Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Arizona Telephone Directory - Illegal Business Operations

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Valhallen » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:34 am

BeeAre wrote:there are what? like less than 1000 TRULY rich people in the world, and most of them yeah consistently engage in a lot of terrible things, but it is hard to pin down a lot of them as evil, you know i also believe that too. :)
Like RuffDraft said, the top 1000 would about correspond to billionaires. They're certainly rich, but consider it in a historical context. The modern era is enormously wealthier than any other time in history, both overall and for individuals. A median person in the US has in may ways a higher standard of living than kings, emperors, and pharaohs of the past (indoor plumbing, medical care, life expectancy, information/entertainment available, etc.) and controls personal wealth at least comparable to the aristocracy of most past civilizations. A modern billionaire controls resources comparable to small modern nations and past empires. In relative terms, there will always be rich and poor, but that doesn't necessarily say a lot about how they function in society.

RuffDraft wrote:Now consider the sheer number of corporations-...
And now consider how many executives make up the whole of each of those companies.
Apparently as of a few years ago, there were about 7 million corporations, 1 million nonprofits, and several tens of millions of other businesses. At any rate, most corporations employ people other than executives. CEOs, say, average several hundred times the pay of their workers. The context of that graph has more to say about wealth concentration and power.

BeeAre wrote:satirists do a better job these days because it seems, to be funny, they HAVE to attack logical consistency in policy moves in order to retain their audience.
To some extent, yes, but they and normal news may have "clappy humor" too.

BeeAre wrote:but let me be specific about my definition as a concession for you: I consider one hundred million to a billion a year in either personal income or total assets in control of moving if not able to be personally indulged in... to be RICH.
RuffDraft wrote:Wait. No. Hell no. So everything below $100 million is a small business? Everyone between $1,000,000 and $99,999,999 is poor? Where do you draw the line?
I think BeeAre may be be defining "truly rich" as those who individually wield significant economic and political power because of their wealth, and in economy of tens of trillions, I suppose this may be a reasonable line, though it would include rather more than a thousand people. Also, "not truly rich" is not synonymous with "small" or "poor". Those are usually defined in relation to the rest of the economic environment, and BeeAre wasn't talking about where he'd draw THAT line, unless he was being uncharacteristically dichotomous.

RuffDraft wrote:Good lord, man! Who's attacking you? I don't go out of my way to insult you in these discussions, and it boggles me as to how you can even think that. If I call you out on what I think is a misinformed idea, why does that automatically make it an insult?
See, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the absurdity of your statement. Do you see the difference?
RuffDraft wrote:This coming from a guy who thinks that most Conservatives and rich people are evil?
Simplistic misrepresentation of views is a form of rhetorical attack, justified or not.

RuffDraft wrote:It's hard to take that idea seriously. I can villify someone without ever speaking to them because I know them to be sinister or whatever.
Sure, but how do you know that your criticisms are accurate? Also, I think that BeeAre was referring to either of two things: a media organization criticizing a person without doing much investigation, including interviewing the person criticized; or a media organization actually interviewing a person, but focusing the discussion on superficial, loaded, controversial, etc. things rather than meaningfully getting at what the interviewee thinks about the topic.

RuffDraft wrote:Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading. To use one's knowledge of one's own company to profit off her own stock downfall is nothing short of devious.
Rather, it's eminently rational, and an extremely obvious thing to do... supposing that government regulations weren't in place to prevent that sort of thing from interfering in socially efficient market operation (or not). And she didn't so much profit from the downfall as she got out before the downfall would have cost her.

RuffDraft wrote:George Soros profited about $1 billion (that's $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0, btw) off the downfall of the British Pound in 1992. And this very same man is now targeting America. Jesus fucking Christ.
And did he do anything illegal? Or anything obviously immoral? Was he convicted of anything? And how is he "targeting" America?

RuffDraft wrote:Mass murderer Jeffery Dhamer. 'Nuff said.
Who was tried and convicted for multiple murders, which is rather different from insider trading. And being convicted makes it fine for impartial journalists to refer to him as "mass murderer Jeffry Dahmer" "convicted felon Jeffry Dahmer" and such.

RuffDraft wrote:
BeeAre wrote:Let me lay your fears to rest:
*Blink* Fears?
I think that BeeAre was referring to concerns that he would rhetorically vilify someone he disagreed with rather than literal fears.

RuffDraft wrote:But didn't you just say that they villify people without talking to them? Are they not talking to them to their faces? (lol)
I think that BeeAre might be making a distinction between "talking to" and "talking at" if that's the sense he meant, as above. Note that "vilify" doesn't mean to make factually correct but unflattering statements, it means "speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner". It's the difference between "Person A did X, Y, and Z," and "Person A is the worst person in the world." Or "Cut Person A's mic."

RuffDraft wrote:Jokes aside, the fact that one news group (doesn't matter who they are) might villify someone without talking to them doesn't mean they're wrong.
No, but it does mean they're biased.

RuffDraft wrote:Ah, so you were simply referring to journalists, and not people. Got it.
All journalists are people, but not all people are journalists. So he was referring to people, just not all people.

RuffDraft wrote:I don't know, though... I watching FoxNews for a few hours on my boat, and though the time difference did not allow me to see Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, it seemed that those who were on did not simply try to villify the opponent when they had a liberal speaker on... the host gave him more time than the conservative side and stopped one of the others from interrupting him. Are you sure you're watching the right channel?
As of this, FOX News had all ten of the highest rated "cable news" shows. The most popular star O'Reilley, Hannity, and Beck, and drew about as many viewers as the other six combined. Or perhaps you were referring to Fox & Friends? Would you mind giving an example of what you're talking about?

RuffDraft wrote:Anyway, basically what Soros did was short-sell Sterling. ...
But Soros went short, as they say, so heavily that he made approximately $1 billion. The whole thing cost the United Kingdom about £3.3 billion.
The deal with that is that the UK had, a couple years before that, entered the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. As part of that, the UK government was obligated to intervene to prevent the exchange rate of the Pound and Deutsche Mark from varying more than 8%. At the time, the UK had much higher inflation than Germany, so (along with some other factors) the Pound promptly lost value, and the Uk government intervened by buying Pounds and raising interest rates to prevent the exchange rate from falling further. Instead of getting out of the ERM and letting the Pound float, the people in charge of policy tried to sustain the Pound's value past the point where they reasonably should have given up. Soros and other investors saw that the Pound's value was unsustainable and due for a sharp fall when the UK government would soon no longer prop it up, and short sold Pounds, which the UK bought in its attempt to keep the value from falling. The UK then stopped its intervention and withdrew from the ERM, the Pound fell, and Soros and the other speculators made a tidy profit.

So how does this show that Soros was evil rather than just an astute businessman?

RuffDraft wrote:vI don't have access to YouTube right now so I can't show you Soros talking about it, but I can find a quote in which he says, "The United States must stop resisting the orderly decline of the Dollar, the coming Global Currency and the New World Order."
RuffDraft wrote:Soros has even said, in his own words, that he wishes for a new world order. It's not just a passing idea, it's his whole scheme.
Except, if you watch the video, by "new world order," he's not referring to what you've been talking about, but a reorganization of global financial markets. As in, China takes a larger role as its economy expands to a larger percentage of world GDP, and the value of the dollar declines as the US economy, though still growing, becomes a smaller percentage of world GDP, and its role as a reserve currency declines. Soros pointed out that with the current economic troubles in the US, a weaker dollar would be expected and not all that undesirable. People save more, spend less, and import less. A declining dollar would help conserve/create domestic jobs as foreign competition becomes effectively more expensive. The orderly decline he's referring to is in contrast to a more sudden prospection-fuelled change, which would change fast enough to cause significant economic disruption. Resisting the "orderly decline" might cause a situation comparable to Black Wednesday if the financial situation does indeed go that way.

RuffDraft wrote:He's said so many, many times. (Please be advised that this is all from a simple google search of "Soros new world order," and though I tried to check every link, some of those pages wouldn't load for me) He's not joking, he's not philosophising, this is what he wants. Listen to him speak, read his books, research as you will.
Are you serious? Do you understand what Soros was talking about in the video, and how a number of those seem to be just making stuff up? I could critique those if you want, or you could make a point yourself and provide evidence to support it.

RuffDraft wrote:Soros sees America as a threat and wants it and everything it stands for destroyed. This man is not to be trusted. If you knew what this man is, and what he stands for, you wouldn't be calling it a conspiracy theory.
It's still a conspiracy theory because it involves Soros conspiring to do certain things. The question is whether or not it's correct.

RuffDraft wrote:Soros is not talking about wrestling. He's talking about an extreme Socialist "World Government" with a global currency that everyone in the world is governed and controlled by. You know all those examples I present that you say are unfair and don't represent "real" Socialism (etc.)? That's what he wants, but worldwide.
Even though "New World Order" could also reasonably refer to the fall of Communism, as in those Communistic governments he helped overthrow (some of the stuff you linked talked about statements made in 1992, when this would make sense in that context). And you haven't explained why a capitalist like Soros would want socialism like you're accusing.

RuffDraft wrote:But he doesn't feel bad about this. In at least two television appearances (1994 and 1998), he has said that he feels no guilt over having evicted his Jewish neighbors, or over the extermination of nearly a half million of his fellow Hungarian Jews. In the introduction of one of his books, he wrote: "It is a sacreligious thing to say, but these ten months [of the Nazi occupation] were the happiest times of my life… We led an adventurous life and we had fun together."
At which time he was 14, and essentially a gofer. He didn't exterminate the Jews himself. What do you propose he might have done as an alternate course of action?

RuffDraft wrote:He's also said, "I don't deny the Jews right to a national existence--but I don't want to be a part of it."
Soros is an international capitalist and secular Jew who never lived there. What would you expect?

RuffDraft wrote:This man is the 28th richest person in America. He is dangerous, and an anti-semite... And yet no one I talk to knows anything about him.
Of course, he is himself a Semite. But anyway, do you know much about the people tied for 26th richest,    John, Jacqueline, and Forrest Mars   ? Or, since Soros is currently #14, what about #13,    Sheldon Adelson   ?

BeeAre wrote:i waile upon a mightye axe withe a tyune...
I was following the thread before that, but I appreciate the Butcherede Englishe.

DaCrum wrote:A global currency sounds nice though. Wouldn't have to get it changed whenever you leave the country. I think the Euro is a good candidate to show the benefits of it.
Like FurrDraft's link outlined, the US Dollar is something of a de facto global currency for now. Actually abolishing national currencies so that ONLY one currency is used would cause a lot of problems - fortunately that's not on the table.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:41 am

FurrDraft. That's actually kinda awesome.

You make a lot of good points. I agree with some and others not, but because of the merely passable nature of this internet connection, and because of my inability to bring up a website just by pressing "Enter," and because of my inability to bring up YouTube or websites with embedded video, it makes it difficult to do any kind of research. As an example, this page loaded for me in about 2 minutes and 15 seconds. And I do not have that much time to use the computer on average.

I do want to discuss George Soros some more. It seems some of my previous claims were unclear and require more evidence (and also I should avoid putting up videos that I cannot watch, lol). I'll do what I can with what I have, but I may take a little more time than you would expect me to.

"If I'm not back in five minutes...

...

...keep waiting.
"
-Freakazoid
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Nox » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:49 am

For a moment it started to feel like one of Lawrence Kraft's rambles.

I have only ever seen Stewart's and Colbert's, but I do so enjoy them. I watch them primarily, to get a laugh. Although filtering out the bias when watching them is challenging (Which I find good sport by the way ^v^), much in the same way with other talk shows that have guests who at some point start taking things to a more serious tone.

Still I do find it ironic in that ideally, journalism is supposed to get the truth out there, and yet here and now (and then as well) practically stifling it, or rather abominating it. So to end it there, I'd say that there are two types of journalists in comparison to how there are two types of truths. One that is sincere, genuine fact (or something even close to it), and the other being a malicious and convenient one.

EDIT: And let's face it. A good fraction of the well-off aren't exactly sincere, are they?
offline
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: 7°30'N/126°E
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Mathias » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:58 am

I've only read Nox's contribution to this discussion.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11856
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Fire up chips.
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Nox » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:46 am

You shouldn't. I've found the posts above to be far more entertaining than mine. But bless you :)

I forget myself though. We were speaking of politics, yes? Permit me to prattle then.

No doubt that some of you know of my country's change in management. That is to say, Mr. Aquino's crusade to rid my motherland's corruption. *chuckle* In terms of politics, I am no sage. But it doesn't take one to notice how fucked up it is here.

Every election it's the same thing. Politicians aspiring for no less than power, promise us candy and cake. And in this part of the globe, after the election is over, it has been noted that the politicians who win intentionally forget to keep their promises. My brethren are no better, for they themselves keep forgetting that the same politicians forgot to keep their promises and yet they re-elect him/her/it again back into office. Worse, they elect a new face but with the same style of mismanagement.

Every so often I would bitch about all these, and those ears so kind that would care to reply would ask me: If you know so much, then what do you think is wrong?. And I, in my most stoic stature would say that the average pinoy would forsake all but one thing.. Instant gratification. THOSE SUITS would in effect, give voters credit for their votes by way of offering freebees during campaign period. And once everything has been settled, they misguidedly feel that they are entitled to the privileges of their positions.

I believe it’s not just the politicians who are the culprits, it is also the voters who have very little scruples because collectively they have the values of a child. Mr. Aquino and his fucking fucking fucking promises can rot for all I care. It is just another form of instant gratification. We all know that it takes more than eradicating corruption to fix an economy. Anyone who falls for this trick should seriously have their head examined. The only reason that he's in office in my opinion, is because of his family name. His mother was a president beloved by the masses, His father.. a national hero, And his sister is a celebrated celebrity.

Haha, but anyhoo. I must be boring you all. Fact is, I hate politicians.
EVERY. SINGLE..

FUCKING

ONE

OF

THEM. D:<



EDIT: aaaand yes, I know I must be exaggerating. But I do find myself repulsed by them, yes I do yes I do :happy:
offline
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: 7°30'N/126°E
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Valhallen » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:36 pm

RuffDraft wrote:FurrDraft. That's actually kinda awesome.
Yeah, that's probably one of the better typos I've made recently.

RuffDraft wrote:and because of my inability to bring up YouTube or websites with embedded video, it makes it difficult to do any kind of research. ...
(and also I should avoid putting up videos that I cannot watch, lol)
Here is a transcript of the interview shown in the video.

RuffDraft wrote:I'll do what I can with what I have, but I may take a little more time than you would expect me to.
Fine with me. Just be sure to back up the points you're making.

Nox wrote:Every election it's the same thing. Politicians aspiring for no less than power, promise us candy and cake. And in this part of the globe, after the election is over, it has been noted that the politicians who win intentionally forget to keep their promises. My brethren are no better, for they themselves keep forgetting that the same politicians forgot to keep their promises and yet they re-elect him/her/it again back into office. Worse, they elect a new face but with the same style of mismanagement.
That doesn't mean that politicians are identical. If you have the choice of a giant douche, a turd sandwich, or Cthulhu, it's better to choose the lesser evil.

Nox wrote:I believe it’s not just the politicians who are the culprits, it is also the voters who have very little scruples because collectively they have the values of a child.
That's one reason I'd like logic to be taught in grade schools.

Nox wrote:We all know that it takes more than eradicating corruption to fix an economy.
True, but it's an important part. At least reducing it to tolerable levels - I doubt it can be practically eliminated.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:28 pm

Valhallen wrote:That doesn't mean that politicians are identical. If you have the choice of a giant douche, a turd sandwich, or Cthulhu, it's better to choose the lesser evil.

But I can't find Cthulhu on the ballot.
Those douches and turds in this two party system won't let him.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Yog » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:45 pm

NeoWarrior7 wrote:
Valhallen wrote:That doesn't mean that politicians are identical. If you have the choice of a giant douche, a turd sandwich, or Cthulhu, it's better to choose the lesser evil.

But I can't find Cthulhu on the ballot.
Those douches and turds in this two party system won't let him.

Cthulhu don't got shit on Nyarlathotep.
DaCrum
Yog, you are one cool motherfucka.
One day this child shall learn the beauty of life.
Absurdum vitae.
Thanks for being there for me, man.
Resident Old God
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:15 am
Location: The labyrinth that is my mind.
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:47 pm

Oh fuck you Yog-Sothoth. You're just mad Cthulhu got his name on the books.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Icha » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:02 pm

Well, I don't know enough about anything to say if what nox says about politicians is correct, but if this is the case, a few must have tried to get into politics to stop this. What happened to those who went in and tried to break the cycle?
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: ???
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:03 pm

The either lose because they won't use the tactics the others will, or worse, they win and become the cycle.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby BeeAre » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:08 pm

You have to tear the ballot's eighth spatial axis to find the dark pit of Vote where a million voices from nothing chant Phn'glui mglw'nafh Chthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn and if you do not turn your body to the shape of a check (which will be easy, because you have no bones here) you will suffer the thousand inhuman agonies of the cravenly Votespawn who inhabit this dark place, wasting their outraged despair at a lack of a public option in healthcare in the form of unspeakable lashes of hatred made flesh upon your meager meat body, for what will feel as though a million years yet condensed into the Patriotic American rhythm of each of your shallow and forever dying ebbing breaths.

or you could vote for the turd sandwich ironically.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby DaCrum » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:11 pm

Goddamn hipsters in my politics.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Nox » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:30 pm

Nox wrote:Every election it's the same thing. Politicians aspiring for no less than power, promise us candy and cake. And in this part of the globe, after the election is over, it has been noted that the politicians who win intentionally forget to keep their promises. My brethren are no better, for they themselves keep forgetting that the same politicians forgot to keep their promises and yet they re-elect him/her/it again back into office. Worse, they elect a new face but with the same style of mismanagement.
That doesn't mean that politicians are identical. If you have the choice of a giant douche, a turd sandwich, or Cthulhu, it's better to choose the lesser evil.

That is reasonable. But if you have a choice between things staying the same or getting worse, it does make one wonder why take part in any of it at all.

I have heard much of american politics, particularly their party system. You basically have two (and a couple of others), and I believe that's more than enough. The problem with the system present here is that there are too many parties in activity. Too much "People Power" one might say.

The old adage goes "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". And I fear the worst in the days to come. For the smartest people I know are cowards who would flee than fight.
I have ruminated many a day with the thought of taking the current state of our so-called politics and have it shot into space, perhaps starting over. But with the current state of the economy and foreign debt, that may not be the best outcome.

Nox wrote:I believe it’s not just the politicians who are the culprits, it is also the voters who have very little scruples because collectively they have the values of a child.
That's one reason I'd like logic to be taught in grade schools.

I doubt children will take anything from it other than a number on a piece of paper. I myself have always been a fan of the socratic approach.

Nox wrote:We all know that it takes more than eradicating corruption to fix an economy.
True, but it's an important part. At least reducing it to tolerable levels - I doubt it can be practically eliminated.

"Tolerable" is a rhema.
Last edited by Nox on Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
offline
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: 7°30'N/126°E
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Mathias » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:13 pm

Diarrhema.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11856
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Fire up chips.
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Icha » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:09 pm

Heh, a reset? You might be on to something. So, how do we get it?
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: ???
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Nox » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:21 pm

I dunno.. mass homicide, political assassination, revolutionary coups. Anything that might bend the rules of the game.
Or maybe at least some particular event that would shake the foundations of the current defunct system. I'm not really a fan terrorism and neither am I encouraging it, but in our case maybe the best I can hope for is some sort of thingy that most people would have their knickers in a twist.

EDIT: A bit radical and unrealistic, I know. But these are just speculations of mine. Others may have a more definite idea. I'm not really one to talk. Still.. these things wear down one's optimism.
Last edited by Nox on Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:32 am, edited 5 times in total.
offline
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: 7°30'N/126°E
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby BeeAre » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:24 pm

wait for all the old people to die imho.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:56 pm

bump.

Hi. I'm back. Well, I'm in Malaysia, which is a kind of returning. At least when I load a page, it loads in less than five seconds.

I'm on battery power right now (in my infinite wisdom I left my adapter back at the boat), which I will have to remedy before doing any good research. It won't take me too long to get the adapter itself, but I don't wan't to just fritter away my day, being in a new foreign country after all. I do want to explore.

So please wait a little longer for me, yes? kthxbai
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Icha » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:42 pm

Nox wrote:I dunno.. mass homicide, political assassination, revolutionary coups. Anything that might bend the rules of the game.
Or maybe at least some particular event that would shake the foundations of the current defunct system. I'm not really a fan terrorism and neither am I encouraging it, but in our case maybe the best I can hope for is some sort of thingy that most people would have their knickers in a twist.

EDIT: A bit radical and unrealistic, I know. But these are just speculations of mine. Others may have a more definite idea. I'm not really one to talk. Still.. these things wear down one's optimism.

Wait, why don't we believe in humanity and just ask everyone nicely?

I am laughing rather hard right now behind this screen, but seriously, why can't people ever be counted to make "humanitarian" sound like a good thing to me?
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: ???
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby BeeAre » Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:53 am

because if we ask everyone to give equally then some people might not and i can't stand the idea that someone might not be as good as me so i have to be bad and make sure i take everything i can instead of giving in response to that bad that i think will happen, icha.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:05 am

DaCrum wrote:Soros doesn't seem powerful enough to actually achieve any goal of New World Order, but nonetheless, it's a conspiracy at best. You take random occurrences, a face for it, and try to combine it into some sort of theory for global dominance. I guarantee you it won't happen. No one man has enough power to do that.

Sure, ONE man.

How about thousands or millions of men? The list of people who George Soros funds directly or even indirectly is staggering. To start, he donates money to something like 500 organizations. He owns the Open Society Institute (which operates in 70 countries around the world); he has donated money to the founding members of the Weather Underground (rage riots, anyone?); to ACORN (a working-class advocacy group cited as having its workers commit voter fraud); to the Tides Foundation (who, as we know, wrote the original, wasteful $700 billion stimulus package bill); he donated $1.8 million dollars to NPR so they could hire more than 100 new journalists (which led in part to Juan Williams being fired, I might add); he funded private and public groups in an attempt to get George Bush out of office in the 2004 election (which, even if you didn't like George Bush, this is still a very questionable act); he's also donated millions upon millions of dollars towards getting FoxNews off the air.

Sidestepping for a second, I know some people don't like FoxNews. You might say, "Well, getting FN off the air is a good thing." But what if he had tried to get another news organization off the air? What if he was targeting an organization that you liked? If George Soros says "this news organization is interfering with my agenda" and writes a HUGE check to get it taken down, would you still have no issue with that? It doesn't even matter if you like or dislike FoxNews. Donating money to stifle free speech is not only underhanded, it's evil. And I don't use the word "evil" a lot.

Now, back to the Soros Fund. How much of his charitable giving do you think is purely humanitarian aid? For example: I am not what I would call independently wealthy, but I donate a couple thousand dollars a year to certain charities. When I decide to donate, I think to myself, "What would be the best organization to invest my money in? How does it directly affect me or my family?" And because my mother has Multiple Sclerosis, I think to myself, "I want an organization dedicated towards research to cure MS." Essentially this is the same way that someone with "gallons" of liquid assets donates their money; they invest in people or organizations that match their interests.

Now, I'm not saying that just because ACORN does disingenuous things that Soros is in favor of those things (although it boggles me as to why he continues donating to them if that's the case). What I am saying is that Soros' influence is tremendous and that to consider him "only one man" is to completely underestimate him. He's more than just a wealthy businessman. He may be the biggest political fat cat of all time.

Valhallen wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading. To use one's knowledge of one's own company to profit off her own stock downfall is nothing short of devious.
Rather, it's eminently rational, and an extremely obvious thing to do... supposing that government regulations weren't in place to prevent that sort of thing from interfering in socially efficient market operation (or not). And she didn't so much profit from the downfall as she got out before the downfall would have cost her.

But why is that good? And if insider trading weren't illegal, then what would stop someone from artificially inflating the price of his own stock to a certain point, selling his own stock, and then let his stock drop back down abruptly, then remove all evidence of fraud? The idea behind insider trading is that you use advance knowledge to gain an advantage over those who don't have that knowledge and then profit off of it while others lose money. So how is that anything less than wrong?

Valhallen wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:George Soros profited about $1 billion (that's $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0, btw) off the downfall of the British Pound in 1992. ...
And did he do anything illegal? Or anything obviously immoral? Was he convicted of anything?
What's not immoral about profiting off the destruction of a country's economy? People lost jobs; food prices skyrocketed; the government was damaged in the amount of 3.3 billion Pounds because of this. George Soros got richer. You don't see any problem with that?

Valhallen wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Jokes aside, the fact that one news group (doesn't matter who they are) might villify someone without talking to them doesn't mean they're wrong.
No, but it does mean they're biased.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the correlation between being right and being biased. Could you perhaps give an example?

Valhallen wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Ah, so you were simply referring to journalists, and not people. Got it.
All journalists are people, but not all people are journalists. So he was referring to people, just not all people.
I was joking here. It was me being obsequious. Or possibly "schizophrenic."

Valhallen wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:I don't know, though... I watching FoxNews for a few hours on my boat, and though the time difference did not allow me to see Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, it seemed that those who were on did not simply try to villify the opponent when they had a liberal speaker on... the host gave him more time than the conservative side and stopped one of the others from interrupting him. Are you sure you're watching the right channel?
As of this, FOX News had all ten of the highest rated "cable news" shows. The most popular star O'Reilley, Hannity, and Beck, and drew about as many viewers as the other six combined.
So they're popular? Which means that although the claim is that it's biased, it still gets the top ratings? What am I to infer about the other news stations?

Valhallen wrote:Or perhaps you were referring to Fox & Friends? Would you mind giving an example of what you're talking about?
Truly sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to. It was a mid-evening show between (I think) Glenn Beck and Bill O'reilly, though because of the time difference mid-morning here is early-evening there, and I'm not sure what time it was exactly that I saw this. It was a round-table discussion with one host and three or four other people. The host was a blond woman, I remember that much. I just remember the host telling a Conservative to let the Liberal get his whole point out or something along those lines.

Valhallen wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Anyway, basically what Soros did was short-sell Sterling. ...
But Soros went short, as they say, so heavily that he made approximately $1 billion. The whole thing cost the United Kingdom about £3.3 billion.
The deal with that is that the UK had, a couple years before that, entered the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. ... So how does this show that Soros was evil rather than just an astute businessman?
I kinda explained it above. Wouldn't you say it takes a cold heart to profit off the misery of thousands of people? He did the same thing in Thailand, and they consider him an Economic War Criminal.



That's all for now; I want to take a walk around Malaysia. If I'm lucky I'll have some good pictures for my Facebook later.

=RD out=
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby Mathias » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:25 am

RuffDraft wrote:=RD out=

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11856
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Fire up chips.
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:38 am

Don't care enough to read about that. George Soros will probably die next year either way.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/19-1/26): Those fascist commie traitors

Postby BeeAre » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:27 pm

DaCrum wrote:Don't care enough to read about that. George Soros will probably die next year either way.


lol. i am on the edge of my seat waiting for Valhallen's reply.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to The Extrovert Booty Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests