|
|
On October 12 2012 12:10 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:04 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 12:00 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 11:58 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:56 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 11:54 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:50 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 11:37 Risen wrote:
xDaunt, do you feel everyone gets a fair shot in America? I know I come from privilege and have an upper hand on other people, so obviously I don't think everyone gets a fair shot. What say you? Yes, everyone gets a fair shot. People are free to make of their lives what they will. The issue is why some do and some don't. In my opinion, it all starts with the family. yeah man, that kid raised in the ghetto with no dad and a mom who can barely pay the bills, has the same "fair" shot as the rich white kid who gets his parents to pay for his college He does just like them he can not be discriminated against for anything except what his work value is and what his willing to do to get where he wants to go. Everyone has the same opportunity he just like the white kid's parents who worked hard FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON that their kid would not have to go through the trials and tribulations they did. yeah man, the white kid chose to be born into the rich wealthy family, and the black kid, well he chose wrong Neither of them chose anything with their birth but the white kid can choose to do drugs and become a meth head and the black kid and get a full time job and work his way through college for free if he studies hard enough. yeah man, its the same fair shot. One has the luxury of choosing to be a meth head and still possibly succeed Not true normally but if he does it is on the blood sweat and tears of his family who worked to ensure that that is a possibility for him just like the poor individual would if he should become wealthy on his own. yeah man, its the same fair shot do you want me to keep going? or Do I have to explain to you that one has to work MUCH harder than the other?
I can go all night even though you will never understand. No one EVER has been told you will only ever have to work as hard as X to succeed FUCKING EVER. You can't help what you are born into but no one is stopping you from working as hard as you want EVER.
|
No one is arguing it is fair. What is this straw man? The debate here isn't "does everyone have an equal shot?" Of course not. No one in the world would argue that someone in a poor home and someone in a wealthy home has the same opportunity. That is obvious, why is it getting repeated?
Can anyone pick themselves up out of poverty? Yes, they can. You want to ask me why more people don't? I don't know, it doesn't matter. That's a sociological question, not an economic one. Personally, I don't care about money very much. I won't have much "mobility," because I'm happy with my life. And I'm lower class right now. I can't speak for the other 300 million people. But I've seen first hand that you can succeed in this country with huge odds against you. Much worse odds than most of the people who complain about a lack of opportunity in this country.
|
To me, it seemed like a clear win for Biden. He definitely shook up Ryan a couple of times there. But it wasn't a slam dunk. Ryan held his own.
Ryan came off as a young, smart, enthusiastic guy that was new at this. He looked and felt over-rehearsed, and had to tap dance when pegged for specifics. Biden came off as the guy that has been around forever and knows what's really going on.
I think that's independents will see it. Not sure if there will be any real bounce or impact on the polls, but Biden definitely stopped some of the bleeding and self-pitying that has been plaguing democrats the past week.
|
On October 12 2012 12:14 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:12 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:11 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:09 Silidons wrote:nice linking 5 conservative sites half of which no one has ever heard of, wonder what side you're on brah I wasn't biased in my website selection, you can literally find all of those pages on the first page search of "who won vp debate" on google (assuming they haven't been bumped down by new pages) Google results are personalized to the users history. They showed up on your first page because you frequent conservative blogs. What about google results for people that only ever search in anonymous mode and never login to google before they search anything, would their results be personalized also?
I don't know whether or not they also personalize based on IP addresses (e.g., with respect to demographic data for given addresses), but this website explains some ways to disable the history personalization: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/seo/3-ways-to-disable-personal-results-in-google/4845
|
On October 12 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:15 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:13 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:12 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:11 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:09 Silidons wrote:nice linking 5 conservative sites half of which no one has ever heard of, wonder what side you're on brah I wasn't biased in my website selection, you can literally find all of those pages on the first page search of "who won vp debate" on google (assuming they haven't been bumped down by new pages) Google results are personalized to the users history. They showed up on your first page because you frequent conservative blogs. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49327648Is cnbc conservatively biased? I don't know what you think I claimed, but it has nothing to do with that. Well just to test your theory I typed in news and the top search was CNN followed by Fox news followed by yahoo, abc, nbc, and local news. If what you are suggesting says it caters to my interests than it would show that my interests are in reading news on both sides.
It's not based on nothing other than your history. It just factors that in. Presumably a liberal would never have gotten all of those obscure (non-daily-caller) conservative blogs on the first page.
|
On October 12 2012 12:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:10 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 12:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 12:03 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:58 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:51 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:46 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:44 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:41 Tarot wrote:On October 12 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yes, everyone gets a fair shot. People are free to make of their lives what they will. The issue is why some do and some don't. In my opinion, it all starts with the family. Then how is that a fair shot? Last time I checked, you don't get to choose what family you're born into. The idea isn't that you are given anything it's no one is holding you back. YOU can go out and get a job and work your way through school. YOU can create a new product. YOU can do pursue your heart's desire like everyone else before you. And just like them the one thing you are guarrenteed is the chance to do it for yourself unimpeded. I think that's fine - except there's quite a lot that impede upon the lower classes' ability to rise amongst the ranks. And I do think the government, over time, has done a lot to remove those impediments. Actually we do a ton to promote growth we have freaking programs to feed anyone who can't feed themselves programs for every medical or school need. What else do you want? Do you want free money do you think everyone should start rich from Bitch 10 million in the bank and a house with a white picket fence no matter what you do? Where does it end? It doesn't that is where at some point you have to work the government isn't here to prevent you from failing it life its to protect your life and insure others are not in your way (by murder or harm) I'm not arguing for welfare programs. I'm arguing against corporations taking advantage of the poor, and the majority taking advantage of the minority. Things like women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. I personally like the ACA's concept. I think it's just implemented incorrectly. The government should regulate against unfair practices - not take over. That's my idea of government. I am all for government getting out of private practices and only regulating them against being taken advantage for the things you listed. But the government also is hurting the poor by enforcing things like high minimum wages and high taxes. Both of those keep companies from producing goods in the USA. I am not saying people should work for dirt you know that but wages and what someone is willing to work for should be between the business and the individual if you don't like the pay don't work there. The only thing that the government should enforce is a good working environment. America doesn't have a high minimum wage. We have a relatively low minimum wage compared to most first world countries. We also have low taxes compared to most first world countries. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. We have taxes that make products produced inside the country highly ineficent profit wise to say otherwise is wrong items like Iphones would quadruple in cost if made in the USA and minimum wage in this country is high because the level it is at is unneeded raising it from where it was at only creates inflation. Are you suggesting that we should have a minimum wage comparable to China?
Minimum wages in China are enforced on people without a choice along with shitty work conditions. No person in the USA should be forced to work for any salary but if a factory is offering a job at 3 dollars an hour and you can't find other work is 3 dollars an hour better than 0?
On October 12 2012 12:12 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:10 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 12:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 12:03 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:58 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:51 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:46 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:44 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:41 Tarot wrote:On October 12 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yes, everyone gets a fair shot. People are free to make of their lives what they will. The issue is why some do and some don't. In my opinion, it all starts with the family. Then how is that a fair shot? Last time I checked, you don't get to choose what family you're born into. The idea isn't that you are given anything it's no one is holding you back. YOU can go out and get a job and work your way through school. YOU can create a new product. YOU can do pursue your heart's desire like everyone else before you. And just like them the one thing you are guarrenteed is the chance to do it for yourself unimpeded. I think that's fine - except there's quite a lot that impede upon the lower classes' ability to rise amongst the ranks. And I do think the government, over time, has done a lot to remove those impediments. Actually we do a ton to promote growth we have freaking programs to feed anyone who can't feed themselves programs for every medical or school need. What else do you want? Do you want free money do you think everyone should start rich from Bitch 10 million in the bank and a house with a white picket fence no matter what you do? Where does it end? It doesn't that is where at some point you have to work the government isn't here to prevent you from failing it life its to protect your life and insure others are not in your way (by murder or harm) I'm not arguing for welfare programs. I'm arguing against corporations taking advantage of the poor, and the majority taking advantage of the minority. Things like women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. I personally like the ACA's concept. I think it's just implemented incorrectly. The government should regulate against unfair practices - not take over. That's my idea of government. I am all for government getting out of private practices and only regulating them against being taken advantage for the things you listed. But the government also is hurting the poor by enforcing things like high minimum wages and high taxes. Both of those keep companies from producing goods in the USA. I am not saying people should work for dirt you know that but wages and what someone is willing to work for should be between the business and the individual if you don't like the pay don't work there. The only thing that the government should enforce is a good working environment. America doesn't have a high minimum wage. We have a relatively low minimum wage compared to most first world countries. We also have low taxes compared to most first world countries. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. We have taxes that make products produced inside the country highly ineficent profit wise to say otherwise is wrong items like Iphones would quadruple in cost if made in the USA and minimum wage in this country is high because the level it is at is unneeded raising it from where it was at only creates inflation. Not true at all. The high price of the iphone is due to the apple name. Building it is not nearly that expensive.
Cost would still increase for production and they would still want the same profit margin.
|
On October 12 2012 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No one is arguing it is fair. What is this straw man? The debate here isn't "does everyone have an equal shot?" Of course not. No one in the world would argue that someone in a poor home and someone in a wealthy home has the same opportunity. That is obvious, why is it getting repeated?
Can anyone pick themselves up out of poverty? Yes, they can. You want to ask me why more people don't? I don't know, it doesn't matter. That's a sociological question, not an economic one. Personally, I don't care about money very much. I won't have much "mobility," because I'm happy with my life. And I'm lower class right now. I can't speak for the other 300 million people. But I've seen first hand that you can succeed in this country with huge odds against you. Much worse odds than most of the people who complain about a lack of opportunity in this country.
if you think its logical to invoke the statistical fact that no matter how shitty the situations are for people, at least 1 person will probably still make it i can argue back that even the hardest working person can get run over by a car, and dead people dont make much money.
On October 12 2012 12:18 Defacer wrote:
To me, it seemed like a clear win for Biden. He definitely shook up Ryan a couple of times there. But it wasn't a slam dunk. Ryan held his own.
Ryan came off as a young, smart, enthusiastic guy that was new at this. He looked and felt over-rehearsed, and had to tap dance when pegged for specifics. Biden came off as the guy that has been around forever and knows what's really going on.
I think that's independents will see it. Not sure if there will be any real bounce or impact on the polls, but Biden definitely stopped some of the bleeding and self-pitying that has been plaguing democrats the past week.
full disclosure, i consider myself pretty liberal. but for me ryan comes across as idiotic and slimey. he couldnt state facts on any issue dispite being touted as the numbers guy. biden on the other hand while not perfect listed out factual points that can be checked for accuracy in the coming hours and days.
|
On October 12 2012 12:18 Defacer wrote:
Biden came off as the guy that has been around forever and knows what's really going on.
That is not necessarily a good thing. A large part of "winning" the debate is the likability factor over specific points. Biden didn't really win that.
|
On October 12 2012 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No one is arguing it is fair. What is this straw man? The debate here isn't "does everyone have an equal shot?" Of course not. No one in the world would argue that someone in a poor home and someone in a wealthy home has the same opportunity. That is obvious, why is it getting repeated?
Can anyone pick themselves up out of poverty? Yes, they can. You want to ask me why more people don't? I don't know, it doesn't matter. That's a sociological question, not an economic one. Personally, I don't care about money very much. I won't have much "mobility," because I'm happy with my life. And I'm lower class right now. I can't speak for the other 300 million people. But I've seen first hand that you can succeed in this country with huge odds against you. Much worse odds than most of the people who complain about a lack of opportunity in this country.
Once again. You are ignoring very real statistics that shows that people cannot pick themselves out of poverty. Yet you keep repeating that they can. Anecdotal evidence is not a good measure, and I have no idea why you seem to think it is.
And I have no idea what you mean by saying that it's not an economic question. That absolutely baffles me.
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
Ryan is a better speaker but Biden comes off as more sincere
I think Democrats will be happy with the debate
|
On October 12 2012 12:17 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:10 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 12:04 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 12:00 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 11:58 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:56 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 11:54 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:50 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 11:37 Risen wrote:
xDaunt, do you feel everyone gets a fair shot in America? I know I come from privilege and have an upper hand on other people, so obviously I don't think everyone gets a fair shot. What say you? Yes, everyone gets a fair shot. People are free to make of their lives what they will. The issue is why some do and some don't. In my opinion, it all starts with the family. yeah man, that kid raised in the ghetto with no dad and a mom who can barely pay the bills, has the same "fair" shot as the rich white kid who gets his parents to pay for his college He does just like them he can not be discriminated against for anything except what his work value is and what his willing to do to get where he wants to go. Everyone has the same opportunity he just like the white kid's parents who worked hard FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON that their kid would not have to go through the trials and tribulations they did. yeah man, the white kid chose to be born into the rich wealthy family, and the black kid, well he chose wrong Neither of them chose anything with their birth but the white kid can choose to do drugs and become a meth head and the black kid and get a full time job and work his way through college for free if he studies hard enough. yeah man, its the same fair shot. One has the luxury of choosing to be a meth head and still possibly succeed Not true normally but if he does it is on the blood sweat and tears of his family who worked to ensure that that is a possibility for him just like the poor individual would if he should become wealthy on his own. yeah man, its the same fair shot do you want me to keep going? or Do I have to explain to you that one has to work MUCH harder than the other? I can go all night even though you will never understand. No one EVER has been told you will only ever have to work as hard as X to succeed FUCKING EVER. You can't help what you are born into but no one is stopping you from working as hard as you want EVER.
that's called everyone having a shot to succeed(common sense?),does not mean its a FAIR or EQUAL shot (some have lower probability to succeed than others solely due to environment out of their control).
|
On October 12 2012 11:47 DoubleReed wrote:
I have no idea what people are talking about with the moderator. I thought she was highly biased towards Ryan. He kept getting like way more time, and then she says that Biden didn't get any time to respond. Malarky.
I thought the moderator was pretty fair. She asked pointed, intelligent, and difficult questions. When either of them was being too evasive, she asked follow up questions that made sense.
Much, much more substantive debate than last weeks.
|
On October 12 2012 12:19 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:15 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:13 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:12 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:11 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:09 Silidons wrote:nice linking 5 conservative sites half of which no one has ever heard of, wonder what side you're on brah I wasn't biased in my website selection, you can literally find all of those pages on the first page search of "who won vp debate" on google (assuming they haven't been bumped down by new pages) Google results are personalized to the users history. They showed up on your first page because you frequent conservative blogs. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49327648Is cnbc conservatively biased? I don't know what you think I claimed, but it has nothing to do with that. Well just to test your theory I typed in news and the top search was CNN followed by Fox news followed by yahoo, abc, nbc, and local news. If what you are suggesting says it caters to my interests than it would show that my interests are in reading news on both sides. It's not based on nothing other than your history. It just factors that in. Presumably a liberal would never have gotten all of those obscure (non-daily-caller) conservative blogs on the first page.
Maybe you are right, either way I was just posting what I found >_> I didn't cherry pick or anything. Either way, like I said before I think it was pretty much a tie and I don't think it will make much of a difference for the election.
|
On October 12 2012 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No one is arguing it is fair. What is this straw man? The debate here isn't "does everyone have an equal shot?" Of course not. No one in the world would argue that someone in a poor home and someone in a wealthy home has the same opportunity. That is obvious, why is it getting repeated?
Can anyone pick themselves up out of poverty? Yes, they can. You want to ask me why more people don't? I don't know, it doesn't matter. That's a sociological question, not an economic one. Personally, I don't care about money very much. I won't have much "mobility," because I'm happy with my life. And I'm lower class right now. I can't speak for the other 300 million people. But I've seen first hand that you can succeed in this country with huge odds against you. Much worse odds than most of the people who complain about a lack of opportunity in this country. Once again. You are ignoring very real statistics that shows that people cannot pick themselves out of poverty. Yet you keep repeating that they can. Anecdotal evidence is not a good measure, and I have no idea why you seem to think it is. And I have no idea what you mean by saying that it's not an economic question. That absolutely baffles me.
Saying that they ARE not is not the same thing as saying that they CANNOT. That is the mistake in this reasoning.
As to your second point, I'm saying the decisions people choose to make is a question for sociologists and psychologists.
|
On October 12 2012 12:19 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:15 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:13 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:12 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:11 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:09 Silidons wrote:nice linking 5 conservative sites half of which no one has ever heard of, wonder what side you're on brah I wasn't biased in my website selection, you can literally find all of those pages on the first page search of "who won vp debate" on google (assuming they haven't been bumped down by new pages) Google results are personalized to the users history. They showed up on your first page because you frequent conservative blogs. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49327648Is cnbc conservatively biased? I don't know what you think I claimed, but it has nothing to do with that. Well just to test your theory I typed in news and the top search was CNN followed by Fox news followed by yahoo, abc, nbc, and local news. If what you are suggesting says it caters to my interests than it would show that my interests are in reading news on both sides. It's not based on nothing other than your history. It just factors that in. Presumably a liberal would never have gotten all of those obscure (non-daily-caller) conservative blogs on the first page.
I think you overestimate how much search history is factored in. I mean, I get zero porn hits when I searched for it.
Yes, I kid.
|
On October 12 2012 12:20 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:12 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 12:10 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 12:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 12:03 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:58 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:51 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:46 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:44 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:41 Tarot wrote:
[quote]
Then how is that a fair shot? Last time I checked, you don't get to choose what family you're born into. The idea isn't that you are given anything it's no one is holding you back. YOU can go out and get a job and work your way through school. YOU can create a new product. YOU can do pursue your heart's desire like everyone else before you. And just like them the one thing you are guarrenteed is the chance to do it for yourself unimpeded. I think that's fine - except there's quite a lot that impede upon the lower classes' ability to rise amongst the ranks. And I do think the government, over time, has done a lot to remove those impediments. Actually we do a ton to promote growth we have freaking programs to feed anyone who can't feed themselves programs for every medical or school need. What else do you want? Do you want free money do you think everyone should start rich from Bitch 10 million in the bank and a house with a white picket fence no matter what you do? Where does it end? It doesn't that is where at some point you have to work the government isn't here to prevent you from failing it life its to protect your life and insure others are not in your way (by murder or harm) I'm not arguing for welfare programs. I'm arguing against corporations taking advantage of the poor, and the majority taking advantage of the minority. Things like women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. I personally like the ACA's concept. I think it's just implemented incorrectly. The government should regulate against unfair practices - not take over. That's my idea of government. I am all for government getting out of private practices and only regulating them against being taken advantage for the things you listed. But the government also is hurting the poor by enforcing things like high minimum wages and high taxes. Both of those keep companies from producing goods in the USA. I am not saying people should work for dirt you know that but wages and what someone is willing to work for should be between the business and the individual if you don't like the pay don't work there. The only thing that the government should enforce is a good working environment. America doesn't have a high minimum wage. We have a relatively low minimum wage compared to most first world countries. We also have low taxes compared to most first world countries. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. We have taxes that make products produced inside the country highly ineficent profit wise to say otherwise is wrong items like Iphones would quadruple in cost if made in the USA and minimum wage in this country is high because the level it is at is unneeded raising it from where it was at only creates inflation. Are you suggesting that we should have a minimum wage comparable to China? Minimum wages in China are enforced on people without a choice along with shitty work conditions. No person in the USA should be forced to work for any salary but if a factory is offering a job at 3 dollars an hour and you can't find other work is 3 dollars an hour better than 0? Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:12 Risen wrote:On October 12 2012 12:10 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 12:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 12:03 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:58 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:51 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:46 JinDesu wrote:On October 12 2012 11:44 CajunMan wrote:On October 12 2012 11:41 Tarot wrote:
[quote]
Then how is that a fair shot? Last time I checked, you don't get to choose what family you're born into. The idea isn't that you are given anything it's no one is holding you back. YOU can go out and get a job and work your way through school. YOU can create a new product. YOU can do pursue your heart's desire like everyone else before you. And just like them the one thing you are guarrenteed is the chance to do it for yourself unimpeded. I think that's fine - except there's quite a lot that impede upon the lower classes' ability to rise amongst the ranks. And I do think the government, over time, has done a lot to remove those impediments. Actually we do a ton to promote growth we have freaking programs to feed anyone who can't feed themselves programs for every medical or school need. What else do you want? Do you want free money do you think everyone should start rich from Bitch 10 million in the bank and a house with a white picket fence no matter what you do? Where does it end? It doesn't that is where at some point you have to work the government isn't here to prevent you from failing it life its to protect your life and insure others are not in your way (by murder or harm) I'm not arguing for welfare programs. I'm arguing against corporations taking advantage of the poor, and the majority taking advantage of the minority. Things like women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. I personally like the ACA's concept. I think it's just implemented incorrectly. The government should regulate against unfair practices - not take over. That's my idea of government. I am all for government getting out of private practices and only regulating them against being taken advantage for the things you listed. But the government also is hurting the poor by enforcing things like high minimum wages and high taxes. Both of those keep companies from producing goods in the USA. I am not saying people should work for dirt you know that but wages and what someone is willing to work for should be between the business and the individual if you don't like the pay don't work there. The only thing that the government should enforce is a good working environment. America doesn't have a high minimum wage. We have a relatively low minimum wage compared to most first world countries. We also have low taxes compared to most first world countries. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. We have taxes that make products produced inside the country highly ineficent profit wise to say otherwise is wrong items like Iphones would quadruple in cost if made in the USA and minimum wage in this country is high because the level it is at is unneeded raising it from where it was at only creates inflation. Not true at all. The high price of the iphone is due to the apple name. Building it is not nearly that expensive. Cost would still increase for production and they would still want the same profit margin.
Lowering the minimum wage affects all wages near the minimum wage. It's more complicated than what you're saying. Yes, it raises unemployment but it can also increase median income. Like a lot of economic ideas, it doesn't work well at extremes.
|
shawn hannity is being a GIANT dick right now, my god i hate this man.
im not a huge fan of most of the opinion people on fox but i really really hate this man
|
On October 12 2012 12:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:19 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:15 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:13 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:12 frogrubdown wrote:On October 12 2012 12:11 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:09 Silidons wrote:nice linking 5 conservative sites half of which no one has ever heard of, wonder what side you're on brah I wasn't biased in my website selection, you can literally find all of those pages on the first page search of "who won vp debate" on google (assuming they haven't been bumped down by new pages) Google results are personalized to the users history. They showed up on your first page because you frequent conservative blogs. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49327648Is cnbc conservatively biased? I don't know what you think I claimed, but it has nothing to do with that. Well just to test your theory I typed in news and the top search was CNN followed by Fox news followed by yahoo, abc, nbc, and local news. If what you are suggesting says it caters to my interests than it would show that my interests are in reading news on both sides. It's not based on nothing other than your history. It just factors that in. Presumably a liberal would never have gotten all of those obscure (non-daily-caller) conservative blogs on the first page. Maybe you are right, either way I was just posting what I found >_> I didn't cherry pick or anything. Either way, like I said before I think it was pretty much a tie and I don't think it will make much of a difference for the election.
Trust me it's true - google and facebook selectively provide results (google searches, and facebook updates) based on your browsing history. Same with ads on both sites.
|
On October 12 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No one is arguing it is fair. What is this straw man? The debate here isn't "does everyone have an equal shot?" Of course not. No one in the world would argue that someone in a poor home and someone in a wealthy home has the same opportunity. That is obvious, why is it getting repeated?
Can anyone pick themselves up out of poverty? Yes, they can. You want to ask me why more people don't? I don't know, it doesn't matter. That's a sociological question, not an economic one. Personally, I don't care about money very much. I won't have much "mobility," because I'm happy with my life. And I'm lower class right now. I can't speak for the other 300 million people. But I've seen first hand that you can succeed in this country with huge odds against you. Much worse odds than most of the people who complain about a lack of opportunity in this country. Once again. You are ignoring very real statistics that shows that people cannot pick themselves out of poverty. Yet you keep repeating that they can. Anecdotal evidence is not a good measure, and I have no idea why you seem to think it is. And I have no idea what you mean by saying that it's not an economic question. That absolutely baffles me. Saying that they ARE not is not the same thing as saying that they CANNOT. That is the mistake in this reasoning.
Present evidence then. All the evidence is against you, except for your own personal experience, which is not statistically significant.
|
On October 12 2012 12:21 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 12:18 Defacer wrote:
Biden came off as the guy that has been around forever and knows what's really going on.
That is not necessarily a good thing. A large part of "winning" the debate is the likability factor over specific points. Biden didn't really win that.
It depends. I think Biden walks a fine line, that's for sure. He is able to be arrogant in a blue-collar, guy-at-end-of-the-bar kind of way. It's bizarre.
I definitely don't think Romney or Obama could get way with some of the shit Biden broke out tonight, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
