Fox News vs Rollitup.org - what's the difference?

uriah

Active Member
oh, hey Uriah---

sorry--I had you confused w someone else for a moment (No Drama, who originally tried to discount my perspective)--so while i'm still not totally clear on your point--I didn't mean to come at you so strong~~~:peace:
No worries! My comment was meant as more of an add on than to contradict,a comparison of sorts. That nothing has really changed companies will always find a way to increase profit by most any means.
 

naked gardener

Active Member
No worries! My comment was meant as more of an add on than to contradict,a comparison of sorts. That nothing has really changed companies will always find a way to increase profit by most any means.
true true true---and thanks for not thinking i'm a bitch (or at least not saying it :mrgreen:)--i do totally see your point--I just hate it when people accept the status quo of corporate greed as a "natural" part of capitalism. Even tho capitalism does perpetuate greed and self-interest--There is nothing natural about it--capitalism is a man-made concept.

I am not a commie--but i also do not totally agree with some people's notions of "the market" and how it is the solution to all that ails our sick economy...

I will stop now b4 i get myself blacklisted :lol:
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
true true true---and thanks for not thinking i'm a bitch (or at least not saying it :mrgreen:)--i do totally see your point--I just hate it when people accept the status quo of corporate greed as a "natural" part of capitalism. Even tho capitalism does perpetuate greed and self-interest--There is nothing natural about it--capitalism is a man-made concept.

I am not a commie--but i also do not totally agree with some people's notions of "the market" and how it is the solution to all that ails our sick economy...

I will stop now b4 i get myself blacklisted :lol:


ya but think about it if it exists doesnt that mean that it is in essence "natural"

its like we eat cute fuzzy animals but I dont feel like im killing anything cuz all the dirty work is done from me and all i see is a yummy sanwich:bigjoint:


but in reality im crunching life forms all the time, i could eat a small colony of shrimp in one sitting and not blink twice


but I guess what im saying is our nature is ugly & greedy, people today try for greed and power because the humans and hominids who did not have enough of those traits did not survive the evolutionary mine field


the world is a vampire:blsmoke:

 

uriah

Active Member
ya but think about it if it exists doesnt that mean that it is in essence "natural"

its like we eat cute fuzzy animals but I dont feel like im killing anything cuz all the dirty work is done from me and all i see is a yummy sanwich:bigjoint:


but in reality im crunching life forms all the time, i could eat a small colony of shrimp in one sitting and not blink twice


but I guess what im saying is our nature is ugly & greedy, people today try for greed and power because the humans and hominids who did not have enough of those traits did not survive the evolutionary mine field


the world is a vampire:blsmoke:
Natural selection and survival of the fittest has little to do with gluttony or greed. The American way has been greed and gluttony since the pilgrims. We are a nation founded upon take, and take some more. Eat all the shrimp you want, but when your stomach is full do you need everyone elses shrimp to be satisfied?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
Natural selection and survival of the fittest has little to do with gluttony or greed. The American way has been greed and gluttony since the pilgrims. We are a nation founded upon take, and take some more. Eat all the shrimp you want, but when your stomach is full do you need everyone elses shrimp to be satisfied?


yes but i submit that the only reason people in the past may have not acted greedy which I can only think of the american indians it wasnt because they wouldnt, its becasue they couldnt be as greedy as say a billionare banker

but many would do raids on otheres and stuff like that and they had greed too even the american indians


without greed you dont survive,.


its natural cuz i see it in my kids occur naturally every parent knows its natural for kids to be greedy little bastards. ( some kids more than others),

like as soon as my son plays with a toy all of a sudden my daughter wants it and then there's a huge fight

or my daughter gets like 10 markers and its like pulling teeth to force her to share just 1 with her brother.

its just a way of survival

cuz her brother who is natually less greedy than she is has begun acting out more greedily than he normally would be because she has been stealling and taking his stuff since he was little, so now he bucks back and takes shit and doesnt want to share,


if you have 1 greedy human its enough to cause the rest of the group to also have to become greedy or they will have less of thier needs,

now when everything is in abundance then the greed seems pointless and unecessary but as soon as things get scarce you can see where greed will help you stay alive and provide for your family


like if me and you had 5 crackers to eat for a whole week and i snagged 4 crackers before you had the chance to stop me.

i would be acting greedy even though im still starving to death cuz i only ate 4 crackers all week

so u can be greedy either way its just when things are abundent its easy to sit on your high horse acting like you are not greedy but the min we got 5 cracker between the 2 of us it gonna be a lot harder to be polite :-P specially if you are staring at your kids starving to death all of a sudden it gets pretty easy to take more than your share in greed

not saying your on a high horse or anything just trying to explain it.



its like the poeple who say they love god and wanna be good people but at the same time they have a nice car that they could sell instead and feed starving children and save thier lives but instead they prefer to allow those children to die and just drive thier nice car, even tho they would never see it this way or admit that they are letting them die, they are in esseance doing it never the less. it makes them blind hypocrates

i understand fully that instead of using this computer i could sell it and buy enough rice to feed a dieing family in africa for a whole year.

but instead i would rather have my computer, Im not going to lie to myself, i know by my actions that I would rather not help dieing little gurls and keep my computer, i even have extra money in the bank and still refuse to get rice for them. so I have no illusions as to what I am

but many people blind themselves to the fact that nothing anyone does is for anyone else, every action you take is selfish even if you decieded to give your life for me it would be a selfish act because you "wanted" to give your life for me or else you wouldnt have done it willingly


i just like to break things down to the bare bone and see things exactly how they really are, its just a fact ,we eat little bunnies and kill each other for sneakers


the world is so beautiful, so its no surprise that it is equally as ugly.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Lol k, I'll give you the Hannity one, but those Beck one's are pretty irrelevant. Beck has exposed more corruption in the federal govt than any other newscaster on air today. and who gives a fuck about The View? some female celebrities who's views and opinions matter why? because of America's infatuation with celebrities and what they think.

there's no denying all of the Marxist loving appointed positions by Obama himself in the White House, and Beck and Hannity expose those people and corruptions when other networks like CNN, ABC, MSNBC won't dare to touch because they're all in bed with the Obama administration
question: so, when a liar says something on his "show" how do you know when he is telling the truth?
answer: you don't know when he is telling the truth
result: Beck is incredulous all of the time
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
question: so, when a liar says something on his "show" how do you know when he is telling the truth?
answer: you don't know when he is telling the truth
result: Beck is incredulous all of the time

can you tell this is a lie if he says it on his show?:


"all cats bark"


now when he says obama is a socialist is he lieing?
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
can you tell this is a lie if he says it on his show?:


"all cats bark"


now when he says obama is a socialist is he lieing?
an exercise in logic, hmmm
I guess my point is you can't believe anything he says if he has proven himself to be a liar

like your parents told you as a child, don't lie or people won't trust you, don't cry wolf because people won't believe you when you need them to believe you

it's a foundation in credible journalism

Beck is not credible
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
an exercise in logic, hmmm
I guess my point is you can't believe anything he says if he has proven himself to be a liar

like your parents told you as a child, don't lie or people won't trust you, don't cry wolf because people won't believe you when you need them to believe you

it's a foundation in credible journalism

Beck is not credible

beck does like to exagerate possibly and he is human and emotional, but I dont really see him as consiously lieing to decieve the public from the truth like many other news stations out there who openly try to trick and decieve thier audiance

like CNN yeterday just annouces that this quarter was great and tenichally we are out of the recession

but an honest reporter would have also mentioned that much of this growth may be a temprary effect of the many billions that were pumped into the economy artificially with borrowed money


but anyway, ive learned since i was a child to trust no one not even Mr. Presy Pants:weed:
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
I also have a sneaking suspision that obama is not going to send the additional troops and that we will pull back from afghanistan

i think he is just waiting to get his health care trojen horse in first before the calamity


it would be nice if we could leave but he better have a great reason why the taliban and alqeuda should get thier power back and why all the blood of our souldiers in afgashitan should go to waste not to mention the massive casuallties that will be incurred by our afghan allies that have stuck with us


anyway I guess we will have to wait till we get to that bridge to discuss
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
Jobs Created or Saved’ Is White House Fantasy: Caroline Baum
Commentary by Caroline Baum



Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Heresy, thy name is Christina Romer.
Last week, the chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers -- a position that carried the title “chief economist” until Larry Summers took up residence in the White House -- testified to the Joint Economic Committee on the economic crisis and the efficacy of the policy response.

Here’s the executive summary in case you missed it:
The crisis: “Inherited.”

The economy: “In terrible shape” (the inherited one).
The shocks to the system: “Larger than those that precipitated the Great Depression.”

The policy response: “Strong and timely.”

The efficacy of the policy response: a 2 to 3 percentage point addition to second-quarter growth; 3 to 4 percentage points in the third; and 160,000 to 1.5 million “jobs saved or created,” a made-up metric if there ever was one. (More on that later.)

What was most puzzling about Romer’s Oct. 22 testimony was her comment on the waning effect of fiscal stimulus.

“Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009,” Romer said. “By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”

At first it was just fringe elements, such as conservative blogs and the not-really-a-news-organization Fox News, that pounced on Romer’s statement. Then other news outlets started to question her statement, which seemed to fly in the face of White House assertions that only a small portion of the stimulus -- $120 billion, or 15 percent -- has actually been spent. Most of the criticism of the stimulus coming from the president’s own party has been, “too little, too late,” and here’s Romer saying it’s kaput.
Thanks for That

Instead of being banished to the woodshed, Romer was consigned to the White House blog, where she slipped into professorial mode to explain the arcane distinction between the effect of the stimulus on the change in gross domestic product and its effect on the level of GDP.
Stimulus has its biggest impact on the growth rate of GDP when it’s implemented, Romer said, using a car-and-driver analogy: Step on the accelerator, the car goes from zero to 60.
Stimulus will keep the level of GDP and employment higher than they would have been even after the growth-rate effect fades, she said.
Her logic is impeccable. It’s her premise that’s flawed.
Dispensing Lucre

When the government distributes lucre or loot, people spend it. If your interest is national income accounting, spending other people’s money is great. Spending is a back-door way for government statisticians to measure what matters, which is the real output of goods and services.
But the government has no money of its own to spend; only what it borrows or confiscates from us via taxation. Oops.

“Government job creation is an oxymoron,” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business. It is only by depriving the private sector of funds that government can hire or subsidize hiring.

That’s why “jobs created or saved” is such pure fiction. It ignores what’s unseen, as our old friend Frederic Bastiat explained so eloquently 160 years ago in an essay.

Econometric models synthesize all sorts of variables and spit out a GDP forecast. From there they derive the change in employment using something called Okun’s Law, named after the late economist Arthur Okun, which describes the relationship between the two.
Fiction Lags Reality

Actual hiring seems to be lagging behind the model’s land of make-believe. For small businesses, which are the source of most job creation in the U.S., the government’s increased and changing role in the economy isn’t a confidence builder. Businessmen have no idea what health-care reform will mean for their cost structure or what whimsical tax policies the government might impose when it realizes those short-term deficits are running into long-term unfunded liabilities.

No wonder capital spending plans were at an all-time low in the third quarter, according to the NFIB monthly survey.

Only 30,383 jobs were created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to Recovery.gov, the government’s once-transparent Web site that has become a complex blur of numbers, graphs and pie charts. These are only the jobs reported by federal contract recipients. The Obama administration will report the larger universe of ARRA-related jobs on Oct. 30.

An extrapolation of what would have happened without the fiscal stimulus isn’t much consolation to the 9.8 percent of the workforce that is unemployed. Nor is Romer’s prescription for the economy and labor market very comforting in light of the trillions of future tax dollars that have been spent, lent or promised by the federal government.

“If you take your foot off the gas, the car goes from 60 back down to a slow crawl,” Romer said in clarifying blog post.
Gentlemen, start your engines.

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.
To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at [email protected].
Last Updated: October 27, 2009 21:00 EDT
 

CrackerJax

New Member
In case it is lost on some of you... Obama is pursuing Keynesian economics.

The only problem is it simply doesn't work.

That means Obama is either incompetent or not in charge at all.

The data is in, and Keynesian approach is a complete failure. Even Keynes admitted it couldn't make it off the paper it was written on..... but never underestimate truly shallow politicians. It is not a surprise that liberals adhere to it like a barnacle. It matches their wishes, and they are unable to see that through the economic carnage, their goals will never be accomplished and the country ends up pushing them even farther to the side of the political road.

They are getting the shove off right now.... I'm sure it isn't pleasant to face up to the fact that you don't have a economic position that can be respected.

Add to that fact that the representative of that ideal is Obama. His slide is the liberal slide.... in the end electing someone so inexperienced to the office and having everyone watch him being overwhelmed and not up to the task, must be hard to swallow.

For that, I am sorry. dreams are tough to watch wither in front of you, but reality has away of doing that to paper economics and politics.
 

naked gardener

Active Member
hey anyone still reading this thread, I'm not going to quote all that i want to respond to--i'll just refer~~

On the conversation about greed & Darwinism: I do not equate the instinct or the ability to survive with insatiable greed.
By "survival of the fittest", I do not believe Darwin was referring to vast corporate wealth and abuse of power or economic theory.

There is no example in nature, that I can think of, in which any other living thing takes more than it needs for it's survival and basic comfort.
(I'm not suggesting we all live like animals, just observing that every living thing has a certain degree of self-interest, but that at the same time obscene greed is not nec. a "natural" trait, or at least not an acceptable one---for example, anger (acceptable) vs. violent rage (unacceptable), or lust (acceptable) vs rape (unacceptable)--anger, lust and greed, all being natural human traits VS rage, rape and gross robbery, all being controllable human compulsions).

And of course it's acceptable for any company to try to profit from their product or services, for sure--but it is not acceptable for them to put toxic materials into the products they are selling us, or into our air and water just so they can make MORE $$$, or not spend more on overhead.

I was made a criminal because of my product--yet there are REAL, dangerous toxins in half the shit in our stores, in our foods....all that paint parents rubbed into their lil vampires, clowns, and zombies faces today contained LEAD...just like those baby bottles a while back, and a bunch of other plastic Wal-Mart/China junk...yet we will continue to buy contaminated products from China, not matter how much they are poisoning us, because--China owns our asses--Thanks W.

Or, when someone has already paid for a service, it is not acceptable to deny them that service...esp. when the service they paid for was to prevent their suffering or death.

The mighty dollar has ruled stronger than any religion. I do not totally blame the greedy for our current state of affairs--I also blame lazy, apathetic and cowardly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the afghan war---If that would have been handled more like a war during the first six years, the situation may be different today, so let's not blame Obama for that shit. Afghanistan is very complex--and they have a history of NEVER losing a war. The soviet union collapsed after a ten year (?) war w afghanistan, having their economy completely drained. (During which time we secretly supplied intel., weapons and training to certain brutal tribal groups that would become the Taliban)

It is clear that the military objective on terrorism/al quaeda has been counter-productive. Many of those fighting today had NOTHING to w al-quaeda in 2001, they are fighting now bc of Bush's "crusade" talk and how he then went on to handle Iraq. We've kept just enough troops in afghan. to encourage their recruits and create more enemies. The longer we fight, the longer they fight. We will not exhaust them. This is what they do--and they have a serious home-field advantage. I know we can not turn and run tomorrow--but the solution to this problem may not be sending in hundreds and thousands more people to possibly be killed or traumatized. Are you aware of how these wars are being conducted anyway--mainly by hired contractors who answer to no one, but are paid for by us--BILLIONS--and they are some sick SOB's from what I understand. It's fucking ugly and the sooner it's over the better.

Had Bush bothered to read his CIA briefings, none of this would even be happening. But he didn't, and now it is.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Yah, afghan war... The general said in August that the window for actually winning the war (isn't that the goal?) was closing quickly and a decision was needed..... it's November. Now Obama is still waiting.... waiting till we can't win?

It's called leadership.....Obama should try it sometime. Ppl are dying over there.....worst casualties since Fallujah. Now he's gonna wait till the governors races...... huh? It's obvious that we now have a war run on politics.... reminds me of Vietnam.... a recipe for failure.
 

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
Yah, afghan war... The general said in August that the window for actually winning the war (isn't that the goal?) was closing quickly and a decision was needed..... it's November. Now Obama is still waiting.... waiting till we can't win?

It's called leadership.....Obama should try it sometime. Ppl are dying over there.....worst casualties since Fallujah. Now he's gonna wait till the governors races...... huh? It's obvious that we now have a war run on politics.... reminds me of Vietnam.... a recipe for failure.
What is your solution?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
hey anyone still reading this thread, I'm not going to quote all that i want to respond to--i'll just refer~~

On the conversation about greed & Darwinism: I do not equate the instinct or the ability to survive with insatiable greed.
By "survival of the fittest", I do not believe Darwin was referring to vast corporate wealth and abuse of power or economic theory.

There is no example in nature, that I can think of, in which any other living thing takes more than it needs for it's survival and basic comfort.
(I'm not suggesting we all live like animals, just observing that every living thing has a certain degree of self-interest, but that at the same time obscene greed is not nec. a "natural" trait, or at least not an acceptable one---for example, anger (acceptable) vs. violent rage (unacceptable), or lust (acceptable) vs rape (unacceptable)--anger, lust and greed, all being natural human traits VS rage, rape and gross robbery, all being controllable human compulsions).

And of course it's acceptable for any company to try to profit from their product or services, for sure--but it is not acceptable for them to put toxic materials into the products they are selling us, or into our air and water just so they can make MORE $$$, or not spend more on overhead.

I was made a criminal because of my product--yet there are REAL, dangerous toxins in half the shit in our stores, in our foods....all that paint parents rubbed into their lil vampires, clowns, and zombies faces today contained LEAD...just like those baby bottles a while back, and a bunch of other plastic Wal-Mart/China junk...yet we will continue to buy contaminated products from China, not matter how much they are poisoning us, because--China owns our asses--Thanks W.

Or, when someone has already paid for a service, it is not acceptable to deny them that service...esp. when the service they paid for was to prevent their suffering or death.

The mighty dollar has ruled stronger than any religion. I do not totally blame the greedy for our current state of affairs--I also blame lazy, apathetic and cowardly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the afghan war---If that would have been handled more like a war during the first six years, the situation may be different today, so let's not blame Obama for that shit. Afghanistan is very complex--and they have a history of NEVER losing a war. The soviet union collapsed after a ten year (?) war w afghanistan, having their economy completely drained. (During which time we secretly supplied intel., weapons and training to certain brutal tribal groups that would become the Taliban)

It is clear that the military objective on terrorism/al quaeda has been counter-productive. Many of those fighting today had NOTHING to w al-quaeda in 2001, they are fighting now bc of Bush's "crusade" talk and how he then went on to handle Iraq. We've kept just enough troops in afghan. to encourage their recruits and create more enemies. The longer we fight, the longer they fight. We will not exhaust them. This is what they do--and they have a serious home-field advantage. I know we can not turn and run tomorrow--but the solution to this problem may not be sending in hundreds and thousands more people to possibly be killed or traumatized. Are you aware of how these wars are being conducted anyway--mainly by hired contractors who answer to no one, but are paid for by us--BILLIONS--and they are some sick SOB's from what I understand. It's fucking ugly and the sooner it's over the better.

Had Bush bothered to read his CIA briefings, none of this would even be happening. But he didn't, and now it is.

i see your point, humans even primitive humans were greedy tho, maybe animals do not act greedy because they are not smart enough to think that far ahead, but humans as a species are naturally greedy unless we have been genetically altered this is how "god" made us. i think the fact that we are greedy and violent is the main reason we must have some sort of government whether to be a lose group of trading gangs or tribes or a full fledged government

even the most horrible act of rape happens regularly in the animal world and causes cute babies to be born and furthers that animals species


i think if lions were smarter they would start trying to hord things, like my dog even does that, he will eat his bone then steal the other dogs bone and hide it in the couch:bigjoint:

but i think the corps will steal or harm you if you let them so I blame the FDA and "government agencies" as theres got to be somebody who is uncorruptable or we will all be rubbing lead on our faces

and since you cant find uncorruptable people there should be nothing that has grown too large to fail, even the federal government.


 

naked gardener

Active Member
i see your point, humans even primitive humans were greedy tho, maybe animals do not act greedy because they are not smart enough to think that far ahead,
i think if lions were smarter they would start trying to hord things, like my dog even does that, he will eat his bone then steal the other dogs bone and hide it in the couch:bigjoint:

but i think the corps will steal or harm you if you let them so I blame the FDA and "government agencies" as theres got to be somebody who is uncorruptable or we will all be rubbing lead on our faces

and since you cant find uncorruptable people there should be nothing that has grown too large to fail, even the federal government.

Right, I agree that greed may be as hold as humankind--but we have evolved and we know what is acceptable and what is not--corporations should be more strongly regulated to protect workers, consumers and the environment. If our entire economic model is designed to make money, then more money, and then even more money...there does need to be guidelines to keep corruption, in such a system, in check--and that is why--along with capitalism--we also (supposedly) have a representative gov't. Unfortuntatly, they seem to represent lobbyists more than anyone else...again the almighty dollar...

but i understand that greed is natural, like anger or lust---but, unlike animals, we are also moral beings--social beings--and we harness the power of self-control and the ability to judge right from wrong, and senses of both justice and social responsibility.

And about your dog--that is a common act of territorial instinct/domination--not greed. That is not, imo, comparable to insurance co.'s, pharmaceutical co.'s, oil co.'s, and all the mega industries that are allowed to fuck us over every single chance they get--by cutting health care, off-shoring jobs for CHEAP and (shitty) labor, putting poisons in our foods, medicines, toys and other products, & our lakes, streams and air--giving cancer to countless people so the can make an extra few million on top of their already insane wealth.

And those generals in Afghanistan also begged the Bush admin for more support--FOR FUCKING YEARS!!! That is why they are in the situation they are in now--that window for victory is a joke--the afghans will NEVER stop fighting us--and both the Taliban and al quaeda will continue to gain recruits and strength for as long as we are there. For every afghani we kill--ten more will sign up to kill us--this cycle is NOT WORKING--and it is time to face that.

If it weren't for all the people who are sure to die and suffer--I would say--'go ahead and send more troops'--and then after a few more years of the same shit--just more dead people, --then maybe we'll rethink our strategy.
 

Cloud City

New Member
Yah, afghan war... The general said in August that the window for actually winning the war (isn't that the goal?) was closing quickly and a decision was needed..... it's November. Now Obama is still waiting.... waiting till we can't win?

It's called leadership.....Obama should try it sometime. Ppl are dying over there.....worst casualties since Fallujah. Now he's gonna wait till the governors races...... huh? It's obvious that we now have a war run on politics.... reminds me of Vietnam.... a recipe for failure.




The war in Afghanistan cannot be won no matter how many troops President Obama sends. After over 8 years of troops being there and no progress if you still buy into the bullshit the military is saying about having x amount of more troops and they can "win" then you are probably one of the cretins who supported Bush's war in Iraq.
 
Top