zero shift
Banned
Jesus Christ that Israel/Palestine thread. Some of those comments...
-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
Kurtz's show and its predecessor actually pretty regularly do/did, if more on the sly about it than this instance.
I don't have any problems with unions participating in politics, I think it's a good thing Citizens United restored their rights.
My opinion on how they could spend the money more effectively is just that, my opinion, if the unions think political spending gains them something that's their prerogative.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Gross thinking citizens united helps unions. Ha. Hahahahahahahhahahahahahah
O god I couldn't stop laughing.
O man
O wait ur serious.
Whelp.
Hahahah
Again, he actually stated some arguments outside of laughing off the national review as a credible source of information. You need to go back and refute anything he said, as it stands now all you did is "lol I can't hear you" posts
I realize that you very married to the idea of educating others on logical fallacies, but tone also matters. If you want the people you're arguing with to take your argument seriously and change minds, you don't need to deconstruct every post by taking a holier-than-thou tone with italicized terminology.
That being said, I think it's absolutely fair to use a heuristic on journalist integrity of the publication when we evaluate certain articles. We do this all the time. Every article will carry what came before it, and a notoriously rubbish publication has a certain amount of skepticism to overcome before I take them seriously. Now, that doesn't mean even the most terrible rag's aren't right once in a while (see: Monica Lewinksy), but that there are certain suspicions that naturally arise.
That and the article itself is ridiculous. But.
Ninja Of Chaos
Member
He is right though. All of my posts on neogaf have been written in english, but what if I wrote my next one in french? Would you say that was english simply because you believe it must be?
I haven't read the actual article, but his point about not attacking article a^n for the mistakes in articles a^(x < n) is correct.
Do note that this is not a case of probability. The article has already been written and can be analysed as a stand alone entity.
benjipwns
Banned
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/citizens-united-effect
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/u...-to-labors-advantage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...d_liberty_to_influence_campaigns_.single.html
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013...ited-ruling-helped-unions-win-state-elections
NYCmetsfan
Banned
powerline? thats the real lol, have we gone back 10 years?
That might all that needs to be said about that. Wow.
speculawyer
Member
And what do they say when Rand Paul advocates the same policy?
adamsappel
Member
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Here is what he argued: "The National Review has a notorious racist past and often present." He supported this with numerous examples, but he needn't have. I'm more than willing to concede the point that National Review "has a notorious racist past and often present," because the truth of that statement is irrelevant to my position. The problem with his argument is not that his premise is unsupported by evidence. The problem with his argument is that his conclusion--which I paraphrase as National Review being disqualified from publishing articles discussing race--does not follow from that premise.
There's really nothing else to address. If I wanted to argue about the treatment of race in McCarthy's article, I'd have to look to another poster's comments to do so. APKmetsfan simply ignores it, having disqualified McCarthy from writing about race because his writing appears in National Review.
EDIT: Oh, and Citizens United struck down a law that limited independent expenditures by both corporations and unions. So benjipwns is right.
Given all US citizens present a risk of committing a drug offense (or indeed just about any kind of offense), the only rational thing to do is lock everybody up.
benjipwns
Banned
It's true, 100% of potential criminals on the loose are not in jail.
We all need to turn ourselves in now before we danger the community.
I like that he dropped the a-word (though Israel is pretty much already an Apartheid state) but then he goes -
A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizensor it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state .
Israel might become a state where an ethnic/religious group doesn't get a preferential treatment?
On no, the horror of horrors.
Though to be fair, I'm probably asking too much from an American official to acknowledge that point, good on Kerry for the most part.
A lot of effort into saying "I'm not refuting your argument, I'm just putting my fingers in my ears llalalalalaal can't hear you"
Ah yes, the old strawman(o wait I thought u loved fallacy calling out, metaphoreus) that it magically helps unions. Has union membership gone up since citizens united? Have workers gained rights because of a vast effort of union money flowing into politics? Have companies started paying more to their workers due to union effort? Is the middle class growing stronger? Has minimum wage gone up because of union spending?
No. None of those things are happening. In reality citizen united only helps corporations who's pockets are wayyyyy deeper than the workers they pay.
benjipwns
Banned
This assumes a direct path from union member's "interests" through to not just politicians interests but also the expected results of policy.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
If this is still about APKmetsfan, I did refute his argument. Then I did you the further service of reiterating how I had done so. I'm not sure what more I can do.
I see no reason to define "help" in the way that you are. There's just no denying that Citizens United struck down a law that restricted independent expenditures by unions in political campaigns. That's "help." That's "restor[ing] their rights." Accurately describing what happened isn't a strawman argument--it's an accurate statement of fact.
Fair enough
Uh huh...no. Sure just ignore everything else I said. Unfortunately for you the argument isn't deductive. You just ignored everything else because your argument was weak against reality. See the difference between you and benji is he actually acknowledges the real world, and made a fair point. All you did was sound like a first year philosophy student going "I beat his first line of reasoning therefore his conclusion is false" problem is, the real world doesn't work in only deductive reasoning. You keep going back to the same pattern, and you simply aren't refuting any argument anyone makes.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Let's try this: which arguments, in particular, do you feel I have inadequately addressed?
Anything that isn't a deductive argument you seem to have a hard time grasping how to argue against.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That's not what I asked you. Identify which arguments, in particular, you feel I have inadequately addressed.
<insert every quote you responded to for the last 200 posts>
Anyone who thinks that citizens united helps unions has no grasp on the reality of politics in an oligarchy.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'll give you that as the last word.
empty vessel
Member
You know the National Review is an institution that has owners and editors and promotes a particular point of view, right? What's McCarthy got to do with anything? If the National Review has a race problem, then the National Review has a race problem.
Aylinato is the one who used the word "help" in his assertion, so you do not get to dictate how he intended to use it.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Mmhmm.
Aside from writing the article, you mean?
You're all sorts of insightful tonight.
I wouldn't think to.
Its giving far more 'help' to corporations and wealthy donors who are generally opposed to the interests of the union because they simply have far more resources. This does not 'help' unions. It hurts them because it widens the power and influence gap between the two. You take a very narrow view of the situation, which causes you to completely miss the deeper and more important real-world meaning.
benjipwns
Banned
Again that assumes a single field of battle with all of the corporations on one side with a singular interest and all of the unions on the other with a singular interest. (It also assumes the previous system reduced the influence gap between corporations and unions rather than increasing it due to suppressing the unions resources.) When some of the articles I posted point out that this is not how the American system works and that unions can deploy equivalent or greater power in certain localities.
You wouldn't expect UAW spending to do much of anything in Wyoming for example, but parts of Michigan are a different bag and the unions actually have outsized influence in them because the opposition isn't as unified or organized as they are AND outside groups don't have enough interest in the areas.
Citizens United does "help" unions in this case because they can now spend to put ads against candidates on the air in these regions where they have deployable power. That's why they spent $1.7 billion on just this sort of thing in 2012.
Fitting everything into a global/national war between capital and labour is a very narrow view of any situation.
You wouldn't expect UAW spending to do much of anything in Wyoming for example, but parts of Michigan are a different bag and the unions actually have outsized influence in them because the opposition isn't as unified or organized as they are AND outside groups don't have enough interest in the areas.
Citizens United does "help" unions in this case because they can now spend to put ads against candidates on the air in these regions where they have deployable power. That's why they spent $1.7 billion on just this sort of thing in 2012.
Fitting everything into a global/national war between capital and labour is a very narrow view of any situation.
In aggregate, it helps corporations at the expense of workers and unions. I would agree with you that in certain situations and certain localities that it does help unions.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I think that's a fair criticism of my statement if my statement is read broadly. Other things being equal, freeing unions to spend more on influencing public opinion benefits the unions. But, of course, with Citizens United, other things were not equal, because corporations were also freed to spend more.
But Aylinato used the term "help" as a stand-in for benjipwns' use of the phrase "restored [unions'] rights." In that sense, it's indisputable that Citizens United "helped" unions.
No he didn't. You are talking things too literally. Benjipwns claim is that unions benefited from citizens united by restoring their rights (which he further expanded on later) . Aylinato's argues that Citizens united does not benefit unions. Aylinato, then, used the term 'help' as a stand-in for whether or not citizens united benefited unions on the whole, not whether or not they gained more rights.
I am sure that Aylinato will correct me if I am wrong.
Corporations in the extraction industry (including Koch Industries) have definitely used their new found freedoms in the public interest, helping advocate and fund a proposal to charge Oklahoman solar panel installers with a tax to use the energy they generated from their own infrastructure.
This aligns perfectly with the Koch Brothers well-known More taxes, less freedom philosophy on governance.
Oh no, wait.
This aligns perfectly with the Koch Brothers well-known More taxes, less freedom philosophy on governance.
Oh no, wait.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You may be right, but Aylinato's use of the term "help" was in response to benjipwns' use of the phrase "restored their rights," not his use of the phrase "who benefited from Citizens United too" in an earlier comment.
No, it was in response to the Benjipwns implied claim in that post that unions benefited from Citizens United. That is the broader issue at hand and what we are arguing over.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/new-hampshire-gop-twitter_n_5222487.html
The salt in those tweets is ridiculous.
The salt in those tweets is ridiculous.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No, I mean it was literally in response to benjipwns' "restored their rights." He didn't suffer a sudden bout of giggling in response to benjipwns' longer comment, though he did respond to that comment earlier.
I don't understand why we're arguing over this, though. It's a minute semantic point with no bearing on the "broader issue at hand."
benjipwns
Banned
If it helps I'll clearly state that unions, like everyone, have benefited and will benefit from Citizens United. But that it's too early to really evaluate the claim either way, especially since the only cycles have been a Presidential one and two odd numbered years. (I think the 2010 election is a bit too early after the decision.)
Aylinato disagrees though he came to see my argument clearer, as do many many others.
Aylinato disagrees though he came to see my argument clearer, as do many many others.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Sorry i was mistaken, i thought there was a section in PPACA that deferred authority to HHS and i don't think there's actually anything like that in the law, it's just become a generally accepted practice for the various agencies. My bad.
Iowa's gubernatorial race looks to be tightening up according to a GOP pollster. Branstad only leads 45-43. Would be quite a feat if the Democrats could win the trifecta! Their Senate majority is very tight (26-24) but so is the GOP's majority in the house.
Help=benefit
That would be a correct assumption
I can see where you may think unions might benefit from citizens united. However with union membership dwindling because of massive efforts on the conservative side to "starve the beast", and owning the message regarding workers rights' (by saying that unions restrict employment, making them pay for representation for non-workers). The signs of the long term damage citizen united have already been felt in many state, Michigan being one in particular. Democrats in our state, a used-to-be union stronghold until they pushed anti-union laws (aka right to work lol) have vastly been under funded, and I'm talking in the hundreds of thousands across the entire state in multiple elections. I think that the democrats had a few million dollar shortfall compared to the republicans and it shows. Many special interest groups, the Koch brothers group, have come in with a massive amount of funding with one goal, but the unions.
So until I see tangible benefits to unions, and workers rights' reinforcement across the board I'm not going to say unions benefited from citizens united.
I fixed the problem I was having.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Did anyone watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Pfft. Do you even Latin, bro?
"Soft on crime!" is the usual canned response.
I don't have HBO, but the guys in the official thread seemed to really love the first episode.
RustyNails
Member
Yes it was awesome. Havent watched TDS or CR this week, but fucking finally someone touched the topic of India's next potential PM being involved in a genocide when he was the chief minister of Gujarat, and the Fox Newsification of Indian media which has been bothering me for years.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/obamacare-poll-numbers_n_5223315.html
Hmm, maybe the Republicans will regret banking their entire midterm strategy on one policy point.
Hopefully the numbers will improve over the summer.
Hmm, maybe the Republicans will regret banking their entire midterm strategy on one policy point.
Hopefully the numbers will improve over the summer.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked