StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) I think this says it all to me when it comes to the modern standard of living and people thinking they're lives suck. Remember that these things you're pointing to, more cars TV's etc. have come at the expense of moving manufacturing overseas, a second income and, of course, the expansion of credit along with technological improvements. I think you're really sticking on a semantic nitpick that misses the larger issues brought up in the graph.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Oh god, here we go with your straw man defacto argument of 'anecdotes'. Ok, you're right, I'm wrong. Blue collar work got even harder, despite better tools existing, better automation, better everything. Sorry, but it's not a f***ing anecdote to say a garbage mans job is easier. It f***ing is. my garbage men don't have the fancy automated trucks! anecdote canceled! But still these gains in productivity haven't resulted in increased real wages or less work. Some jobs have gotten easier; others allow a lot more accomplishment for the same effort, others, like literally cleaning up s***, really haven't. I don't really think there's a fundamental disagreement here? eta I first commented on computers because that's the example you used!

You've described a lot of benefits for white collar work. Cleaning up s*** hasn't gotten easier because of computers. That's reflected in the graphs floating around recently showing the divergence of life expectancy and how the upper-middle class and wealthy life expectancy continues to climb while lower-middle and lower class has basically flat-lined. And it's not like people are working any less or putting in less effort than they were 30 or 40 years ago, it's that the same amount of effort generates a lot more results because we've better tools. That doesn't justify the wealth benefits of all of that increased productivity going only to a small number of people. As for the explosion of credit, well, when your real wages are stagnant for decades, finding second sources of income or spending on credit are the only real way to maintain or marginally improve your standard of living. It gets to the fundamental problems we're currently facing, and advocating for significantly reduced amounts of consumption only gets us into a paradox of thrift and the current "complete collapse of aggregate demand" situation we face now.

CUT AWAY CUT AWAY SEND TRANSMISSION FROM THE ONE-ARMED SCISSOR

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 05:04 PM) Keep creating irrelevant issues to support your clear and obvious bias towards anything conservative. We're all out to get you. I'm not quite sure what this response is supposed to mean or address, other than being an obvious dodge of the issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 04:41 PM) So the change from "Union leader calls for war against the tea party" to "union leader calls for war against tea party by getting out to vote" is a big change in the narrative? Come on. You're reaching. No sane person believed that Hoffa was truly calling for physical violence to combat the GOP or conservative-minded people. That's asinine. Edit: even by responding i'm making a bigger deal out of it than this "issue" warrants. At the end of the day Hoffa said we need to go to war against the tea party. Obama, we are your army, lets go. Fox News' coverage was basically "oh s***, our audience is tea partiers, we should report on the fact that the union is calling for a war against our audience." keep making excuses for deliberating editing context out of the middle of statements to make them appear worse than they are to fit the network's standard "union thugs" narrative. Yes, a change from "let's take them out by voting!" to "let's take them out!" is substantial since the latter implies violence that the former does not. This isn't actually a big deal because Fox doesn't really have any journalistic integrity. I posted it in response to someone else pointing out how the left uses such violent rhetoric, since it turns out that in at least this instance the actual, unedited statement is a lot more innocuous than the misleading edit that generated so much OUTRAGE! on rightwing blogs/radio/TV

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 04:29 PM) What planet do you live on? Charles Johnson is so far off the edge he needs a straight jacket. The one where a moderate republican isn't a lefty just because he disagrees with the far right.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) And really I don't see the outrage over Fox News there. Does anyone (including Fox News) really think Hoffa was calling for people to pick up their guns and start a civil war? It was all rhetoric. But since liberals are excused from using that kind of rhetoric whenever it suits their message, Fox News rightly pointed out the hypocrisy. Uh, they intentionally edited out a key portion of the quote in order to change the apparent message. They didn't cut the quote short or start it late, they removed a single sentence from the middle which gives context to the entire metaphor from something violent to clearly about voting. If that sentence stays in, Fox's standard dumb narrative of "union thugs call for violence!" falls apart. It's not like LGF is some lefty blog here, either. Fox News didn't point out any hypocrisy, they manipulated a video and lied to further a narrative.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) I hold my breath waiting for you to chastise MSNBC or CNN (whoever it was) that called Perry racist by talking about a "black cloud" of debt we're under. You can keep holding your breath until some unknown source who said a thing is chastised by me. That's really a nonsense objection. lol it was Ed Schultz, I've already called that guy the left-wing version of Limbaugh except even more annoying somehow. He's absolutely terrible. Your objection here still doesn't excuse Fox's deliberate editing of a clip, though.

So the WS title gives a manager at least a 5 year pass?

Leaving the opportunistic over-reaction to violent metaphors aside for a moment, you're ignoring that Fox intentionally edited the clip by removing a sentence from the middle in order to forward their narrative of "union thugs" by completely removing the context for the metaphor. That's a pretty egregious violation of ethical standards for reporting. The Palin thing stuck out because her map specifically called out Giffords with a cross-hair. Having that come to mind and saying "hey, maybe we should be a little more careful with violent metaphors" isn't exactly unreasonable, but the "OMG! Palin's stupidity got giffords shot! End all violent metaphors now!" reaction was dumb.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 6, 2011 -> 05:46 PM) And then there was Jimmy Hoffa ordering his goon subordinates to take those Tea Party "sons-of-b****es" out. Obama, of course, was proud of him. FWIW this report originated on Fox News as a intentionally edited-to-be-misleading quote and and was carried by the MSM reports with the same editing.

4th circuit voted to uphold the ACA on jurisdictional and merit grounds today. Another ruling that's just setting the stage for a SCOTUS review.

I can't seem to recall, have you posted your preferred candidate?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 05:29 PM) It sounds like talks have broken down as Forte seems to have wanted a deal closer to the $45 million/$21 guaranteed that D'Angelo Williams got (as a full free agent) earlier this summer. I don't see Forte being worth that much. He's good, but not special, and RB's seem to be having a diminishing impact on the NFL anyway.

the term's being used colloquially, since we're talking about personal investors with maybe four or five figures, not institutional investors or analytic traders.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 05:13 PM) I'll remember that once Obama is out of office. We'll see if you feel the same when there are Republicans behind something like that. I don't like Obama, and I don't like dumb partisan assertions of grand conspiracies that don't make any sense.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) No, I don't. They came up with a plan to 'track' straw purchasers by telling gun stores to sell to them on purpose, so that they could then track the guns into mexico for some reason they never wuite said. However they had NO plan in place to actually TRACK the guns, so they all fell into the Mexican underground, and some even made their way to the border where American law enforcement agents were killed. There was an IMMEDIATE coverup by BATF to keep the fact that the guns used in that killing were ones they had 'lost'. So, stupid or 'brilliant' plan by our lovely government, you can decide what you want. At a minimum, the people involved need to be behind bars. Instead, they get shifted around, moved to more obscure agencies and so on in the hopes that they don't rat out someone higher up. I'm not defending the wisdom of the program or the lack of culpebility for the people involved. What I'm laughing at is that this somehow means it was all intentionally done to shift public opinion on gun rights, and that someone who doesn't accept this extraordinary assertion is "sucking the progressive cock" you'll also have to explain to me how the "bush let it happen!" 9/11 troofer movement claims are logically any different from what you're putting forth here. Both claim coverups for what appears to be government incompetence but it really a mask for a subversive plot to get the public behind a political or ideological goal.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) The same banks they held hard negotiations with to MAKE those risky loans to begin with. Nothing like a little extortion to get your way. No one forced banks to make those risky loans. The government didn't hold hard negotiations to create the derivatives market and the securitization of mortgages or force bond agencies to give garbage AAA ratings. Study after study after study have come to the same conclusion: CRA loans were a minor part of the problem, if at all, and Freddie & Fannie loans actually had significantly lower default rates than private sector loans. This crisis was created by the banking industry. Anyway, that doesn't really have anything to do with portraying Waters' comments as a call for the elimination of banks simply for the sake of eliminating banks.

Also, a big CYA after a program fails horribly with really bad consequences doesn't necessarily invoke a conspiracy beyond "we don't want to look bad and want to minimize political damage"

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 05:01 PM) Read the stuff about it, even from the few msn outlets that covered it. Tell me how it was NOT destined to fail. Explain the coverup, the people ordered NOT to testify about it. If it wasn't planned to fail, the people who planned it should be put down for the good of society so that they never reproduce again and infect the world with their special kind of stupid. You know, some on the crazy left say the same things about Iraq and Afghanistan just being imperial wars of conquest or to build an oil pipeline etc. etc. If we follow your logic above, that this was some grand plan to get a law that appears to already be on the books (straw purchase law) passed, well, you sort of have to grant credibility to the more grandiose plans that are the real reasons we invaded. This ventures into the same realm as every other "massive cover up" government conspiracy theory, but it lacks any real motivation or hopeful end game.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) Oh right, she is a democrat, so some 'nuance' is needed. It's not like the context makes it any less populist or a particularly intelligent bit of rhetoric, but it does make it sound a lot less stupid than a simple desire to eliminate banks via taxation. The idea was to hold hard negotiations with banks that received billions in TARP bailout funds but are doing seemingly nothing to provide relief for people who are underwater in their mortgages. She wasn't advocating for the elimination of banks.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) For traders, share price is considered a part of risk. There is more risk in a share of google versus a share of BAC because of the sheer dollar amounts at play. Otherwise 0-1 type Delta options trades would be considered the riskiest of all, even though you are only better a dollar or so in all likelihood. You're still only risking a set dollar amount, not "100 shares of BoA or 100 shares of Google." I don't stand to lose any more money just because Google shares are more expensive if I'm investing $x dollars, not buying x shares. But I'd imagine that price inherently reflects risk, at least in part, which is why I picked Google ($$$$) and BoA ($).

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) She already wants to tax banks out of business. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) Who needs banks, right? That's not exactly what she said.