• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

East Lake

Member
But why exactly should the poorest go up? I agree with what was said a lot in this thread.

If someone can live comfortably if they just cut their beer money or DirecTV then why should income go to them? Why should we give the bottom more money if they have clothes on their backs and food on their stomachs? They have to work to rise up.
Financial irresponsibility is probably not the only thing you want to look at here. Concentrations of wealth like this work to hugely distort politics, business, the legal system... It's pervasive.
 

Jooney

Member
But why exactly should the poorest go up? I agree with what was said a lot in this thread.

If someone can live comfortably if they just cut their beer money or DirecTV then why should income go to them? Why should we give the bottom more money if they have clothes on their backs and food on their stomachs? They have to work to rise up.

This has to be a troll post.
 
Are you kidding? Have you ever been a janitor? What, exactly, do you think a CEO does that's harder than scrubbing floors?

Not to mention that janitors are more socially useful.

Edit: I should add, as a lawyer, janitors are more socially useful than what I do, too.
 
yl6MHEg.jpg


Poor, my ass!
 

Averon

Member
Being able to store your food for later use means you're not poor?

I guess having clothes on your back also means you aren't poor going by that logic. That, of course, means every homeless person on the street aren't poor and it's all an act.
 

Scirrocco

Member
I'm really concerned that this isn't 100%.

Seriously what diet can you subsist on without a refrigerator? Peanut butter sandwiches?

Salted meats. Seriously. Most of those.people probably live in rural locations where subsisyence hunting and farming is a possibility. I had a great aunt who lived in a farm jouse which never.got electrcity,and she had a meat lockerlikethat.
 
I'm really concerned that this isn't 100%.

Seriously what diet can you subsist on without a refrigerator? Peanut butter sandwiches?

I have a cousin that did repossessions in East Texas. He was not well off himself (to put it politely), and certainly not a liberal. He was nevertheless at a loss for words about some of the impoverished conditions he saw (black) people living in. They were part of the .4% that didn't have fridges.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
C'mon guys, we all know CEOs work 200 times harder than those lazy janitors, spending all their money on beer and refrigerators to store it in.
 

East Lake

Member
This is like asking why are people fat? Then providing the explanation that they eat too much. It would be great if it was this simple.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm pretty sure Zero Shift is good people, y'all. Seems he's just having a bit of fun.
 

pigeon

Banned
My recollection of zero shift in this thread has been positive, so that thread is so confusing.

This has been such a weird week that way. First Karma Kramer turned out to be a Benghazier when he always claimed to be Green, and now zero shift is a Randian. Is Kosmo travelling around the country locking posters up in a room with Fox News until they turn insane?
 

Gotchaye

Member
And banned now. I want to say it was pretty much all trolling, but there were some other threads leading up to this that sometimes dipped into similar territory (something like "why do some minorities do better than others?").
 
And banned now. I want to say it was pretty much all trolling, but there were some other threads leading up to this that sometimes dipped into similar territory (something like "why do some minorities do better than others?").

Not to mention that what started this all off was an apparently sincere post in here asking for thoughts about a stupid Fox News infographic. I think he was thoroughly confused.
 

East Lake

Member
And banned now. I want to say it was pretty much all trolling, but there were some other threads leading up to this that sometimes dipped into similar territory (something like "why do some minorities do better than others?").
Yeah pretty weird.

This post doesn't really fit in with his new thread.

If he's not trolling I'm guessing he either advanced into the middle class/comfortable financial situation recently or he read enough about lower caste peons working in horrible conditions in other countries and decided that the US poor no longer look legitimate.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Ugh. Is it 2010 again? This just came up on my FB feed. Time to get out the fact-checking hammer:



The worst part is this was debunked by factcheck, snopes, et al back in 2010. What kind of state of mind do you have to be in to get this in 2013 and believe it?

Why does it seem like it's only republicans that fall for such things. I mean sure I've seen tons of democrats fall for Fox News style double standards, deflection, out of context quotes and facts, and general spin, but I've never personally seen them fall for ridiculous stories made up from absolutely nothing while I've personally seen plenty of republican family members spread this kind of crap around.

It's no wonder Republican voters are beginning to think Republican politicians and Fox News are too far left if they are believing crap even Bachmann and Coulter would be embarrassed to repeat.
 
Just wanted to drop in to double suspicion over whether Zero Shift was actually sincere. I don't see blatantly lying and acting with a fake persona as "trolling", that's just fraudulent behavior. Perhaps he was just bored and acting to get a rise out of people who mistakenly believed he was posting in good faith. Pretty gross behavior, but if he posted in this thread honestly then I'm not so sure what he was doing.

Not to mention that what started this all off was an apparently sincere post in here asking for thoughts about a stupid Fox News infographic. I think he was thoroughly confused.

What's wrong with this claim?

20120524-bottomfifth.jpg

To be fair couldn't this be due to more people getting divorced thus more single headed households? In other words what is median personal income over that time period?

But why exactly should the poorest go up? I agree with what was said a lot in this thread.

If someone can live comfortably if they just cut their beer money or DirecTV then why should income go to them? Why should we give the bottom more money if they have clothes on their backs and food on their stomachs? They have to work to rise up.

How does a CEO work less than a janitor?

I think I"ll make a thread on this.

The long con perhaps? Didn't want people in this thread to call him out on his lie immediately so he had to set up a phony belief first? I dunno.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
For the cherry on top, the State Department and CIA collaborated with drug traffickers to finance the FDN, the largest contra group. This included not only using cartels as a conduit for transferring funds, although this practice was rare, but they also curtailed the investigation and prosecution of certain cartels. I'll note this is not an endorsement of Gary Webb's Dark Alliance.

Muslins, Illegals, drugs...all we need are single, black welfare mothers getting a piece of this somehow and we've pretty much covered everything.
 

Measley

Junior Member
So you know that CNN poll that had Obama's approval rating going UP after the scandalpalooza?

Let's compare the approval ratings of the parties themselves:

Democratic Party - 52 approve, 43 disapprove
Republican Party - 35 approve, 59 disapprove

Holy shit!

obama+brush+ya+shoulders+off.gif


Soon I'll be able to watch cable news again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom