The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
05-10-2012, 04:09 PM
#2042
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Couldn't agree with you more. Just ask this guy:
Politics and distraction is the only reason he even brings up gays.
Have to say your response is typical. My disdain for your current President means I'm a bigot? Figures.
Must be because hes black, right?
Do you people actually believe this crap you spew?
Politics and distraction is the only reason he even brings up gays.
Have to say your response is typical. My disdain for your current President means I'm a bigot? Figures.
Must be because hes black, right?Do you people actually believe this crap you spew?
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
05-10-2012, 04:44 PM
#2043
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Maybe you're a raging homophobe or maybe you're not...
but the big picture here is that homosexuality is a significant civil rights issue.
Of course maybe you're a sexist and a racist and don't believe giving blacks and women the same rights as everyone else is really all that relevant either.
To some people, having Obama come out and say he's pro-gay marriage is like Kennedy acknowledging the rights of blacks during the Freedom Rides. Or Wilson supporting Women's Sufferage.
The difference I guess is that a bunch of gays didn't get burned alive by a mob of racist ******** while they rode a bus to Alabama. Give it time though. You can always count on the bigots.
but the big picture here is that homosexuality is a significant civil rights issue.
Of course maybe you're a sexist and a racist and don't believe giving blacks and women the same rights as everyone else is really all that relevant either.
To some people, having Obama come out and say he's pro-gay marriage is like Kennedy acknowledging the rights of blacks during the Freedom Rides. Or Wilson supporting Women's Sufferage.
The difference I guess is that a bunch of gays didn't get burned alive by a mob of racist ******** while they rode a bus to Alabama. Give it time though. You can always count on the bigots.
Reply
0
0
05-10-2012, 04:59 PM
#2044
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money. A few weeks ago, Ed Morrissey noted that “Obama remains significantly off of his own 2008 pace of fundraising, and way under the Democratic donation performance of that cycle.” And as Dan Eggen reports in the Washington Post:
Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.
A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.
It’s all about the money, friends.
Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.
A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.
It’s all about the money, friends.
So, it's all about the Benjamins.
Reply
0
0
05-11-2012, 09:34 AM
#2048
And across the board, people feel uncomfortable when politicians change their policy views for no apparent reason, because it feels like a betrayal to the voters who supported him or her.
Reply
-1
-1
05-15-2012, 11:28 AM
#2055
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I would replace "trash" with "investment banking" which can be useful and productive and I don't reject speculative trading... Just not when it is implicitly backed with government guarantees via the FDIC. "Private profit, public loss" is not a good business model for society.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
05-16-2012, 11:42 AM
#2058
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
(I'm not certain that "free market" is the correct term for the phenomenon which I believe that image is attempting to convey.)
If anything, the presence of a small number of large, national corporations better satisfies the concepts of "competition" and "free market", as viewed from the perspective of an individual consumer, than a large number small, independent businesses.
Take the precooked, prepackaged meats industry, as an example.
In scenario A, each town with a population larger than 10,000 but smaller than 250,000 individuals is served by one local supplier of precooked, prepackaged meats, which is based in that town and services no other. Nationwide, there are hundreds of different small and medium-sized packaged meat suppliers.
In scenario B, the country is dominated by just two megafarms, which service all markets regardless of size.
Which scenario better illustrates the concept of a free market? Why, scenario B, of course.
In the first scenario, no town smaller than 250,000 people is served by more than one supplier, so a de-facto monopoly exists in those areas. There is no competition for customers of prepackaged meats. In this environment, it is almost certain that price gouging will occur in some areas, leading the people to call for government regulation of meat pricing, which is precisely the opposite of a free market.
In the second scenario, every person in the country, regardless of the size of the city in which they live, has a choice between two suppliers of prepackaged meats. As such, there is a natural regulation of the retail price of packaged meats.
Reply
0
0
