-
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 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
empty vessel
Member
That's true, it is, but I doubt so for minimum wage earners, jobs that I suspect never came with benefits to begin with.
This is the truth of the situation, which I think means that there is something the Democrats in office don't want to be able to change. Why else would they have not pushed for reform?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
To me it's hard to compare minimum wages today to those of the 60's without including all the cost that the employee incurs on a company.
I'd love to see some stats on the total cost to a company per employee between today and 1968 adjusted for inflation though.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
A woman who misses her black stallion. Right PD?
speculawyer
Member
Holy fuck . . . we really need to bring back the required-talking filibuster.
These guys are going to accidentally reveal stuff about their personalities while talking for long hours.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It was actually interesting. Makes them seem much more human and full of actual beliefs. Without the limits they often don't stick to talking points. There were parts I agree with but it was grandstanding of e highest order. When push comes to shove he doesn't stand up.
Also I'm further to the right than him on FP so I'm kinda glad he's views don't translate well to policy. I think it would be costly for the US.
Also I love seeing conservatives on twitter pretend they hate drones and intervention now. Rand in their eyes is now some her for standing up to evil dictator war mongerer obama
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
I agree. This is actually fun. You guys should be watching this. Oh oh, Ted Cruz stood up and is asking Rand questions now.
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So now it gets stupid?
Is there a good ObamaCare primer out there? I'm a freelance writer who does work for mturk, Textbroker, etc. No real jobs would hire me, so I struck out on my own and have been okay at it, making enough to pay the bills. Not enough for health care. I know the program begins in 2014, but don't know how to go about enrolling, or the basic mechanics of it. Will every doctor accept ObamaCare, do I have to go to special ObamaCare clinics, etc?
I'm not really sure what you mean here. First, unless the employee is receiving some direct benefit for those costs (for example, if companies were providing health care benefits, which they don't to minimum wage employees), this just doesn't seem relevant to noting that minimum wage earners have lost ground. And obviously it's not the case that American corporations are just barely scraping by and so can't afford to pay more to minimum wage workers; whatever downsides there are to hiring someone, productivity has grown a lot since the 60s, even among minimum wage earners, and it's really hard to believe that costs have grown even more quickly.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
I don't know. I find Rand Paul's voice so soothing after 3-4 hours, that I'm nodding off.
Black Mamba
Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bout-obamacares-coverage-options-in-one-post/
This might help.
As far as I know, anyone who accepts medicaid will accept obamacare.
The entertainment value alone is worth bringing back the talking filibuster. I told you all it would be fun shit to watch.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
A dwarf Jack Nicholson in drag.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
PhoenixDark
Banned
Stupid logic? I'm confused, that's how filibusters have been used for decades. It's a last resort to stop legislation or appointments that conflict with the regional concerns and conflicts of senators. It's why it's nearly impossible to pass a real energy bill in the senate. Multiple senators would never give up that power.
The last time a republican senate tried to dratastically change senate rules John McCain and a few other stalwarts prevented it. He did the same thing in January. Nothing will change unless you get 20-30 new activist junior senators (Warner, Cruz, Paul, Booker next year, etc) in there to replace the old bulls.
RustyNails
Member
He's been trying to own it since a few hours after he did it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its good to make a joke about it once or twice but continuing to bring it up is a mistake. Makes him out to be a joke.
And
Obama can't golf as long as people can't tour the white house
PhoenixDark
Banned
He has raised more than $200,000 in campaign funds off it. I'd say he sure as hell owns it.
Considering it's the only way he can hope to spin it and stay relevant I can see why. That said it won't work.
The guys who were likely to donate would have probably tried to downplay it anyway.
That's assuming donors weren't already going to give him a bunch of money after his big SOTU response speech.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You think he would have sold enough $30 water bottles to raise $200,000 without that gaffe? It was textbook "defend your guy" politics, similar to Obama selling birth certificate coffee mugs.
Get over it, it worked for him. He handled it like a man, laughed at himself, and raised a bunch of money. And in three years when no one remembers that gaffe he'll be using the money to set up staff in Iowa.
He wasn't selling waterbottles; they got a waterbottle if they donated more than $20. GOP donors donate a lot.
You really expect that the main GOP rising star wasn't going to get a nice chunk of change after his big debut everyone was hyping?
I'm not saying it didn't help him. I'm just not buying into his spin about it like you are. He didn't get 200K because he fucked up. He probably got a nice little bonus from it.
PotatoeMasher
Member
And us crazy libertarians miss when Liberals were doing the same when Bush was pushing these policies.
This filibuster is fun.
Yeah, that doesn't happen now.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Given how uneventful his speech was, I certainly believe he raised way more money due to the gaffe and the media pile on that followed.
If our two options regarding our drone programs are acceptance and fake outrage, I'll take the latter any day of the week.
That's possible.
I wonder how much he raised after the convention speech no one paid any attention to due to Eastwood. That was supposed to be his big debut as well. lol
Black Mamba
Member
Already sick of being home with Anne, eh?
LEADERSHIP
A guy like Romney probably couldn't stay inactive for too long. If I were him I would enjoy my millions but each to his own.
As for Obama's charm offensive: if GOP demands don't soften, will that change anyone's mind about who is responsible for the pain caused in the ongoing sequester?
As for Obama's charm offensive: if GOP demands don't soften, will that change anyone's mind about who is responsible for the pain caused in the ongoing sequester?
Black Mamba
Member
Angry Fork
Member
Very proud of Rand Paul despite disagreeing with him on almost everything else. Democrats not standing with him is absolutely shameful/disgusting, but that's where this country is at now.
Do you not read NeoGAF? There's like a thread about drones every other week.
Those are just from GAF's libertarians. Only libertarians care about drones.
Angry Fork
Member
This is true but there are way too many liberals who end up going in those threads and bringing up the same defenses Bush and co. used (better them than us, fight them over there so we don't fight them here, this is war, etc. bla bla).
Check out huffpost comments on this story, so many of them are shitting on Rand Paul (although some aren't), and saying this is 'republican melodrama', that Rand Paul is just another tea partier and so on. They see everything as if it was democrats vs. republicans.
As long as Obama wins and Limbaugh cries on air nothing else matters. It's so damn frustrating, the liberals who support Obama's drone/drug wars should be in the vast minority, not majority.
And the republicans who join Rand Paul likely don't give a shit about civil liberties but just want to shit on the president. (Like fox news who suddenly cares about drone strikes now but ignore that Romney was a full on supporter). I get that hypocrisy and know it's wrong, but why can't so many liberals realize BOTH fox news AND Obama are wrong here. I don't understand it.
This lesser evil shit keeps going on and on until someone puts their foot down. Everyone should be supporting Rand Paul and hoping for some change to the drone war. I don't know why liberals are so convinced it must be either use drones, or full scale invasion. HOW ABOUT NEITHER.
(I know you mostly agree btw I'm not really replying to you, just to people who have supported Obama on this, and you know they're around they came out in full force especially during the elections "WELL WHY DON'T YOU VOTE ROMNEY HAR HAR HAR he'll be much better I'm being sarcastic herp derp")
PhoenixDark
Banned
I support the general idea of using drones to kill combatants. I don't support the use of drones to kill US citizens, the lack of any legal perameters, or the double tap process.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What about liberals that don't think bush was wrong in drones? I'd like more limits on what is "imminate" but I don't disagree with the drone program.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Is this guy serious?
I wonder how much he's getting paid for this one week per month advisor position.
Angry Fork
Member
They are in the unethical minority, as they should be. Now because Obama has a nice smile, lesser of two evils and the country shifting further right on certain issues stuff like the patriot act is standard rather than a reactionary temporary measure everyone hated.
Bush and co. were using that defense for huge wars that murdered tens of thousands of civilians and cost us a fortune. They're both bad things, but on vastly different scales. It's not surprising that there's much less outrage about drones.
And those liberals probably aren't really liberals, only Democrats. The Democratic party is mostly centrist (or slightly to the right compared to other countries).
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I consider myself a liberal but don't have a problem with a lot of the moral justifications used. I don't think its goes against just war and liberalism, I disagree mostly on practical and strategic grounds. I think a lot of the war on terror is justified and not immoral but stupid for strategic interests.
For example in the abstract I think the Iraq war could be justified on R2P (in the vaguest terms though I think it might fail some of the particulars of that theory, namely the prospect of success and proportional means) but I think it was un winnable and going to have more blow back than positives so I disagreed with it more for that than the "immorality of invading a sovereign nation"
I think there is often a problem with people conflating them disagreeing with a policy with that policy being immoral and the person having bad intentions.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Who would we declare war on, exactly?
The Librarian
Banned
Us libertarians were right all along. Look at Rand Paul filibuster! Arch defender of liberty.
I agree with him on drones.
empty vessel
Member
Not even that. Go arrest them and try them in judicial courts for whatever criminal acts you allege they have committed. Summarily killing people because they are deemed a "bad" person who "hates" the US is fucking atrocious, vile shit.
And I wouldn't trust CIA intelligence as far as I could throw it, which, because that's an abstract concept, is exactly 0 feet, 0 inches. This is a terrorism operation that we are running, pure and simply. And openly. Nobody cares, because the targets of the terror are brown and Muslim (and hate America!). The drone program is fueled by racism and nationalism, both disgusting.
- Status