Support NeoGAF

[sangreal]

Not sure why the speech was bad for so many people, seemed fine to me. I didn't really want him to storm in there and be pissed off, it's not like he can just enact whatever he wants.

Damned if he does damned if he doesn't, like usual.

I thought it was fine if a little politically tone deaf. I just don't understand why it was made as a prime time Oval Office address. It's the same message he gives all the time in daytime press briefings. I thought he would make an effort to gain some confidence from the public after calling ISIS contained right before Paris and after stating that he was keeping the homeland safe just last Thursday

Anyways the only thing that really stood out as bad to me was the part about technology. I'm sure it's foreshadowing a renewed push against encryption or for more surveillance etc

 

[FiggyCal]

Because Marx's economic theories were based on the idea that all value of a product was based on the amount of labor that was put in and that's obviously false.

I think plenty of Marxists would disagree with that. Either way; Adam Smith and David Ricardo also adhered to their own version of the labor theory of value and we still can find things of value in their works. There's no need for the double standard for Marx.

 

[pigeon]

ok thank you for clearing that up

its just...i saw a kid wearing a hammer and sickel shirt... and it made me wonder if communism/marxism is still an ideological belief for many epople

Marxism in the sense of believing capitalism is a system designed to impoverish labor for the benefit of the rentiers is definitely alive and well. I'm not sure the right solution is to create a totalitarian communist state, but in fairness, Marx didn't really want to do that either.

 

[Massive_Edge]

I think plenty of Marxists would disagree with that. Either way; Adam Smith and David Ricardo also adhered to their own version of the labor theory of value and we still can find things of value in their works. There's no need for the double standard for Marx.

i think what he was trying to say is that the labor theory of value is bunk

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think plenty of Marxists would disagree with that. Either way; Adam Smith and David Ricardo also adhered to their own version of the labor theory of value and we still can find things of value in their works. There's no need for the double standard for Marx.

Right, but the key assumption for almost every chapter in Das Kapital V1 is the labor theory of value. Ricardo and Smith had breakthroughs that didn't assume the LToV. I haven't read volumes 2 or 3 (since the writing in volume 1 is super tedious) though.

 

[Ecotic]

What the fuck are you talking about? He barely spent time talking about muslims and half of that was how they need to do a better job of reporting and getting rid of extremism in their community. Even Krauthammer on Fox said that part was no big deal given that Bush did the same thing.

But there's no point arguing with you. You just believe what you want to believe and pick and choose.

Seriously Bam you need to be a lot less abrasive in the way you respond. I defend my viewpoint like everyone else, but that doesn't mean I'm not trying to seek out good ideas and carefully consider other viewpoints. That's 90% of why I come here. "Am I wrong? How am I wrong? What are my argument's weaknesses?" crosses my mind every time before I hit the post button. There's been thousands of times here on GAF I've thought someone had a great idea or contribution. So to say I'm a blinded individual is just a wrong assumption and unnecessary. And starting a post with disparaging remarks like "What the fuck are you talking about?" doesn't make for civil discourse or make this place more enjoyable. I try to keep discourse impassioned but impersonal. But if you don't want to discuss further I'm fine with that too.

 

[Aaron]

Republicans are getting excited. Trump rising. Mass shooting that looked more like workplace violence at first but is now an act of terror as well inspired by Isis and co. It's like an early Christmas gift for them. 2016 is going to be a nail biter.

No it won't. Republicans messed up by beating the Bengazi drum too early. They could have used it to knock Clinton's foreign experience, but people are tired of hearing about it, and all of their potential candidates have zero experience. Maybe if they were running an ex-general they could work to bridging the demographics gap, but they're not. Meanwhile it was Republican policies and a Republican president that created ISIS, while totally failing to keep America safe from 9/11. So if the Democrats actually need counter arguments they have no shortage of them. But they won't because if you think this election will be close you're as delusional as Romney was.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Seriously Bam you need to be a lot less abrasive in the way you respond. I defend my viewpoint like everyone else, but that doesn't mean I'm not trying to seek out good ideas and carefully consider other viewpoints. That's 90% of why I come here. "Am I wrong? How am I wrong? What are my argument's weaknesses?" crosses my mind every time before I hit the post button. There's been thousands of times here on GAF I've thought someone had a great idea or contribution. So to say I'm a blinded individual is just a wrong assumption and unnecessary. And starting a post with disparaging remarks like "What the fuck are you talking about?" doesn't make for civil discourse or make this place more enjoyable. I try to keep discourse impassioned but impersonal. But if you don't want to discuss further I'm fine with that too.

I'm sorry.

To be honest, I despise politics but I can't help but follow it because I'm aware how much of an impact it has on so many people. It's like a glutton for punishment kind of situation.

It's usually pretty shitty, but you throw any kind of tragedy or crisis in to the mix and it's unbelievably depressing. Just tired of the bullshit.

 

[FiggyCal]

Right, but the key assumption for almost every chapter in Das Kapital V1 is the labor theory of value. Ricardo and Smith had breakthroughs that didn't assume the LToV. I haven't read volumes 2 or 3 (since the writing in volume 1 is super tedious) though.

We don't need the LTV to explain some of his more important ideas like the reserve army of labor, that capitalism is prone to crises, technological unemployment, etc. The LTV is in there a lot; Marx and Engels were super proud of having come up with Surplus value. But there's a lot more to Marx's work than just that. I mean a large part of Capital is just economic history -- which has nothing to do with the LTV.

I know there are some schools of Marxian economics and Marxism that don't accept the LTV. I don't think it's fair to say that it being untrue destroys Marx's entire social scoence.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I just felt kind of depressed after this speech.

I really like Obama and I feel he has done a good job and better than many would have been able to do with the tough cards he has been dealt, but it is close for his time to go.

I know a lot of people say they would love to vote for him for a third term if they could but I would not support a third term for him as much as I like him.

After a long, LONG vacation I do look forward to post president Obama, and see what he does afterwards.

 

[Massive_Edge]

We don't need the LTV to explain some of his more important ideas like the reserve army of labor, that capitalism is prone to crises, technological unemployment, etc. The LTV is in there a lot; Marx and Engels were super proud of having come up with Surplus value. But there's a lot more to Marx's work than just that. I mean a large part of Capital is just economic history -- which has nothing to do with the LTV.

I know there are some schools of Marxian economics and Marxism that don't accept the LTV. I don't think it's fair to say that it being untrue destroys Marx's entire social scoence.

but it seems like the vast majority of economists do not accept marxian economics as being valid in today's age

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's REALLY HARD not to see "anti-abortion" groups as "anti-sex" groups:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-iud-attracts-opposition-anti-abortion-groups-060750159.html?nf=1

I realize I'm a page or so late, but...

Dude, wut?

EDIT:

There's Black Republican and Metaphoreus. So that makes two?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I only voted for one Republican candidate in the last election who wasn't unopposed.

You don't know me.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm sorry, but how stupid and not well informed is Trump?

Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who? Is Obama profiling?

Kareem, Ali, Tyson, Shaq, Hakeem? Only many of the greatest basketball players and boxers of all time.

I realize I'm a page or so late, but...

Dude, wut?

Anti-abortions groups want to stop contraception that "kills babies" like how fertility clinics mass murder babies.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Anti-abortions groups want to stop contraception that "kills babies" like how fertility clinics mass murder babies.

I'm still not seeing the "opposing sex" angle.

Oh, unless you're referring to naturally occurring terminations of fertilized eggs. But that would be like saying someone who opposes murder opposes life, because all lives end in death.

 

[FiggyCal]

but it seems like the vast majority of economists do not accept marxian economics as being valid in today's age

That's fine too. I think a lot of Marxian economists tend to be dogmatic. But I don't necessarily think that reflects poorly on Marx. He was writing from the 19th century. He had an excuse. Most of what the other classical political economists were writing about in the 19th, 18th and 17th century would also not be accepted as valid in 2015 for many of the same reasons.

 

[danm999]

I'm sorry, but how stupid and not well informed is Trump?



Kareem, Ali, Tyson, Shaq, Hakeem? Only many of the greatest basketball players and boxers of all time.

Course he knows. But it's about seeking to deny Muslims an identity as anything other than a fifth column of terrorists.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm still not seeing the "opposing sex" angle.

Oh, unless you're referring to naturally occurring terminations of fertilized eggs. But that would be like saying someone who opposes murder opposes life, because all lives end in death.

You're not seeing the "opposing sex" angle to trying to limit the availability of a tool that allows women to have sex without getting pregnant?

Oh, and I'm talking about how religious fuckups never protest or try to kill the doctors of fertility clinics even though those clinics freeze "babies" and "kill babies" by the thousands each year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

 

[Metaphoreus]

You're not seeing the "opposing sex" angle to trying to limit the availability of a tool that allows women to have sex without getting pregnant?

No, I don't. You'd have an argument if you could have honestly ended your question without those last three words. Those who oppose all contraception do so (as far as I know--YMMV) because they believe it is immoral to artificially interfere with the procreative function of sex, not because they oppose sex. You haven't a leg to stand on with respect to those who oppose only some, but not all, contraceptives, obviously.

Oh, and I'm talking about how religious fuckups never protest or try to kill the doctors of fertility clinics even though those clinics freeze "babies" and "kill babies" by the thousands each year.

Good question. I don't know the answer. I would want good reason to discount other rationales before latching onto the one that best enables me to demonize people who disagree with me, though. For example, perhaps people are just ignorant of what occurs at these clinics. Or, perhaps abortion is unique in our culture because of its historic political controversy or enshrinement as a poorly supported Constitutional right. Or perhaps it's too small a problem right now--you refer to "thousands," but how does the number compare to the hundreds of thousands of aborted children each year? As an initial matter, I find your explanation too implausible--and too convenient for your political views--to take seriously in light of these competing explanations.

 

[ivysaur12]

Good question. I don't know the answer. I would want good reason to discount other rationales before latching onto the one that best enables me to demonize people who disagree with me, though. For example, perhaps people are just ignorant of what occurs at these clinics. Or, perhaps abortion is unique in our culture because of its historic political controversy or enshrinement as a poorly supported Constitutional right. Or perhaps it's too small a problem right now--you refer to "thousands," but how does the number compare to the hundreds of thousands of aborted children each year? As an initial matter, I find your explanation too implausible--and too convenient for your political views--to take seriously in light of these competing explanations.

I think you're giving too much credit to the populace if the idea of the constitutional legs of Roe were somehow the crux of the current abortion debate and vehemency against/for abortion rights.

I don't think most people who are pro-life would care if there were a constitutional amendment explicitly spelling out that abortion is a right. And I don't think most people who are pro-choice would have their opinion swayed if a personhood amendment passed. More, the argument over the validity of Roe -- for many, not all -- seems almost entirely based on one's own opinion on abortion itself and is merely a proxy. There are very few people who can articulate the thought "I hate this, but it's obviously constitutional" or "I like this, but there is nothing in the constitutional that requires it."

 

[PhoenixDark]

You're not seeing the "opposing sex" angle to trying to limit the availability of a tool that allows women to have sex without getting pregnant?

Oh, and I'm talking about how religious fuckups never protest or try to kill the doctors of fertility clinics even though those clinics freeze "babies" and "kill babies" by the thousands each year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

To be fair, religious fuck ups rarely try to kill or kill anyone over abortion either.

 

[BertramCooper]

So a Constitutional right that has been affirmed twice is now "poorly supported?"

 

[Chichikov]

I think you're giving too much credit to the populace if the idea of the constitutional legs of Roe were somehow the crux of the current abortion debate and vehemency against/for abortion rights.

I don't think most people who are pro-life would care if there were a constitutional amendment explicitly spelling out that abortion is a right. And I don't think most people who are pro-choice would have their opinion swayed if a personhood amendment passed. More, the argument over the validity of Roe -- for many, not all -- seems almost entirely based on one's own opinion on abortion itself and is merely a proxy. There are very few people who can articulate the thought "I hate this, but it's obviously constitutional" or "I like this, but there is nothing in the constitutional that requires it."

I'm pro choice, but I think Roe v. Wade is based on some pretty flimsy reasoning. Though I'm generally not a fan of the concept of judicial review as a whole, so I tend to take these decisions based on the practical outcome, which I think is positive.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

but it seems like the vast majority of economists do not accept marxian economics as being valid in today's age

That'd be an odd thing to expect. He was writing over a century and a half ago, the likelihood his work would be surpassed or contradicted by future material was always relatively high. People aren't Marxist in the way that people aren't Keynesian or Ricardian any more, they're post-Keynesian or neo-Ricardian and so on. You do get neo-Marxist economists, but the trouble is that Marx's works were political and normative as well as economical and descriptive. Many neo-Marxist economists buy into the political aspects of Marx's work, and unfortunately it tends to make them insufficiently critical of the economic aspects; as a school of economics it tends to be very dogmatic about a number of theories that most other schools think we have sufficient reason to accept as wrong.

Marx has much more of an impact in socoiology than economics because Marx's economic theories were almost always developed as a method to explain his sociological theories, and while his economic theories are easily rejected, there's a strength to his sociological theories regardless. For example, to pick a relatively mainstream economist who has dabbled in sociology, Piketty has a set of economic writings which are very different to Marx's, but they lead him to similar sociological conclusions. He doesn't self-describe as a Marxist because Marx's works didn't have much influence in leading him to his conclusions, but in the sociological field his conclusions themselves would be described as neo-Marxist.

 

[User 406]

"Islam isn't a race, we're not being racist!"

"Muslim sports heroes? I don't remember any sports heroes who look muslim!"

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think you're giving too much credit to the populace if the idea of the constitutional legs of Roe were somehow the crux of the current abortion debate and vehemency against/for abortion rights.

I think it matters. People get upset when they feel like the Court is taking away their democratic power without warrant. It's why conservatives (wrongly) try to paint Obergefell as lacking a Constitutional basis (though Kennedy's poem-instead-of-an-opinion didn't help any).

So a Constitutional right that has been affirmed twice is now "poorly supported?"

By the Constitution? Absolutely.

 

[j_k_redtail]

New NBC poll has Clinton over Trump, 52-41:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

 

[FiggyCal]

I realize I'm a page or so late, but...

Dude, wut?

EDIT:



Whoa, whoa, whoa. I only voted for one Republican candidate in the last election who wasn't unopposed.

You don't know me.

Sorry, friend.

Edit: and good news. My teacher actually really liked my mediocre term paper!

 

[teiresias]

New NBC poll has Clinton over Trump, 52-41:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

Please proceed, GOP.

 

[HylianTom]

New NBC poll has Clinton over Trump, 52-41:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

Wow. Talk about ice in one's veins. I really hope that most GOP voters don't pay much heed to this.

The main source of speculation here would be the Senate margin, and maybe even the House. We'd be laughing as Wolf comes-up with new ways to suggest Dead Heat.

 

[BertramCooper]

By the Constitution? Absolutely.

I really don't think you can legitimately argue that the right to an abortion lacks Constitutional support when it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court twice, two decades apart, and is very unlikely to ever be struck down.

I mean, we all have SCOTUS decisions that we disagree with, but I'll be the first to admit that the majority decision in a case like Citizens United does have validity under the Constitution, even if I disagree with the outcome.

When a certain matter passes muster in the Supreme Court multiple times over an extended period of time, I think you have to acknowledge that yes, it does have Constitutional support, even if you would have ruled differently.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I do think the anti-abortion movement is largely anti sex (and specifically anti women-having sex) but I didn't see anything in that article to raise that thought.

There's a part of the movement that's absolutely about the life of the fertilized egg, but there's a large part of the movement that is anti-abortion because they feel that it enables women to have sex, and it's more about the morality of the adults than the conceived life. This is why fertility clinics aren't bombed, as those are presumably married people. It's also why you find opposition for other methods of birth control and opposition to sex ed in high correlation.

I'd say it's blanket hypocrisy, but it's not-- I'm sure you'd find all sorts of nuanced opinions among individuals. But the leadership is absolutely hypocritical about it.


Oh, and Roe v Wade-- I know at least one extreme liberal with quite the insight into Supreme Court law who'd agree with Meta, and make the case that other liberal law scholars would agree.

 

[Veritigo_X]

New NBC poll has Clinton over Trump, 52-41:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

Good numbers, but I'm not going to take any GE polls into account until each party actually has a nominee.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I really don't think you can legitimately argue that the right to an abortion lacks Constitutional support when it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court twice, two decades apart, and is very unlikely to ever be struck down.

I mean, we all have SCOTUS decisions that we disagree with, but I'll be the first to admit that the majority decision in a case like Citizens United does have validity under the Constitution, even if I disagree with the outcome.

When a certain matter passes muster in the Supreme Court multiple times over an extended period of time, I think you have to acknowledge that yes, it does have Constitutional support, even if you would have ruled differently.

I see no reason to resort to circumstantial evidence in determining what has Constitutional support. Citizens United has Constitutional support because it is clearly rooted in what that document says. The same cannot be said for the so-called Constitutional right to abortion. That's just liberal pieties pretending at law.

 

[PhoenixDark]

There's nothing wrong with disliking Islam or any religion. As I've said before Islam has multiple problems, as do all Abrahamic religions. And when you have a quarter of a religion's practioners in many countries who think it's perfectly fine for people who leave the religion to be executed, there's a fucking problem.

Religion and race are separate. I don't support profiling anyone, given that I'm a black dude, even if I understand it on some small/depressing level. I don't support treating anyone unfairly. But I understand why people are very concerned about Islam. I just wish people held other religions to the same scrutiny.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That NBC poll has this as the electoral map, for those curious:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/51jGP

Texas would be the nearest state to falling Democrat that would nevertheless remain Republican, or possibly Arkansas if you think there will be local Clinton swing.

Mind you, numbers are more or less random at this stage in match-up terms.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Good numbers, but I'm not going to take any GE polls into account until each party actually has a nominee.

Yep they're still useless now even when they look nice.

 

[Frank the Great]

New NBC poll has Clinton over Trump, 52-41:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

I mean . . . I know it's very far out for a GE poll . . . but dang. Trump has been dominating the headlines and no one is really going after him, Obama's numbers are suffering because of the attacks, and Hillary hasn't really been doing much visible campaigning. You would think that a poll under these circumstances would overstate Trump's support if anything.

I really think this shows that as popular as Trump's antics are within the Republican party, he is seriously turning off the rest of the country. Which bodes well for Hillary any way you slice it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

That NBC poll has this as the electoral map, for those curious:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/51jGP

Texas would be the nearest state to falling Democrat that would nevertheless remain Republican, or possibly Arkansas if you think there will be local Clinton swing.

Mind you, numbers are more or less random at this stage in match-up terms.

That map is a great illustration of why polls this far out don't matter.

That map will never happen.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That map is a great illustration of why polls this far out don't matter.

That map will never happen.

Agreed.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

There should be a 30 electoral vote bonus for an East Coast sweep.

 

[Teggy]

Trump going after Amazon and The Washington Post today?

 

[RustyNails]

I missed the speech. Did Obama also mention Muslim rappers? Mos Def? Lupe? Nas? T-Pain? Akon?

 

[QuiteWhittle]

That NBC poll has this as the electoral map, for those curious:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/51jGP

Texas would be the nearest state to falling Democrat that would nevertheless remain Republican, or possibly Arkansas if you think there will be local Clinton swing.

Mind you, numbers are more or less random at this stage in match-up terms.

I think this map is the absolute best case scenario for Dems right now. Everything would have to go right for Dems and the GOP candidate would have to completely implode.

For the opposite, maybe something like this: http://www.270towin.com/maps/57bBO

 

[Veritigo_X]

I missed the speech. Did Obama also mention Muslim rappers? Mos Def? Lupe? Nas? T-Pain? Akon?

He didn't, but I don't exactly blame him. Remember the shit storm after Common visited the White House? Bringing up rappers in a speech like this would only add fuel to the fire.

 

[Hopfrog]

The Obama speech thread in OT sure is something.

 

[Hopfrog]

I think this map is the absolute best case scenario for Dems right now. Everything would have to go right for Dems and the GOP candidate would have to completely implode.

For the opposite, maybe something like this: http://www.270towin.com/maps/57bBO

Jesus that is a lot of red. The Rust Belt (excluding Illinois) is a Democratic graveyard there.

 

[RustyNails]

He didn't, but I don't exactly blame him. Remember the shit storm after Common visited the White House? Bringing up rappers in a speech like this would only add fuel to the fire.

It would be perfect. Just set the culture warriors' hair on fire.

 

[Iolo]

I see no reason to resort to circumstantial evidence in determining what has Constitutional support. Citizens United has Constitutional support because it is clearly rooted in what that document says.

*according to a particular interpretation of the constitution agreed to by 5 of 9 current Supreme Court Justices, one of whom is starting to regret it a bit

 

[Wilsongt]

The Obama speech thread in OT sure is something.

Of course. Obama didn't say anything about destroying ISIS with a nuke, so he is a no-nothing president.

 

[Hopfrog]

Of course. Obama didn't say anything about destroying ISIS with a nuke, so he is a no-nothing president.

Absolutely. I know Cruz means business because he is talking about sand glowing in the dark. Have to love a candidate who regards the use of nuclear weapons so casually.