yellow-2
green-3
brown-4
blue-5
pink-6
black-7

Every color, except red, gets placed back on the table, for as long as there are reds left, so you COULD do red-blue,red-yellow, red-black and so on, except then you are "using up" reds to put low-scoring balls, so to make 147, you have to start with red-black,red-black etc.

When all the reds are down, the remaining balls, have to be done in the order of their points, from 2 to 7

You seem to forget that the south attacked Federal forts and 'captured' federal property first...and declared secession. The South STARTED the war...no matter who you blame for the reason they did it.
(and I am a 'southerner' by birth).

And wow, do you really not understand the difference between the United States and Soviet Union? let me explain, the Soviet Union was not a union the satellites had a choice about. They were mostly forced into it, and forced to stay in it. The United States 'union' was entered into voluntarily by all states.

Get it?

Not following the advice of the Bible: never argue with an idiot, it is hard to tell who the idiot is: hoping there is someone here who is more interested in the truth than an ideology, (yeah agnosticism and atheism are ideologies), as well as Christianity. I wise man will hear council and rebuke.
Seriously, I hesitate to say this because it screams out so obviously: this is such a ridiculous argument based on probably an underlying wound from Christianity, or more likely a poor Christian role model. It is designed and constructed on emotion and inflammatory to Christians, so we get so mad we cannot think straight and give a good answer. So let me explain why his founding presumptions are wrong:
He states: Any God that allows such suffering of Children and parents is either impotent or evil.
Really? You can’t think of any other possibilities? How about freedom is more important than suffering? Foremost in the Bible we are all free moral agents. God will not step over this except in exceptionally rare instances. I have the freedom to do good or evil. If I choose to pull out a gun and kill a person, good or evil, that person will die. There are consequences of actions and mitigating consequences frequently leads to a reoccurrence of the action. I am not saying a baby dyeing of malaria is a result of someone’s action but how we (human race) grows is by learning most often by mistakes and pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is what life is all about.
How about looking at the long term consequences over the short term? This is a common mistake made among liberals. It should have been written in scripture no pain no gain. Are you going to say you should avoid the short term pain of a needle to inoculate malaria? The short term pain nets a good result in the end. I know this is a stretch but nobody knows the results of all the suffering going on in the world but as for me I trust God does and is working on us the best way. I like to look at the whole planet and all the living organisms as one thing God is working on. He is out for our best. I can tell you this, there is a purpose for everything, despite the fact that we can perceive it, comprehend it or like it.
You should read the whole series Dune by Frank Herbert, I won’t spoil it for you but the series looks at the Human race in a similar perspective.
I could go on and on but I have to work. I hope this offends.

ok, let me explain in another way: the more you demand change from the ecosystem, the more you will get of it.

at times, this can actually be a very good thing.
at other times, it sucks for a while, but eventually, you end up with a more adaptable species. That is the process that is happening right now.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^criticalthud:
welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".

MUTATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT!
Seriously tho, my guess is some kind of rare swarming of bottom-dwelling creatures that lives in deeper water. Perhaps overfishing in an area means millions of them have unexpectedly survived and washed ashore.


unexpectedly survived?

>> ^Peroxide:

@A10anis
How I can tell you never commuted by bicycle,
"I used to commute by bike, in London, and NO, he didn't deserve it. It also makes it potentially worse for the next bike the driver encounters. Until cyclists stop weaving, ignoring stop signs/lights, using pavements and, my biggest gripe, travelling 2 or 3 abreast, they will get little sympathy. And yes, I did some of those things but I learned, the hard way, not to."
UNTIL cyclists stop "using pavements" they will get little sympathy. Such a car person statement.

Not sure why you focus on semantics, that change nothing regarding my comment. However, you are obviously confused, so let me explain as simply as i can. I used the Phrase "until cyclists stop" because, and I know you may find it strange my friend, that's exactly what I meant. And I used the word pavement because I live in England. Go back to you tube to troll, here we try and make comments that are relevant.

I understand your confusion. I'm used to the conversations I have with my Chinese-American friends on the subject. Please let me explain:

While China has many "private" businesses along with the state-run organizations, the relatively new practice of allowing private business is something the Chinese government uses to promote their reputation. At the end of the day, China has a central bank. Not the way Americans have the Federal Reserve (which pisses me off sometimes too), but one bank with a few branches and absolutely no competitors. When I say that Chinese businesses are not private, it's because they all have to enter an agreement with the government in order to get the money to operate or even use the banking system at all.

So let's forget for a moment that China is a communist country with the express right to seize any-and-all assets of any corporation run by its citizens. Can you imagine how you would feel if you went to apply for a small loan for your business or family and had to apply directly to the government? Would that feel like freedom to you? And if you got rejected, there's no Chase down the street to apply at. There's no small credit union offering you a deal to try and lower your rates; just the government, the same one that will decide the terms of how you will run your business according to the law.

Now, that's all well and good if you're Apple or Oreo, and making a return for that same government banking system is practically guaranteed. But the Chinese government and it's people all have a vested interest in the business you do, and allowing your business to fail is not an option they're going to take lightly. Which means that everything your business will do is subject to that opinion, along with the final approval before they'll issue you so much as a debit card.

I think that's what my friends mean when they say that the government is an equal partner.

And I'm not necessarily saying that the American system is better. But less free?

>> ^longde:

That is not true. While there are many state owned companies, there are many companies that are entirely private.


>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

You do know that in China, the government is an equal partner in every business right? I mean, you do know it right?
That's your idea of a free economy?
Nope, notice I said freer, not free.

@shuac

Ohh, thanks for forgiving me.
And, thanks so much for explaining the obvious to me.
Let me explain simply--as you don't seem to get it.

@zeoverlord made a mistake and you assumed that he is stupid.
I tried to show you that everyone--even people as vastly intelligent as yourself--can make a mistake (in this case a clumsy sentence).

Did he make a typo?
You don't know--you don't ask--you don't care--He's Stupid!

Is English his second language?
You don't know--you don't ask--you don't care--He's Stupid!

It seems you assume that you are already of superior intelligence--do you have any room left in your huge brain for empathy?

Oh man, where to start...

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people. On the face of it, patently absurd. Yes, some leftists are corrupt. No question about it. So are many capitalists, too. Doesn't mean either philosophy is bankrupt.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

I'm totally sympathetic to the argument the stimulus may do more harm than good in the long run, but it wasn't done to shovel money into big bloated, criminally negligent gov't troughs. It was done to save jobs, and help the economy. Even if I disagreed with waterboarding, I wouldn't go around telling people the Bush administration did it because they loved the thrill of torturing people.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false. UN reports show the following:

In the U.S. the top 10% hold 70% of the country’s wealth
In France, the top 10% hold 61% of the country’s wealth
In the U.K. , the top 10% hold 56% of the country’s wealth
In Germany, the top 10% hold 44% of the country’s wealth
In Japan the top 10% hold 39% of the country’s wealth

France, UK, and Germany are significantly to the left of US in terms of their economic system without question. Japan is a weird beast, but still more socialist than we are. Their personal income tax rates are very low, but their corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. They also have significant elements of socialism in their economy, such as universal health care, publicly funded education, transportation, etc., but there is also a lot of free market elements as well. They also have a progressive income tax, although it has become less progressive as years have gone by.

So, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Finally, let me explain why some such as myself favor a form of mixed economy with a blend of socialism and capitalism: it works better for virtually everyone - rich, poor, and the middle class. As a very simple example, universal mandatory education, which was not a part of US society until it was publicly funded, helped businesses in the end because it increased the skill set and productivity of workers, which allowed businesses to increase profits in the long run. Universal, compulsory publicly funded education is socialist in nature. And how can society afford this? Partly by progressive taxation, which you claim is "poor people" believing that they have a right to the rich's money. Well, guess what? It worked BEAUTIFULLY! Universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age. Weird how that worked, huh?

Now, I know people such as myself you consider a "neolib", but we're actually moderates, many of us are well intentioned, as I'm sure is true about conservatives, and we also have quite a bit of facts on our side to back us up, too. Raising marginal tax rates on the richest 1% of Americans is socialist in nature, but doing it a small amount isn't tantamount to socialism. And socialist ideas aren't inherently bad either (same for capitalistic ideas).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.
So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

>> ^arvana:

a) We can't tell from the video if this accident was fatal.
b) Regardless of what happened to the operator, I certainly wouldn't say the video is "explicit depiction of loss of human life" [FAQ].
I'm going to assume for my own peace of mind that he's ok and recovering in hospital from dust inhalation. There are plenty of times during earthquakes when people survive building collapses while inside the building.
I'll add a warning in the description, and return.



Alright, let me explain B.

There was the video on the sift a while back of a man on a scooter ramming an elevator door until the door broke and he fell to his death.

The death occurred in the elevator shaft itself, not on screen. However, it was generally agreed upon that literally watching the last 4 seconds of someones life was disrespectful and disturbing in its own right.