General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
And for the fucking record, when you sluts set up bases in germany in the last century, perhaps it was to put a leash on germany and similarly put a fence against them fucking commies.

These motives got old a few decades ago, similarly with japanese bases, and they exist SOLELY for US interests, to serve the needs of the US, and that alone. NOTHING else.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 09-17-2010, 07:10 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuHo View Post
And for the fucking record, when you sluts set up bases in germany in the last century, perhaps it was to put a leash on germany and similarly put a fence against them fucking commies.

These motives got old a few decades ago, similarly with japanese bases, and they exist SOLELY for US interests, to serve the needs of the US, and that alone. NOTHING else.
Which is why I said in an earlier post (that you either skipped or didn't bother to read) that some of the bases no longer make sense. And yeah, Germany and Japan have really suffered from the American "occupation" the past 70 years...if it weren't for that they would probably be modern, industrialized first world nations with strong economies. Oh wait..

Anyway, arguing with you is pointless because even if you know you're wrong (or don't fully know what you're talking about) you'll never in a million years admit it. That quote from me in no way, shape or form says that anyone should help with the U.S. defense budget or that others should increase their own....but you obviously put your own spin on it if you really believe it does. (and don't seem to get that allies ARE American interests, and it should be mutual as well)
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 09-17-2010, 09:52 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

LegendKiller
 
1. Author in OP is a moron for making comparisons from 1929 to 1987 and saying intervention was the *only* thing that mattered. Really? You want to compare a program trading flashcrash to a merger/debt happy bubble? Really? Are you that fucking braindead?

2. Anybody who thinks libertopian "free market" economies will end up better than a mixed capitalist/socialist system is smoking crack. Aggregation of wealth will always continue and eventually lead to a lower class destitute and pissed, eventually leading to revolution. It is a natural evolution.

3. Ron Paul is a fucking moron. He thinks that if we ignore the rest of the world the rest of the world will be happy trading with us and won't ever try to take our "stuff". We aren't an island and cannot remain one forever.
Old 09-18-2010, 04:44 AM LegendKiller is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Which is why I said in an earlier post (that you either skipped or didn't bother to read) that some of the bases no longer make sense. And yeah, Germany and Japan have really suffered from the American "occupation" the past 70 years...if it weren't for that they would probably be modern, industrialized first world nations with strong economies. Oh wait..
You didn't get it. No, the bases do not make sense in the interest they were built for. Yes, they do serve other purposes.To pretend that interest is german or japanese doesn't make sense either.

Are you actually suggesting american occupation made these countries modern, industrialized and strong economies?


Quote:
Anyway, arguing with you is pointless because even if you know you're wrong (or don't fully know what you're talking about) you'll never in a million years admit it. That quote from me in no way, shape or form says that anyone should help with the U.S. defense budget or that others should increase their own....but you obviously put your own spin on it if you really believe it does. (and don't seem to get that allies ARE American interests, and it should be mutual as well)
Except you said the contrary and now don't like it. Not my fault you say stupid things.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 09-18-2010, 03:38 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuHo View Post
You didn't get it. No, the bases do not make sense in the interest they were built for. Yes, they do serve other purposes.To pretend that interest is german or japanese doesn't make sense either.

Are you actually suggesting american occupation made these countries modern, industrialized and strong economies?




Except you said the contrary and now don't like it. Not my fault you say stupid things.
I never said that the bases weren't for American interests...you're pulling shit out of your ass now. But you do realize that part of being on the losing side of the great war meant that those two countries can't have a big military buildup of their own..right? Do you really feel that those two countries (lost the war, destroyed infrastructure, isolated economies, occupied by foreign forces and loathed by most of world) would be where they are today if it weren't for the help of the U.S. and other European nations? Russia would have gladly gobbled up both Germany and Japan if allowed.. are you even aware that east and west Germany had a few small "differences".

As for the other part, I'll let you slide since your native tongue is something other than English. I don't think any native english speakers will translate what I said to 'I think other countries should help pay for the U.S. military budget or increase their own"...I was simply stating a fact of what would happen if my hypothetical (and very unlikely) scenario came true in reality. Btw..Finland in particular was never in my mind until you made it so..
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 09-18-2010, 03:54 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#65  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
I never said that the bases weren't for American interests...you're pulling shit out of your ass now. But you do realize that part of being on the losing side of the great war meant that those two countries can't have a big military buildup of their own..right? Do you really feel that those two countries (lost the war, destroyed infrastructure, isolated economies, occupied by foreign forces and loathed by most of world) would be where they are today if it weren't for the help of the U.S. and other European nations? Russia would have gladly gobbled up both Germany and Japan if allowed.. are you even aware that east and west Germany had a few small "differences".
No one has denied that either. Then again, some of you people think dropping 2 A-bombs was a utilitarian deed so fuck knows how delusional you people are. You're probably thinking western europe and the US saved germany from communism for sheer altruism? Once again, no one denied the importance of these military bases back then. If you want to keep patting yourself in the back for them that's just fine. Other than that, no.
Quote:
As for the other part, I'll let you slide since your native tongue is something other than English. I don't think any native english speakers will translate what I said to 'I think other countries should help pay for the U.S. military budget or increase their own"...I was simply stating a fact of what would happen if my hypothetical (and very unlikely) scenario came true in reality. Btw..Finland in particular was never in my mind until you made it so..
Except for the part where you start blabbering american interest being my interest (and thus the interest of finland).

"We could always announce to Canada, Western Europe and any number of backwater pissant countries we call "allies" that starting on X date they will be totally responsible for their own defense...and we wish them well in their endeavors. Doing this we could slash our denfense spending by more than half and have plenty of money to blow on bottomless pit social programs."
That's directly implying you use a significant portion of the military budget to do the work for other countries. It's not true. Slither around that all you like but don't do it at the expense of my english comprehension.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 09-18-2010, 04:06 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Wow....you're reading a lot of shit into my simple statement and bringing up things that have nothing to do with it at all...desperation much? I don't deny those bases are there to protect American interests and don't remember ever suggesting otherwise? As hard as it may be for you to comprehend, most Americans don't have a problem with that. Also, a big part of the defense budget IS based on being world police, but it isn't as simple as just one day deciding to stop all that. I'll give you another pass since you probably never even had the opportunity to sleep through an economics or polysci class...but modern capitalism means that there are no isolated economies that aren't dependent on other economies to be stable, and political unrest/violence etc..on the other side of the world has an effect on everyone that is a part of it. Of course, even if you do understand that..you won't admit it. And you also seem to have some deep seated American hate. (or possibly jealousy)
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 09-19-2010, 03:00 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
jesus fuck he is a dumb shit. And I bet he still wonders why he is named Strawman.

The two Germanys as you noted in a subdued manner is a perfect example of what a difference our post WW2 nation building resulted in.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 09-19-2010, 03:21 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Of course the left will keep their heads in the sand and continue to deny that government intervention rarely leads to anything positive.


Found the wiki article on this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

Got some good stuff in there..
Too bad this article is full of and revisionism. The US government did intervene in the economy pre 1900's. His commentary on the depression is a bunch of meaningless numbers game that give no actual analysis. Reagan did intervene massively in the economy in the form of corporate welfare, especially for the MIC, which greatly expanded under his administration and he raised tariffs on foreign (Japanese) cars to save American industry that was collapsing.

His thesis that we should just let the "free market" handle things and it will turn out for the best is directly contradicted by recent history. We let the free market handle manufacturings fate and what happened? The jobs disappeared and they aren't coming back. But I guess that's not too much of a problem for a "market analyst".

Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post
You might not be aware of this, about apparently Thomas Sowell (the author of the article) used to be a "marxist" and then changed later on in his life..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Biography


Love it...
So people fighting for decent pay get fucked over by capitalists and his analysis is that government is bad because people are desperate to keep a few of the decent paying jobs in an impoverished country? He sounds like a worm.
Old 09-19-2010, 04:48 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#69  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
I read an interesting article in the paper, the wall street journal paper, you might want to check it out...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...714069694.html

Quote:
Lost Decade for Family Income

By CONOR DOUGHERTY And SARA MURRAY

The downturn that some have dubbed the "Great Recession" has trimmed the typical household's income significantly, new Census data show, following years of stagnant wage growth that made the past decade the worst for American families in at least half a century.

The bureau's annual snapshot of American living standards also found that the fraction of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994. Some 43.6 million Americans were living below the official poverty threshold, but the measure doesn't fully capture the panoply of government antipoverty measures.

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.

"It's going to be a long, hard slog back to what most Americans think of as normalcy or prosperous times," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

The data, released Thursday, underscore the extent to which U.S. households relied on government benefits—and each other—to weather the recession and how living standards at the middle of the middle class have stalled. The report comes as the economy is at the center of a vigorous debate over how government policy can best help the poor and unemployed.

President Barack Obama, in a statement, said the report showed that because of stimulus spending, "millions of Americans were kept out of poverty last year." Republicans, meanwhile, saw the report in a different light.

"By any objective standard, the stimulus failed to deliver on the promised results," said a spokesman for Congress Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

The median household income fell 0.7% to $49,777 in 2009, down 4.2% since 2007, when the recession started, the Census Bureau said.

The bureau said that the drop in income in the recent recession, so far, wasn't much different from those recorded in the early 1990s and early 2000s recessions, and was actually smaller than the 6% drop recorded in the deep recession of the early 1980s.

But there is a difference this time: In the prior three recessions, incomes fell after years of upswing, then resumed growing once the downturn ended. The decline this time comes on top of a long period in which incomes stagnated even through the recovery of 2003 to 2007.

The decline in incomes cuts across age, race and class, with some exceptions. Hispanics and Asians saw small increases in their median incomes.

The recession has been particularly hard on young workers and young families, in part because they aren't eligible for as many government benefits as older workers. Younger workers have a harder time qualifying for unemployment benefits because they have a shorter work history.

That has prompted many young adults to move in with family, or put off leaving home in the first place. The number of 25-to-34-year-olds living with their parents rose 8.4% to 5.5 million in 2010 from 2008. Within that age group, 42.8% fell below the poverty threshold—$11,161 for an individual.

The report also showed a steep rise in child poverty, to 23.8% for kids under six in 2009, compared to 21.3% a year earlier.

The Census snapshot indicated that the gap between the best-off and worst-off Americans widened a bit more in 2009, a long-standing trend, but not by much. The top fifth of households accounted for 50.3% of all pre-tax income; the bottom two-fifths got 12%. In 1999, the top fifth claimed 49.4% and the bottom got 12.5% of the income.

Some Americans weathered the slump the old-fashioned way—by merging households. The Census Bureau noted a big jump in the number of individuals and families doubling up. The number of multifamily households jumped 11.6% from 2008 to 2010, while the total number of households rose 0.6%.

Carol Hanlon, 58, is struggling with the basics. She makes about $15,000 a year at her job packing boxes at a printing company. Her wages and hours were cut this year, and she is now supporting her unemployed husband, who is without health insurance because her company stopped offering health insurance for spouses.

"I got double whammied," says Ms. Hanlon, who lives in Easton, Penn., and is receiving food stamps and heating-oil assistance.

The oldest Americans endured last year better than their younger counterparts. Those 65 and above saw a substantial increase in real median income, up 5.8% for the group.

That is largely because the fortunes of older workers are tied more to Social Security checks than the job market. Without Social Security income, the report showed, some 14 million people eligible for benefits would have fallen below the poverty line.

The threshold for poverty in the U.S. in 2009 was a family of four earning $21,756. But this only takes into account monetary income, while omitting the many benefits that now form the backbone of the government efforts to lift the poor. Such programs include subsidized housing and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The poverty rate "misses most of the programs that have been added or expanded in the last 20 years to reduce poverty," says Bruce Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago.

For instance, the government estimates if the food stamp program was counted, it would have lifted 3.6 million people above the poverty threshold last year.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-19-2010, 08:25 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#70  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-20-2010, 06:53 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#71  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
His thesis that we should just let the "free market" handle things and it will turn out for the best is directly contradicted by recent history. We let the free market handle manufacturings fate and what happened? The jobs disappeared and they aren't coming back. But I guess that's not too much of a problem for a "market analyst".


So people fighting for decent pay get fucked over by capitalists and his analysis is that government is bad because people are desperate to keep a few of the decent paying jobs in an impoverished country? He sounds like a worm.
Oh, hell no... This sounds just like the chants from democrats about how the "free market" handled heath care so poorly that it was time the government stepped in. This is , simply because the government enabled a socialist idea around health care then said, "let the free market handle the rest". It's not a "free market" if the government is dictating minimum standards and who gets what, because when that happens, it distorts the market. The manufacturing jobs disappeared because people in the US don't want to spend $50,000 on a fucking corolla because of some corrupt unions in Detroit think their employees deserve more money. Free market is people buying what they want, it also means who gets hired at a given wage and who doesn't, but when you start fucking around with the numbers on one side of the table, things on the other side of the table also get fucked up thanks to them being interrelated. To give you an example, if you have two children and you give toys to both of them, alright this is fine.. But what if you start playing favorites (setting minimum standards, etc.), what exactly do you think the other child is going to think when they see this? They're going to start getting prissy and combative when you ask them to do something because they're mad you favored the other child, they don't feel they're equally being burdened with a given task.

The only thing I can see the government setting in a minimum standard is a general basic safety and other OSHA requirements that protect the individual from pollutants and chemicals that are known to kill or severely injure. But to start intervening and saying "this is how much you should get paid, this is the minimum quality of life you should have" then that results in a distortion in the market's way of valuing labor. Think about it, you have two people, one making $10 an hour and another making $20 an hour. As an FYI, $10 an hour is the minimum wage.. The person making $10 an hour needs to shovel dirt and the person making $20 an hour is an electrician.. You need the job of shoveling dirt to get done but, thanks to minimum wage, you have to pay someone $10 an hour to do it. Now, tell me, do you really think that being an electrician or automobile technician, in this scenario is really worth only double the value of a guy who shovels dirt? I don't think so.. Since this is a job that can't be sent overseas, it gets done by illegal aliens for less than minimum wage, but otherwise is done at minimum wage. So thanks to minimum wage, the market is already distorted.. I know this scenario sounds awesome for those on the bottom rung, that they're given a minimum standard of living but it fucks it up for everyone else because in effect what happens is the most worthless "work" is paid at a rate very close to work that is several times more valuable.. If you can't see what the problem with this, let me help you.. The people who don't work or who work jobs that serve little value get to ride the backs of those who not only work hard, but their labor is actually valuable. If there is no government welfare for those who are unemployed, then what you have is a bunch of unemployed people wandering around, but if there is govt. welfare, then what you have are a bunch of people sitting pretty while collecting a paycheck, simply because they exist! In order to pay for this paycheck, what do you think happens..? That's right, they get to ride on the backs of those who actually work..

That's what it all comes down to.. If you create so many rules that it's impossible to make it worthwhile to hire a person, then that person is not hired and when you couple that with a welfare state, what you end up with is a fucking mess because now half of the population is doing nothing while collecting money off of those who actually do useful things, then they figure it out that it's not worth it to work and finally everything collapses since nobody is working anymore yet everyone is collecting a paycheck..
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?
Old 09-20-2010, 09:02 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#72  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
How Right-Wing Billionaires and Business Propaganda Got Us into the Economic Mess of the Century

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1481...y/?page=entire
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-21-2010, 01:36 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#73  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
How Left-Wing Progressives and Government Propaganda Got Us into the Economic Mess of the Century

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1481...y/?page=entire

Just replace Right wing with left wing and business with government and I'll agree with the whole thing.. The article is purely conjecture and offers nothing, that article could be written about the left-wing progressives and it would make just as much sense. The problem with left wing progressives who like a central authority (government) is that they think they somehow can do a better job than the very businesses they're fighting, unfortunately they're wrong. They see insurance companies like they're evil when in fact they're like animals, out to survive.. Just because an insurance company makes a few billion dollars, it doesn't mean they're "rolling in dough" when you consider the fact that they insure almost hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets and people. This people think they're evil because they don't want to pay several million dollars to fix a retard baby, neither do I! Why? Because every asshole thinks they're the center of the universe and deserves the best but they're not.. The government put in the same position would do the exact same thing because that's the only thing that can be done. It's not economical to spend several million dollars on every patient that "needs it" because there isn't enough money coming in to go out. People who advocate dismantling of these companies and replacing it with government don't seem to understand that not only will the government be just as "cruel" and "indifferent" but it'll never go away BECAUSE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT. To overthrow or destroy the government would destroy the country and when you have a large, cumbersome, government, it's more likely to fail at every task and burn through money like it's nothing. Since it doesn't care about the money it spends, corruption because rampant. The whole system will fall apart even if there are good people in it because of all the bad people.. The difference with the private sector however is that when this same thing happens, the country doesn't fall apart, despite what they tell you. Things just keep moving right along and pickup where they left off.

I have no faith in people to do the right thing unless they perceive it to be in their best interest. In order to take advantage of this and bring out the good in people while punishing them for doing the bad, you have to have a system that encourages that, usually it's called capitalism. Just because I advocate capitalism, doesn't mean the government can't play a very small role, like setting a few rules. When you play a sport, there are rules, but for the most part you can do what ever you want in the game to win.. The problem our government has now is that it sets too many rules and then trys to take it a step further by basically imposing a penalty for "winning by too many points" which totally defeats the purpose of the game..


Equal opportunity is better than equal outcome.. Equal outcome=crab mentality..
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?

Last edited by imzjustplayin; 09-21-2010 at 02:37 PM..
Old 09-21-2010, 02:27 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#74  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
jesus fuck he is a dumb shit. And I bet he still wonders why he is named Strawman.

The two Germanys as you noted in a subdued manner is a perfect example of what a difference our post WW2 nation building resulted in.

Except no one denied what happened in the 40's, I guess you suffer too much atrophy in the brain to read and comprehend
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 09-21-2010, 08:45 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#75  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.