|
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. |
(Reuters) - U.S. employers hired at a brisk pace last month and ramped up the hours their workers put in on the job, the strongest signals yet the economy was breaking free of its winter doldrums.
At the same time, the jobless rate held near a five-year low even as Americans poured into the labor market to hunt for work, another upbeat signal of the economy's health.
"It is strong enough to indicate the economy is back on track, but not so robust that the Federal Reserve would have to start thinking about actually raising rates," said Joel Naroff, head of Naroff Economic Advisers in Holland, Pennsylvania.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 192,000 jobs last month after rising by 197,000 in February, the Labor Department said on Friday. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.7 percent.
The government's closely watched report showed private sector employment finally regaining its pre-recession peak as the economy accelerated. It added to data ranging from manufacturing and services sector activity to automobile sales that have signaled strength as the first quarter ended.
source
Looks like the job market is picking up again. Wages are still trailing behind though but I guess that isn't too weird when there's still 6.7% unemployment.
|
Norway28892 Posts
On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all  ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections.
I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country:
1: surveillance
2: media control
3: police brutality
4: corruption
which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized..
|
On April 06 2014 05:04 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +(Reuters) - U.S. employers hired at a brisk pace last month and ramped up the hours their workers put in on the job, the strongest signals yet the economy was breaking free of its winter doldrums.
At the same time, the jobless rate held near a five-year low even as Americans poured into the labor market to hunt for work, another upbeat signal of the economy's health.
"It is strong enough to indicate the economy is back on track, but not so robust that the Federal Reserve would have to start thinking about actually raising rates," said Joel Naroff, head of Naroff Economic Advisers in Holland, Pennsylvania.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 192,000 jobs last month after rising by 197,000 in February, the Labor Department said on Friday. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.7 percent.
The government's closely watched report showed private sector employment finally regaining its pre-recession peak as the economy accelerated. It added to data ranging from manufacturing and services sector activity to automobile sales that have signaled strength as the first quarter ended. sourceLooks like the job market is picking up again. Wages are still trailing behind though but I guess that isn't too weird when there's still 6.7% unemployment.
War on Women Related News: Same report quoted, BLS statistics, 180,000 more women out of a job in March.
Regular News: Only 63.2% of Americans 16+ are part of the labor force.
Unemployment is Unemployed/Total Labor Force. Since we're still far far down on the denominator side of things, unemployment doesn't look as bad as it otherwise would. Doublecheck with the economists on this one, but they're hoping for increased participation as part of an expanding economy. Right now, BLS numbers are downright depressing.
|
Businesses like it because it depresses wages. Labor force approaching all time lows while corporations post record profits.
@Drone
No state in history has ever developed anything like the US's surveillance system both domestically and abroad. It's not even close. One terror attack and people are willing to give up privacy. People gave up freedom for a Facebook feed, and free email.
|
Norway28892 Posts
NSA is not related to the US being a democracy. the US just happens to be more technologically advanced/has better infrastructure in place than any dictatorships. And frankly even though USA is capable of recording and processing data at a rate completely impossible 20 years ago, I would be far more worried about government surveillance if I lived in any part of the soviet union back then, and basically any "dictatorship" today (to include states that are like, inbetween-y, where they have kinda manipulated elections, which is pretty common.)
|
On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain.
I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should.
On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized..
Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples.
I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage.
Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it.
|
On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it.
The entire world is Leftist-Land compared to the US, except maybe China.
You will find people are not against Voter ID in principle. They are against the way it is being used. As a method to influence voting demographs.
So long as an ID is easy and cheap to get and is implemented well ahead of time there is nothing wrong with it. However that is not how it is being done.
|
On April 06 2014 06:33 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
No state in history has ever developed anything like the US's surveillance system both domestically and abroad. It's not even close. One terror attack and people are willing to give up privacy. People gave up freedom for a Facebook feed, and free email.
You know the situation is really dire when even Marvel decide to write a full captain america about it.
|
A retiring Democratic congressman from Virginia says federal lawmakers don’t make enough money to get by in both Washington and back home.
“I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid,” Rep. James P. Moran told CQ Roll Call.
“I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”
Mr. Moran told the publication that some lawmakers live out of their offices while in the nation’s capital, or in “small little apartment units” that make it hard to spend time with their families.
A Republican-led appropriations bill introduced this week would retain a freeze on lawmakers’ salaries that has been in place since 2010, but Mr. Moran said state legislatures provide a per diem allowance and that the federal government should do the same, according to Roll Call.
Mr. Moran said his mission “is wholly quixotic” and will not pass, but Roll Call says he may bring it up on the House floor to garner attention.
“Our pay has been frozen for three years and we’re planning on freezing it a fourth year. … A lot of members can’t even afford to live decently in Washington,” he told the publication.
Members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year.
Link
|
On April 06 2014 06:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 05:04 RvB wrote:(Reuters) - U.S. employers hired at a brisk pace last month and ramped up the hours their workers put in on the job, the strongest signals yet the economy was breaking free of its winter doldrums.
At the same time, the jobless rate held near a five-year low even as Americans poured into the labor market to hunt for work, another upbeat signal of the economy's health.
"It is strong enough to indicate the economy is back on track, but not so robust that the Federal Reserve would have to start thinking about actually raising rates," said Joel Naroff, head of Naroff Economic Advisers in Holland, Pennsylvania.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 192,000 jobs last month after rising by 197,000 in February, the Labor Department said on Friday. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.7 percent.
The government's closely watched report showed private sector employment finally regaining its pre-recession peak as the economy accelerated. It added to data ranging from manufacturing and services sector activity to automobile sales that have signaled strength as the first quarter ended. sourceLooks like the job market is picking up again. Wages are still trailing behind though but I guess that isn't too weird when there's still 6.7% unemployment. War on Women Related News: Same report quoted, BLS statistics, 180,000 more women out of a job in March. Regular News: Only 63.2% of Americans 16+ are part of the labor force. Unemployment is Unemployed/Total Labor Force. Since we're still far far down on the denominator side of things, unemployment doesn't look as bad as it otherwise would. Doublecheck with the economists on this one, but they're hoping for increased participation as part of an expanding economy. Right now, BLS numbers are downright depressing.
Labor participation rate is increasing. Labor participation rate is highly influenced by other things like demographics as well. A lot of baby boomers retiring earlier because they lost their job for example. It's probably not getting back on pre crisis level numbers because of that.
|
On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it.
http://www.allsides.com/about-bias
Liberally biased?
|
On April 06 2014 21:01 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +A retiring Democratic congressman from Virginia says federal lawmakers don’t make enough money to get by in both Washington and back home.
“I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid,” Rep. James P. Moran told CQ Roll Call.
“I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”
Mr. Moran told the publication that some lawmakers live out of their offices while in the nation’s capital, or in “small little apartment units” that make it hard to spend time with their families.
A Republican-led appropriations bill introduced this week would retain a freeze on lawmakers’ salaries that has been in place since 2010, but Mr. Moran said state legislatures provide a per diem allowance and that the federal government should do the same, according to Roll Call.
Mr. Moran said his mission “is wholly quixotic” and will not pass, but Roll Call says he may bring it up on the House floor to garner attention.
“Our pay has been frozen for three years and we’re planning on freezing it a fourth year. … A lot of members can’t even afford to live decently in Washington,” he told the publication.
Members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year. Link
On one hand I think he is insane to think that 174,000 is not enough to live on but then again I don't know his expenses so who am I to say because I only have to deal with living in one place and not 2 but I am fairly sure he is doing better then most people living on average less then half that amount.
|
On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased?
1) There are more L's in that list than R's.
2) They left out some pretty big L's too. MSNBC, and Comedy Central. I know CC isn't all news, but many (dumb) people get all their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
3) This source also ignores the ratings. Most of the Left leaning networks have more viewers than the Right ones.
|
On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased?
That list just looks wrong.
|
On April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong.
well maybe you're biased
|
US secretly created 'Cuban Twitter' to stir unrest
...
Documents show the U.S. government planned to build a subscriber base through "non-controversial content": news messages on soccer, music and hurricane updates. Later when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize "smart mobs" — mass gatherings called at a moment's notice that might trigger a Cuban Spring, or, as one USAID document put it, "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society."
... ap
us govts 'ngo-gambit' in the spotlight.
would be interesting what the us' second most nefarious alphabet soup (intelligence has them beat) has been up to in ukraine.
|
President Barack Obama will sign two new executive orders on equal pay for women Tuesday, Politico reports. The executive actions coincide with "Equal Pay Day" -- the date that symbolizes how far into 2014 women must work to earn the same amount of money men earned last year.
Both executive orders mirror provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress has twice failed to pass. One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other. The provision is inspired by Lilly Ledbetter, the namesake of the first bill Obama signed on equal pay in 2009, who worked for nearly 20 years at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. before discovering that men in her same job with equal or lesser experience were earning significantly more money than she was.
The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report wage-related data to the government, in the hope that it will hold them more accountable for salary differences based on sex or race.
Women who work full time in the U.S. make an average of 77 cents for every dollar men make -- a number that has remained stagnant for a decade. Researchers who have taken into account factors that may contribute to that gap, including industry, education, college major and location, still find that men get paid 7 percent more than women, according to the American Association of University Women, a non-profit that works to increase equity for women and girls. The gap widens over the course of a woman's career, especially if she has a college degree.
AAUW called Obama's actions "a victory for working families nationwide."
Source
|
On April 06 2014 07:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
NSA is not related to the US being a democracy. the US just happens to be more technologically advanced/has better infrastructure in place than any dictatorships. And frankly even though USA is capable of recording and processing data at a rate completely impossible 20 years ago, I would be far more worried about government surveillance if I lived in any part of the soviet union back then, and basically any "dictatorship" today (to include states that are like, inbetween-y, where they have kinda manipulated elections, which is pretty common.)
Everyone prefers a benevolent Watcher to a malevolent one. That depends of course on your point of view. It helps that the American public is largely pacified through a factory-line school system, crippling student debt, inane media, petty political squabbles, and externalized fear in the form of high unemployment, low job security, and unknown omnipresent terrorist threats. But the power and reach of our benevolent Big Brother is indisputably greater than any other state in history, and is rapidly approaching Orwellian status, even if it has gone down a weird corporate-consumer pathway. The contractual agreement to exchange privacy for convenience made by individuals is destroying the privacy ecosystem that is a requirement for democracy. Democracy will be nothing but a fiction in our society when the last vestiges of privacy have disintegrated against the powers of silicon valley and a government that appropriates those powers as its own.
|
On April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong.
That list looks pretty accurate to me. I know a few conservatives that would probably argue with NPR being "center" but that's about it.
|
On April 07 2014 04:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 07:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
NSA is not related to the US being a democracy. the US just happens to be more technologically advanced/has better infrastructure in place than any dictatorships. And frankly even though USA is capable of recording and processing data at a rate completely impossible 20 years ago, I would be far more worried about government surveillance if I lived in any part of the soviet union back then, and basically any "dictatorship" today (to include states that are like, inbetween-y, where they have kinda manipulated elections, which is pretty common.) Everyone prefers a benevolent Watcher to a malevolent one. That depends of course on your point of view. It helps that the American public is largely pacified through a factory-line school system, crippling student debt, inane media, petty political squabbles, and externalized fear in the form of high unemployment, low job security, and unknown omnipresent terrorist threats. But the power and reach of our benevolent Big Brother is indisputably greater than any other state in history, and is rapidly approaching Orwellian status, even if it has gone down a weird corporate-consumer pathway. The contractual agreement to exchange privacy for convenience made by individuals is destroying the privacy ecosystem that is a requirement for democracy. Democracy will be nothing but a fiction in our society when the last vestiges of privacy have disintegrated against the powers of silicon valley and a government that appropriates those powers as its own.
The issue of privacy is where it has always been. The government has access to even more data, while citizens have access to tools that increase privacy. The difference is that Google is sharing information about you instead of the Wilson's down the street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
