300,000 union families voted for him. :lulz:
This species is too stupid to live.
I have to say, I overestimated humanity on this one. I was actually surprised when I heard he won the recall. I suppose I shouldn't have been.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 02:19:39 PM
I have to say, I overestimated humanity on this one. I was actually surprised when I heard he won the recall. I suppose I shouldn't have been.
I made a tidy little sum on the recall election, because I have FAITH that humanity is, in fact, that dumb.
Obama refused to be seen anywhere near the recall campaign.
That should have told you everything. The Boy Prince is not going to expend vital political capital on a lost cause.
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
Obama refused to be seen anywhere near the recall campaign.
That should have told you everything. The Boy Prince is not going to expend vital political capital on a lost cause.
Noticed that. :lulz:
A side lesson learned is that once again, protesting -- even loud, media-grabbing, borderline violent protesting -- will not do anything of any major importance, so you may as well not even try.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 02:23:19 PM
A side lesson learned is that once again, protesting -- even loud, media-grabbing, borderline violent protesting -- will not do anything of any major importance, so you may as well not even try.
Just so you know, the GOP maintained all state senate seats that were being recalled, too.
They have successfully sold the working class on the idea that the unions are the cause of all their woes.
:lulz:
The Orton Principle, do never test it.
There was one good thing tht came out of this election, though...
The Daily Show showed a zoomed in version of this photo:
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/luntz23/966711-1-eng-GB/Luntz2.jpg)
... demonstrating that Luntz is trying to smear the beloved Gipper by making him resemble Stalin. Wish I could find the side by side graphic. :lulz:
The pwoggle meltdown on the blogs has been impressive.
The spin is that Walker won because he had the cash advantage and because he made the vote a vote on the appropriateness of the vote recall, not whether he was a good Governor or not.
Unfortunately, this is bullshit. Most recall attempts fail anyway. More people voted, Walker won by a higher margin than he was originally elected with.
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2012, 02:36:59 PM
The pwoggle meltdown on the blogs has been impressive.
The spin is that Walker won because he had the cash advantage and because he made the vote a vote on the appropriateness of the vote recall, not whether he was a good Governor or not.
Unfortunately, this is bullshit. Most recall attempts fail anyway. More people voted, Walker won by a higher margin than he was originally elected with.
I'm shocked that people actually expected this to work in the first place. Then again, I'm from a state where a governor who has not been convicted of a felony committed while in office is ahead of the curve (and even the felons have a sporting chance of winning an election), so shitbag governors actually losing elections is a bit outside my experience. :lulz:
Whoops. One dem challenger (Lehman) to a senate seat won, though it is under challenge.
But their legislature is out of session until after the November elections, when 13 seats are up for grabs, so no win there.
Somebody on facebook posted a picture of a burning novena candle with the caption "for Wisconsin" yesterday. I thought there'd been an earthquake or something until I googled.
Wisconsin could probably be done with those silly unions altogether if they'd take a tip from Texas and LERN 2 REDISTRICT.
QuoteOne voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".
Jesus fucking Christ. :horrormirth: He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on June 06, 2012, 06:00:08 PM
QuoteOne voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".
Jesus fucking Christ. :horrormirth: He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html
Not the teachers, their unions. That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on June 06, 2012, 06:00:08 PM
QuoteOne voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".
Jesus fucking Christ. :horrormirth: He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html
Not the teachers, their unions. That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.
Unions are, we know, evil and wrong. For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.
Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.
Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like
threat of unionization.
Unions are COMMUNIST. Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face. Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
You know, I looked it up, and WEA Trust does not finance the union in any way, other than as a health insurance company. They are also under investigation for ripping teachers off at retirement, and the teacher's union has not lifted a finger to forestall that.
So why would you be so interested in WEA Trust? Because they're a health insurance company, and your right wing pals have a problem with health insurance for the little people:
QuoteSen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) on Monday said she pushed years ago for health insurance to be removed from collective bargaining agreements, but former Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed the move.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/126151423.html
Once again, Disco Pickle has demonstrated his pre-rich credentials, and is a fine addition to the teabagger movement, in any location or capacity.
I salute you, sir.
You know, each time I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he may just be pointing out that no one is perfect, and then you get...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 08:39:49 PM
You know, each time I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he may just be pointing out that no one is perfect, and then you get...
I get...?
Happy?
In a festive mood?
SO HAPPY TO SEE MY PAL DISCO PICKLE COME BACK TO TELL US WHAT'S WHAT CONCERNING THOSE PO' PEOPLES?
:banana:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 08:34:39 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
You know, I looked it up, and WEA Trust does not finance the union in any way, other than as a health insurance company. They are also under investigation for ripping teachers off at retirement, and the teacher's union has not lifted a finger to forestall that.
So why would you be so interested in WEA Trust? Because they're a health insurance company, and your right wing pals have a problem with health insurance for the little people:
QuoteSen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) on Monday said she pushed years ago for health insurance to be removed from collective bargaining agreements, but former Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed the move.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/126151423.html
Once again, Disco Pickle has demonstrated his pre-rich credentials, and is a fine addition to the teabagger movement, in any location or capacity.
I salute you, sir.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2012/may/21/behind-rhetoric-wea-trust-and-school-health-care-c/
That should help you see the connections you missed in whatever it was you read.
I'll ignore the cheap shots.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 08:53:06 PM
I'll ignore the cheap shots.
What cheap shots? You made your position crystal clear when you said that "poor children deserve whatever they get, if their parents can't work two jobs AND take care of their education." Or words to that effect.
So this is, to my mind, just more of the same. You were more fortunate than most, and for you that is a reason to spit on those less fortunate. You're what we in the church call a "Pay'Bucker", which is a slightly more wealthy version of a "po'bucker"...Still not rich, but "destined to be so". For some reason.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 08:39:49 PM
You know, each time I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he may just be pointing out that no one is perfect, and then you get...
I appreciate the consideration LMNO. What gave you the "and then you get..." this time? What he replied to the post, or something you read yourself that contradicted the information I have?
It's by no means a cut and dry issue. I did think it was getting a bit whitewashed as "Oh, poor unions that never did a thing to deserve it are now getting punished"
So nothing to say about the Viagra incident Rev.?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 08:56:33 PM
So nothing to say about the Viagra incident Rev.?
The what?
Thing that's funny is, LMNO actually has money, DP. He has so much money, he could actually afford to pay for someone to sleep with you.
But he doesn't need to shit all over poor people on a regular basis. The difference, I think, is that he acknowledges that luck had a lot to do with things, so he lacks the deep-seated insecurity you display...By which I mean the insistance that you're better off because you're better, and the need to shit all over anyone below your income level to prove it.
Disco,
It's a false equivalance. A union spent money for something some people considered frivolous. Therefore, the only solution is to strip all unions of their equal bargaining rights, no matter that one has nothing to do with the other.
Except for the police and fire department, of course. Unions that backed the govenor didn't get cut.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 09:00:56 PM
Disco,
It's a false equivalance. A union spent money for something some people considered frivolous. Therefore, the only solution is to strip all unions of their equal bargaining rights, no matter that one has nothing to do with the other.
Except for the police and fire department, of course. Unions that backed the govenor didn't get cut.
Oh, wait. Someone got Viagra from their health insurance, so all unions are bad? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 08:56:18 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 08:53:06 PM
I'll ignore the cheap shots.
What cheap shots? You made your position crystal clear when you said that "poor children deserve whatever they get, if their parents can't work two jobs AND take care of their education." Or words to that effect.
So this is, to my mind, just more of the same. You were more fortunate than most, and for you that is a reason to spit on those less fortunate. You're what we in the church call a "Pay'Bucker", which is a slightly more wealthy version of a "po'bucker"...Still not rich, but "destined to be so". For some reason.
So fortunate, in fact, that my 50 year old, alcoholic, cocaine, and narcotic pill addicted mother died just 3 years ago right before she turned 50, and it now looks like my father is doing his best to join her.
Man, what a privileged childhood I had, that allows me to
Quotespit on those less fortunate
(something I've never done, btw, despite that completely false quotation)
And here I thought we could have some civilized discourse. Silly me.
QuoteAnd here I thought we could have some civilized discourse.
Historically, that seems to depend more on your blood alcohol content than any other factor.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 09:00:56 PM
Disco,
It's a false equivalance. A union spent money for something some people considered frivolous. Therefore, the only solution is to strip all unions of their equal bargaining rights, no matter that one has nothing to do with the other.
Except for the police and fire department, of course. Unions that backed the govenor didn't get cut.
It was only the teachers union that was having restrictions put on their collective barganing. It wasn't even a "you can't collectively bargain" deal, it was very specific and concerned things just like the Viagra incident.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 09:01:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 09:00:56 PM
Disco,
It's a false equivalance. A union spent money for something some people considered frivolous. Therefore, the only solution is to strip all unions of their equal bargaining rights, no matter that one has nothing to do with the other.
Except for the police and fire department, of course. Unions that backed the govenor didn't get cut.
Oh, wait. Someone got Viagra from their health insurance, so all unions are bad? :lulz:
Please to quote where I said anything of the sort or GTFO.
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2012, 09:08:45 PM
QuoteAnd here I thought we could have some civilized discourse.
Historically, that seems to depend more on your blood alcohol content than any other factor.
I'm at work at the moment with a half hour to kill.
I know, and I took careful note and hung back for a few months until I thought I could approach the board more like a human and less like a child itching for a pissing contest. I don't come here anymore with a few in me with the sole intent to argue.
I didn't like who I was in that mindset, and I when I heard enough times that I was an asshole, I decided that's not how I wanted to post here.
Disco, what the Hell are you talking about?
QuoteThe Walker-backed bill proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[29][30] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.
"Public sector unions." Not "Just the teachers union". Also, "collective bargaining rights over pension, health care, and raises", not "make sure they can't do something stupid about Viagra."
And incidentally, if union members thought the unions were being stupid, THEY COULD ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
Disco, what the Hell are you talking about?
QuoteThe Walker-backed bill proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[29][30] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.
"Public sector unions." Not "Just the teachers union". Also, "collective bargaining rights over pension, health care, and raises", not "make sure they can't do something stupid about Viagra."
And incidentally, if union members thought the unions were being stupid, THEY COULD ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES.
All public sector. I missed that. Hadn't picked that up in the readings. Every one seems to be focusing on the teachers unions. (ETA: which is, incidentally, what Glittersnatch said, that they've been convinced it's the fault of teachers unions, and so I did focus my attention on that. I left out a big part, sorry about that.)
Pensions, healthcare and automatic raises are causing the deficits. Clearly, raising taxes could help offset the deficits created over decades, but union membership has been on the decline in Wisconsin since the early 90's and probably before, while wages are driven up automatically, as are pension and healthcare costs, with fewer union members to contribute to the inflated costs.
Do you have an idea to help mitigate the falling input that, at the rate of decline in contributing membership, will never meet the outgoing expenses they are demanding?
And the union members are unlikely to elect new leadership
membership as long as the leadership is trying to get them more benefits. They're humans, after all.
Oh, Dipshit Pickle. Do you ever learn?
Nope. It's cuz you gots Religion. :lulz:
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Oh, Dipshit Pickle. Do you ever learn?
Nope. It's cuz you gots Religion Calvinizm. :lulz:
He's one of Teh Eleckt. :lulz:
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 06, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Oh, Dipshit Pickle. Do you ever learn?
Nope. It's cuz you gots Religion Calvinizm. :lulz:
He's one of Teh Eleckt. :lulz:
No, not calvinism. He's got a baaad case of Libertard.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 06, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Oh, Dipshit Pickle. Do you ever learn?
Nope. It's cuz you gots Religion Calvinizm. :lulz:
He's one of Teh Eleckt. :lulz:
No, not calvinism. He's got a baaad case of Libertard.
Ugh. Worse than I thought. :lulz:
http://www.uppitywis.org/blogarticle/university-minnesota-scientist-drops-bombshell-about-walker-says?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UppityWisconsin+%28Uppity+Wisconsin+-+Progressive+News+From+The+Ch
:popcorn:
That, there, is the t'ing about politics. Your entire history comes out to bite you in the ass...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 02:23:19 PM
A side lesson learned is that once again, protesting -- even loud, media-grabbing, borderline violent protesting -- will not do anything of any major importance, so you may as well not even try.
Right, getting the recall election in the first place was not important, they may as well have not even tried...
:emo:
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:19:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 02:23:19 PM
A side lesson learned is that once again, protesting -- even loud, media-grabbing, borderline violent protesting -- will not do anything of any major importance, so you may as well not even try.
Right, getting the recall election in the first place was not important, they may as well have not even tried...
:emo:
Actually, they probably shouldn't have. Walker could shit on the podium and get reelected now.
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
I'm not saying that...But let me just ask you this: What HAS protesting accomplished in the last generation?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 06, 2012, 10:19:40 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 06, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Oh, Dipshit Pickle. Do you ever learn?
Nope. It's cuz you gots Religion Calvinizm. :lulz:
He's one of Teh Eleckt. :lulz:
No, not calvinism. He's got a baaad case of Libertard.
Ugh. Worse than I thought. :lulz:
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
I should be fair and say that I actually do like your contributions Freeky, when you can be bothered to, and not just repeat the same damn thing you always say to me in any thread I post in. And you're a reasonable conversationalist, IMO, when you're inclined.
Anna I completely ignore. She won't even start a thread unless she knows it will get a bunch of "HELL YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT" righteous indignation to help affirm her world view.
Srsly, do a count of the threads she's started and note their content.
Back to the topic, if anyone cares to continue:
I did find an interesting piece in the NYTimes (I won't quote it here, don't want to get the board in trouble):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/business/11pension.html?pagewanted=all
About a 1/3rd of the way down, independent analysts have found that collective bargaining isn't the at the core of the problem they thought they'd find. NY state actually pays out more than 100% of a retirees working pay (because they pay out Social Security as well, something Wisconsin doesn't)
Also, these funds are heavily invested in and in fact banking their ability to pay on bull markets, pretty much all of the time. We've been very clearly in a bear for some years, and more will come with more frequency. (It's no small bit of irony that the same people who decry wall street stock gains have their union retirement funds invested in wall street stocks, and who's survival completely depends on the profits made on wall street, but that's my little aside jab and can be fodder for another thread)
A little further down, his research points to ultra low interest rates as being a severe problem in considering a payout of 58% of a public sector workers pay (artificially low interest rates and the real associated problems are something I've definitely talked about on this board, being a dumb ass dick pickle who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, that's what we talk about)
Another finding was that public sector employees are allowed to retire earlier than private sector and receive a pension that's guaranteed. In the case of Wisconsin, at 57 with full pension as long as they have 30 years. (Police and Fire can retire at 53 with only 25 years... I noted what you said about them LMNO, and I agree.)
Private sector employees do not have anything even resembling this anymore.
The last two paragraphs basically sum up the problem.
I'll do some more reading but on the surface I can, in confidence, agree that stripping the bargaining rights for those benefits will not solve the problem in the long run, and just plays on people on both side's general ignorance about why these things cost so much.
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
I was distracted and should have replied to that point by LMNO.
Protests serve a purpose, even if they do not accomplish their goals the first time. They help bring awareness to people who might not have otherwise gotten a signal through all of the noise.
Little ripples and such.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
I'm not saying that...But let me just ask you this: What HAS protesting accomplished in the last generation?
Besides getting many massive corporations to drop out of ALEC, put wealth inequality in the national consciousness, temporarily stopped SOPA, made "capitalism" a dirty word, caused an exodus from major banks and influx into credit unions, saved a significant number of people's houses from being foreclosed, not much I suppose.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?
And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?
And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees. The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.
What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.
I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words? probably not, but that was the jest of it.)
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:27:32 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?
And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees. The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.
What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.
I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words? probably not, but that was the jest of it.)
Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?
As a side note, your
Quote(you know, to keep up with inflation)
point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.
The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector. The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:32:52 AM
As a side note, your Quote(you know, to keep up with inflation)
point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.
The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector. The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.
Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:31:26 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:27:32 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?
And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees. The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.
What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.
I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words? probably not, but that was the jest of it.)
Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?
based on the bit of reading I've been able to do, I think it will be ineffectual in actually addressing the problem in the long term, and stinks of political posturing that plays on the ignorance people to really understand where there core of the problem lies.
Both sides have money stained hands. I expected nothing less. I'd like to hear reasoned solutions that don't stink of politics.
Union rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.
If libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.
Pickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me. Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.
Of course, this is to be expected. Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom. It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful. This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles.
And no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.
No wonder Kevin Carson, IOZ and a number of others prefer to call themselves anarchists, when the only other option is association with the likes of you.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:37:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:32:52 AM
As a side note, your Quote(you know, to keep up with inflation)
point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.
The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector. The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.
Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.
"required" by who?
And the public sector dictates rates of inflation through monetary policy at the federal level. Of course they would mandate that their salaries increase at the same rate. It makes sure they can keep up with the amount of money they dump into the system.
Pickles, I'm sure you have a valuable contribution on the bell curve and how it proves unions are evil.
I would like to hear it.
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
Union rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.
If libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.
Pickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me. Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.
Of course, this is to be expected. Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom. It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful. This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles.
And no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.
No wonder Kevin Carson, IOZ and a number of others prefer to call themselves anarchists, when the only other option is association with the likes of you.
I'd like to address each of these point by point.
QuoteUnion rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.
First, I've never once, anywhere ITT thread, or on this board, decried unions as inherently bad. They are not. Freedom of association, speech, and assembly are all in this countries constitution. Control of one's own labor power falls under all three I believe, as you can labor with any of them.
QuoteIf libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.
Walker's victory over a recall showed that not everyone in the state agreed with him. I suppose those people exercising their liberty to vote should be discounted because you don't agree with them. Freedom means that even people who you might not agree with, and who may, in fact, be completely misinformed and WRONG, still have the freedom to be wrong and vote for something that is wrong. Checks and balances, and all that. Why am I preaching this shit to you of all people again?
QuotePickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me. Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.
I've stated, several times now, that based on new information I am falling on the side of restricting collective bargaining rights for these areas is not the solution and will not address the problem. That other areas should be the focus and this was just posturing.
QuoteOf course, this is to be expected. Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom. It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful. This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles.
I can't disagree with much of the first part of that statement. It's clearly the case almost anywhere you go these days. It's similar to populist politics being a smokescreen for Democrat politics, with a healthy amount of apologia for the rich and powerful.
I part hard ways with the politically religious and authoritarians though. I do find myself sometimes conflicted when riots break out that threaten the lively hood of the silent people that do not get involved and who's lively hood is directly effected by those riots. I think we covered some of that in the London threads.
QuoteAnd no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.
I haven't had even a beer tonight Cain. I've been going in early, working on a very large and expensive project all week. I don't have the luxury.
I don't hold it against you for thinking a leopard will always show up to a party spotted. I've clearly made that impression here.
I'll work on it.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:44:07 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:37:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:32:52 AM
As a side note, your Quote(you know, to keep up with inflation)
point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.
The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector. The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.
Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.
"required" by who?
And the public sector dictates rates of inflation through monetary policy at the federal level. Of course they would mandate that their salaries increase at the same rate. It makes sure they can keep up with the amount of money they dump into the system.
Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:31:26 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:27:32 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?
And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees. The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.
What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.
I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words? probably not, but that was the jest of it.)
Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?
based on the bit of reading I've been able to do, I think it will be ineffectual in actually addressing the problem in the long term, and stinks of political posturing that plays on the ignorance people to really understand where there core of the problem lies.
Both sides have money stained hands. I expected nothing less. I'd like to hear reasoned solutions that don't stink of politics.
Now that you've said this, would you be for or against reversing these cuts? And I'll take answers for both the current situation and in a hypothetical when an effective alternative is in place.
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2012, 12:47:19 AM
Pickles, I'm sure you have a valuable contribution on the bell curve and how it proves unions are evil.
I would like to hear it.
:lulz:
Funny thing, I've been giving a lot of thought the last few months to that post that got me so much shit, and that ONE in particular because there really was a point to that one, but I didn't have the statistics to back it up and so flounced. I'd like to revisit it with some proper research, not just reactive Hurrrr.
If it's just going to be fodder and distract from this one, I'd rather take the time to make it a thread of it's own.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 01:12:39 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:44:07 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:37:21 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:32:52 AM
As a side note, your Quote(you know, to keep up with inflation)
point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.
The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector. The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.
Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.
"required" by who?
And the public sector dictates rates of inflation through monetary policy at the federal level. Of course they would mandate that their salaries increase at the same rate. It makes sure they can keep up with the amount of money they dump into the system.
Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice. Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:31:26 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 12:27:32 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.
Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster?
I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?
And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees. The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.
What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.
I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words? probably not, but that was the jest of it.)
Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?
based on the bit of reading I've been able to do, I think it will be ineffectual in actually addressing the problem in the long term, and stinks of political posturing that plays on the ignorance people to really understand where there core of the problem lies.
Both sides have money stained hands. I expected nothing less. I'd like to hear reasoned solutions that don't stink of politics.
Now that you've said this, would you be for or against reversing these cuts? And I'll take answers for both the current situation and in a hypothetical when an effective alternative is in place.
Sure, reverse them. They did it with the last administration, I'm sure it will happen again and it won't either solve, or make the problem worse anyway, as far as I'm able to tell. It will make one side happy, and another side mad, and solve absolutely nothing.
I say let them have at it. If anything we, the rest of us, could use a lesson in what not to do.
QuoteWell, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Missed that part.
So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level. That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive?
It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.
You'll have to be more specific about this part:
QuoteAnd then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 06, 2012, 10:19:40 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 06, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Oh, Dipshit Pickle. Do you ever learn?
Nope. It's cuz you gots Religion Calvinizm. :lulz:
He's one of Teh Eleckt. :lulz:
No, not calvinism. He's got a baaad case of Libertard.
Ugh. Worse than I thought. :lulz:
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
I should be fair and say that I actually do like your contributions Freeky, when you can be bothered to, and not just repeat the same damn thing you always say to me in any thread I post in. And you're a reasonable conversationalist, IMO, when you're inclined.
Anna I completely ignore. She won't even start a thread unless she knows it will get a bunch of "HELL YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT" righteous indignation to help affirm her world view.
Srsly, do a count of the threads she's started and note their content.
Back to the topic, if anyone cares to continue:
I did find an interesting piece in the NYTimes (I won't quote it here, don't want to get the board in trouble):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/business/11pension.html?pagewanted=all
About a 1/3rd of the way down, independent analysts have found that collective bargaining isn't the at the core of the problem they thought they'd find. NY state actually pays out more than 100% of a retirees working pay (because they pay out Social Security as well, something Wisconsin doesn't)
Also, these funds are heavily invested in and in fact banking their ability to pay on bull markets, pretty much all of the time. We've been very clearly in a bear for some years, and more will come with more frequency. (It's no small bit of irony that the same people who decry wall street stock gains have their union retirement funds invested in wall street stocks, and who's survival completely depends on the profits made on wall street, but that's my little aside jab and can be fodder for another thread)
A little further down, his research points to ultra low interest rates as being a severe problem in considering a payout of 58% of a public sector workers pay (artificially low interest rates and the real associated problems are something I've definitely talked about on this board, being a dumb ass dick pickle who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, that's what we talk about)
Another finding was that public sector employees are allowed to retire earlier than private sector and receive a pension that's guaranteed. In the case of Wisconsin, at 57 with full pension as long as they have 30 years. (Police and Fire can retire at 53 with only 25 years... I noted what you said about them LMNO, and I agree.)
Private sector employees do not have anything even resembling this anymore.
The last two paragraphs basically sum up the problem.
I'll do some more reading but on the surface I can, in confidence, agree that stripping the bargaining rights for those benefits will not solve the problem in the long run, and just plays on people on both side's general ignorance about why these things cost so much.
TL; :tldr:
Quote from: Diptard Picklefucker two pages agoI didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Quote from: Roger, just nowYes.
See, Picklefucker, I learned a while back, when you regularly posted really vile personal insults while drunk, that there is no
point in putting the effort into talking to you. The last couple of times I was poking at you, I wasn't even doing it because of what you said way back when, I was (and am) calling you a dipshit because you are. You post the most outrageously stupid and flawed logic, side with rich and/or white ppls (even if it's subconscious, you
do) every single time something like that crops up, and some other third thing.
Now before you ask me why I bother putting forth any time, I'll just come out and say it: It's probably got something to do with your opinions that you've made quite clear before, which have already been mentioned.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 07, 2012, 01:57:01 AM
Quote from: Diptard Picklefucker two pages agoI didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW. I was hoping to argue merits. Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.
Quote from: Roger, just nowYes.
See, Picklefucker, I learned a while back, when you regularly posted really vile personal insults while drunk, that there is no point in putting the effort into talking to you. The last couple of times I was poking at you, I wasn't even doing it because of what you said way back when, I was (and am) calling you a dipshit because you are. You post the most outrageously stupid and flawed logic, side with rich and/or white ppls (even if it's subconscious, you do) every single time something like that crops up, and some other third thing.
Now before you ask me why I bother putting forth any time, I'll just come out and say it: It's probably got something to do with your opinions that you've made quite clear before, which have already been mentioned.
Ah. Understood.
Enjoy the circle jerk.
I'll go then.
There are other worlds than these.
You do what you want, I'm just saying that you want me to starve and my monkey to get thrown into prison, essentially. So yeah.
And you aren't even nearly cool enough to be ripping off The Dark Tower, sir.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 01:30:27 AM
QuoteWell, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Missed that part.
So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level. That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive?
It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.
You'll have to be more specific about this part: QuoteAnd then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Missin' the point, Pickles, though, I can't say I'm surprised. But let me spell it out for you. It would be standard human decency for an employer (whether public or private) to pay their employees a fair living wage. This would include accounting for inflation, when it happens, wouldn't it?
The conspiracy theory is that the government accounts for inflation in public sector employees because it is aware of what inflation will occur, and thus compensates, as if to say that the government is deliberately out to cause inflation and elevate public sector employees above private sector employees. The mere notion is laughable, but if you have a less tinfoil hat explanation for your statement, then by all means.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 02:28:30 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 01:30:27 AM
QuoteWell, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Missed that part.
So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level. That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive?
It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.
You'll have to be more specific about this part: QuoteAnd then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Missin' the point, Pickles, though, I can't say I'm surprised. But let me spell it out for you. It would be standard human decency for an employer (whether public or private) to pay their employees a fair living wage. This would include accounting for inflation, when it happens, wouldn't it?
The conspiracy theory is that the government accounts for inflation in public sector employees because it is aware of what inflation will occur, and thus compensates, as if to say that the government is deliberately out to cause inflation and elevate public sector employees above private sector employees. The mere notion is laughable, but if you have a less tinfoil hat explanation for your statement, then by all means.
:mittens:
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 07, 2012, 02:13:52 AM
You do what you want, I'm just saying that you want me to starve and my monkey to get thrown into prison, essentially. So yeah.
His libertard planet needs him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on June 06, 2012, 06:00:08 PM
QuoteOne voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".
Jesus fucking Christ. :horrormirth: He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html
Not the teachers, their unions. That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.
Unions are, we know, evil and wrong. For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.
Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.
Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like threat of unionization.
Unions are COMMUNIST. Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face. Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.
As usual, you're completely missing the point. Sure there was a time when unions were vital to the betterment of the working class, but that time has long since passed. All those concerns you raised have been satisfactorily resolved. All sweatshops and worker abuse has been fairly off-shored. even poor people have iPhones, and the job creators are working hard to restore prosperity and the American way of life. The only thing hindering our progress now is greedy teachers, who think they shouldn't have to work for 1985 wages like the taxpayers footing the bill for their extravagance.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 07, 2012, 06:56:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on June 06, 2012, 06:00:08 PM
QuoteOne voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".
Jesus fucking Christ. :horrormirth: He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html
Not the teachers, their unions. That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.
Unions are, we know, evil and wrong. For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.
Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.
Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like threat of unionization.
Unions are COMMUNIST. Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face. Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.
As usual, you're completely missing the point. Sure there was a time when unions were vital to the betterment of the working class, but that time has long since passed. All those concerns you raised have been satisfactorily resolved. All sweatshops and worker abuse has been fairly off-shored. even poor people have iPhones, and the job creators are working hard to restore prosperity and the American way of life. The only thing hindering our progress now is greedy teachers, who think they shouldn't have to work for 1985 wages like the taxpayers footing the bill for their extravagance.
Damn straight, brotha man! Tell those fascist unionist pigs where to stick it!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
Disco, what the Hell are you talking about?
QuoteThe Walker-backed bill proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[29][30] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.
"Public sector unions." Not "Just the teachers union". Also, "collective bargaining rights over pension, health care, and raises", not "make sure they can't do something stupid about Viagra."
And incidentally, if union members thought the unions were being stupid, THEY COULD ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES.
What do you mean "could"? They still can. The baggers didn't take away the unions' right to come together and elect leaders to represent their interests...why that would be unconstitutional. No all Walker did was make those elections slightly less relevant than that of the PTA.
Why do you hate parent's rights, LMNO?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 07, 2012, 06:56:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on June 06, 2012, 06:00:08 PM
QuoteOne voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".
Jesus fucking Christ. :horrormirth: He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html
Not the teachers, their unions. That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.
That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust. You might want to google that.
To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.
Unions are, we know, evil and wrong. For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.
Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.
Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like threat of unionization.
Unions are COMMUNIST. Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face. Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.
As usual, you're completely missing the point. Sure there was a time when unions were vital to the betterment of the working class, but that time has long since passed. All those concerns you raised have been satisfactorily resolved. All sweatshops and worker abuse has been fairly off-shored. even poor people have iPhones, and the job creators are working hard to restore prosperity and the American way of life. The only thing hindering our progress now is greedy teachers, who think they shouldn't have to work for 1985 wages like the taxpayers footing the bill for their extravagance.
:lulz:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 07, 2012, 07:07:20 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 06, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
Disco, what the Hell are you talking about?
QuoteThe Walker-backed bill proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[29][30] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.
"Public sector unions." Not "Just the teachers union". Also, "collective bargaining rights over pension, health care, and raises", not "make sure they can't do something stupid about Viagra."
And incidentally, if union members thought the unions were being stupid, THEY COULD ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES.
What do you mean "could"? They still can. The baggers didn't take away the unions' right to come together and elect leaders to represent their interests...why that would be unconstitutional. No all Walker did was make those elections slightly less relevant than that of the PTA.
Why do you hate parent's rights, LMNO?
I like this fucker, here. :lulz:
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 07, 2012, 02:28:30 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 01:30:27 AM
QuoteWell, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Missed that part.
So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level. That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive?
It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.
You'll have to be more specific about this part: QuoteAnd then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Missin' the point, Pickles, though, I can't say I'm surprised. But let me spell it out for you. It would be standard human decency for an employer (whether public or private) to pay their employees a fair living wage. This would include accounting for inflation, when it happens, wouldn't it?
The conspiracy theory is that the government accounts for inflation in public sector employees because it is aware of what inflation will occur, and thus compensates, as if to say that the government is deliberately out to cause inflation and elevate public sector employees above private sector employees. The mere notion is laughable, but if you have a less tinfoil hat explanation for your statement, then by all means.
:mittens:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 07, 2012, 01:30:27 AM
QuoteWell, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?
And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Missed that part.
So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level. That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive?
It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.
You'll have to be more specific about this part: QuoteAnd then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Rather than reducing the power and wages of public sector unions, increase the power of private sector unions, then private sector salaries will also keep pace with inflation.
Pickles, until you can link unions to the two macro trends of the last 30 years, increased indebtedness and median wage stagnation, you can whine all you want about how they are too powerful, or have frivolous demands or they place unfair constraints on employers. But it won't actually matter a damn.
The percentage of government workers among the population at large is shrinking. Both federally and locally.
US structural spending has increased mostly due to bailouts (which, let us recall, were in the trillions, and some programs are still ongoing) and the increase in health spending. A decreasing tax revenue, due to deficit-funded tax cuts, has led to a virtual collapse of tax revenue.
But of course, busting unions of public employees is going to help with that, right?
:lulz:
This is why I'm not taking you seriously. You can't even debate the real issues here. Is the real issue that some union workers are overpaid? Or is it that the US financial structure is utterly fucked, and going after unionists is nothing more than rank opportunism, and, even more unforgivable, rank opportunism which will have precisely no effect on the above issues? Why, it does appear to be the latter.
Without fail, you can be depended upon to turn up, debate red herrings, misuse statistics and facts in general and, then, when no-one buys into your act, get drunk and start throwing insults around.
Oh, to be sure, there's a process to it, and in the meantime, you'll debate prettily and pretend to want to talk about the "real issues" and have a "proper argument", while avoiding anything that even remotely resembles those two things.
But, well, we've seen this enough times to know how it goes. And we've seen it enough times to know what role you'll play in this little scenario. So let's just skip to the good stuff, yeah?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 09:07:29 PMMan, what a privileged childhood I had, that allows me to Quotespit on those less fortunate
(something I've never done, btw, despite that completely false quotation)
So you're saying that the people you spat upon were quite fortunate for it?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on June 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math.. that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)
It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster. Not a scary monster. Just a monster.
Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things.
Sorry, dude. I can't speak for the others, but I still can't get past the "poor children deserve whatever they get" bit.
I'm pretty sure that was satire. I hope so, anyway...
I think I just hallucinated a post...
I need more sleep.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 07, 2012, 02:16:49 PM
I think I just hallucinated a post...
I need more sleep.
No, I need more sleep. The post I killed was in fact reacting to satire badly, as *I* am tired enough to not be able to read.
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:52:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
I'm not saying that...But let me just ask you this: What HAS protesting accomplished in the last generation?
Besides getting many massive corporations to drop out of ALEC, put wealth inequality in the national consciousness, temporarily stopped SOPA, made "capitalism" a dirty word, caused an exodus from major banks and influx into credit unions, saved a significant number of people's houses from being foreclosed, not much I suppose.
All good points. But in almost every case, they changed names (of bills, organizations, etc), and started again.
The thing to remember is that people like Disco Pickle are highly motivated by fear. People who come from shitty backgrounds and manage to make a decent life for themselves are usually extremely invested in crediting merit over external factors, because it gives them a sense of control and alleviates their fear of sliding back into poverty. It also tends to make them the kind of elitists who look down on those who lack whatever chance came along for them, because in order to maintain the illusion that their improved situation is purely merit-based and therefore invulnerable, they have to believe that those who have not made it out of poverty have not done so because they aren't working hard enough or because they are somehow of lesser moral character.
This is also why so many people who have made it into the middle class from the lower class believe, earnestly, that they are pre-rich. Because they, through sheer merit (they believe), crawled up out of poverty, it makes perfect sense to them that, through application of that same merit, they will continue to rise through the class strata. Later in life, when this fails to happen, they are often bitter at some structure they imagine is constraining Capitalism and therefore holding them back from being rich, not understanding that Capitalism is chugging along exactly as it was designed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:52:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
I'm not saying that...But let me just ask you this: What HAS protesting accomplished in the last generation?
Besides getting many massive corporations to drop out of ALEC, put wealth inequality in the national consciousness, temporarily stopped SOPA, made "capitalism" a dirty word, caused an exodus from major banks and influx into credit unions, saved a significant number of people's houses from being foreclosed, not much I suppose.
All good points. But in almost every case, they changed names (of bills, organizations, etc), and started again.
It's an invigorating game of whack-a-mole after the past decade(s?) of apathetic mouthbreathing. Granted they are rabid weasels not moles, and the table is the size of an olympic pool, but at least people are starting to realize what they were trying to swim in.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 07, 2012, 04:36:42 PM
The thing to remember is that people like Disco Pickle are highly motivated by fear. People who come from shitty backgrounds and manage to make a decent life for themselves are usually extremely invested in crediting merit over external factors, because it gives them a sense of control and alleviates their fear of sliding back into poverty. It also tends to make them the kind of elitists who look down on those who lack whatever chance came along for them, because in order to maintain the illusion that their improved situation is purely merit-based and therefore invulnerable, they have to believe that those who have not made it out of poverty have not done so because they aren't working hard enough or because they are somehow of lesser moral character.
This is also why so many people who have made it into the middle class from the lower class believe, earnestly, that they are pre-rich. Because they, through sheer merit (they believe), crawled up out of poverty, it makes perfect sense to them that, through application of that same merit, they will continue to rise through the class strata. Later in life, when this fails to happen, they are often bitter at some structure they imagine is constraining Capitalism and therefore holding them back from being rich, not understanding that Capitalism is chugging along exactly as it was designed.
MONEY IS MERIT!!!!!!!
:oilpig:
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 05:21:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:52:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 06, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: Net on June 06, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
So if unions spend money on something people consider frivolous, it does not effect all unions legitimacy.
If protests spend time on something people consider frivolous, it effects all protests legitimacy.
I'm not saying that...But let me just ask you this: What HAS protesting accomplished in the last generation?
Besides getting many massive corporations to drop out of ALEC, put wealth inequality in the national consciousness, temporarily stopped SOPA, made "capitalism" a dirty word, caused an exodus from major banks and influx into credit unions, saved a significant number of people's houses from being foreclosed, not much I suppose.
All good points. But in almost every case, they changed names (of bills, organizations, etc), and started again.
It's an invigorating game of whack-a-mole after the past decade(s?) of apathetic mouthbreathing. Granted they are rabid weasels not moles, and the table is the size of an olympic pool, but at least people are starting to realize what they were trying to swim in.
But they
like it, Net. They beg for more. Hell, they beg for
less. "PLEASE RESTRICT MY RIGHTS ON ACCOUNT OF TERRORISTS AND HOMOS AND FOR THE SAKE OF DA CHILBRINS! And while you're at it, I'd like my share of the nation's debt to double up again, why the FUCK not?"
Sure, you get the word out to the 30-40 people who still GIVE A SHIT, but the other 312,000,960 Americans just vote Walker back in or campaign in favor of Sheriff Joe and Goldman Sachs and Chase and say things like "HEY, THE STOCK MARKET IS BACK UP! WE'RE ALL
RICH!", as their creditors empty out their house, just ahead of the Sheriff with his foreclosure notice.
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping. The 99% that want that 401K to grow like a mad bastard, leading to hilarious short-term thinking in the board room, the 99% who believe that when those smudgy people get theirs, that they themselves will be allowed a place at the trough.
It's not hopeless because people don't KNOW, it's hopeless because people KNOW and LIKE IT.
It's like we live in a nation of Schmoos, all begging for their place in the frying pan.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping.
If people ARE that dumb, well you wouldn't blame mentally retarded people for getting abused by an intelligent sociopaths, would you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
It's not hopeless because people don't KNOW, it's hopeless because people KNOW and LIKE IT.
Well which is it? Are they too dumb to see the half-baked gibberish for what it is or competent enough to grasp how they're getting screwed and choosing it?
I have trouble understanding how anyone could fall into the latter category.
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping.
If people ARE that dumb, well you wouldn't blame mentally retarded people for getting abused by an intelligent sociopaths, would you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
It's not hopeless because people don't KNOW, it's hopeless because people KNOW and LIKE IT.
Well which is it? Are they too dumb to see the half-baked gibberish for what it is or competent enough to grasp how they're getting screwed and choosing it?
I have trouble understanding how anyone could fall into the latter category.
They WANT that certified pre-owned Lexus with the SUV and full sized pickup for when they go camping or boating with their yacht.
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping.
If people ARE that dumb, well you wouldn't blame mentally retarded people for getting abused by an intelligent sociopaths, would you?
I said "dumb", not "brain damaged". It's not that they CAN'T think, it's that they WON'T think/
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
It's not hopeless because people don't KNOW, it's hopeless because people KNOW and LIKE IT.
Well which is it? Are they too dumb to see the half-baked gibberish for what it is or competent enough to grasp how they're getting screwed and choosing it?
I have trouble understanding how anyone could fall into the latter category.
It's both. It's that they have allowed themselves to be conditioned to think that the things that are fucking them are their last hope. The only evidence of which I need offer is the teabaggers, and the recall election in Wisconsin, in which 300,000 union members voted for Walker.
You have trouble understanding that because you DO think. It's like a non-smoker not being able to imagine why someone can't quit smoking.
Quote from: Guru Quixote on June 07, 2012, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping.
If people ARE that dumb, well you wouldn't blame mentally retarded people for getting abused by an intelligent sociopaths, would you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
It's not hopeless because people don't KNOW, it's hopeless because people KNOW and LIKE IT.
Well which is it? Are they too dumb to see the half-baked gibberish for what it is or competent enough to grasp how they're getting screwed and choosing it?
I have trouble understanding how anyone could fall into the latter category.
They WANT DESERVE that certified pre-owned Lexus with the SUV and full sized pickup for when they go camping or boating with their yacht.
Fixed for accuracy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping.
If people ARE that dumb, well you wouldn't blame mentally retarded people for getting abused by an intelligent sociopaths, would you?
I said "dumb", not "brain damaged". It's not that they CAN'T think, it's that they WON'T think/
If they never think, despite the capacity, is there any meaningful difference?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
It's not hopeless because people don't KNOW, it's hopeless because people KNOW and LIKE IT.
Well which is it? Are they too dumb to see the half-baked gibberish for what it is or competent enough to grasp how they're getting screwed and choosing it?
I have trouble understanding how anyone could fall into the latter category.
It's both. It's that they have allowed themselves to be conditioned to think that the things that are fucking them are their last hope. The only evidence of which I need offer is the teabaggers, and the recall election in Wisconsin, in which 300,000 union members voted for Walker.
You have trouble understanding that because you DO think. It's like a non-smoker not being able to imagine why someone can't quit smoking.
I suppose Mr. Pre-rich Pickle would illustrate that concept quite aptly as well. Or are they being conned by the collective intelligence of very cunning sociopaths and the vast amount of information at their disposal?
When do the conned become complicit in their fleecing?
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:27:38 PM
When do the conned become complicit in their fleecing?
The moment they decide to have their thinking outsourced.
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: Net on June 07, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping.
If people ARE that dumb, well you wouldn't blame mentally retarded people for getting abused by an intelligent sociopaths, would you?
I said "dumb", not "brain damaged". It's not that they CAN'T think, it's that they WON'T think/
If they never think, despite the capacity, is there any meaningful difference?
Have you ever argued with a pro-lifer?
"A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING BECAUSE IT JUST IS. LALALALALA NOT LISTENING".
Same thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping. The 99% that want that 401K to grow like a mad bastard, leading to hilarious short-term thinking in the board room, the 99% who believe that when those smudgy people get theirs, that they themselves will be allowed a place at the trough.
And it IS difficult for me to wrap my mind around WHY.
It's not stress. My anxiety is through the roof most of the time, for real or imagined reasons, but I am still able to observe what's going on around, pick it apart and not just swallow every line of bullshit that comes my way. It's not business. Nigel's a single mom, raising three children, going to school and working to make a living, but she's not just handing her brain over to the television to do her thinking for her. It's not just intelligence. Sure, some people make it painfully obvious that there's not much going on upstairs, but still, otherwise reasonably intelligent seeming people will fall back on "I'm sure they have good reason for....", "Obviously something must have happened for them to..." or "Yea, but on TV they said....". But they can tell me the latest sports stats or what's going on in their favorite TV show.
All I can narrow it down to is that it's just EASIER not to think. I may not have the answer to anything, but I at least try to make the effort to see what's going on, analyze it the best I can with what I have and try to form my own opinion on it. Of course, it usually leaves me feeling helpless, since most people just seem so resistent to even thinking about it, that it makes me want to say "why bother". It's like watching a good friend on a downward spiral, they won't take advice from anyone and you just keep hoping "maybe THIS time they'll wake up and straighten themselves out", but it never happens.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on June 08, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 07, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
See, Net, the problem isn't the 1%. The problem is in fact the 99%, who are DUMB enough to LISTEN to the half-baked gibberish the 1% are pumping. The 99% that want that 401K to grow like a mad bastard, leading to hilarious short-term thinking in the board room, the 99% who believe that when those smudgy people get theirs, that they themselves will be allowed a place at the trough.
And it IS difficult for me to wrap my mind around WHY.
It's not stress. My anxiety is through the roof most of the time, for real or imagined reasons, but I am still able to observe what's going on around, pick it apart and not just swallow every line of bullshit that comes my way. It's not business. Nigel's a single mom, raising three children, going to school and working to make a living, but she's not just handing her brain over to the television to do her thinking for her. It's not just intelligence. Sure, some people make it painfully obvious that there's not much going on upstairs, but still, otherwise reasonably intelligent seeming people will fall back on "I'm sure they have good reason for....", "Obviously something must have happened for them to..." or "Yea, but on TV they said....". But they can tell me the latest sports stats or what's going on in their favorite TV show.
All I can narrow it down to is that it's just EASIER not to think. I may not have the answer to anything, but I at least try to make the effort to see what's going on, analyze it the best I can with what I have and try to form my own opinion on it. Of course, it usually leaves me feeling helpless, since most people just seem so resistent to even thinking about it, that it makes me want to say "why bother". It's like watching a good friend on a downward spiral, they won't take advice from anyone and you just keep hoping "maybe THIS time they'll wake up and straighten themselves out", but it never happens.
The default position for mankind is memetic false consciousness, I think. You have to WANT to think to get past that, so the vast majority of Americans just believe whatever they are told.
Discordians and Subgenii are different...Or WERE different. Recently I see a serious strain of passivity and blind acceptance working its way into The Church, which in turn leads me to believe that most people who can beat MFC can only do so for a limited amount of time.
The book I'm reading, Thinking Fast and Slow has a lot of SCIENCE that backs up the model of MFC. When I'm done, Cain and I are planning to discuss/analyze/see if it can be applied to us.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 08, 2012, 07:20:53 PM
The book I'm reading, Thinking Fast and Slow has a lot of SCIENCE that backs up the model of MFC. When I'm done, Cain and I are planning to discuss/analyze/see if it can be applied to us.
Author?
Daniel Kahneman.
I think I'm most of the way through on it....it's hard to tell though, because I'm using my Kindle to take notes, and 3/4 through the hardback version of the book is, apparently, only 45% of the way through the Kindle version.
Maybe all the footnotes are in a bigger font on the ebook version, but it does make telling how much further I have to go very difficult.
There are rumors of massive election fraud. This should be entertaining...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101630961
Eh. The article's a lot of "coulda's" and "might haves". No actual evidence of fraud.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 08, 2012, 07:59:11 PM
Eh. The article's a lot of "coulda's" and "might haves". No actual evidence of fraud.
True... but, let 'em dig.
There's a call to look into those "if you signed the petition, you don't have to vote" calls, as well. Apparently, calling the number back gets you the Wisconsin Republican Party offices.
Quote from: Luna on June 08, 2012, 07:45:04 PM
There are rumors of massive election fraud. This should be entertaining...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101630961
Democratic Underground is about as reliable as Free Republic...Which is to say, they're whining.
Quote from: Luna on June 08, 2012, 08:02:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 08, 2012, 07:59:11 PM
Eh. The article's a lot of "coulda's" and "might haves". No actual evidence of fraud.
True... but, let 'em dig.
There's a call to look into those "if you signed the petition, you don't have to vote" calls, as well. Apparently, calling the number back gets you the Wisconsin Republican Party offices.
Not illegal.
The source of the maths on the possibility of fraud is basing his claim on a lot of assumptions, including that Obama/McCain voting patterns are sufficient as a model of party preference and that the polling data is both comprehensive and accurate.
It also seem his commenters, when confronted with these facts, then basically insult the person in question and claim they have no understanding of maths.
It's not impossible there is vote fraud, but I wouldn't bet on a claim this weak.
As someone who lives in Wisconsin, and who not only voted in this recall election but had legitimate reasons to hate Walker outside his union-dismantling tactics,
I am pretty pissed about the whole affair.
And I hope the smug bastard enjoys his indictment.
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
Union rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.
If libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.
Pickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me. Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.
Of course, this is to be expected. Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom. It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful. This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles.
And no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.
No wonder Kevin Carson, IOZ and a number of others prefer to call themselves anarchists, when the only other option is association with the likes of you.
All good, dammit.
Am I going to have to go back to 2005 to find something to nitpick?
http://gawker.com/5885630/politico-mistakes-state-flag-for-union-flag-idiocy-ensues
quote: See that flag? It is the state flag of Wisconsin. On the top there is the name of the state, "Wisconsin," and on the bottom is the year that Wisconsin was admitted to the union.
Politico reporter Donovan Slack thought that this Wisconsin state flag was, in fact, a union flag, and that furthermore Barack Obama's choice to stand under this union flag in Wisconsin made it "very clear what side" he's on. Whoops.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 04, 2012, 05:36:29 PM
http://gawker.com/5885630/politico-mistakes-state-flag-for-union-flag-idiocy-ensues
quote: See that flag? It is the state flag of Wisconsin. On the top there is the name of the state, "Wisconsin," and on the bottom is the year that Wisconsin was admitted to the union.
Politico reporter Donovan Slack thought that this Wisconsin state flag was, in fact, a union flag, and that furthermore Barack Obama's choice to stand under this union flag in Wisconsin made it "very clear what side" he's on. Whoops.
:lulz: