In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 23 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote: If this is how the immigration debate is going to look it's going to be tough for conservatives not to sound like jackasses.
So... that sentence fragment wasn't PC to your standards? If that is how the debate goes, 'liberals' lose by a landslide.
I'm just saying telling Americans that various parts of their family "don't deserve to be here" isn't going to win any presidential election. O'Reilly is usually more moderate so that means the tea party folks are going to be saying much worse.
I think the more policy directed question was from his guest who asked "what is the conservative plan for people like him" combined with O'Reilly's assertion that this is already "permanent" legalization (despite that not being legally true).
For instance there will be millions of registered "illegal immigrants" waiting for the next president. Names, addresses, workplaces, and other information. Is the next republican candidate going to deport all those people (to enforce the law and override Emperor Obama's decree of amnesty blah blah blah..) or are they in effect going to give all of those people 'amnesty' anyway and let them stay here?
Why not? O'Reilly and the guest were largely in agreement over that particular point. You just don't seem to like the way it was worded.
On November 23 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote: If this is how the immigration debate is going to look it's going to be tough for conservatives not to sound like jackasses.
So... that sentence fragment wasn't PC to your standards? If that is how the debate goes, 'liberals' lose by a landslide.
I'm just saying telling Americans that various parts of their family "don't deserve to be here" isn't going to win any presidential election. O'Reilly is usually more moderate so that means the tea party folks are going to be saying much worse.
I think the more policy directed question was from his guest who asked "what is the conservative plan for people like him" combined with O'Reilly's assertion that this is already "permanent" legalization (despite that not being legally true).
For instance there will be millions of registered "illegal immigrants" waiting for the next president. Names, addresses, workplaces, and other information. Is the next republican candidate going to deport all those people (to enforce the law and override Emperor Obama's decree of amnesty blah blah blah..) or are they in effect going to give all of those people 'amnesty' anyway and let them stay here?
Why not? O'Reilly and the guest were largely in agreement over that particular point. You just don't seem to like the way it was worded.
I have a hard skin for stuff like that, so the wording doesn't bother me one way or the other. I imagine some conservatives don't like the idea of already giving up ever being able to do anything about Obama's immigration action. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to make that kind of rhetoric palatable to anyone outside the rights base.
I surmise from the responses from the various right-wing outlets/voices that the majority of the party would like to just move past it and accept that the 5 million Obama has prevented from being deported for the next few years were never going anywhere anyway regardless of whether republicans had both houses and the presidency or they do in the future. (This was best summed up by the big fight on this action starting with a lawsuit against actions around the ACA and a vacation).
However the part of the right that has been whipped into a frenzy on this (and everything else) doesn't want to just 'let it go'. They are the ones who's videos will be getting posted in the next couple years saying things that will make O'Reilly's comments look like liberal propaganda. (Best shown by the tea party types who commented directly on the video and elsewhere calling it basically as much.)
Here's Laura showing you what I think is going to be a huge problem for the 2016 primaries if republicans can't resolve this within their party by then.
On November 23 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote: If this is how the immigration debate is going to look it's going to be tough for conservatives not to sound like jackasses.
So... that sentence fragment wasn't PC to your standards? If that is how the debate goes, 'liberals' lose by a landslide.
I'm just saying telling Americans that various parts of their family "don't deserve to be here" isn't going to win any presidential election. O'Reilly is usually more moderate so that means the tea party folks are going to be saying much worse.
I think the more policy directed question was from his guest who asked "what is the conservative plan for people like him" combined with O'Reilly's assertion that this is already "permanent" legalization (despite that not being legally true).
For instance there will be millions of registered "illegal immigrants" waiting for the next president. Names, addresses, workplaces, and other information. Is the next republican candidate going to deport all those people (to enforce the law and override Emperor Obama's decree of amnesty blah blah blah..) or are they in effect going to give all of those people 'amnesty' anyway and let them stay here?
Why not? O'Reilly and the guest were largely in agreement over that particular point. You just don't seem to like the way it was worded.
I have a hard skin for stuff like that, so the wording doesn't bother me one way or the other. I imagine some conservatives don't like the idea of already giving up ever being able to do anything about Obama's immigration action. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to make that kind of rhetoric palatable to anyone outside the rights base.
I surmise from the responses from the various right-wing outlets/voices that the majority of the party would like to just move past it and accept that the 5 million Obama has prevented from being deported for the next few years were never going anywhere anyway regardless of whether republicans had both houses and the presidency or they do in the future. (This was best summed up by the big fight on this action starting with a lawsuit against actions around the ACA and a vacation).
However the part of the right that has been whipped into a frenzy on this (and everything else) doesn't want to just 'let it go'. They are the ones who's videos will be getting posted in the next couple years saying things that will make O'Reilly's comments look like liberal propaganda. (Best shown by the tea party types who commented directly on the video and elsewhere calling it basically as much.)
Here's Laura showing you what I think is going to be a huge problem for the 2016 primaries if republicans can't resolve this within their party by then.
On November 23 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote: If this is how the immigration debate is going to look it's going to be tough for conservatives not to sound like jackasses.
So... that sentence fragment wasn't PC to your standards? If that is how the debate goes, 'liberals' lose by a landslide.
I'm just saying telling Americans that various parts of their family "don't deserve to be here" isn't going to win any presidential election. O'Reilly is usually more moderate so that means the tea party folks are going to be saying much worse.
I think the more policy directed question was from his guest who asked "what is the conservative plan for people like him" combined with O'Reilly's assertion that this is already "permanent" legalization (despite that not being legally true).
For instance there will be millions of registered "illegal immigrants" waiting for the next president. Names, addresses, workplaces, and other information. Is the next republican candidate going to deport all those people (to enforce the law and override Emperor Obama's decree of amnesty blah blah blah..) or are they in effect going to give all of those people 'amnesty' anyway and let them stay here?
Why not? O'Reilly and the guest were largely in agreement over that particular point. You just don't seem to like the way it was worded.
I have a hard skin for stuff like that, so the wording doesn't bother me one way or the other. I imagine some conservatives don't like the idea of already giving up ever being able to do anything about Obama's immigration action. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to make that kind of rhetoric palatable to anyone outside the rights base.
I surmise from the responses from the various right-wing outlets/voices that the majority of the party would like to just move past it and accept that the 5 million Obama has prevented from being deported for the next few years were never going anywhere anyway regardless of whether republicans had both houses and the presidency or they do in the future. (This was best summed up by the big fight on this action starting with a lawsuit against actions around the ACA and a vacation).
However the part of the right that has been whipped into a frenzy on this (and everything else) doesn't want to just 'let it go'. They are the ones who's videos will be getting posted in the next couple years saying things that will make O'Reilly's comments look like liberal propaganda. (Best shown by the tea party types who commented directly on the video and elsewhere calling it basically as much.)
Here's Laura showing you what I think is going to be a huge problem for the 2016 primaries if republicans can't resolve this within their party by then.
No, Laura isn't going to win a national election. But open boarder types aren't either.
Not sure what that has to do with your OP. You seem to now be agreeing that O'Reilly's comments were reasonable.
Ok you seem to be getting it. I agree that O'Reilly's comments represent the more reasonable faction of the right wing (and a lot of the middle). My point (and Laura's) is that it's not the same group who just won, or the group who has been so active and vocal about everything Obama does shredding the constitution and declaring himself king (who is going to peacefully transfer power ~2 years from now [that's a hell of a king :p ])
That debate is going to put those on Laura's side in a poor light "jackasses" (rightfully or not), and put pressure on Republicans who represent views more like O'Reilly's to say the kind of things that will put them in the same boat.
Think Romney's Birther joke but less clever and indirect.
On November 23 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote: If this is how the immigration debate is going to look it's going to be tough for conservatives not to sound like jackasses.
He says it's amnesty because it's permanent, he's ignoring the very real possibility that a Republican president gets elected in 2016 and simply overturns the order.
On November 23 2014 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote: If this is how the immigration debate is going to look it's going to be tough for conservatives not to sound like jackasses.
He says it's amnesty because it's permanent, he's ignoring the very real possibility that a Republican president gets elected in 2016 and simply overturns the order.
Because the more 'reasonable' camp wants to move past it rather than let the specter of such loom over the 2016 candidate.
The last thing the republican nominee needs is the thought of "If I vote for this Republican guy my friend/family/co-worker may get shipped off to where they/their parents came from..." going through millions of voters minds.
On November 23 2014 08:45 IgnE wrote: Who is to say this isn't the end times?
No christian, since the bible says only buddy jesus/god will know. Besides, you're supposed to think, as a christian, that your fate is NOT pre-ordained, and that god put you here with free will to live how you see fit until you die, even if you choose to do awful things.
But hey, Christians have been thinking it's the end times since the middle ages, so who knows. Where it becomes an issue is when you have a bunch of idiots making voting decisions. The same people who, in defiance of reason, think that climate change doesn't matter because yolo, rapture is coming any day now. I can get opposing it on the basis of scientific research, but that's not what these people are basing their opinions on.
There are entire sects of Christianity that believe in Predestination, so you're not quite right in saying that Christians categorically refrain from believing in a pre-determined fate.
You are right to point out that such a concept ought not motivate political policies though.
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
/discuss
What is there to discuss? Isn't it public knowledge wall street screws over the common man daily to make more money?
Nothing changed after they causes a financial crisis. Why would you expect a different status quo?
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
/discuss
What is there to discuss? Isn't it public knowledge wall street screws over the common man daily to make more money?
Nothing changed after they causes a financial crisis. Why would you expect a different status quo?
By not discussing it more people will get aware of it.
Not.
I agree fully, but "what is there to discuss" is not the appropriate way to respond, especially if you feel the way you feel about it and want to change something.
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
/discuss
What is there to discuss? Isn't it public knowledge wall street screws over the common man daily to make more money?
Nothing changed after they causes a financial crisis. Why would you expect a different status quo?
By not discussing it more people will get aware of it.
Not.
I agree fully, but "what is there to discuss" is not the appropriate way to respond, especially if you feel the way you feel about it and want to change something.
If a global financial crisis does not call attention to it then discussing it on a Starcraft forum isn't going to help much.
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
/discuss
What is there to discuss? Isn't it public knowledge wall street screws over the common man daily to make more money?
Nothing changed after they causes a financial crisis. Why would you expect a different status quo?
By not discussing it more people will get aware of it.
Not.
I agree fully, but "what is there to discuss" is not the appropriate way to respond, especially if you feel the way you feel about it and want to change something.
If a global financial crisis does not call attention to it then discussing it on a Starcraft forum isn't going to help much.
. . . yeah. why do anything. shit sucks anyway. I mean we are going to die no matter what we do.
theintercept rehashing a pando story? a bit surprised. i hope this is not a sign of pando corruption!
plenty of sirota articles at pando on the topic: source the coverage of pension fund corruption by sirota was among the most interesting stories i've read this year. (maybe behind ames coverage of techoctopus).
kleptocrats thieving pension funds, while disseminating propaganda about how the public can't afford it. why are people in the us not going postal?
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
/discuss
Pension funds have the resources to evaluate investments on their own. This isn't ma and pa getting suckered. If you think the pension fund is mismanaging its assets, that's something to take up with the fund as they may have legitimate reasons for making the decisions that they make.
if they objectively subvert the public's interest in how the fund is managed by having their little political pawns do their work due to campaign contributions, then there is more of an issue here.
Wall Street’s agenda goes beyond any one election cycle. It has been fighting to turn public pensions into private profits for quite some time, steering retirement nest eggs into investments that are complex, charge hefty fees, and that generate big profits for management firms. And it has been succeeding. Of the $3 trillion in public assets currently in pension funds throughout the country, almost a quarter of that has already found its way into so-called “alternative investments” like hedge funds, private equity and real estate. That translates to roughly $660 billion of public money now under private management, invested in assets that are often arcane and opaque but that offer high management and placement fees to Wall Street financiers.
/discuss
What is there to discuss? Isn't it public knowledge wall street screws over the common man daily to make more money?
Nothing changed after they causes a financial crisis. Why would you expect a different status quo?
On November 24 2014 08:30 Doublemint wrote: if they objectively subvert the public's interest in how the fund is managed by having their little political pawns do their work due to campaign contributions, then there is more of an issue here.
They don't. Objectively almost every investor have been 'chasing alpha', looking for exceptional returns. Its true for public pensions as well as private pensions and private investors.
For a while it worked too, but markets are efficient and the value you received from investing in the exotic soon got priced in.
On November 24 2014 08:30 Doublemint wrote: if they objectively subvert the public's interest in how the fund is managed by having their little political pawns do their work due to campaign contributions, then there is more of an issue here.
They don't. Objectively almost every investor have been 'chasing alpha', looking for exceptional returns. Its true for public pensions as well as private pensions and private investors.
For a while it worked too, but markets are efficient and the value you received from investing in the exotic soon got priced in.
you mean priced in as in "Boom goes the financial system - bail us out or we all go to hell"?
EPT
