Export thread

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c27mjYh6i9o[/ame] part 1
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKSSkpKTM0[/ame] part 2
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VHfcp1XqVw[/ame] part 3

Limbaugh/Palin 2012!



These people scare the hell out of me. And make me sad for the USA.

I know he labels himself as a comedian. Does anyone find him funny?

Wow, that lady was passionate? It that the word she used?

Also, Rush looked incredibly bored.

Isn't Schwarzy a Republican?

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

Well I wanted to edit in "She keeps saying how California is being run by Liberals." but the editing is not working.

Frankie said:

Isn't Schwarzy a Republican?

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

Well I wanted to edit in "She keeps saying how California is being run by Liberals." but the editing is not working.

Click to expand...

If you mean Schwarzenegger, then yes, he is. Though I'm not familiar with his politics other than the label of Republican.

Frankie said:

Isn't Schwarzy a Republican?

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

Well I wanted to edit in "She keeps saying how California is being run by Liberals." but the editing is not working.

Click to expand...

For a 'Publican, Schwarzenegger's fairly centrist. Enough to give the wingnuts (and I use that term in a non-partisan sense) summat to scream about, at least.

Iaculus;266591][quote=Frankie said:

Isn't Schwarzy a Republican?

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

Well I wanted to edit in "She keeps saying how California is being run by Liberals." but the editing is not working.

Click to expand...

For a 'Publican, Schwarzenegger's fairly centrist. Enough to give the wingnuts (and I use that term in a non-partisan sense) summat to scream about, at least.[/QUOTE]

Arnold has spent most of his life living in Hollywood, which is notoriously left leaning. It's definitely affected his political standing.

"Namby pamby?" "Pedophiles?"

I feel like I lost about as many brain cells from listening to this as I would have from dunking down a bottle of vodka.

If it was like a minute or two, I'd watch the video(s!), but I ain't putting up with that shit for that long. Christ, why'd y'all waste your time on that?

:lalala:

I love when she goes off on the fact that the congressmen have great health care, but totally disregards that they had the same care when the rebublicans were in office

Bowielee said:

I love when she goes off on the fact that the congressmen have great health care, but totally disregards that they had the same care when the rebublicans were in office

Click to expand...

The issue is much more the Shit that they are trying to give us, while totally unwilling to share in the same plan.

I like to watch the expression on Limbaugh's face when she starts pleading with him to lead them. It might just be me, but I like to think he's grinning at the idea that these people would place their faith in him so.

Deschain said:

I like to watch the expression on Limbaugh's face when she starts pleading with him to lead them. It might just be me, but I like to think he's grinning at the idea that these people would place their faith in him so.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, it's the EXACT same face Michael Moore makes whenever someone is doing the same with him. They are quite literally two sides of the same coin.

I have not watched Michael Moore, but the kind of activism that goes beyond agreement of political opinions and into direct 'lead us to victory fearless leader!' frightens me a little.

Deschain said:

I have not watched Michael Moore, but the kind of activism that goes beyond agreement of political opinions and into direct 'lead us to victory fearless leader!' frightens me a little.

Click to expand...

But at the same time it's very apparent why people are drawn to them. Not only are their opinions easy to explain and understand, but they are also out their on the front lines, actually trying to do something about the problems in our society. Yes, they are both glorious assholes, but at least it looks like they are actually DOING SOMETHING, as opposed to most of the other members of the Left and Right.

AshburnerX;268568][quote=Deschain said:

I like to watch the expression on Limbaugh's face when she starts pleading with him to lead them. It might just be me, but I like to think he's grinning at the idea that these people would place their faith in him so.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, it's the EXACT same face Michael Moore makes whenever someone is doing the same with him. They are quite literally two sides of the same coin.[/QUOTE]
For Mikey, though, it's a ridiculously absurd idea that anyone would want him leading. He's a (former) blue collar guy with a hate on for those in power. And as that's exactly what he's built his celebrity on, anyone who would suggest he could lead them anywhere but a protest line hasn't been watching his documentaries and TV show closely enough. (And I say all that as a Moore fan; I've enjoyed all of his docs and that TV show)

I'd ponder the same for Rush, but I've never heard any of his work; though from what I've heard about him, his hate on is more politically aligned.

Well, I watched Capitalism: A Love Story this weekend, and it was really more of the same from Mr Moore. Something about the guy irks me. I think really that it's the fact that he makes a documentary that has some good points and this movie really did, but then he turns around and pulls one of his retarded attention whore stunts that pretty much deflate his entire argument.

Neither of them have really 'done' anything about 'it.' One is a blowhard on the radio and the other makes films... Neither has spurned positive change in their activities.

sixpackshaker said:

Neither of them have really 'done' anything about 'it.' One is a blowhard on the radio and the other makes films... Neither has spurned positive change in their activities.

Click to expand...

Well duh, but they give the appearance of doing it at least. It's kinda like those "Truth" anti-smoking ads. You know they don't do anything to actually curb people from smoking or to stop the lies the tobacco industry puts out, but they at least look like they are doing something.

Talk about being brainwashed.

Le Quack said:

Talk about being brainwashed.

Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what the caller is doing.

Another caller today mentioned she home schools her kids (which alot of them seem to do) and that part of her kids studies is to listen to Rush everyday.



As for Moores new film, it still had a solid point. Uber-rich bought the country and dont give a shit about the peasents.

Chummer said:

Another caller today mentioned she home schools her kids (which alot of them seem to do) and that part of her kids studies is to listen to Rush everyday.



As for Moores new film, it still had a solid point. Uber-rich bought the country and dont give a shit about the peasents.

Click to expand...

Rush's point: Uber poor are ruining this country with their laziness.

OK, I made that up. It's a capitalist country though, what the hell do you expect?

Shakey;269775][quote=Chummer said:

Another caller today mentioned she home schools her kids (which alot of them seem to do) and that part of her kids studies is to listen to Rush everyday.



As for Moores new film, it still had a solid point. Uber-rich bought the country and dont give a shit about the peasents.

Click to expand...

Rush's point: Uber poor are ruining this country with their laziness.

OK, I made that up. It's a capitalist country though, what the hell do you expect?[/QUOTE]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", maybe?

'Course, depends on your interpretation of that...

Shakey;269775][quote=Chummer said:

Another caller today mentioned she home schools her kids (which alot of them seem to do) and that part of her kids studies is to listen to Rush everyday.



As for Moores new film, it still had a solid point. Uber-rich bought the country and dont give a shit about the peasents.

Click to expand...

Rush's point: Uber poor are ruining this country with their laziness.

OK, I made that up. It's a capitalist country though, what the hell do you expect?[/QUOTE]

The problem is that the country moves from being a democracy to an oligarcy. When the poor lose their voting power due to lobbiests influencing policy more than the democratic process, our country has moved about as far away from a democracy as you can get.

So we should force the rich to give up their money because we don't like what they do with it? Tell them what to do with their money? We are not an oligarchy, or even close. It's the same message that Rush is selling. Fear and distrust.

Shakey said:

So we should force the rich to give up their money because we don't like what they do with it? Tell them what to do with their money? We are not an oligarchy, or even close. It's the same message that Rush is selling. Fear and distrust.

Click to expand...

When what the rich is doing interferes with the democratic process, hell yes we should tell them what to do with it.

I've got no problem with political reform, I'm all for it. I just think the idea of us moving towards an oligarchy is a bit out there. If anything it seems like we've moved in the opposite direction.

An oligarchy is when an elite few have so much power and wealth that they make all policy. We're pretty close to being there. When lobbyists have more power than the actual voters, the system becomes inherently undemocratic. Our current economic predicament due to de regulation is a testament to exactly how bad a pure free market economy really is.

This country wasn't founded on capitalism, it was founded on democracy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for capitalism, but the capitalism outlined in the past is vastly different than the capitalism of today. We used to have almost a pure competition market with a few monopolies, but we have moved away from that and more into a ogilopolies where the average person, regardless of how much drive and determination they have can't compete against large corporate firms. The american dream used to be to own your own business and have it thrive in your community, but with the advent of chain stores, such as walmart, our economy has completely changed.

Bowielee said:

An oligarchy is when an elite few have so much power and wealth that they make all policy. We're pretty close to being there. When lobbyists have more power than the actual voters, the system becomes inherently undemocratic. Our current economic predicament due to de regulation is a testament to exactly how bad a pure free market economy really is.

This country wasn't founded on capitalism, it was founded on democracy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for capitalism, but the capitalism outlined in the past is vastly different than the capitalism of today. We used to have almost a pure competition market with a few monopolies, but we have moved away from that and more into a ogilopolies where the average person, regardless of how much drive and determination they have can't compete against large corporate firms. The american dream used to be to own your own business and have it thrive in your community, but with the advent of chain stores, such as walmart, our economy has completely changed.

Click to expand...

Walmart wasn't always a huge nationwide chain. Just sayin'.

As for the lobbyists, the answer is for voters to become informed about who takes money from who, and vote according to their views on that subject. These assholes still need to be elected; it's not as though corporations and lobbyists get to vote and everyday people don't. Not permitting wealthy people to have a voice because of jealousy or political disagreement isn't the answer, since all that does is disenfranchise a different group of people than the ones you feel are disenfranchised right now.

Armadillo;270059][quote=Bowielee said:

An oligarchy is when an elite few have so much power and wealth that they make all policy. We're pretty close to being there. When lobbyists have more power than the actual voters, the system becomes inherently undemocratic. Our current economic predicament due to de regulation is a testament to exactly how bad a pure free market economy really is.

This country wasn't founded on capitalism, it was founded on democracy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for capitalism, but the capitalism outlined in the past is vastly different than the capitalism of today. We used to have almost a pure competition market with a few monopolies, but we have moved away from that and more into a ogilopolies where the average person, regardless of how much drive and determination they have can't compete against large corporate firms. The american dream used to be to own your own business and have it thrive in your community, but with the advent of chain stores, such as walmart, our economy has completely changed.

Click to expand...

Walmart wasn't always a huge nationwide chain. Just sayin'.

As for the lobbyists, the answer is for voters to become informed about who takes money from who, and vote according to their views on that subject. These assholes still need to be elected; it's not as though corporations and lobbyists get to vote and everyday people don't. Not permitting wealthy people to have a voice because of jealousy or political disagreement isn't the answer, since all that does is disenfranchise a different group of people than the ones you feel are disenfranchised right now.[/QUOTE]

So, we'll disenfranchise 1% of the population.... boo freakity hoo...

Besides, I don't recall anywhere saying that we should revoke the right of rich people to vote.

Capitalism of the past also allowed for zero workers rights. The American dream was also more along the lines of not having to work 14 hours a day for next to nothing. I'm sorry mom and pop can't compete with Walmart and Target, but there is still plenty of room for start up companies in other areas.

With all the information we have at our finger tips now, the only person to blame for these corrupt politicians is ourselves. We know it happens, but choose to re-elect them anyway. I'm all for lobbyist reform, but this isn't the fault of just the rich.

What good does it do to vote out the corrupt politician? You will only put another in his place.

sixpackshaker said:

What good does it do to vote out the corrupt politician? You will only put another in his place.

Click to expand...

I dunno, you're exchanging guaranteed corruption for a 99% chance of corruption. Extra 1%'s an improvement, at least.

Iaculus;270197][quote=sixpackshaker said:

What good does it do to vote out the corrupt politician? You will only put another in his place.

Click to expand...

I dunno, you're exchanging guaranteed corruption for a 99% chance of corruption. Extra 1%'s an improvement, at least.[/QUOTE]

No, No, its just better to take away the rights of certain groups of people to vote.

Covar;270208][quote=Iaculus;270197][quote=sixpackshaker said:

What good does it do to vote out the corrupt politician? You will only put another in his place.

Click to expand...

I dunno, you're exchanging guaranteed corruption for a 99% chance of corruption. Extra 1%'s an improvement, at least.[/QUOTE]

No, No, its just better to take away the rights of certain groups of people to vote.[/QUOTE]

Wait, who did actually suggest that here? Anyone?

I think this shows why I have a hard time feeling sorry for CEO's-



Being rewarded for hard work is a good thing. This looks more like outright theft.

I'm guessing that pay includes stock, which is why it follows the S&P fairly closely. If not, well that's kinda crazy.

Bowielee;269933][quote=Shakey said:

So we should force the rich to give up their money because we don't like what they do with it? Tell them what to do with their money? We are not an oligarchy, or even close. It's the same message that Rush is selling. Fear and distrust.

Click to expand...

When what the rich is doing interferes with the democratic process, hell yes we should tell them what to do with it.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It's a problem when this super rich companies use thier wealth to basiclly do whatever they please, everyone else be damned.

That's not capitalism, that's evil.

Krisken said:

I think this shows why I have a hard time feeling sorry for CEO's-

Being rewarded for hard work is a good thing. This looks more like outright theft.

Click to expand...

Heyyyy that powers the economy!

Also, Minimum wage -9.3%? wtf?

To put it in perspectives easier to understand...

In 2005, the average worker would have made $108,138, compared to the actual average of $28,314 if it had grown at the same rate as CEO pay.

If the federal minimum wage had grown at the same rate as CEO pay, it would have been $22.61 in 2005, instead of $5.15.

Clive Crook from the Atlantic wrote-

Over thirty-five years, the rise in wages and salaries in the wide middle of the income distribution was 11 percent. The rise in wages and salaries at the top of the income distribution was 617 percent.

Click to expand...

Thank God the FMW didn't grow at the same rate or you would be paying 20 bucks for a half gallon of milk and 30 dollars for that hazelnut mocha cappalatte.

That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.

Espy said:

Thank God the FMW didn't grow at the same rate or you would be paying 20 bucks for a half gallon of milk and 30 dollars for that hazelnut mocha cappalatte.

That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.

Click to expand...

Kinda my point. They have had income increases way beyond what could be called normal compensation for inflation.

Espy said:

Thank God the FMW didn't grow at the same rate or you would be paying 20 bucks for a half gallon of milk and 30 dollars for that hazelnut mocha cappalatte.

That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.

Click to expand...

Why? CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors, who are in turn elected by shareholders. If the shareholders have a problem with the Board or the CEO, lobby your fellow shareholders to run the bum out on a rail. No need for even MORE governmental interference in private business.

And if the CEO/Board are corrupt enough to run the company into the ground, then they declare bankruptcy and the shareholders are paid off with company and/or personal assets. It's amazing how well the system works when you BLOODY WELL ALLOW IT TO.

Armadillo;270624][quote=Espy said:

Thank God the FMW didn't grow at the same rate or you would be paying 20 bucks for a half gallon of milk and 30 dollars for that hazelnut mocha cappalatte.

That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.

Click to expand...

Why? CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors, who are in turn elected by shareholders. If the shareholders have a problem with the Board or the CEO, lobby your fellow shareholders to run the bum out on a rail. No need for even MORE governmental interference in private business.

And if the CEO/Board are corrupt enough to run the company into the ground, then they declare bankruptcy and the shareholders are paid off with company and/or personal assets. It's amazing how well the system works when you BLOODY WELL ALLOW IT TO.[/QUOTE]
Except for the workers who lost their jobs due to the actions of CEO's with payment plans, still get paid even though they run the place into the ground, shareholders no longer have stock worth anything.

Great system.

Krisken;270635][quote=Armadillo;270624][quote=Espy said:

Thank God the FMW didn't grow at the same rate or you would be paying 20 bucks for a half gallon of milk and 30 dollars for that hazelnut mocha cappalatte.

That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.

Click to expand...

Why? CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors, who are in turn elected by shareholders. If the shareholders have a problem with the Board or the CEO, lobby your fellow shareholders to run the bum out on a rail. No need for even MORE governmental interference in private business.

And if the CEO/Board are corrupt enough to run the company into the ground, then they declare bankruptcy and the shareholders are paid off with company and/or personal assets. It's amazing how well the system works when you BLOODY WELL ALLOW IT TO.[/QUOTE]
Except for the workers who lost their jobs due to the actions of CEO's with payment plans, still get paid even though they run the place into the ground, shareholders no longer have stock worth anything.

Great system.[/QUOTE]

But what's the answer? I agree with you that those CEOs that do that are scumbags, but the risk of losing your shirt is part of the deal of becoming a common stockholder. High risk, high potential return. If you don't want to take on the risk, don't buy the stock. You're not being forced to, right?

As for the workers, it does stink on ice for them, but again, what's the answer? If a company fails, it fails. To use an example in a specific industry, 90% of all restaurants go out of business within five years of startup, putting all of those cooks, servers, and bartenders out of a job. Risk of failure is a necessary evil in a free market. If nobody can fail, nobody can truly succeed. Everybody just kind of floats around in a pool of mediocrity.

Being one of the small businesses going up against bigger businesses used to be like David and Goliath.

Now, it's more like David and a Star Destroyer.

Armadillo said:

But what's the answer? I agree with you that those CEOs that do that are scumbags, but the risk of losing your shirt is part of the deal of becoming a common stockholder. High risk, high potential return. If you don't want to take on the risk, don't buy the stock. You're not being forced to, right?

As for the workers, it does stink on ice for them, but again, what's the answer? If a company fails, it fails. To use an example in a specific industry, 90% of all restaurants go out of business within five years of startup, putting all of those cooks, servers, and bartenders out of a job. Risk of failure is a necessary evil in a free market. If nobody can fail, nobody can truly succeed. Everybody just kind of floats around in a pool of mediocrity.

Click to expand...

Giant difference between failing because it wasn't run well and failing because someone ran it into the ground by being an asshole. Over here running stuff into the ground has made many a people rich... (but of course they're in collusion with the government so meh).

The government should set standards on certain stuff, one being how much money they can give themselves (btw, money is not a good motivator, i had a teacher argue it not one at all, she was wrong, as you do extra stuff if there's extra money in it, but not beyond that, like you might do with the other stuff).

Well, I watched Capitalism: A Love Story this weekend, and it was really more of the same from Mr Moore. Something about the guy irks me. I think really that it's the fact that he makes a documentary that has some good points and this movie really did, but then he turns around and pulls one of his retarded attention whore stunts that pretty much deflate his entire argument.

Click to expand...

Dismissing the argument coz he's an attention whore is a fallacy btw... kicking him in the nuts coz he's one is the right course of action...

tegid said:

Also, Minimum wage -9.3%? wtf?

Click to expand...

Inflation shows up as a negative when you hold the value of a dollar steady. Crap around you gets more expensive but what you get paid over 10 years does not change... or the value of that dollar gets less...