Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:I was being sarcastic anyway.

But I really do support removing the rights of corporations to donate to political campaigns... too bad it'll never happen.

About 80% of America is with you, including a majority of supporters in both parties.

Interestingly enough, the decision went down along party lines, with every Republican appointed justice voting to protect the rights of corporations, and not one Democrat appointed judge.

Tell this to a Republican, and they'll likely mutter something about 'they're as bad as each other', and stop talking about the issue, only to re-appear some other time to complain about, say, a 15c marketing tax on Christmas trees, requested by that industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

He's 39 years old, and he's paid of most of his university debt, and he thinks that impressive? And it doesn't occur to you that there's something really wrong with that?

I had my uni debt paid off within four years of leaving uni. Because I didn't have $100,000 in debt, I had $20,000.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I have seen plenty of military photos of guys holding papers that say they are the 1% of the 99% who are getting off of their asses to do something for themselves.

Yeah, this thing where people pretend that the inability to find a decent job is entirely their own fault is complete nonsense that needs to die.

Thing is, the historic average for unemployment in the US, 1948 to 2010 is 5.2%. Right now it's 9.9%. To give those numbers some scope, if unemployment was at the historic average, there'd be about 16 million unemployed. Instead there's about 31 million unemployed people.

There are two ways to explain this. If unemployment is entirely the fault of the individual, then we have to conclude that in the last couple of year about 15 million people spontaneously decided to be too lazy to bother finding a job. Alternatively, we can consider there systemic issues in the US economy right now, leading to lower than average demand for workers, and this makes it extremely hard for the average person to get a job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:And when you drive the banks out - killing those jobs permanently, how is that going to help unemployment again?

Australian banks were regulated sufficiently that we didn't suffer and financial collapse. This is why we're not in recession, and our housing industry didn't collapse.

And despite this regulation, our banks aren't going anywhere. Because there is still money to be made lending, and so they will be here, doing that lending.

halonachos wrote:
I normally ignore your remarks, but yes it is inclusive. I have it fething fantastic right now and I am utterly and completely happy.

And yet you continue to complain on the internet.

Its almost as if complaining about things, and happiness were not mutually exclusive.

halonachos wrote:

It took him till age 39 to pay off 85% of his student loans even though he had access to the GI Bill? That doesn't really lend credence to the idea that he chose his graduate degree wisely.

Nor does it lend credence that somehow he paid it off intelligently...

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I normally ignore your remarks, but yes it is inclusive. I have it fething fantastic right now and I am utterly and completely happy.

And yet you continue to complain on the internet.

Its almost as if complaining about things, and happiness were not mutually exclusive.

I have complained once about one thing on this forum yet you insist that it was multiple things over multiple times. Have you forgotten that it was mentioned once by me and then brought up again multiple times by you in an ill attempt to discredit my personal character? Dogma you are a truly sad and resentful person who gets mad at the very people who ask you for help with history lessons. Yes I do recall you stating that you get mad when people you are tutoring are unable to grasp a concept because they are too stupid to comprehend it. Yet you are not the one at blame for not being able to actually teach and then there's the fact that these are people who are seeking help to improve themselves, that's a rather disgusting character trait in my own opinion. See, I tutor organic chemistry and instead of getting mad at a student for not getting the concept I change my method of explanation to fit them because that's what a good tutor does. Oh, and best of all I tutor for free. The school doesn't pay me nor do the students I tutor pay me because I do it for the benefit. They aren't asking for handouts, they're asking for the explanations that will allow them to better themselves in the future.

I don't believe in handouts or doing work for a person, I believe in giving them the tools to do better and seeing them get a higher grade than they would have if I didn't help them is pretty gratifying in its own right.

My friend's dad died two years ago, instead of just saying sorry I listened to what he planned to do in the future. I found out that he wanted to be an IT in the Navy and I told him that I have a friend who is a CT in the Navy and offered to connect them in an effort to help my friend find out what he needs to do to do it quickly.


I would say that yes there has been a change in the quality of people. There are job openings for picking fruit thanks to illegal immigrants leaving some states, yet people try the job out for a week before quitting because its below them. I would say that the quality of people in the US has definitely changed.

Also the guy now makes $100,000 a year, how many jobs in the military do you know of that pay $100,000 a year especially if you are enlisted. Now as far as the GI Bill goes, there are a few things it actually covers.

College, business
Technical or vocational courses
Correspondence courses
Apprenticeship/job training
Flight training(usually capped at 60%)

If the guy went to medical school then it isn't covered under the GI Bill. It also only covers 36 months of education for what it does cover.

halonachos wrote:
I have complained once about one thing on this forum yet you insist that it was multiple things over multiple times.

You're complaining right now, and have been complaining for several pages, in a thread in which your basic argument is "People shouldn't complain."

Either you were being overly general, or you should revisit the way you approach grievances that people hold against systemic issues.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma you are a truly sad and resentful person who gets mad at the very people who ask you for help with history lessons. Yes I do recall you stating that you get mad when people you are tutoring are unable to grasp a concept because they are too stupid to comprehend it. Yet you are not the one at blame for not being able to actually teach and then there's the fact that these are people who are seeking help to improve themselves, that's a rather disgusting character trait in my own opinion.

The thing is, I have no interest in helping others improve themselves, at least not most others. I have an interest in being paid to go to school, and tutoring/teaching is the price I pay for that. Its a necessary consequence of a separate desire, not something I desire in and of itself.

That being said, I do not begrudge people asking for help on principle, I begrudge them it when they ask for repeated explanations of elementary concepts (the sort one could understand by using Goggle for 15 minutes), and that repeated explanatory request cuts into the time I have to spend on career significant work (ie. publication).

halonachos wrote:
See, I tutor organic chemistry and instead of getting mad at a student for not getting the concept I change my method of explanation to fit them because that's what a good tutor does. Oh, and best of all I tutor for free. The school doesn't pay me nor do the students I tutor pay me because I do it for the benefit. They aren't asking for handouts, they're asking for the explanations that will allow them to better themselves in the future.

They're asking for handouts. There is no reason a handout cannot take the form of an explanation that will permit future benefit.

halonachos wrote:
I don't believe in handouts or doing work for a person, I believe in giving them the tools to do better and seeing them get a higher grade than they would have if I didn't help them is pretty gratifying in its own right.

And yet you give handouts, and do work for people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Now as far as the GI Bill goes, there are a few things it actually covers.

College, business
Technical or vocational courses
Correspondence courses
Apprenticeship/job training
Flight training(usually capped at 60%)

If the guy went to medical school then it isn't covered under the GI Bill. It also only covers 36 months of education for what it does cover.

That would have been an unwise investment, then; given his financial state.

halonachos wrote:
Also the guy now makes $100,000 a year, how many jobs in the military do you know of that pay $100,000 a year especially if you are enlisted. Now as far as the GI Bill goes, there are a few things it actually covers.

Are you saying this under the assumption that he's something special? He's not still in the military. He started out making his $100,000 through investment firms he started back when the market was slightly more sane. If anything, he's actually more than 1% than he is the 99%. Nowadays he spends his time telling Christians that accruing six digit student loans on a Business Administration degree and taking over 20 years to pay the majority of it off is a 'good thing'.

Also, if I wanted to, I could move to New York and make over $100,000. Right now. There are things that make it more worthwhile for me to stay where I am at the moment however.

Namely, you don't have to live in New York.

I don't see how I am complaining. I'm stating the facts and that is just about it, now if I said that somehow these people are ruining things for then I would be complaining. But for now I am just calling them idiots because that's how I perceive them. They are idiots who need to stop supporting what they don't believe in. Its hard to go make your own paper and tools, but it has been done before and if I saw someone with some scratch built protest signs then I would know that they're 100% serious about this thing. Until then they are a bunch of whiny toddlers.

Look I'm not complaining about them, I'm criticizing their values! Oh and by the way, criticizing and complaining are not synonyms.

Criticize: Indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way: "they criticized the failure of Western nations".

The movement has plenty of faults and I am pointing them out, that's criticism as opposed to complaining.


No Dogma, I don't give them handouts by giving them the tools to do work. I make them think about it and help them find ways that they can begin to understand it for themselves. Do I have to explain elementary concepts over and over again, yes, but its because some people don't see the elementary concepts as elementary and need help. A handout would be if I solve all of their homework problems for them as opposed to watching over them and asking critical questions that gets their mind working. Its the Socratic teaching method my anatomy teacher used to help us think.

@ Daedalus, look you have a job offer for $100,000 a year. I bet that there was something that you did right in order to get that offer. Perhaps there was some hard work that made you different from everyone else.

halonachos wrote:I don't see how I am complaining. I'm stating the facts and that is just about it, now if I said that somehow these people are ruining things for then I would be complaining. But for now I am just calling them idiots because that's how I perceive them.

You're expressing dissatisfaction, that's complaining.

halonachos wrote:
They are idiots who need to stop supporting what they don't believe in. Its hard to go make your own paper and tools, but it has been done before and if I saw someone with some scratch built protest signs then I would know that they're 100% serious about this thing. Until then they are a bunch of whiny toddlers.

More complaining.

Also, that's an awful standard for what counts as a serious protest. I highly doubt that any member of the Civil Rights movement made their own paper when they were constructing protest signs, and yet they were quite serious regarding their protest, and were taken seriously.

halonachos wrote:
Look I'm not complaining about them, I'm criticizing their values! Oh and by the way, criticizing and complaining are not synonyms.

Criticize: Indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way: "they criticized the failure of Western nations".

The movement has plenty of faults and I am pointing them out, that's criticism as opposed to complaining.

Actually, criticize and complain are synonyms, though the connotations carried by each word are very different. Generally criticism contains a degree of objective assessment (ie. X is a bad protest because good protests involve Y), and makes every attempt to avoid value judgments of a personal sort. You're making value judgments, complaining, not levying criticism.

halonachos wrote:
No Dogma, I don't give them handouts by giving them the tools to do work.

Yes, you do. A handout is something given without compensation, it doesn't matter if what is given happens to be particularly useful. If you aren't compensated for giving a person something, even your time, then you are giving that person a handout.

First of all Dogma I am not speaking with dissatisfaction, I'm speaking with disapproval. I am not saying that they are not fulfilling the goals they should be fulfilling I am saying that their goals are foolish. On one hand we have a showing of dissatisfaction with the movement, which would be complaining, compared to what I have been doing, which is disapproving of the movement. Disapproving is criticism, dissatisfaction is complaint.

Similar to how I could say that I am unhappy with your posts(or say that they make me feel bad, like that could happen), complaint, or say that your posts are yet again incorrect, criticism.

I am not dissatisfied with the movement because there is no level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction I receive from the movement because I am not a part of the movement. However, I do find the movement lackluster and idiotic in any of the goals they are seeking. I'm not dissatisfied with the movement, I disapprove of the movement. Therein lies the difference.


Hey Dogma, I believe that I said my compensation was knowing that I helped someone out and seeing them succeed because of my help. So by your definition its not a handout because I am being compensated. I am giving them something intangible(knowledge to help them get better grades) and receiving something intangible(gratification in seeing them succeed thanks to my help). Oh yes, I do get all warm and tingly on the inside when I am told "Thanks for the help" or "I couldn't of gotten that grade without your help".

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
No Dogma, I don't give them handouts by giving them the tools to do work.

Yes, you do. A handout is something given without compensation, it doesn't matter if what is given happens to be particularly useful. If you aren't compensated for giving a person something, even your time, then you are giving that person a handout.

Actually, and for the record, I agree with you in as so far as what the definition of a handout is above, but how far do you carry it? Is it a handout if you do ANYTHING for anyone without compensation? If my neighbor assaults his girlfriend, I hear it happening and she comes over because she's scared, and I call the cops, am I giving her a handout?

I don't want to think so, but at the same time, I'm offering a service at a cost to myself without compensation.

Note that the answer would not how I would react in such an occasion.

daedalus wrote:
Actually, and for the record, I agree with you in as so far as what the definition of a handout is above, but how far do you carry it? Is it a handout if you do ANYTHING for anyone without compensation? If my neighbor assaults his girlfriend, I hear it happening and she comes over because she's scared, and I call the cops, am I giving her a handout?

I don't want to think so, but at the same time, I'm offering a service at a cost to myself without compensation.

Note that the answer would not how I would react in such an occasion.

I would say yes, as handouts are basically just a form of aid.

To be clear, the point I'm making is that if a thing is a handout it isn't necessarily bad, and that we give many handouts all the time without even thinking about it. Yet, when money or the state become involved, handouts suddenly become horrible, horrible things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:First of all Dogma I am not speaking with dissatisfaction, I'm speaking with disapproval.

Disapproval and dissatisfaction are synonyms, and in this context the connotative distinction between the two is essentially nonexistent.

halonachos wrote:
I am not saying that they are not fulfilling the goals they should be fulfilling I am saying that their goals are foolish. On one hand we have a showing of dissatisfaction with the movement, which would be complaining, compared to what I have been doing, which is disapproving of the movement. Disapproving is criticism, dissatisfaction is complaint.

You don't understand what criticism is. You don't criticize a thing by claiming that the thing really should be something else. If I tell you that your oil painting is terrible because its a horrible example of a movie, I'm not criticizing your oil painting, I'm complaining that you didn't make a movie. This is essentially what you're doing when you say that what OWS is trying to achieve is foolish. Criticizing the movement would entail an attack on their methods, their image, or organization; not their actual goal.

halonachos wrote:
Hey Dogma, I believe that I said my compensation was knowing that I helped someone out and seeing them succeed because of my help. So by your definition its not a handout because I am being compensated.

By that definition, which is perfectly valid, essentially handouts cannot exist.

dogma wrote:
I would say yes, as handouts are basically just a form of aid.

To be clear, the point I'm making is that if a thing is a handout it isn't necessarily bad, and that we give many handouts all the time without even thinking about it. Yet, when money or the state become involved, handouts suddenly become horrible, horrible things.

Well, I can't argue with that then. Perhaps some of the, hypocrisy, I guess you could say, is that my example is more of a 'community goodwill' type thing, so it is okay, while the 'bad' kind is an institutionalized thing?

To avoid making a new thread, I'll leave this here.

Occupy Oakland Protesters Deposit Funds At Wells Fargo After Bank Attacks

(CBS/AP) — A group of Oakland anti-Wall Street protesters who blame large banks for the economic downturn have decided that one of those institutions is the best place to stash their money for now.

Protesters at an Occupy Oakland meeting Monday voted to deposit a $20,000 donation into a Wells Fargo account. The move comes just days after one of Wells Fargo’s branches was vandalized during a massive downtown demonstration.

An Occupy statement said the money only will be with Wells Fargo temporarily while they work to establish an account with a credit union or community bank. Protesters said it was the easiest way to access the money to bail out people from jail.

You really can't make this gak up.

biccat wrote:To avoid making a new thread, I'll leave this here.

Occupy Oakland Protesters Deposit Funds At Wells Fargo After Bank Attacks

(CBS/AP) — A group of Oakland anti-Wall Street protesters who blame large banks for the economic downturn have decided that one of those institutions is the best place to stash their money for now.

Protesters at an Occupy Oakland meeting Monday voted to deposit a $20,000 donation into a Wells Fargo account. The move comes just days after one of Wells Fargo’s branches was vandalized during a massive downtown demonstration.

An Occupy statement said the money only will be with Wells Fargo temporarily while they work to establish an account with a credit union or community bank. Protesters said it was the easiest way to access the money to bail out people from jail.

You really can't make this gak up.

They would have put the money in a Savings & Loan except that Reagan's S&L reforms led to the collapse of that industry, which then had to be paid for by the general public.

daedalus wrote:
Well, I can't argue with that then. Perhaps some of the, hypocrisy, I guess you could say, is that my example is more of a 'community goodwill' type thing, so it is okay, while the 'bad' kind is an institutionalized thing?

That's generally the reason given. In essence, with respect to state redistribution, the issue taken isn't with the concept of "charity" but the compulsion involved.

How is it surprising that they put money in banks yet want the banks to be reformed? There's nothing hypocritical about that. Actually, if you have money in the banks, you have even MORE reason to want to see them reformed.

Have your wages grown like a CEO's over recent decades? Didn't think so.



TEA Rx: If conservatives can call it Obamacare, every time a family is forced to file for bankruptcy due to a medical misfortune, or a sick child is dropped by his insurance company, or a patient dies because she can’t afford surgery, we get to call it: “Tea Bagger Care.” -- Bill Maher, New New Rules

That's right, BrassScorpion, we want sick children to die and granny to not get her pills so we can acquire more money for our money statues paying homage to money. Get with the program.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:That's right, BrassScorpion, we want sick children to die and granny to not get her pills so we can acquire more money for our money statues paying homage to money. Get with the program.

I suspect this is sarcasm. But since my car runs on prescription drugs and the tears of the unloved, I'm going to have to agree with this.

I saw an interesting article recently that tracked the portion of wealth held by the top 1% since 1900 or so. They've been at a constant 23-25% for the last 70 years or so. While income is one measure, for people in the top 1% it's not nearly as relevant as wealth.

BrassScorpion wrote:
TEA Rx: If conservatives can call it Obamacare, every time a family is forced to file for bankruptcy due to a medical misfortune, or a sick child is dropped by his insurance company, or a patient dies because she can’t afford surgery, we get to call it: “Tea Bagger Care.” -- Bill Maher, New New Rules

"Bill Maher is an idiot who delusionally believes that his dull wit makes for good social commentary ."-halonachos

Not saying anything about the chart, but he's an idiot. I remember reading one of his "New Rules" books and in fact I recall him saying that women shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed in public, especially in a restaurant.

halonachos wrote:
"Bill Maher is an idiot who delusionally believes that his dull wit makes for good social commentary ."-halonachos

Not saying anything about the chart, but he's an idiot. I remember reading one of his "New Rules" books and in fact I recall him saying that women shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed in public, especially in a restaurant.

He probably doesn't care if he produces quality social commentary, he probably cares about the willingness of others to pay him money.

Just saying.

I actually think that BM is pretty amusing...

I mean, hes not British so he aint THAT funny, but ive seen worse.

Well, except for Russell Brand, I thought Gordon Brown was funnier than that fether.

I saw that Joe Rogan bloke in LA once at a comedy club on sunset strip, he was about as funny as finding a lump on your testicles.

Or what about Louie Anderson? Carlos Mencia? Dane Cook? Oh and almost all women, like that deranged lesbian chick off Roseanne? Or the ones that get away with racist jokes because they are from said ethnicity but are absolutely terrible, have you ever seen Margaret Cho?!

Politics aside, he aint too bad. If you think BM is absolutely terrible halo, you aint seen many bad comedians!

I'm a bad comedian myself so I know one when I see one.

Honestly, people attack the Occupy Whatever movement saying "get a job!", which is loaded with so many bad asinine assumptions that it makes my face hurt.

You know what? Back when I worked as a groundskeeper at a college, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. It sucked, it was hard work during the day during a heat wave for less than 13k a year. Back when I worked at Wal-Mart, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. It sucked, it was hard work doing whatever the hell my manager needed done for less than 8k a year (because of limited hours). Back when I worked at a newspaper place packing papers, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. It was backbreaking work stacking papers, cleaning, and generally getting in and around the machinery, for less than 12k a year. When I was unemployed and actively trying to find a job despite having a two-year degree and a few certifications for semi-skilled labor (such as pharmacy technician), and couldn't find a job despite putting out almost a thousand applications over the course of a SINGLE YEAR, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. Right now, as a student who's only able to afford college because of government assistance because the job market is dried up, I still agree with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change.

Why the FETH would having a job make these people change their minds? That kind of assumption is just plain obnoxious, with no rhyme, reason, or logic to it. Can we, as a forum, stop this nonsense and finally move on to a more logical objection to the movement, PLEASE?

Dirty entitled hippy commie dirtbags need to find jobs. There's the strawman. It is a genetic fallacy that shows a bigoted view of the American population that is either taking part in the movement and/or supports it.

Melissia wrote:Honestly, people attack the Occupy Whatever movement saying "get a job!", which is loaded with so many bad asinine assumptions that it makes my face hurt.

You know what? Back when I worked as a groundskeeper at a college, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. It sucked, it was hard work during the day during a heat wave for less than 13k a year. Back when I worked at Wal-Mart, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. It sucked, it was hard work doing whatever the hell my manager needed done for less than 8k a year (because of limited hours). Back when I worked at a newspaper place packing papers, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. It was backbreaking work stacking papers, cleaning, and generally getting in and around the machinery, for less than 12k a year. When I was unemployed and actively trying to find a job despite having a two-year degree and a few certifications for semi-skilled labor (such as pharmacy technician), and couldn't find a job despite putting out almost a thousand applications over the course of a SINGLE YEAR, I would have agreed with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change. Right now, as a student who's only able to afford college because of government assistance because the job market is dried up, I still agree with the Occupy Whatever movement's desire for change.

Why the FETH would having a job make these people change their minds? That kind of assumption is brain-splatteringly stupid with no rhyme, reason, or logic to it. Can we, as a forum, stop this nonsense and finally move on to a more logical objection to the movement, PLEASE?

Amen...

I work 50 to 60 hours a week, and have probably been doing so for longer than some of the " get a job hippy" crowd have been alive and I can completely understand the ire that many of these protesters feel.
When you see a company like Levi Struas, to name one of many, laying off 64,000 employes while at the same time giving a single CEO a 100 million dollar bonus, then outsourcing production to factories in China, one can't helped but begin to realize that " Hard work" has almost zip to do with getting into the " 1% club"

I just spent a good deal of time shutting down the other 'Occupy' thread and issuing warnings...

I will not be pleased to have to go through this one too. Please try to be polite and refrain from attacking other posters or generalizing groups. This is a touchy topic and pretty polarizing, don't expect to change too many minds in here.

Meh.

I've worked a crapton of hard jobs in my relatively short life so far, probably more than a good number of those on this forum and across the internet in general who claim "get a job!" have. I shed sweat, tears, and even occasionally blood to get my relatively miniscule paychecks, and with each successive job I usually earned less than the job before despite each dollar being itself worth less.

That I'm going to college so that I don't have to do such backbreaking physical labor anymore shouldn't invalidate my opinions... instead of my body being worked hard, right now it's my mind that's being put to the rigors of labor-- exactly what the economy currently demands more than physical labor.

Yet apparently this decision to try to train my mind to meet the demand for educated, skilled employees is not a capitalistic response to changes within a capitalistic society but instead considered a bad thing that's an eeeeevil red commie mark on my soul, and therefor I'm just a lazy b**** who needs to go get a job!

FFS...

Capitalism doesn't work without regulation and government intervention. Even the (in)famous example of Hong Kong has succeeded only because of its government controls and regulations, and even it isn't really a good example of capitalist ideals given their anti-competition stances in many industries...

Given this, why should it be surprised that, when a problem comes up, a change in regulation is desired by those who want to fix it? And why should one look down at people for wanting this? It's a perfectly logical solution to the problem, even if you disagree that the solution is the best one (although I have yet to see anyone even really attempt to put forth a reasonable alternative).

There's no "bad attitude" here, at least, not coming from me despite the accusations. I'm perfectly willing to work my ass off for a paycheck, and have done so in the past. But that doesn't mean I like the corruption, blind greed, and short-termed thinking going on in the corporate boards and the offices of corporate executives.