|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
Loved Bernie Sanders' announcement yesterday; he's awesome. Love a good underdog
|
Who says American's don't care about soccer?
|
|
|
No Blatter tho, feels very meh if you dont even take out the biggest dirtbag.
|
Working up the chain to flip them on the boss.
|
On May 27 2015 21:39 Gorsameth wrote:
No Blatter tho, feels very meh if you dont even take out the biggest dirtbag.
The Sun-King (his nickname here) is above puny laws and ethics...
The Problem is that the Fifa seems to be so corrupt, who is to say that it would get any better whiteout blatter? Chances are it would become even worse.
The only thing that, at this point, could restore the Fifas integrity would be to rebuild it from the ground up, which is not gonna happen.
|
On May 27 2015 21:53 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 21:39 Gorsameth wrote:
No Blatter tho, feels very meh if you dont even take out the biggest dirtbag. The Sun-King (his nickname here) is above puny laws and ethics... The Problem with the Fifa is... It seems to be so fucking corrupt, who is to say that it would get any better whiteout blatter? Chances are it would become even worse...
Purge and rebuild the entire thing?
|
See my edit.
Good luck trying that. Some european associatins would probably be on board with that, but would they actually take drastic measures, like boycotting the World Cup? I doubt it.
This would imho be the only action that could spark real change... And Africa/Asia/South America would never ever go with this.
|
On May 27 2015 22:09 Velr wrote:
See my edit.
Good luck trying that. Some european associatins would probably be on board with that but would they actually take drastic measures, like boycotting the world Cup?
Thats imho the only thing that could spark real change... And Africa/Asia/South America would never ever go with this.
I'm not trying to imply it will actually happen but when your dealing with deeprooted corruption that is often the only cure.
Guess we now just hope that some of those charged will break and provide evidence against more members, including Blatter.
Other then the boycott you mentioned, a wholesale arrest of the top layers of Fifa might have the same effect.
|
On May 26 2015 15:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior. I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers. It's well past time that this guy got banned. Straight past a failed attempt to dispute the behavior pattern, directly into backseat moderating, impressive. If you had something of substance to say about the discussion being had than I encourage you to share it, but your typical tangential at best one-liners are way past played out. What? Making a polite, concise point? lol riiiight. that's what that was. Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'm right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you know something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. The subject of the post I responded to was 'capitalists', not 'capital flight'. You didn't quote another post, so what "it's" was referring to wasn't entirely clear, but you were talking about a 'brain drain' in your previous post, and you were talking about capitalists moving away from the South in the post I quoted. Anyways, my point was that the slave holders in the South didn't like the whole market capitalism thing going on in the North. + Show Spoiler +Christian morality is impractical in free society and is the natural morality of slave society. Where all men are equals, all must be competitors, rivals, enemies, in the struggle for life, trying each to get the better of the other. The rich cheapen the wages of the poor; the poor take advantage of the scarcity of labor, and charge exorbitant prices for their work; or, when labour is abundant, underbid and strangle each other in the effort to gain employment. Where any man engaged in business in free society to act upon the principle of the Golden Rule--doing unto others as he would that they should do unto him--his certain ruin would be the consequence. "Every man for himself'" is the necessary morality of such society, and that is the negation of Christian morality. . . On the other hand, in slave society, . . .it is in general, easy and profitable to do unto others as we would that they should to unto us. There is no competition, no clashing of interests within the family circle, composed of parents, master, husband, children and slaves. . . . When the master punishes his child or his slave for misconduct he obeys the golden rule just as strictly as when he feeds and clothes them. Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. We are obeying the golden rule in retaining them in bondage, taking care of them in health and sickness, in old age and infancy, and in compelling them to labor. . . . 'Tis the interest of masters to take good care of their slaves, and not cheat them out of their wages, as Northern bosses cheat and drive free labourers. Slaves are most profitable when best treated., free labourers most profitable when worst treated and most defrauded. Hence the relation of the master and slave is a kindly and Christian one; that of free laborer and employer a selfish and inimical one. It is in the interest of the slave to fulfill his duties to his master; for he thereby elicits his attachment, and the better enables him to provide for his (the slave's) wants. Study and analyze as long as [you] please the relations of men . . . in a slave society, and they will be found to be Christian, humane and affectionate, whilst those of free society are anti-Christian, competitive and antagonistic. + Show Spoiler +Richmond (Virginia) Examiner, July 17, 1861, as quoted in Fighting Words, a 2004 book by Andrew S. Coopersmith (pp. 49-50) Moreover, the North, where the industrialists and capitalists mainly were, was very much against slavery. See, that wasn't so hard. Just do that next time, instead of the one-liner. At least then it will appear to be substantive. Show nested quote +Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. That is pretty funny though. It's crazy to me, people that said stuff like that were actually taken seriously by people. To defend that kind of stupidity with Christianity takes a special person too. Not sad I missed those years in history.
Everyone does 'one liner' posts on occasion. You do too sometimes. I also make very substantial posts here.
Grow up.
|
Got this off of Twitter:
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/ceopay2.PNG)
Answer: + Show Spoiler + The 300X figure is from the average of CEO pay at the largest 300 or so firms that the ALF-CIO, or whoever else does the math, has data for. In other words it's the average pay of something like the top 2% of of CEOs (or less, depending on data availability), rather than CEOs as a whole.
Just thought it was neat.
|
Is this only income or also capital gains? Most Ceo's don't even pay themselves a salary. I'm pretty sure your average ceo makes 'a little' more than 170k
|
On May 28 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Is this only income or also capital gains? Most Ceo's don't even pay themselves a salary. I'm pretty sure your average ceo makes 'a little' more than 170k
No no no you are not supposed to talk about CEOs paying themselfs because their pay is decided by a totally independent rational board driven only by market forces.
|
On May 28 2015 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 15:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior. I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers. It's well past time that this guy got banned. Straight past a failed attempt to dispute the behavior pattern, directly into backseat moderating, impressive. If you had something of substance to say about the discussion being had than I encourage you to share it, but your typical tangential at best one-liners are way past played out. What? Making a polite, concise point? lol riiiight. that's what that was. On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'm right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you know something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. The subject of the post I responded to was 'capitalists', not 'capital flight'. You didn't quote another post, so what "it's" was referring to wasn't entirely clear, but you were talking about a 'brain drain' in your previous post, and you were talking about capitalists moving away from the South in the post I quoted. Anyways, my point was that the slave holders in the South didn't like the whole market capitalism thing going on in the North. + Show Spoiler +Christian morality is impractical in free society and is the natural morality of slave society. Where all men are equals, all must be competitors, rivals, enemies, in the struggle for life, trying each to get the better of the other. The rich cheapen the wages of the poor; the poor take advantage of the scarcity of labor, and charge exorbitant prices for their work; or, when labour is abundant, underbid and strangle each other in the effort to gain employment. Where any man engaged in business in free society to act upon the principle of the Golden Rule--doing unto others as he would that they should do unto him--his certain ruin would be the consequence. "Every man for himself'" is the necessary morality of such society, and that is the negation of Christian morality. . . On the other hand, in slave society, . . .it is in general, easy and profitable to do unto others as we would that they should to unto us. There is no competition, no clashing of interests within the family circle, composed of parents, master, husband, children and slaves. . . . When the master punishes his child or his slave for misconduct he obeys the golden rule just as strictly as when he feeds and clothes them. Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. We are obeying the golden rule in retaining them in bondage, taking care of them in health and sickness, in old age and infancy, and in compelling them to labor. . . . 'Tis the interest of masters to take good care of their slaves, and not cheat them out of their wages, as Northern bosses cheat and drive free labourers. Slaves are most profitable when best treated., free labourers most profitable when worst treated and most defrauded. Hence the relation of the master and slave is a kindly and Christian one; that of free laborer and employer a selfish and inimical one. It is in the interest of the slave to fulfill his duties to his master; for he thereby elicits his attachment, and the better enables him to provide for his (the slave's) wants. Study and analyze as long as [you] please the relations of men . . . in a slave society, and they will be found to be Christian, humane and affectionate, whilst those of free society are anti-Christian, competitive and antagonistic. + Show Spoiler +Richmond (Virginia) Examiner, July 17, 1861, as quoted in Fighting Words, a 2004 book by Andrew S. Coopersmith (pp. 49-50) Moreover, the North, where the industrialists and capitalists mainly were, was very much against slavery. See, that wasn't so hard. Just do that next time, instead of the one-liner. At least then it will appear to be substantive. Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. That is pretty funny though. It's crazy to me, people that said stuff like that were actually taken seriously by people. To defend that kind of stupidity with Christianity takes a special person too. Not sad I missed those years in history. Everyone does 'one liner' posts on occasion. You do too sometimes. I also make very substantial posts here. Grow up.
Yeah, just no one else consistently posts irrelevant one-liners intended to derail discussion. The ratio of substantial to irrelevant one-liners has only gotten worse. Not to mention even your 'substantial' posts are regularly diversions from the larger point being discussed. Then you also act as if the tangential thing you 'proved' wasn't 100% true somehow invalidated the point you strayed from (or you just say it to say it, like your experience with the police which was totally irrelevant to the discussion other than proving the point you were trying to undermine). Or, when you are made to look foolish, (like your whole women dominate payroll kick) you just get pouty and usually resort to personal insults. It's tiresome.
Calling me kid, telling me to grow up, insulting my education, calling me a bigot, saying I hate white people, your monkey remark, the list goes on. It's really old and pathetic.
On May 28 2015 02:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Got this off of Twitter: Answer: + Show Spoiler + The 300X figure is from the average of CEO pay at the largest 300 or so firms that the ALF-CIO, or whoever else does the math, has data for. In other words it's the average pay of something like the top 2% of of CEOs (or less, depending on data availability), rather than CEOs as a whole. Just thought it was neat.
Those CEO's need to negotiate with those ladies who dominate payroll better, right Jonny?
|
^talk about moronic one-liners.... You two really should just ignore each other.
|
On May 28 2015 04:43 Ghostcom wrote:
^talk about moronic one-liners.... You two really should just ignore each other.
Jonny is the one who suggested women dominated payroll and set wages, I was just making sure that's what he still thought since he never explained how he thinks it works, but seemed sure that a lot of women working in payroll (and his dreadfully misguided notion that wages were determined by payroll, since it says so in the textbook definition probably), meant wages were primarily set by women.
As for ignoring each other, I have tried to get him to agree to that, he's the one who refuses. You want to take a crack at getting him to stop, I'll still honor my offer.
|
The Obama administration announced new clean water rules today that it says will protect sources of drinking water for 117 million Americans, rules welcomed by environmental groups, but bitterly opposed by congressional Republicans and farm state democrats.
The rules clarify which waterways fall under the Clean Water Act.
President Obama, in a statement released by the White House, said that in recent years:
"Court decisions have led to uncertainty and a need for clarification. One in three Americans now gets drinking water from streams lacking clear protection, and businesses and industries that depend on clean water face uncertainty and delay, which costs our economy every day. Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable to pollution. That's why I called on the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clear up the confusion and uphold our basic duty to protect these vital resources."
The rules have been in the works for some time, and have already drawn opposition from many Republicans in Congress, along with farm groups. The House approved a measure to block the new regulations earlier this month, and a similar bill is pending in the Senate.
Source
|
United States42681 Posts
You know how a few pages back I was bitching about the sickness within predatory American consumerism. Watch this.
+ Show Spoiler +
It really is some "only in America" shit. Sure we have payday loans places in England but I'm pretty sure we don't have payday hair shops.
|
That isn't from southpark? O_o
|
United States42681 Posts
On May 28 2015 05:30 Velr wrote:
That isn't from southpark? O_o
http://theweaveloanstore.com/
You will not own the merchandise in The Weave Loan purchase program until the total amount necessary to acquire ownership is paid in full or until you purchase your early purchase option of our program.
HOW IT WORKS:
1. Bring: A Valid ID, Recent Check Stub & Initial Payment and we can get you approved through
our network of lenders for The Weave Loan Program.
2. Don't Settle For Cheap Tangled Bundles, Get Luxury Hair TODAY! Don't let the cost of quality hair stop you from looking fabulous!
IF YOU HAVE A HAIR EMERGENCY AND NEED TO GET TO THE WEAVE LOAN STORE NOW CALL 1-844-WEAVE LOANS (1-844-932-8356)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
