Tales from some interviews
-
@C-Octothorpe said:
@Gurth said:
Heh … at my so-called "job" (no, I'm not a professional programmer) I get the impression more people use drugs than don't, and they seem to sneak outside to smoke joints just short of all the time … This afternoon someone even rolled one about a meter away from me while I was sitting at my desk.
If I were the employer, I would sack them in a heartbeat. If they're on the clock, then I am paying them for their time, and I certainly wouldn't be happy paying someone to get inebriated... I don't care what a person does at home or at the petting zoo (don't judge me!), but as soon as they do it at work or it negatively affects their work (stealing, lying, poor performance, illegal), then they're gone.
I didn't say nobody ever got kicked out for doing this, but since the place I spend my days at is essentially a modern-day [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse]workhouse[/url] for people who are on government benefits and/or sentenced to community service, firing them is somewhat more complicated. This, and the rather lax attitude of the actual employees, who seem to spend most of their time in their office doing whatever little it is they do, means it very frequently either goes unnoticed, or someone turns a blind eye …@Master Chief said:
You assume that I think Europe, the continent with more nations in bankruptcy than not, is a good society to model one's own after.
I was not assuming anything about what you think — I was just pointing out that IMHO, mandatory drug testing would not be easy to implement on this side of the Atlantic for a variety of reasons.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I think this is an east coast vs. west coast thing. And, per usual, the east coast comes out looking like the documentary Escape from New York.
I've had jobs with pre-employment drug tests on each coast. And vice versa. The jobs that didn't require testing were mostly, but not all, for smaller companies.
Obviously, government contracting brings a ton of regulations with it, often including drug tests. And it could be viewed as a competitive advantage when pursuing contracts in general. If you want to talk about workplace hostility, then you can't ignore unionization. One of the places where I had to get a drug test was unionized. It would not surprise me one bit if the company used drug testing as a way to fight back against union stupidity. As already mentioned, state regulations (I assume that's why the insurance companies all want it) can also have a big impact.
-
1) It's illegal for a US citizen to use controlled substances, even outside the US.
Can you provide a cite for this? Assuming the substance in question is not illegal in the location where it is used, what part of US law prohibits a US citizen from using it in that location?
-
You should try reading a bit further down in the thread
http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/25686/279957.aspx#279957
-
@jes said:
- It's illegal for a US citizen to use controlled substances, even outside the US.
Can you provide a cite for this? Assuming the substance in question is not illegal in the location where it is used, what part of US law prohibits a US citizen from using it in that location?
I've heard law enforcement types claim this. I suspect that they may be right. Being a US citizen subjects you to the jurisdiction of the US, whether or not you're physically there. Some statutes may specify something about the location of the crime, but I'm sure that if you, say, killed a federal employee anywhere in the world, the federal government would attempt to prosecute you.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably an open question, legally, unless someone knows of some court precedent. And given the state of the modern judiciary, I wouldn't necessarily feel safe interpreting plain statutory language, either.
-
@Master Chief said:
I'm assuming you're in the U.S. If so, it's probably not a good idea to gloat about who's in bankruptcy. We could be in the same position in a couple of years.@Gurth said:
I feel the need to point out that if you tried to enforce that in Europe, you would probably face pretty strong objections to it.
You assume that I think Europe, the continent with more nations in bankruptcy than not, is a good society to model one's own after.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Careful, read his Terms of Use before wielding cluebats! He is probably just pretending to be making an unsupported point, to be funny. Or ... something.@blakeyrat said:
I think this is an east coast vs. west coast thing.
Your BS meter isn't going off right about now? You don't listen to yourself and think "I've got nothing to back up my position. I have no reason to think this is the case except my own anecdotal evidence."? 86% seems like "an east cost vs. west coast thing"? Geez, blakey, hit yourself with the cluebat.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Master Chief said:
I'm assuming you're in the U.S. If so, it's probably not a good idea to gloat about who's in bankruptcy. We could be in the same position in a couple of years.@Gurth said:
I feel the need to point out that if you tried to enforce that in Europe, you would probably face pretty strong objections to it.
You assume that I think Europe, the continent with more nations in bankruptcy than not, is a good society to model one's own after.
Hear hear. With the debt the United States are in, the level of unemployment (and was it 15% of people under the poverty line?), I think it's a pot vs kettle type deal. I'm not saying things are fine and dandy economically here in Europe, but personally I don't know of any country around here that's bankrupt. Care to name one, Master Chief?
-
@toon said:
Hear hear. With the debt the United States are in, the level of unemployment (and was it 15% of people under the poverty line?), I think it's a pot vs kettle type deal. I'm not saying things are fine and dandy economically here in Europe, but personally I don't know of any country around here that's bankrupt. Care to name one, Master Chief?
Frankly, the only reason the shit hasn't hit the fan yet in the US is that we're in slightly better shape than Europe despite our best efforts to race them to the bottom, and the US is still the safest place to put your capital, which is pretty scary.
I wouldn't put much stock in measures of poverty, given that they currently include people who own cars and iPhones. The decline in labor force participation is much more worrisome, and is masking just how bad unemployment really is.
-
@boomzilla said:
The decline in labor force participation is much more worrisome, and is masking just how bad unemployment really is.
That effect will get worse if a Republican takes office, judging by the 'job creator' rhetoric I keep hearing over there. It seems to be focusing on quantity over quality. At one point, people were seriously suggesting getting rid of minimum wage, because that would create jobs. I'm no economist, but if your job pays a buck an hour I'm pretty sure that defeats the purpose of creating jobs in the first place (having people spend money).
-
@token_woman said:
@Sutherlands said:
I already came to the conclusion that he was ninjaing in a troll comment, and by the look of the discussion that ensued, I think he was rather successful.
Careful, read his Terms of Use before wielding cluebats! He is probably just pretending to be making an unsupported point, to be funny. Or ... something.@blakeyrat said:
I think this is an east coast vs. west coast thing.
Your BS meter isn't going off right about now? You don't listen to yourself and think "I've got nothing to back up my position. I have no reason to think this is the case except my own anecdotal evidence."? 86% seems like "an east cost vs. west coast thing"? Geez, blakey, hit yourself with the cluebat.
-
@toon said:
@boomzilla said:
The decline in labor force participation is much more worrisome, and is masking just how bad unemployment really is.
That effect will get worse if a Republican takes office, judging by the 'job creator' rhetoric I keep hearing over there. It seems to be focusing on quantity over quality. At one point, people were seriously suggesting getting rid of minimum wage, because that would create jobs. I'm no economist, but if your job pays a buck an hour I'm pretty sure that defeats the purpose of creating jobs in the first place (having people spend money).
Not sure if trolling or just economically illiterate. Firstly, no one is going to get rid of the minimum wage, regardless of its racist effects (yes, look into its history, and consider who is kept out of the labor force because of it).
I'm not sure if you really believe that we're all better off with a transfer payments instead of low paying jobs, but there's a difference between simply "spending money" and the benefits of someone creating value through a job. The money has to come from somewhere, and the government has to either tax, borrow or print it. Each of those has effects beyond the spending of that money, and none is a perpetual motion machine of economic prosperity.
-
@boomzilla said:
@toon said:
@boomzilla said:
The decline in labor force participation is much more worrisome, and is masking just how bad unemployment really is.
That effect will get worse if a Republican takes office, judging by the 'job creator' rhetoric I keep hearing over there. It seems to be focusing on quantity over quality. At one point, people were seriously suggesting getting rid of minimum wage, because that would create jobs. I'm no economist, but if your job pays a buck an hour I'm pretty sure that defeats the purpose of creating jobs in the first place (having people spend money).
Not sure if trolling or just economically illiterate. Firstly, no one is going to get rid of the minimum wage, regardless of its racist effects (yes, look into its history, and consider who is kept out of the labor force because of it).
I'm not sure if you really believe that we're all better off with a transfer payments instead of low paying jobs, but there's a difference between simply "spending money" and the benefits of someone creating value through a job. The money has to come from somewhere, and the government has to either tax, borrow or print it. Each of those has effects beyond the spending of that money, and none is a perpetual motion machine of economic prosperity.
I am not trying to troll here (also I have actually indicated being economically illiterate). I'm not making this up either: GOP members have actually suggested getting rid of minimum wage. I'm not saying they're going to be able to get it through Congress, but I am saying I'm pretty sure they'd like to try. I'll have to look up who it was that suggested it. As for its racist effects: are you suggesting that minimum wage is a form of redlining, or am I missing something (can't look the history up right now)?
-
@toon said:
I am not trying to troll here (also I have actually indicated being economically illiterate). I'm not making this up either: GOP members have actually suggested getting rid of minimum wage. I'm not saying they're going to be able to get it through Congress, but I am saying I'm pretty sure they'd like to try. I'll have to look up who it was that suggested it. As for its racist effects: are you suggesting that minimum wage is a form of redlining, or am I missing something (can't look the history up right now)?
A big reason for implementing minimum wage was to keep blacks out of the labor force. This was also a motivation for legislation regarding private sector unions.
Suppose that you have a very simple task that does not require much skill. The sort of worker who fits this is likely someone just entering the labor force and probably has minimal education. It's possible that you could find someone who matches this, and agree upon a wage that fits your budget and for which they are willing to work for. You're happy, because you found someone to do something necessary, and the new hire is happy because he's found something that he can do, and can make some money.
Enter the minimum wage. Suppose that the agreeable wage is below the minimum. It probably no longer makes sense for you to hire that person. You're more likely to hire someone with greater qualifications, since you can get more value from their labor, and therefore avoid overpaying. Longer term, the original person has now been shut out of the labor force, because it's just not worth it to hire him. This prevents him from establishing a work history, which can make him a lesser risk for someone else to hire him in addition to the possibility of picking up new skills while on the job, thereby making his labor more valuable to potential employers.
No one claims that working at (or below) the current minimum wage is enough to buy a house, etc, but I'd say it's better to get those folks into the work force than to keep them out. Note that other mandated costs, like health insurance, also raise the cost of employing a person, making the lesser skilled / educated hire an even worse value.
-
@toon said:
Care to name one, Master Chief?
Well, Greece, obviously. And I think Spain's not doing to dandy.
Aaaand.. that's it, I think.
-
@dhromed said:
@toon said:
Care to name one, Master Chief?
Well, Greece, obviously. And I think Spain's not doing to dandy.
Aaaand.. that's it, I think.
If you'd said Iceland, maybe I'd agree (not sure if they're actually bankrupt). But AFAIK Greece and Spain aren't bankrupt at all, just very much in debt. Again, I'm not saying everything's fine and dandy, but bankrupt, no. FYI I believe Portugal and Ireland aren't so hot either...
-
@dhromed said:
@toon said:
Care to name one, Master Chief?
Well, Greece, obviously. And I think Spain's not doing to dandy.
Aaaand.. that's it, I think.
Ireland, Italy and Portugal are all flirting with disaster, too. Put 'em all together, and you get the PIIGS (at least in English) as they are commonly called. Of course, due to the Eurozone, the implications are a lot bigger than just those countries. Obviously, just because you're not in immediate danger of bankruptcy, does not mean you're in good shape.
-
@boomzilla said:
Suppose
Your story presupposes a world in which everybody enjoys doing honest business and making the best deals, whether it's a salesman making a sale, or a potential worker offering his work and skill for a certain price, and everybody knows everything and nobody has to be afraid of being ripped off.
This is not reality. The invisible hand of the economy does not exist.
In reality, people want jobs for money so they can live, and businesses want to maximise profits.
In reality, minimum wage intends to prevent bullshit microwages and employee exploitation. It does this very effectively.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that with the current state of national wealth/prosperity, minimum wage is too high? That is something I can't determine without having all the data, which I don't. Lowering it might be a good idea, or it might not.
It comes down to a chicken/egg situation. An already prosperous economy has no trouble coughing up minimum wage, as it's peanuts. Getting rid of it is a bad idea because it removes a very basic level of employee protection. You'd turn into east-Germany in a single term. Egads.
-
@boomzilla said:
Ireland, Italy and Portugal are all flirting with disaster, too. Put 'em all together, and you get the PIIGS (at least in English) as they are commonly called.
I supppose I should keep up with this stuff better.
-
@dhromed said:
Does it? In-N-Out (burgers) pays employees $10/hr to start. I have a feeling they wouldn't start paying less than minimum wage if it went away. If there was no minimum wage, it seems like anyone offering $1/hr for a job wouldn't get any takers, as it would cost more to get to the job possibly. That and there might be some new businesses crop up that hire people at $5/hr. I feel like Supply and Demand would keep the wages from dropping too much, but I'm also not an economist, so *shrug*.@boomzilla said:
Suppose
Your story presupposes a world in which everybody enjoys doing honest business and making the best deals, whether it's a salesman making a sale, or a potential worker offering his work and skill for a certain price, and everybody knows everything and nobody has to be afraid of being ripped off.
This is not reality. The invisible hand of the economy does not exist.
In reality, people want jobs for money so they can live, and businesses want to maximise profits.
In reality, minimum wage intends to prevent bullshit microwages and employee exploitation. It does this very effectively.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that with the current state of national wealth/prosperity, minimum wage is too high? That is something I can't determine without having all the data, which I don't. Lowering it might be a good idea, or it might not.
It comes down to a chicken/egg situation. An already prosperous economy has no trouble coughing up minimum wage, as it's peanuts. Getting rid of it is a bad idea because it removes a very basic level of employee protection. You'd turn into east-Germany in a single term. Egads.
-
@Master Chief said:
Just like alcohol, or cocaine, or whatever your vice of choice, it's all the same crap peddled to the same group of pathetic people.
Let me guess, you get high on life and a sense of superiority?
What kind of jerk not only doesn't like having fun, but disparages others for having fun? Life is temporary; most of what you do is of little lasting consequence. Enjoy what you can, and leave others alone.
-
@frits said:
I'll drink occasionally, but I'll admit I do look down on people who constantly get drunk or high and/or people who do those things and then put others at risk. It also seems as though there's very few people who get high *occasionally*. (But that could just be my perception)@Master Chief said:
Just like alcohol, or cocaine, or whatever your vice of choice, it's all the same crap peddled to the same group of pathetic people.
Let me guess, you get high on life and a sense of superiority?
What kind of jerk not only doesn't like having fun, but disparages others for having fun? Life is temporary; most of what you do is of little lasting consequence. Enjoy what you can, and leave others alone.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
Suppose
Your story presupposes a world in which everybody enjoys doing honest business and making the best deals, whether it's a salesman making a sale, or a potential worker offering his work and skill for a certain price, and everybody knows everything and nobody has to be afraid of being ripped off.
This is not reality. The invisible hand of the economy does not exist.
I agree that my story was simplified and idealized. The invisible hand of the economy certainly does exist, though none of us are the ideal rational actors, and the market is not perfectly efficient. But if you really think this, how do you explain all of the occupations that pay so much above minimum wage? Why don't the greedy businessmen just pay all of us less and increase their profits?
@dhromed said:In reality, minimum wage intends to prevent bullshit microwages and employee exploitation. It does this very effectively.
Perhaps, and certainly the first order effects are to raise the wages of others. But that ignores the other unseen effects that the minimum wage also causes, because it also prevents employment in the first place. I think it's not unreasonable to decide that a particular minimum wage strikes a good balance, but it's stupid to ignore the cons of a minimum wage. And if a minimum wage is so great, why is it so low? Why not change it from $8/hr (or whatever it currently is) to $50/hr? If you can't come up with an argument against this, then you should go back to Nagesh's thread where he wants to get rid of all the money to eradicate poverty, because that'll be right up your alley.
@dhromed said:
Perhaps you would like to suggest that with the current state of national wealth/prosperity, minimum wage is too high? That is something I can't determine without having all the data, which I don't. Lowering it might be a good idea, or it might not.
I certainly don't claim to know the sum of effects of changing (which includes eliminating) the minimum wage. I do know that few jobs actually pay the minimum wage. The illegal immigrants down at the home improvement store generally do a lot better than minimum wage (and those are certainly happening outside of any laws!). I do know that there are trade offs and costs to the supposed benefits of a minimum wage, and I judge that the costs outweigh the benefits.
I'm curious as to how you think removing limitations from economic activity would create the same situation as a country with a lot more limitations in place.
-
@Sutherlands said:
I'll drink occasionally, but I'll admit I do look down on people who constantly get drunk or high and/or people who do those things and then put others at risk. It also seems as though there's very few people who get high *occasionally*. (But that could just be my perception)
I actually don't get high and rarely drink*. However, I think looking down on recreational users is just snobbish.
Doing things that put others at risk is a different discussion.
-
Changing the topic slightly, there's something that's been puzzling me about US politics. It appears to me that people have been desperate to vote Republican for quite a while now - hence Bush - but that the Republicans insist on choosing unelectable candidates - hence Obama.
Not suggesting other places are perfect, but it seems the US is going particularly barmy at the moment. Romney? Is he really the best the Republicans can do? His competition is Ron Paul and the poopy lube man. Is there really not a normal, moderate, civilised conservative to elect?
-
@fterfi secure said:
It appears to me that people have been desperate to vote Republican for quite a while now - hence Bush - but that the Republicans insist on choosing unelectable candidates - hence Obama.
The GOP has a long history of being the "stupid party".
@fterfi secure said:
Is there really not a normal, moderate, civilised conservative to elect?
No. Good people do not go into politics. Unethical dipshits all the way down.
-
@fterfi secure said:
Changing the topic slightly, there's something that's been puzzling me about US politics. It appears to me that people have been desperate to vote Republican for quite a while now - hence Bush - but that the Republicans insist on choosing unelectable candidates - hence Obama.
Yes, but then again, the Democrats picked John Kerry in 2004. Or Dukakis in 1988. Both parties end up choosing dumb candidates from time to time.
@fterfi secure said:
Not suggesting other places are perfect, but it seems the US is going particularly barmy at the moment. Romney? Is he really the best the Republicans can do? His competition is Ron Paul and the poopy lube man. Is there really not a normal, moderate, civilised conservative to elect?
I think we have different definitions of, "moderate, civilized conservative." Both Romney and Santorum are more liberal than I'd like. Ron Paul, while excellent on economic issues, is frankly insane with respect to foreign policy. All three of those would be preferable to Obama, though.
Also, morbs is right about the sorts who go into politics. Sadly, over the years, they've largely overcome all of the obstacles to over governance that were put into the Constitution.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
I think I can explain this. The two parties in the US are not enemies, they are rivals. They have a common agenda, which is bigger and more powerful government (despite anything the Republicans may say about the subject). Neither party can be a clear winner because then the public might figure out what's going on and demand a real alternative. Since both parties are therefore full of it, each party's backers looks the other way when their own party does something stupid. For example, rank-and-file Democrats would be in the streets if a Republican President gave the TSA the powers it has now. On the other hand Republicans would have been on the war path if Gore had won and presided over W's budget deficits. By having the two parties take turns in power, all of the stupid stuff gets done, it just takes a bit longer.
I think we have different definitions of, "moderate, civilized conservative." Both Romney and Santorum are more liberal than I'd like. Ron Paul, while excellent on economic issues, is frankly insane with respect to foreign policy. All three of those would be preferable to Obama, though.
What do you think is insane about Ron Paul's foreign policy? And why do you think it's more insane than the other politicians' dismantling of the Constitution and the rule of law?Also, morbs is right about the sorts who go into politics. Sadly, over the years, they've largely overcome all of the obstacles to over governance that were put into the Constitution.
-
@Anketam said:
In the US with the exception of minimum wage jobs you can expect after the Interview if it goes well to be required to get a drug test. I did not realize that Europe was not like that. Then again not too long ago I figure Europe used resumes and not CVs.
To EncoreSpod: Drink a large glass of water before you go to sleep it should prevent you from getting a hangover.
Ummm, i think you have that backwards, employers in the US generally don't drug test professionals, with the exeception of many miminum wage (or lower paying) jobs. When i was in college and trying to get any job, gotta eat etc., about half the crappy jobs had drug testing language on their application. Never once have i heard anything about drug testing in any proffesional position i took or applied for. But that could just be california.
There is another execption for government jobs, i think there was a regan era law that requires random drug testing for many government jobs.
California tried to pass a law protecting medical marijuana patients/users from employment descrimination. It didn't pass, but there is a ballot measure circulating w/similar language. There is also another recreational use measure circulating as well.
large quantities of water before sleep may prevent a hangover, but large quanties of gatorade work even better.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
What do you think is insane about Ron Paul's foreign policy? And why do you think it's more insane than the other politicians' dismantling of the Constitution and the rule of law?
He's said things to the effect of, "If we just leave [people X] alone, they will leave us alone and won't be a problem." In a perfect world of nice people, this would certainly be true. Perhaps Rep. Paul will let us all come visit some time.
In fact, Paul's respect for the Constitution and the rule of law was a big part of why I said I liked certain things about him. It's important to note that the Constitution is mostly concerned about what the government does to people inside the US, and gives it pretty wide latitude to deal swiftly and violently in foreign parts (here is the part where you imagine that I believe that past and current Presidents have always acted within those wide boundaries).
-
@boomzilla said:
Both Romney and Santorum are more liberal than I'd like.
Are you smoking crack, or some kind of weird Nazi? Romney is hardly liberal, and Santorum believes in an extremist satanic sect which advocates burning gay people - literally, although he hasn't actually put that forwards as a policy suggestion yet. Fuck, I have nothing against Mormons per se, but Romney is hardly a good Christian. But with Romney my complaint is more just that he's obviously unelectable, and yet he's by a wide margin the most electable candidate the Republicans have to pick from.@boomzilla said:
the Democrats picked John Kerry in 2004. Or Dukakis in 1988. Both parties end up choosing dumb candidates from time to time.
Yes, but normally there's a better choice (although not sure why you included Kerry - he was very electable). In this case, Romney is leading because he is the least-worst candidate, but they might as well not bother with a presidential election if he's Obama's opposition.@boomzilla said:
All three of those would be preferable to Obama, though.
No, really not true. Possibly true of Romney, although I have extreme doubts that he's any different from Obama, but Santorum and Ron Paul would both be disasters comparable to electing Hitler. Ron Paul has no chance, so that's fine, but the small but realistic prospect of Santorum getting elected is deeply worrying. He's an odd combination of uncivilised and psycho - which, when you think about it, is a pretty good description of Hitler as well. I, too, think that Obama is a problem, which is why I'm curious about the Republicans. All they have to do is put up someone who doesn't say anything and they're guaranteed to win, but instead they seem to be working hard to find the one person who won't beat Obama.
-
@boomzilla said:
In fact, Paul's respect for the Constitution and the rule of law was a big part of why I said I liked certain things about him.
Paul's just a whacko. You can discount him entirely. He's marginally more sane than the Unabomber, but only marginally. He says lots of things which sound good, but in fact when you look at his policies in any detail he makes no more sense than that drunk bloke at the end of the bar just before closing time. Maybe less, come to think of it.And yet, he's a credible choice compared to the other options...
-
@esoterik said:
Ummm, i think you have that backwards, employers in the US generally don't drug test professionals
Nope, pretty sure you have it backwards. If you actually read the thread, 83% of employers require drug tests. Why do people keep spouting the same wrong crap? Are you trying to turn me into blakeyrat? (Then I suppose I would have to start spouting the wrong crap and the cycle would continue)@boomzilla said:
More like "The people we're in wars with don't even know why we're bombing them. The wars are costing us money. We don't need to be the policemen of the world. We should only be worried if someone is actually trying to harm us in some way." I think that makes pretty good sense.He's said things to the effect of, "If we just leave [people X] alone, they will leave us alone and won't be a problem." In a perfect world of nice people, this would certainly be true. Perhaps Rep. Paul will let us all come visit some time.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@esoterik said:
Ummm, i think you have that backwards, employers in the US generally don't drug test professionals
Nope, pretty sure you have it backwards. If you actually read the thread, 83% of employers require drug tests. Why do people keep spouting the same wrong crap? Are you trying to turn me into blakeyrat? (Then I suppose I would have to start spouting the wrong crap and the cycle would continue)I don't believe that statistic. Ample, ample (admittedly anecdotal) evidence tells me it is wrong.
@Sutherlands said:
The people we're in wars with don't even know why we're bombing them.
They know goddamn well why we're bombing them--they stole our conch.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@boomzilla said:
Both Romney and Santorum are more liberal than I'd like.
Are you smoking crack, or some kind of weird Nazi? Romney is hardly liberal, and Santorum believes in an extremist satanic sect which advocates burning gay people - literally, although he hasn't actually put that forwards as a policy suggestion yet. Fuck, I have nothing against Mormons per se, but Romney is hardly a good Christian. But with Romney my complaint is more just that he's obviously unelectable, and yet he's by a wide margin the most electable candidate the Republicans have to pick from.Do you have a newsletter, BTW? This ranks near the top of uninformed posts on the forum, and that's a pretty high bar to clear.
@fterfi secure said:
Possibly true of Romney, although I have extreme doubts that he's any different from Obama, but Santorum and Ron Paul would both be disasters comparable to electing Hitler.
Keep going, you're on a roll! I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for. Likening Santorum to Hitler is a spectacular display of ignorance of both history and current events. Well done.
@fterfi secure said:
All they have to do is put up someone who doesn't say anything and they're guaranteed to win, but instead they seem to be working hard to find the one person who won't beat Obama.
Obama has a lot of things going against him, but also a lot going for him, electorally. I can plausibly see either of Romney or Santorum beating him. I don't think there's any particular person who would be guaranteed to beat Obama.
-
@Sutherlands said:
More like "The people we're in wars with don't even know why we're bombing them. The wars are costing us money. We don't need to be the policemen of the world. We should only be worried if someone is actually trying to harm us in some way." I think that makes pretty good sense.
His actual views are more like 'I hate niggers and sand niggers as much as the next neo-Nazi, but these inferior races present no threat to us'. If you don't buy into his racist nonsense, then it's obvious that in fact he's living in la-la land.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@boomzilla said:
He's said things to the effect of, "If we just leave [people X] alone, they will leave us alone and won't be a problem." In a perfect world of nice people, this would certainly be true. Perhaps Rep. Paul will let us all come visit some time.
More like "The people we're in wars with don't even know why we're bombing them. The wars are costing us money. We don't need to be the policemen of the world. We should only be worried if someone is actually trying to harm us in some way." I think that makes pretty good sense.Yes, he's said that, too, and so did George W Bush during his first Presidential campaign (oops). And I agree that there's a lot of sense there, but I don't think it's as simple as all that. As to my statement, I was thinking particularly about things he's said about 9/11 and a future Iranian nuke.
-
@boomzilla said:
Keep going, you're on a roll! I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for. Likening Santorum to Hitler is a spectacular display of ignorance of both history and current events.
I didn't liken their politics to Hitler, but rather Santorum's personality. Ron Paul's just a nutter, and they're ten-a-penny in politics. Santorum is a dangerous, credible, rhetorically skilled nutter, just like Hitler was. I genuinely fear that he will institute a new holocaust of some kind if he comes to power. But, then again, he has no real chance of even winning the Republican nomination, let alone beating Obama. No man can become president of the US whilst the first page of google hits for his name reference buttsex.But make no mistake. Santorum wants to bring in a religious fundamentalist dictatorship just like they have in Iran, so he can 'cure' the Jews, the Mormons, the Catholics, the Protestants, and the gays. Hence why I snorted fluids on my keyboard when I read you calling him overly liberal. I genuinely cannot imagine what political position you might take which makes that your view.
@boomzilla said:
Obama has [...] a lot going for him, electorally.
Well, at least three things. Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Santorum. Have you ever heard of the Labour Party manifesto in this country which became known as 'the longest suicide note in history'? At a time when the UK was desperate to vote against Thatcher, they made themselves entirely unelectable by pandering to a tiny minority of vocal extremists. See any parallels?
-
@boomzilla said:
I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for.
Oh, and I missed a bit. You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.This is the bit I'm finding so weird. He's almost as electable as any of the other Republican candidates, but in fact he's a fucking Nazi. Literally. Not some modern abuse of 'fascism' to describe anything you don't like, but a Hitler-worshipper. What the fuck is wrong with the Republicans at the moment? Newt fucking Gingrich - and again, no man named after an amphibian will become president, ever - Mitt Romney, who is hardly a popular choice even with Republicans, a religious extremist, and a neo-Nazi. Are they really the best choices the Republicans had? Fuck me, Herman Caine was better. Fuck, when it comes down to it, as much as I despise the way he has no principles apart from enhancing his own popularity and power, Obama is still better than these fucks.
Seriously, we had plenty much of Blair in this country, and people were desperate to vote against him, so the Tories and Lib Dems offered up bland candidates and won. Why are the Republicans not doing the same?
-
@boomzilla said:
But if you really think this, how do you explain all of the occupations that pay so much above minimum wage? Why don't the greedy businessmen just pay all of us less and increase their profits?
Ah, but I don't paint all businessmen as greedy bastards. This is why I don't advocate a really high minimum wage, and I agree that the exclusion-effect you describe is real. I take issue with the strange black-n-white idea that something that works should be abandoned altogether.
Obviously if you make minimum very high, no company would be able to pay for workers and things go to shit.
If you drop it altogether, you have to rely on the ideal situation where workers are fully informed and have strong ambitions. Which isn't real. And then you get increasing amounts of people forced to do a job for which they don't get enough, but they can't just up and quit – because you can never just "up and quit".
@boomzilla said:
I think it's not unreasonable to decide that a particular minimum wage strikes a good balance, but it's stupid to ignore the cons of a minimum wage. And if a minimum wage is so great, why is it so low? Why not change it from $8/hr (or whatever it currently is) to $50/hr?
I have this hunch (but let's be charitable and call it a hypothesis) that for every given size of a nation's economy, there is an optimal minimum wage. It's a simplified idea, but it's a start.
It would be kind of like tweaking the interest rates and watching its effects on the balance between spending and saving.
-
@boomzilla said:
He's said things to the effect of, "If we just leave [people X] alone, they will leave us alone and won't be a problem." In a perfect world of nice people, this would certainly be true. Perhaps Rep. Paul will let us all come visit some time.
I don't see how that's any crazier than the other candidates on both sides, who seem to have a strategy of "let's take over the Middle East, one country at a time".
-
@fterfi secure said:
Santorum is a dangerous, credible, rhetorically skilled nutter, just like Hitler was. I genuinely fear that he will institute a new holocaust of some kind if he comes to power. But, then again, he has no real chance of even winning the Republican nomination, let alone beating Obama. No man can become president of the US whilst the first page of google hits for his name reference buttsex.
You have a fascinating perspective. I suspect that if he gets the nomination (and he definitely has a chance), the smear campaign against him will backfire, and it will be amusing to watch Dan Savage's head explode at helping Santorum get elected.
@fterfi secure said:
Santorum wants to bring in a religious fundamentalist dictatorship just like they have in Iran, so he can 'cure' the Jews, the Mormons, the Catholics, the Protestants, and the gays.
Where do you get your news? Are you getting drunk and high with that other guy right now?
@fterfi secure said:
Have you ever heard of the Labour Party manifesto in this country which became known as 'the longest suicide note in history'? At a time when the UK was desperate to vote against Thatcher, they made themselves entirely unelectable by pandering to a tiny minority of vocal extremists. See any parallels?
Not really, but I don't imagine Hitler jumping out at me from shadows, either.
@fterfi secure said:
You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.
I've seen some of the allegations and what-not. I haven't looked into them much because, uh, who really cares? He's the one with no chance of getting the nomination. My earlier statement still stands, that the only resemblance between him and Austrian born genocidal dictators is the past anti-semitism.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@boomzilla said:
You seem to be reducing Nazism to racism, which in my opinion trivializes it. There's a lot more wrong with Nazism than racism, but we seem to be implementing the rest of it, so those in power would probably prefer we don't realize that.I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for.
Oh, and I missed a bit. You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@fterfi secure said:
@boomzilla said:
You seem to be reducing Nazism to racism, which in my opinion trivializes it. There's a lot more wrong with Nazism than racism, but we seem to be implementing the rest of it, so those in power would probably prefer we don't realize that.I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for.
Oh, and I missed a bit. You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.No, fterfi is right: Ron Paul supports all the other aspects of National Socialism, such as earmarks for his district. You do know about Hitler's fondness for pork, don't you?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@boomzilla said:
He's said things to the effect of, "If we just leave [people X] alone, they will leave us alone and won't be a problem." In a perfect world of nice people, this would certainly be true. Perhaps Rep. Paul will let us all come visit some time.
I don't see how that's any crazier than the other candidates on both sides, who seem to have a strategy of "let's take over the Middle East, one country at a time".I'll accept your premise for the sake of fun.
For one thing, taking over the entire middle east has a much higher probability of success. And would probably keep most of the violence over there, just like Iraq became a magnet for surplus young men willing to take jobs as bombs.
-
@boomzilla said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Selling shark repellent can be fun. By the way, any luck convincing dhromed he doesn't know anything about economics? I saw the "it works if you don't do it too much" argument about the minimum wage coming from a mile away.@boomzilla said:
He's said things to the effect of, "If we just leave [people X] alone, they will leave us alone and won't be a problem." In a perfect world of nice people, this would certainly be true. Perhaps Rep. Paul will let us all come visit some time.
I don't see how that's any crazier than the other candidates on both sides, who seem to have a strategy of "let's take over the Middle East, one country at a time".I'll accept your premise for the sake of fun.
For one thing, taking over the entire middle east has a much higher probability of success. And would probably keep most of the violence over there, just like Iraq became a magnet for surplus young men willing to take jobs as bombs.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
I find the argument of minimum wage quite funny since there are loop holes in the US that can bypass it, not to mention illegals who can work for less than minimum wage. An example of one loop hole is with salaried jobs. My mom works a full time job for a non profit organization, she works because she wants to and not for financial compensation, but they still pay her a small salary. If you break down that small salary into the hourly pay it comes out below minimum wage, but it is perfectly legal, because of how it is setup. So even though the minimum wage might be hurting our country businesses have already methods in place to deal with it (which I am not saying are necessarily legal).But if you really think this, how do you explain all of the occupations that pay so much above minimum wage? Why don't the greedy businessmen just pay all of us less and increase their profits?
Ah, but I don't paint all businessmen as greedy bastards. This is why I don't advocate a really high minimum wage, and I agree that the exclusion-effect you describe is real. I take issue with the strange black-n-white idea that something that works should be abandoned altogether.Obviously if you make minimum very high, no company would be able to pay for workers and things go to shit.
If you drop it altogether, you have to rely on the ideal situation where workers are fully informed and have strong ambitions. Which isn't real. And then you get increasing amounts of people forced to do a job for which they don't get enough, but they can't just up and quit – because you can never just "up and quit". @boomzilla said:
I think it's not unreasonable to decide that a particular minimum wage strikes a good balance, but it's stupid to ignore the cons of a minimum wage. And if a minimum wage is so great, why is it so low? Why not change it from $8/hr (or whatever it currently is) to $50/hr?
I have this hunch (but let's be charitable and call it a hypothesis) that for every given size of a nation's economy, there is an optimal minimum wage. It's a simplified idea, but it's a start.It would be kind of like tweaking the interest rates and watching its effects on the balance between spending and saving.
-
@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:
Are you serious? You think that calling that vile man out on his beliefs is a 'smear campaign'? Do you also believe that all gay people should be burned with the cleansing flame if you can't cure them?Santorum is a dangerous, credible, rhetorically skilled nutter, just like Hitler was. I genuinely fear that he will institute a new holocaust of some kind if he comes to power. But, then again, he has no real chance of even winning the Republican nomination, let alone beating Obama. No man can become president of the US whilst the first page of google hits for his name reference buttsex.
You have a fascinating perspective. I suspect that if he gets the nomination (and he definitely has a chance), the smear campaign against him will backfire, and it will be amusing to watch Dan Savage's head explode at helping Santorum get elected.
I'm not joking here. He's a religious fundamentalist who believes in burning people. This is his avowed belief. It's the church he belongs to. What part of this do you think makes him an acceptable choice?@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:
You've not read what I said. Santorum is the Hitler-clone, although not a Nazi. Ron Paul is just a bad neo-Nazi joke of a candidate. But don't make any mistake about it, he used to be (literally) a card-carrying neo-Nazi in his younger days. He was a Texas Nazi Party candidate or some such. No joke, that part.You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.
I've seen some of the allegations and what-not. I haven't looked into them much because, uh, who really cares? He's the one with no chance of getting the nomination.
Anyway, this is missing the whole point I'm making. It's not about Ron Paul, or Santorum, or Romney, or Gingrich. Ron Paul has always been a bad joke, Santorum is evil, Gingrich and Romney are nonentities, but none of that matters directly. It's about the fact that the other candidates are so weak that Ron Paul now looks like a reasonably credible choice in comparison. How can there not be a single candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election against the weakest incumbent since Ford?
I'm not here to bash anyone in particular - apart from Santorum, and you have to open your eyes and realise that he's a species of evil not seen in power since the thirties and forties (and we can only hope the US economy doesn't get so bad that he makes any headway) - so much as I'm completely baffled by what's going on. Generally I can come up with some kind of cohesive theory which explains why people have taken some strange route or other, but in this case I simply cannot comprehend what is driving the Republican party at the moment. They're not obsolete, they're extremely relevant, but they seem determined to sidetrack themselves into obscurity.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@fterfi secure said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:@boomzilla said:
You seem to be reducing Nazism to racism, which in my opinion trivializes it. There's a lot more wrong with Nazism than racism, but we seem to be implementing the rest of it, so those in power would probably prefer we don't realize that.I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for.
Oh, and I missed a bit. You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.@fterfi secure said:
No, I'm reducing neo-Nazism to joining a neo-Nazi party. And I'm not using some strange definition of Nazi when I say 'neo-Nazi party', either. I'm talking about the kind with swastikas.@boomzilla said:
You seem to be reducing Nazism to racism, which in my opinion trivializes it. There's a lot more wrong with Nazism than racism, but we seem to be implementing the rest of it, so those in power would probably prefer we don't realize that.I guess at least Ron Paul has those anti-semitism issues, but he's pretty much diametrically opposite of anything else Hitler ever did or stood for.
Oh, and I missed a bit. You are aware that Ron Paul started off as an actual card-carrying, Nazi-saluting, swastika-wearing neo-Nazi, right? He's a racist fuck, without a shadow of a doubt.
For all that an assertion made by someone on the internet is entirely worthless other than that they put some effort into typing it, I'll still assert that I don't conflate the two. I call racists racist, and neo-Nazis neo-Nazis. Ron Paul is mainly just completely loony, though.
