• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
MalboroRed said:
If it's a publicly funded broadcasting network then the government is forcing the people to pay for something they might or might not watch.
You first need to clear up on what PBS, NPR and CPB are. They're not one big gobment librul lefty edumacation machine. Your tax money doesn't go to NPR or PBS. Besides, your point shifted from "PBS/NPR (same shits) is not objective" to "I don't want to fund a government program". If we are going that route, then there is no point in talking about objectivity anymore.
Most news channels already have news reporting outside of opinion shows, the same is true with Fox News, whether you would like to admit it or not, people don't watch The O'Reilly Factor or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck for news on FNC, they watch people like Jon Scott/Jenna Lee/Sheppard Smith, people who are clearly reporters who do try to be impartial and not commentators. People can vote however they want, not only how YOU decide would be in their best interests. What are you going to do if you DO have a big public network and people still DON'T watch it? Are you going to shut down all the cable news channel you don't like because their opinion shows have right-wing views? What if they don't want your idea of "truthful news"?
There are lot of things I want to pick apart from your post but I'll just address the last line. If you have a governance system where the elected officials are nothing more than an extension of your whims, then you will not have a long lasting country. We elect people to make decisions for us given that they have broader exposure to facts. If you simply go with the whims of people (direct democracy), slavery would not have been abolished, civil rights movement would have faced more setbacks and women's suffrage would have been pushed further back. This is why we elect leaders, not joe the plumbers. If majority of the people want "big public network" gone, should the government oblige? If majority of the people want Medicare or Americans with Disability Act repealed, should it be gone? No. Doing so will come back and bite us in the ass in the long run. Having an uninformed electorate most definitely will.
 
GhaleonEB said:
A publicly funded highway system is forcing me to pay for roads I might not drive on.

That's why there are toll-booths for certain freeways. A city needs roads, when there are already broadcasting networks in existence serving the majority of the viewing public, a large public broadcasting network is not necessary unless the majority of people are asking for it, which is clearly not the case, there isn't a public outcry for such a network.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Are NPR or PBS funded the same way as VOA/RFL? No, they receive corporate underwriting. Therefore your comparison is invalid.

They once did, yes. NPR was almost entirely funded by the government until the early 1980's, coincidentally coinciding with sustained increases in inequality. And they still receive funding today. So, no, the comparison is not invalid. People did not then view NPR as propaganda and they do not today.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
It's called a library, they allow access to the internet and you don't even have to pay for it. Access is not as large an issue as you make it out to be. If a democracy doesn't need to rest upon it's population developing critical thinking skills than it's seems to just want drones, which really isn't something that help democracies thrive.

Oh great, now instead of using public money to create and broadly disseminate information about what is happening in society in order to maintain as informed a citizenry as possible, we're going to rely on people going to libraries. You really care that little for democracy, don't you? Not to mention that libraries are publicly funded suppliers of information, which is ... exactly what you are claiming you reject (albeit a more cumbersome version).

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
That's pretty rich coming from a (self admitted) Middle Class kid from Texas, who despite me saying what my parents did has refused to say what his did, or who only up until 6-8months ago was still using Bank of America! I had to break it you but you're not a member of the proletariat.

I didn't say I don't have a class bias. I try my best to recognize and account for it.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I'm not paying for it.

So you're an admitted leech? That's good to know about your character.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Only 3 out of 10 people have no access to the internet is actually better than I would expect. For others there are libraries, schools (for students), it's not just a black void. The fact is you also can't force people to watch or digest news. What will happen if most people choose to ignore this new source of news?

Nobody said you could force people to watch news. The point is to disseminate it as broadly as possible. Again, it is in my interest that the public be as informed as possible. If you weren't so dense, you would understand that it is in your interest as well.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
There is access as I've described for people without the internet. Frankly your "You cannot believe in democracy and hold the positions you do. You just can't" troll is about on par with the You don't deserve to be a lawyer (which always sounds it's coming from a very bitter person) crap you like to shovel at me. Guess what I can have my views and still believe in democracy. Putting forward an if you don't agree with EV you don't believe in democracy is a really shitty argument.

I look forward to hearing the affirmative argument you build that democracy and self-governance is better with an uninformed citizenry than an informed one. You are taking a stupid position--a position that you know full well to be probably among the stupidest things that anybody could say--for the sake of defending an ill-considered position in an internet argument. I hope it's worth it to you.
 

besada

Banned
Oblivion said:
Isn't any form of taxation wealth redistribution?

Probably, although I suppose one could theorize a system in which your taxes were collected by a central government, put in an individual account, and used to pay for the various services provided entirely by the free market. The minimalist government, whose only function was to gather taxes and handle the payment of various services, would fund itself via interest.

That would be crazy and pointless, though, so I'll say yes.

Edit: CNN says Bachmann is coming on "soon."
 
MalboroRed said:
That's why there are toll-booths for certain freeways. A city needs roads, when there are already broadcasting networks in existence serving the majority of the viewing public, a large public broadcasting network is not necessary unless the majority of people are asking for it, which is clearly not the case, there isn't a public outcry for such a network.

I'm going to set up a toll booth on the street outside my house. BRB.
 

Cyan

Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Now that is interesting. I've come across something for DVD rentals, but never for just access. I'd rather have money go from creating a news service to allowing the public free library access.
That I can agree with. :)
 
RustyNails said:
You first need to clear up on what PBS, NPR and CPB are. They're not one big gobment librul lefty edumacation machine. Your tax money doesn't go to NPR or PBS. Besides, your point shifted from "PBS/NPR (same shits) is not objective" to "I don't want to fund a government program". If we are going that route, then there is no point in talking about objectivity anymore.

There are lot of things I want to pick apart from your post but I'll just address the last line. If you have a governance system where the elected officials are nothing more than an extension of your whims, then you will not have a long lasting country. We elect people to make decisions for us given that they have broader exposure to facts. If you simply go with the whims of people (direct democracy), slavery would not have been abolished, civil rights movement would have faced more setbacks and women's suffrage would have been pushed further back. This is why we elect leaders, not joe the plumbers. If majority of the people want "big public network" gone, should the government oblige? If majority of the people want Medicare or Americans with Disability Act repealed, should it be gone? No. These things will come back and bite us in the ass in the long run. Having an uninformed electorate most definitely will.

It's not a "governance system", it's a democratic REPRESENTATION system, elected officials are REPRESENTATIVES, they act according to the will of the people, they are civil SERVANTS, they serve the people, they are accountable to their constituents, not the other way around, and America has lasted for quite awhile without your idea of a draconian government where people are told what channel to watch to be "informed", what to eat, how to vote, all according to their "best interests".

So you think that if the majority people have their way in a democracy America would still have slavery? That's ridiculous.

And if the majority of the people in a district want to elect a plumber to be their representative, guess what? They get to have a plumber to be their representative.
 
empty vessel said:
I'm going to set up a toll booth on the street outside my house. BRB.
Force them to buy your lemonade for $1.25 too because hey it's your booth and you can do whatever the hell. If they don't want it, they're more than welcome to take the dirt road!
 

Cyan

Banned
MalboroRed said:
It's not a "governance system", it's a democratic REPRESENTATION system, elected officials are REPRESENTATIVES, they act according to the will of the people, they are civil SERVANTS, they serve the people, they are accountable to their constituents, not the other way around, and America has lasted for quite awhile without your idea of a draconian government where people are told what channel to watch to be "informed", what to eat, how to vote, all according to their "best interests".
They are representatives, not proxies.

They are obligated to vote and act for what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents. Not as the majority of their constituents would vote.
 
empty vessel said:
They once did, yes. NPR was almost entirely funded by the government until the early 1980's, coincidentally coinciding with sustained increases in inequality. And they still receive funding today. So, no, the comparison is not invalid. People did not then view NPR as propaganda and they do not today.
Except they don't receive the funding anymore entirely from the government, in a sense they branched off, unlike VOA.


empty_vessel said:
Oh great, now instead of using public money to create and broadly disseminate information about what is happening to society in order to maintain an informed public, we're going to rely on people going to libraries. You really care that little for democracy, don't you? Not to mention that libraries are publicly funded suppliers of information, which is ... exactly what you are claiming you reject.
Yes, I'd rather have people learning to develop and use critical thinking skills. Where did I say I had any problem with libraries being funded by my tax dollars. I said just now I'd think it would be better to spend money on libraries than on your news service you have a raging hard on for. It's also important to note that American libraries and it's librarians have often been on the forefront in the battle against censorship and invasion of privacy, so yeah it's a good investment.

empty_vessel said:
I didn't say I don't have a class bias. I try my best to recognize and account for it.
You still won't say what your parents do/did, why is that?

empty_vessel said:
So you're an admitted leech? That's good to know about your character.
By accessing free new services on the internet that are not charged for? I can't access certain programs due to being outside the UK, but I don't circumvent them. So how am I a leech, I'm not sure where I stiffed the BBC here.

empty_vessel said:
Nobody said you could force people to watch news. The point is to disseminate it as broadly as possible. Again, it is in my interest that the public be as informed as possible. If you weren't so dense, you would understand that it is in your interest as well.
It's far better to spent that money allowing people to have free access to things like libraries and not for some USBC. They have a far better chance of being informed that way.

empty_vessel said:
I look forward to hearing the affirmative argument you build that democracy and self-governance is better with an uninformed citizenry than an informed one. You are taking a stupid position--a position that you know full well to be probably among the stupidest things that anybody could say--for the sake of defending an ill-considered position in an internet argument. I hope it's worth it to you.
It's good to see that beneath all of your pseudo-intellectual superiority you like to pull, you're just a bitter middle class asshole, who when push comes to shove we can all see it.

I will be kind enough to respond to the point that just made by saying you have a better chance of an informed citizenry with money spent on libraries and internet access for lower income families (since it really is national infrastructure development) than on you USBC. American libraries are some of the best examples of democracy and education in the country.
 
Cyan said:
Welcome to publicly funded... anything?

Freeways, as Ghaleon said. Public transportation I might never use. Public parks I will never visit, public buildings I will never enter, streetlights I will never stand beneath. Public schools for the kids I don't have. Fancy military equipment I'll never be allowed to use. Social security I plan to never need. Firefighters I hope to never need.

This is what it is to live under--well, any form of government but total anarchy, really.

The difference is that there are already news networks out there providing news service for all political spectrum and all you need is a television, and you can get news reports online, information is already freely disseminated without the need for a public news network, the government is not needed in this case to provide a service that is readily available to the public that the private sector or the individual is unwilling to provide.
 
GhaleonEB said:
His taxes helped fund the street, though. And I'm sure he could use the cash.

So did someone using that road, he doesn't have majority ownership interest of the road, it doesn't matter whether he could use the cash, unless he can convince the majority of the people in his township that the road should be turned into a toll freeway.
 

Cyan

Banned
MalboroRed said:
The difference is that there are already news networks out there providing news service for all political spectrum and all you need is a television, and you can get news reports online, information is already freely disseminated without the need for a public news network, the government is not needed in this case to provide a service that is readily available to the public that the private sector or the individual is unwilling to provide.
There are private toll roads. Private trains and buses. Private parks and buildings and schools. And there is private insurance, oh my yes.

Why publicly fund any of those things?
 
Cyan said:
They are representatives, not proxies.

They are obligated to vote and act for what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents. Not as the majority of their constituents would vote.

If what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents turns out to be something their constituents don't want, they will get voted out, so either way they have to reflect the views of their constituents if they value their political survival.
 
besada said:
What did your parents do? What do you do for a living? How much money do you make?
This dates back to him asking me what my parents did and my social status was in a thread long time ago and I replied and he never did.

My mom is a public school teacher and my dad is an attorney and I was middle class.

He simply responded that he was middle class, but that I was better off (which he provided no evidence to support).

I'm just waiting for my answer.
 
Cyan said:
There are private toll roads. Private trains and buses. Private parks and buildings and schools. And there is private insurance, oh my yes.

Why publicly fund any of those things?

If I have car insurance with statefarm do I really need public car insurance? Probably not.

There might not be a need for public anything that can be adequately provided privately, sometimes this is not always the case, but in the case of news, there are already more than enough networks out there to disseminate news information, and the mainstream networks are already free.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
This dates back to him asking me what my parents did and my social status was in a thread long time ago and I replied and he never did.

My mom is a public school teacher and my dad is an attorney and I was middle class.

He simply responded that he was middle class, but that I was better off (which he provided no evidence to support).

I'm just waiting for my answer.

Why does he have a problem that you might be better off?

I don't understand why class even matters, it's like one class has to work against another.
 
MalboroRed said:
It's not a "governance system", it's a democratic REPRESENTATION system, elected officials are REPRESENTATIVES, they act according to the will of the people, they are civil SERVANTS, they serve the people, they are accountable to their constituents, not the other way around, and America has lasted for quite awhile without your idea of a draconian government where people are told what channel to watch to be "informed", what to eat, how to vote, all according to their "best interests".
And why do you think we have a representative system rather than a direct democracy? You answered yourself. If we wanted a governance system where the population decides the policy, we wouldn't have been a republic. Representatives do what's best for their constituents, not what their constituents want, although some of them slide back and forth between the categories. This is why congressional Democrats in red districts voted for Obama's HCR bill and paid the price in the elections. Their constituents don't know what's good for them.
And if the majority of the people in a district want to elect a plumber to be their representative, guess what? They get to have a plumber to be their representative.
No argument from me. Which is why Florida elected the biggest medicare fraudster in history and are paying the price. Which is why Ohio and Wisconsin elected Wall St minions and are having huge buyer's remorse. This is what happens when you have uninformed electorate, people shoot themselves in the foot.
 

Cyan

Banned
MalboroRed said:
If what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents turns out to be something their constituents don't want, they will get voted out, so either way they have to reflect the views of their constituents if they value their political survival.
Indeed; that's part of why so few politicians actually live up to the ideal of voting in their constituents' best interests.
 

besada

Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
This dates back to him asking me what my parents did and my social status was in a thread long time ago and I replied and he never did.

My mom is a public school teacher and my dad is an attorney and I was middle class.

He simply responded that he was middle class, but that I was better off (which he provided no evidence to support).

I'm just waiting for my answer.

I know what it dates back to, because I've had to watch you drag it up obsessively in multiple threads. If you two can't restrain yourselves, you might at least take it to PMs so the rest of us don't have to watch your awkward courtship.

I note that you didn't bother to answer my pointless personal questions -- I'm still waiting on my answers. Can I now follow you around asking how much you make and suggesting archly that you're a phony?
 
RustyNails said:
And why do you think we have a representative system rather than a direct democracy? You answered yourself. If we wanted a governance system where the population decides the policy, we wouldn't have been a republic. Representatives do what's best for their constituents, not what their constituents want, although some of them slide back and forth between the categories. This is why congressional Democrats in red districts voted for Obama's HCR bill and paid the price in the elections.

A representative REPRESENTS his or her constituents, NOT do what "they think is best" for their constituents, that's why congressmen and senators go back to their districts to sell an idea and if the constituents overwhelmingly reject it then that representative should vote according to the will of the people or be voted out.


Their constituents don't know what's good for them.

This kind of elitism is pretty frightening.

No argument from me. Which is why Florida elected the biggest medicare fraudster in history and are paying the price. Which is why Ohio and Wisconsin elected Wall St minions and are having huge buyer's remorse. This is what happens when you have uninformed electorate, people shoot themselves in the foot.

We'll know a few years later whether those economies can turn around and if they do, there's a high chance these "fraudsters" and "minions" will get elected back into office.
 
I don't understand the contentions of MarlboroRed, are you saying that corporate media is adequate in providing the common citizenry information necessary to be an informed citizen in a democracy? because I believe that is total and complete bullshit, personally.

Corporate media is entertainment, nothing more.
 
Alpha-Bromega said:
I don't understand the contentions of MarlboroRed, are you saying that corporate media is adequate in providing the common citizenry information necessary to be an informed citizen in a democracy? because I believe that is total and complete bullshit, personally

Are you saying that you are unable to get informed of what's happening right now even with all the networks already out there?
 
besada said:
I know what it dates back to, because I've had to watch you drag it up obsessively in multiple threads. If you two can't restrain yourselves, you might at least take it to PMs so the rest of us don't have to watch your awkward courtship.
When he wants to bring up my social class as an issue, I'm calling him on his.

besada said:
I note that you didn't bother to answer my pointless personal questions -- I'm still waiting on my answers. Can I now follow you around asking how much you make and suggesting archly that you're a phony?

You didn't answer first though. Here's a freebie though, I'm an attorney. :)

Alpha-Bromega said:
I don't understand the contentions of MarlboroRed, are you saying that corporate media is adequate in providing the common citizenry information necessary to be an informed citizen in a democracy? because I believe that is total and complete bullshit, personally.

Corporate media is entertainment, nothing more.

What about The Guardian or The Economist?
 

Cyan

Banned
MalboroRed said:
A representative REPRESENTS his or her constituents, NOT do what "they think is best" for their constituents, that's why congressmen and senators go back to their districts to sell an idea and if the constituents overwhelmingly reject it then that representative should vote according to the will of the people or be voted out.
We're a democratic republic, not a direct democracy.

This kind of elitism is pretty frightening.
Frighteningly accurate. People are stupid, and direct democracies do stupid things. See: California.

We'll know a few years later whether those economies can turn around and if they do, there's a high chance these "fraudsters" and "minions" will get elected back into office.
Wait, you mean they are allowed to do unpopular stuff, if it turns out to be what's best for their constituents?

I'm so confused.
 
Cyan said:
We're a democratic republic, not a direct democracy.


Frighteningly accurate. People are stupid, and direct democracies do stupid things. See: California.


Wait, you mean they are allowed to do unpopular stuff, if it turns out to be what's best for their constituents?

I'm so confused.

Are you going to hold a national or a state vote for every issue? Can you afford to? If not then you can't have a direct democracy, but the representative should act according to the will of his or her constituents, he or she is usually voted in because his values are in line with theirs and the constituents agree with his or her election platform.

Are they really doing unpopular stuff, or is the outcry from a vocal minority? Because these people are voted in on a platform to reform government and cut spending.
 
Alpha-Bromega said:
I don't understand the contentions of MarlboroRed, are you saying that corporate media is adequate in providing the common citizenry information necessary to be an informed citizen in a democracy? because I believe that is total and complete bullshit, personally.

Corporate media is entertainment, nothing more.

Here's my problem with this: people won't be any more informed than they are now by public media if they don't agree with what this hypothetical public media source is reporting. Private entities are better because they give people what they want, not what other people think they need.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
BigPickZel said:
This is pretty exciting internet, right here.

Romney-Waving-cropped-proto-custom_24.jpg
 
BigPickZel said:
Here's my problem with this: people won't be any more informed than they are now by public media if they don't agree with what this hypothetical public media source is reporting. Private entities are better because they give people what they want, not what other people think they need.
what people want to hear about =! news

PL: that photo needs 100% more flagpin.
 
BigPickZel said:
Here's my problem with this: people won't be any more informed than they are now by public media if they don't agree with what this hypothetical public media source is reporting. Private entities are better because they give people what they want, not what other people think they need.

Exactly. You can force people to fund some big government network against their will and still the network might have poor viewership, people want news the way they want it, not how a bunch of pseudo-intellectual elites think is best for them, unless the people are strapped to a chair and forcibly "educated".
 

lo escondido

Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
empty vessel said:
You really care that little for democracy, don't you? Not to mention that libraries are publicly funded suppliers of information, which is ... exactly what you are claiming you reject (albeit a more cumbersome version).
Will you stop with this whole "this is needed for democracy" meme. Democracy is rule by the people, we have that. Having a government run media will not move us closer to democracy. You seem to want it because it creates a "better informed electorate" (which is objective, I know you'll bring in the NPR listeners are smarter studies but that doesn't mean NPR made them that way) which you want so they can rise up and destroy "corporate america."

empty vessel said:
I didn't say I don't have a class bias. I try my best to recognize and account for it.
Why is everything class based to you?

empty vessel said:
Nobody said you could force people to watch news. The point is to disseminate it as broadly as possible. Again, it is in my interest that the public be as informed as possible. If you weren't so dense, you would understand that it is in your interest as well.

Libraries are disseminated very broadly, so why can't they work? Because you want YOUR source and giving people other options can lead them down the path of listening to corporate media and we can't have that!


empty vessel said:
So you're an admitted leech? That's good to know about your character.

Coming from the guy who wants an omnipresent welfare state?
 
MalboroRed said:
Are you saying that you are unable to get informed of what's happening right now even with all the networks already out there?

I and others like myself can because many of us here take being an informed citizen seriously, look to critically analyze and cross references our sources so we can come to the best conclusion.

Most people simply take corporate news because a) it's available b) it's assumed media wouldn't 'lie' or manipulate you

It's just as much our fault as citizens as it is the fault of corporate media.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
what people want to hear about =! news

PL: that photo needs 100% more flagpin.

Says you. I imagine there are literally millions of people who think that a message board for videogames is a poor use of bandwidth. Also, syntax error, could not compile.
 
lo escondido said:
Libraries are disseminated very broadly, so why can't they work? Because you want YOUR source and giving people other options can lead them down the path of listening to corporate media and we can't have that!
All of the people citing libraries as the only acceptable instance of public media: who chooses which books are to be available to the public for free? Libraries are susceptible to some of the same objections as public broadcast media.
 
MalboroRed said:
Exactly. You can force people to fund some big government network against their will and still the network might have poor viewership, people want news the way they want it, not how a bunch of pseudo-intellectual elites think is best for them, unless the people are strapped to a chair and forcibly "educated".

My God this is dangerous thinking.

The "news the way they want it" is ENTERTAINMENT, the Weiner scandal, according to 'the people', is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD. Do you not see a problem with this?

Do you not see a problem with interests that do not lie with informing the populace assuming that role, for profit? What function, besides base entertainment, are these outlets serving?
 
Alpha-Bromega said:
I and others like myself can because many of us here take being an informed citizen seriously, look to critically analyze and cross references our sources so we can come to the best conclusion.

Most people simply take corporate news because a) it's available b) it's assumed media wouldn't 'lie' or manipulate you

It's just as much our fault as citizens as it is the fault of corporate media.

Are you unable to be informed right now because there isn't a big publicly funded news network? Because if that is the case you're making assumptions and arguments from an admittedly uninformed position.

Who is to say that "public" news wouldn't lie or manipulate you? Marxist-socialist governments do it all the time through propaganda.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
what people want to hear about =! news
I think you can also read that as news story focus. So people prefer business, others foreign policy versus domestic issues. I think that is a definite advantage of corporate media (or more accurately diverse media sources) is that people can get focus on what they want to be informed of the most, though that doesn't mean that people shouldn't go off the beaten path.

Besides honestly what is any promise a public news source would get the focus correct? I mean besides saying some celeb doing stuff is not real top news, opinions could legitimately vary on what is top news.
 

lo escondido

Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
RustyNails said:
And why do you think we have a representative system rather than a direct democracy? You answered yourself. If we wanted a governance system where the population decides the policy, we wouldn't have been a republic. Representatives do what's best for their constituents, not what their constituents want, although some of them slide back and forth between the categories. This is why congressional Democrats in red districts voted for Obama's HCR bill and paid the price in the elections. Their constituents don't know what's good for them.

While I disagree with much of you wording (which seems a bit patronizing to the voters). I think its forgotten that we only vote for representatives. Thats the way our system has always been we don't vote for policy directly.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
All of the people citing libraries as the only acceptable instance of public media: who chooses which books are to be available to the public for free? Libraries are susceptible to some of the same objections as public broadcast media.

While some subjectivity is there in selecting books, popular books are usually available, and people are free to pick which book to borrow and read, and the books aren't filtered and interpreted through a particular viewpoint, outside of the author and the reader, or course.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
All of the people citing libraries as the only acceptable instance of public media: who chooses which books are to be available to the public for free? Libraries are susceptible to some of the same objections as public broadcast media.

Well, there's only one reasonable response to that.

Abolish the libraries! No public funding for libraries! I don't wanna pay for YOUR book learnin'.

(Sadly, we're already heading down that path. The rationale for public libraries is identical to the rationale for publicly-funded media. I'm sure somebody will come up with a rationalization to alleviate the cognitive dissonance.)
 
MalboroRed said:
While some subjectivity is there in selecting books, popular books are usually available, and people are free to pick which book to borrow and read, and the books aren't filtered and interpreted through a particular viewpoint, outside of the author and the reader, or course.

Yes as much as I would love for people to spend time at the library and educate themselves on the classics, learn basic economic and political theories, etc. this is completely and totally irrelevant to the effectiveness of most corporate news outlets in informing the general populace in a manner that is not ideological or profit driven.

I am quite scared that you think that it's totally fine for media to assume this role because, fuck, people like entertainment masquerading as news! so it must be good!
 

Dude Abides

Banned
MalboroRed said:
While some subjectivity is there in selecting books, popular books are usually available, and people are free to pick which book to borrow and read, and the books aren't filtered and interpreted through a particular viewpoint, outside of the author and the reader, or course.

So we need not be concerned about an informed public because they have ready access to the Da Vinci Code and Twilight?

Now that I think of it, why am I subsidizing people's terrible reading habits through public libraries? I'm off to join the tea party!
 

lo escondido

Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
Invisible_Insane said:
All of the people citing libraries as the only acceptable instance of public media: who chooses which books are to be available to the public for free? Libraries are susceptible to some of the same objections as public broadcast media.
I'm using the libraries as a source of the internet.

GaimeGuy said:
Oh please.


If you made $373,650 last year, your federal income tax rate was 29.0165% Your payroll tax rate was 3.2221%. You're basically paying a federal tax rate of 32.24%.

Someone making $70k a year pays 19.7762% in income tax and 7.65% payroll tax. a tax rate of 27.43%

someone making $30k pays 13.61% income tax and 7.65% payroll tax, meaning a federal tax rate of 21.26%.



The person making $373,650 in a year has a tax rate that is only 10.98% higher than the person making $30k. Oh, and if someone's self employed, you can double their payroll tax rate from 7.65% to 15.30%. Meaning someone who is self-employed making $70k has a higher tax rate than someone who is not self-employed making $373,650.

Shut the fuck up with your fear mongering, the current tax rates should scare the crap out of any reasonable person, even ignoring sales taxes (Which is even more regressive in practice than payroll taxes are due to the fact that typically the portion of income susceptible to sales tax decreases as total income increases. Yay marginal utility) and the 15% capital gains tax rate.


Warren fucking Buffet pays a tax rate of 16%

I never said I was opposed to progressive taxes and I'm against the bush tax cuts, I like progressive taxation and do feel that the rich should pay a higher percentage but EV would take it to the extreme and that is what I would be against.

I'm in favor of a return to the clinton tax rates
 

besada

Banned
Manos said:
When he wants to bring up my social class as an issue, I'm calling him on his.

And he gave you an answer, just not the one you wanted. He's not required to divulge his personal information to satisfy your curiosity, and literally nothing he said would make a difference, if you won't accept his word in the first place. You do it to badger him, because you don't like him, because he said shitty thing about you and being a lawyer. I've seen the whole stupid drama unfold.


You didn't answer first though. Here's a freebie though, I'm an attorney. :)

I'm Mr. Oversharing, so just remember that you asked for it:

My father was born to a drunken mechanic, who found Jesus after getting his ear cut off and became a circuit rider until he had a stroke standing in a tent, praising Jesus. He was born with an extra bone in both legs and was tugged around by his twin sister in a red wagon until the Shriner's paid to have the extra bones removed. His first job was at 13, repairing appliances. He was entirely self-taught in the art of electronics repair, although his newly minted step-father repaired watches. They were, literally, dirt poor. They had floors of dirt, and my father grew up wearing someone else's clothes. He started working to help feed his family.

He studied hard and attended school, where he met my mother, a polio survivor, and the daughter of second generation Irish immigrants, one who taught school, and the other who worked for the railroads as in inspector. They fell in love and got married while she was going to nursing school, and he attended UT for architecture. Like many young couples, they started a family.

In 1964, the rubella epidemic was sweeping the nation. There were hundreds of thousands of miscarriages, and those babies born with rubella suffered terrible congenital failures. My brother was one of those babies. The high temperature burned up the nerves in his ears in eyes, leaving him legally deaf and blind. He was also born cyanotic, and with a lethal heart murmur. My father dropped out of college and took two jobs to help afford the necessary surgery. The March of Dimes, who made my brother their posterboy that year, helped out considerably.

My mother became a nurse, and my father became a bank teller. From there he became a loan officer, then a bank insurance executive, then a bank president. As bank President, he discovered that the shareholders were using bank money to make fraudulent and dangerous investments. You probably remember this part as the Savings and Loan scandal. In downhome Tennessee it played out with bricks through my father's windows, late night death threats, and a shot fired through his window as he was driving. This is why we came back to Texas, and also marks the beginning of my father's descent into serious alcoholism.

In Texas, he managed to secure a job with a bank because of a fluke. See, he'd been blacklisted. He couldn't work in the industry, because the people who owned the banks didn't like whistleblowers. But this bank, they needed someone who knew something about these new-fangled computers, and my father had overseen one of the first computer system retrofits for his bank in Tennessee. So he became their Data Processing manager. He also sank deeper and deeper into alcoholism. By the end, the bank couldn't keep him in place, and his career as a banker was over at the age of forty-five. He worked a few other jobs, mostly retail, which humiliated him, before giving up and becoming a stay at home husband. My mother, who'd spent the last thirty years having her heart ripped out on a daily basis in the NICU ward, made enough money that she could support them, since us kids had moved out.

So, that's what my father and mother did for a living. They were poor and they were rich and then they were sorta poor again until my father died of cancer.

I spent twenty years as an IT Security specialist before losing my mind. I made $70K my best year. I've also worked as a phone solicitor, programmer, a visual artist, a security guard, an editor, and a comic book writer. I'm currently unemployed, but when I return to work I'll be a paralegal for a family law/personal injury attorney.

Anything else? Any more simplistic questions you think are meaningful? I'm an open book, Manos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom