RustyNails
Member
How did Obama divide all the races? Im confused.
-
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 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
He's the antichrist.
By mentioning that they exist.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Try to internalize just how many people 350 million people is.
Think about if you would want all of those people working in finance the way you do.
PhoenixDark
Banned
this x100
Welp, there goes Santorum's chances for the nomination. His dream over before it began .
Nah, he's still crazy enough and religious enough to make up for this.
Get in on the herbalife battle.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-iowa-state-senator-confirms-being-bribed-by
Certainly not something I ever thought I'd see.
Certainly not something I ever thought I'd see.
el retorno
Member
Freemarket baby. Why can't I buy my votes?
"I was content to hide my racism until Obama made it an issue"
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I was a semi successful daytrader for a while myself, but I never could figure out where's my value to society in doing that. I mean I can look outside at the guy carrying my garbage or the guy restocking the shelves at the grocery store and easily see their value to me and the rest of society, even if small. All I was doing was playing some sort of fancy poker game.
I wasn't even investing in the businesses that seemed like they had a solid business plan and helping them to enact it, I was just using what I learned about stock market psychology and capitalized whenever I saw charts that matched up with the scenarios that I've been taught from books and a daytrading family friend, along with some experience to get a feel for how valuable each indicator is by pretending to buy stocks with fake money.
Scalping is the word used for my type of trading and that is all I was. Just like the guy who buys tickets to a popular show only so he can resell them after they get sold out. The only benefit he did was to jack up the price to where only the obscenely rich could afford it, but he's getting paid good money doing it, especially if he has the skills to know which shows are likely to sell out.
Yeah, I know that supposedly I'm helping to find the correct price for the stock, but how important is that really? I mean if I take my $10,000 and turn it into $1,000,000 that's a lot to pay me, but even $1,000,000 isn't enough to make the price change much at all for most stocks, especially not doing the S&P futures like I was. And where did that $990,000 come from anyhow? Probably just Goldman Sachs.
I ended up stopping because I felt too conservative about losing money that should be for my college, and couldn't make big enough returns to live on because of it, but I still dream of saving up $10,000 to play all or nothing with and maybe making myself a millionaire by stealing Goldman Sachs money, and using that money to start a business that actually does benefit society.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
You didn't get your Obamaphone?
Welp, there goes Santorum's chances for the nomination. His dream over before it began .
Santorum would know a thing or two about holes.
el retorno
Member
el retorno
Member
Don't blame the victim. Its god's fault he's a misogynistic asshole sometimes.
Really? It wouldn't shock me at all.
Wow, talk about an asshat. It certainly explains why he's a dick.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Wait, I thought he was a Catholic?
So Erick Erickson has a childlike understanding Calvinism and predestination, I'll add it to the list of things he has a childlike understating of.
It's quite a long list.
RustyNails
Member
Mrs. Manky
Banned
I understand that "47" in "47 percent Negro" is meant to be a reference to Romney's 47 percent, but if Barack Obama is truly descended from the original African slaves on his /mother's/ side, then he is actually more than 50 percent Negro.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I've met the dude and he really seemed like a rational dude. Even when talking about politics. I can't help but think he plays a character to some extent.
I assume they were trying to say that his "negro" side was lazy and didn't want to work, a la Romney's original comments.
So it's really multi-layered racism, like an asshole onion.
Black Mamba
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gy04q3-3NWU
If you have 15 mins. It shows a conservative Congressman try to make his Tea Party people understand why a gov't shut down won't do shit to Obamacare.
They don't get it.
The GOP created this monster it cannot control. I do wonder if come 2014 a bunch of the conservatives lose primaries to extremists who are unelectable even in some of this gerrymandered districts.
Would be amazing.
If you have 15 mins. It shows a conservative Congressman try to make his Tea Party people understand why a gov't shut down won't do shit to Obamacare.
They don't get it.
The GOP created this monster it cannot control. I do wonder if come 2014 a bunch of the conservatives lose primaries to extremists who are unelectable even in some of this gerrymandered districts.
Would be amazing.
reggieandTFE
Member
Public jobs. 20% of employed African-Americans work for cities, counties, states or the federal government.
The attack on public employees isn't just about busting Unions; it's also motivated by structural racism and sexism.
The plutocrats want to replace well-paid working class jobs that created entry into te middle class (post office, clerk at SSA, etc.) with minimum wage (or less) Wal-Mart, fast food and nursing home jobs.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I would never be able to pander to people that stupid.
EDIT - Jesus, the woman at the end. "But our parents will keep getting paid, right?!"
These people are so clueless.
Wait...what the fuck is he talking about??
empty vessel
Member
I've probably said something like this before myself, but the reality is that the GOP didn't create it. Corporate executives and right-wing industrialists did. The GOP is just forced to respond to it. And, yes, they respond to it by appeasing it, but that is what is to be expected of a political party. It has little other choice.
Black Mamba
Member
No, they created it by outright lying to them. People like Rubio and Cruz are telling republicans if they support them they can defund Obamcare which is factually incorrect. Or that this idea that Obama will relent when he won't. If you watch the video you see the people just don't understand the politics.
Giving them false beliefs. False narratives (like the IRS as well and Benghazi). Obama is a Muslim. Etc.
I don't mean the Tea Party in general as the monster, which yes your claim is accurate. I mean the horribly misinformed republican base voter. That's a result of the GOP lying or misleading them and now they don't know how to control it at all and there's a good chance the party will pay for it from within.
The corporate execs didn't push Obama Muslim bullshit. That was the GOP looking at the short term for a payoff that didn't exist.
edit: I count Fox News as part of the GOP, fwiw.
empty vessel
Member
No, what you describe is the GOP responding to right wing radicalization, which has been created by corporate executives and right wing industrialists. It's been a decades-long process, beginning in the 1970s. What we are seeing now is merely its culmination in the political sphere. Republican politicians aren't responsible for shit except acting like a political party. They're just people capitalizing on all the ground work that's already been laid.
If you were around in the 90s, then you know that the GOP base was already radicalized (albeit likely a smaller proportion than today). It's taken another decade for the GOP to fully respond to it.
Black Mamba
Member
If I understand correctly, you're arguing the politicians are simply making shit up based on what they believe their people would like to hear.
In which case, it makes them just as much if not more to blame for feeding into it for, as I mentioned, a perceived short term gain.
You're trying to remove blame from the people misinforming them and feeding the delusions. I get that the party has radicalized but that doesn't excuse the behavior of the politicians that know better. They've actively made it worse when it wasn't necessary.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Corporations and right wing industrialists didn't create the racism and reactionary politics of today. Not everything has a Marxist explanation.
For example, right now right wing business people are calling for immigration reform, they're not getting it.
I'm gonna imagine you'll explain that somehow the 1% benefits from it or another convoluted explanation. I don't believe it. Your ignoring the cultural and religious aspects that make the GOP attractive to many in this country
empty vessel
Member
All I'm saying is that the GOP is acting like one should expect a political party to act. The real battleground lies elsewhere.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I would agree the GOP is acting as one would expect it to act though it's really myopic. It's responding to the people putting pressure on it. It's just a wider group that the 1%
JesseEwiak
Member
Welp, there goes Santorum's chances for the nomination. His dream over before it began .
The weird thing is, if somehow a law passed where the President was no longer in charge of social policy or appointments to the Supreme Court, Santorum might actually be the best candidate for middle class people among Republican's. During the 2012 primary, he was seemingly the only candidate who didn't treat working class people like shit on his shoe.
Black Mamba
Member
No, no they're not. What an absurd position. It should not be expected for a political party to so badly misinform and lie to its own voters especially with some of the vile stuff they do it with.
That's not saying much given the field.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They're actions have resulted in policial gains in the short term. They not acting irrationally. They've seen gains.
empty vessel
Member
This would require that I not believe that corporate executives use racism to combat entitlement spending, and I'm not that naive. Right wing think tanks certainly push racism.
And are you suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is calling for immigration reform? It is not tough on crime? It does not advocate vigilantism disguised as Second Amendment advocacy?
For clarity, I should add that right wing think tanks are funded by business interests.
Black Mamba
Member
Eh, I don't see how that's related to how we should expect a political party to act. Sure, we might have been able to predict this incarnation of the GOP to take this path, but it is not how we expect a political party to act. EV's implication is that the Dems should be doing the same.
And I'd dispute the rational aspect. If you look at it as a one-time game, then sure it's rational. But if you look at it as a repeated game, then most certainly not. Which is why this became a monster they can no longer control and will hurt them long-term. They took a short term gain without thinking about the long term effects.
empty vessel
Member
Like most people, you have cause and effect all messed up.
Black Mamba
Member
No, you just have too much tunnel-vision, as APK pointed out.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Heritage has changed based on the mood of the GOP voters (They've also changes what they are. The birth of Heritage action was a single they're not a think tank but a PAC focused not on solutions but getting republicans elected).
You ignore when they've advocated for a bill like Obamacare (an entitlement expansion) or when business groups fight for educational enchantment. You have this caricature of business people as always wanting to screw others over rather than them being self interested, as most groups are. Your view is not based in reality. Sometimes interests coincide. Screwing people over sometimes backfires. Why do you think some business are pushing back on the sequester? Because they stand to benefit like many other Americans.
After rereading it I think I was reading my own feelings into what he was saying rather than what EV meant.
empty vessel
Member
Excerpt from a memo by Lewis Powell to the then-Director of the Chamber of Commerce, 1971:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
That's not an implication of what I wrote. The Dems are doing the same (which is why they are so far to the right). I am empirically describing how political parties behave. The GOP is no different from the Dems in the mechanics of how they operate.
The Apathy and Default of Business
What has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?
The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors’ and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded — if at all — by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.
In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.
But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.
A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: “Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?” Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:
“General Motors, like American business in general, is ‘plainly in trouble’ because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view.” Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of “the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics.” He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: “College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender.”
One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John’s analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business “plainly in trouble”; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come — indeed, it is long overdue — for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.
Responsibility of Business Executives
What specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.
The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival — survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation’s public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on “public relations” or “governmental affairs” — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.
A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP’s) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.
Possible Role of the Chamber of Commerce
But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.
Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.
The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.
It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.
What has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?
The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors’ and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded — if at all — by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.
In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.
But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.
A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: “Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?” Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:
“General Motors, like American business in general, is ‘plainly in trouble’ because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view.” Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of “the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics.” He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: “College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender.”
One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John’s analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business “plainly in trouble”; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come — indeed, it is long overdue — for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.
Responsibility of Business Executives
What specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.
The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival — survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation’s public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on “public relations” or “governmental affairs” — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.
A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP’s) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.
Possible Role of the Chamber of Commerce
But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.
Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.
The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.
It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
That's not an implication of what I wrote. The Dems are doing the same (which is why they are so far to the right). I am empirically describing how political parties behave. The GOP is no different from the Dems in the mechanics of how they operate.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And... No one is arguing business doesn't have and protect its interests. Just not everything can be traced back there. There are other factions and factors.
Black Mamba
Member
Oh no, businesses decided to organize and have their own say in gov't affairs!
That right there is incontrovertible proof that the Republican Party would go on to lie about the religion of our President or have party-members claim most illegal immigrants are pot smugglers.
The Dems are doing the same? They're badly misinforming their voters on things like the religion of politicians? Or that they can control the House legislation or something?
Maybe you haven't a clue about what I said earlier and should go back and re-read because you seem to be on another topic altogether.
Is this post stuck in 2004?
That right there is incontrovertible proof that the Republican Party would go on to lie about the religion of our President or have party-members claim most illegal immigrants are pot smugglers.
The Dems are doing the same? They're badly misinforming their voters on things like the religion of politicians? Or that they can control the House legislation or something?
Maybe you haven't a clue about what I said earlier and should go back and re-read because you seem to be on another topic altogether.
Is this post stuck in 2004?
empty vessel
Member
It is why they have no real choice but to react to it, yes.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the point, perhaps because of your weird biases about my positions. The Dems react to the political pressures placed upon them. In that regard, yes, they are doing the same.
Black Mamba
Member
Business want to protect their interest, so therefore they have to pander to fears and completely misinform their voters into how the gov't will work to the point that it makes them delusional?
lmao. Businesses could very well protect their interests without fostering a belief that Obama is a muslim. Like I said, tunnel-vision. Because something happened, it's the only way it could happen.
This is a cop out answer.
"Whatever a politician does is a reaction to political pressure so when you see a politician do something it's the only thing they could do."
It's also very circular in nature. That isn't an argument. It's a worthless claim.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm now confused. I agree parties react to pressure more than any other thing but I don't understand how business is the pressure that is driving the crazy ignorance of reality that has its hands firmly on the steering wheel of the Republican party. That's a completely different group that's driving that.
Wall st. I doesn't get any benefits by calling Obama a secret Muslim.
empty vessel
Member
You are reversing cause and effect again. The GOP has to endorse delusional ideas to appeal to a delusional base.
Black Mamba
Member
And what made them delusional?
his argument is they have to pander to that delusion to keep the support of that base.
But he's ignoring how they got so delusional to begin with. he's also ignoring that it's not a necessary prerequisite to keeping that base to call Obama a Muslim.
- Status