This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Republican? Just scream and lie.

1156157159161162315

Comments

  • edited March 2012
    Everything is created faster and with less labor. That's just a byproduct of technological improvement. That doesn't mean it is worth less or devalues the GDP. It just means people create more opportunities for spending disposable income. We have more movies, more pay websites, more widgets and MMO subscriptions and podcast hosting companies. Just because we're not cranking out crap from factories doesn't mean the things we produce have less value.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited March 2012
    So you don't object to the premises of ephemeralization then? You just reject that the value of labor will be reduced? What will allow labor to maintain its value?
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • edited March 2012
    Isn't the whole ephemeralization thing kind of irrelevant in a giant service economy?

    I mean basically American consumers are the new product.
    Post edited by johndis on
  • edited March 2012
    That depends on what purpose you want the economy to serve. For example, ephemeralization in any economy could lead to unemployment. Is unemployment itself bad? There are a wide range of opinions on this. They range from the moral to the political to the practical, and personally I'm not sure if it would be good or bad in itself. It could also massively magnify other problems like the wealth disparity. Is that in itself a good or bad thing? Same sort of issue. If the value of your work is near-zero, and the value of your existing wealth is near-infinite... it might be really really bad or really really good depending on what exactly you're going for. It also could be relatively irrelevant, and in terms of our practical knowledge it isn't a question for our lifetimes short of hitting upon some sort of technological singularity situation.

    But yeah, it could matter. But I don't know if it will matter. And there are reasons to still think about the subject (though probably not to dwell upon it) in ways that our grandfathers didn't. The whole "agromanufacturing" part of the equation was really only one question of many.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • edited March 2012
    I would like to see those sources as well. I've been listening to so many NPR articles from both sides about the oil drilling in the US, along with the pipelines, and as well as the fracking debate.

    On a brighter note, Women's Health Supporters Hilariously Flood Republicans' Facebook Walls With Sarcasm
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • Does it make me a terrible person to take a certain glee in this notice?
  • edited March 2012
    Funny how an economist would completely ignore the falling value of the dollar when discussing a commodity that is priced in dollars. Do we also have a gold shortage?

    If you pull a chart where oil is priced in gold you will see that the price of oil us flat. An economist should be able to see that and draw a conclusion.

    Also, drill baby drill is not just about price but also about energy independence. Why buy oil from another country when we have plenty here?

    The fastest way to lower the price of oil is to strengthen the value of the dollar.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • Does it make me a terrible person to take a certain glee in this notice?
    I can see where the glee comes from, but the people who are losing coverage are 150,000 low-income women, who the Republicans don't care about anyways.
  • Does it make me a terrible person to take a certain glee in this notice?
    I can see where the glee comes from, but the people who are losing coverage are 150,000 low-income women, who the Republicans don't care about anyways.
    That part makes me immeasurably sad. I'll be curious to see how Mr. Perry reacts to this, as if he doesn't back down he'll be seeing the loss of a lot of votes (I'd imagine).
  • HUUUUUUUURRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRR

    Santorum says Puerto Rico needs to become an English-speaking island if it wants to become a state.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-puerto-rico-should-adopt-english-if-it-hopes-to-be-state/2012/03/15/gIQAAeBKFS_blog.html
  • Guys, I think I figured Santorum out. I really do.

    I think he is trying to see how much shit he can say that will isolate him from every possible group of people aside from a mythical "Republican Base". He wants to see how many people he will be left with.

    It's all just a statistical analysis.
  • edited March 2012
    Does it make me a terrible person to take a certain glee in this notice?
    Except it gives the regressive Republicans even more of what they want. Why argue over weather or not to have planned parenthood coverage when you can just not cover women all together for everything? Even better, now all my rich friends won't have to pay for poor people to see doctors with their made up sickness and sexually transmitted diseases.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • #inmyheart
    I just watched the recent Colbert Report to know what that means. I really liked his previous episode with Kermit the Frog.
  • I really liked his previous episode with Kermit the Frog.
    Stephen Colbert doing Muppet arms is my favourite thing.

  • edited March 2012
    And it's not even the correct use of Renege. The best version they could hope for is "IF you voted for Obama, then don't renege, Vote for him again. Everyone else, well, let's talk."
    Post edited by Churba on
  • And it's not even the correct use of Renege.
    I was going to point that out as well, until I noticed the article did. Homophones are fun.

  • edited March 2012
    ‘Don’t Re-Nig,’ the racist anti-Obama bumper sticker, appears real

    I feel sick.
    Ugh, yeah, I could have confirmed that while ago. I see around 10 to 20 a day on the way to work with that on it, although this past holiday weekend I had to see at least 100 of them on the way to work. Yay, South Georgia.
    Post edited by canine224 on
  • ‘Don’t Re-Nig,’ the racist anti-Obama bumper sticker, appears real

    I feel sick.
    Ugh, yeah, I could have confirmed that while ago. I see around 10 to 20 a day on the way to work with that on it, although this past holiday weekend I had to see at least 100 of them on the way to work. Yay, South Georgia.
    Really? I live in SC and have yet to see one.
  • ‘Don’t Re-Nig,’ the racist anti-Obama bumper sticker, appears real

    I feel sick.
    Ugh, yeah, I could have confirmed that while ago. I see around 10 to 20 a day on the way to work with that on it, although this past holiday weekend I had to see at least 100 of them on the way to work. Yay, South Georgia.
    Really? I live in SC and have yet to see one.
    The county directly west of mine, my home town, has regular KKK rallies. Stuff like that is not that uncommon in this area, although just a couple towns in any direction get surprised by it so it may be something restricted to area.
  • On the up side, the website selling that particular piece of filth seems to have taken it off their site entirely. They still have other stupid, racist, hateful, redneck bullshit bumper stickers and things but at least that particularly awful one is gone.
  • edited March 2012
    On the up side, the website selling that particular piece of filth seems to have taken it off their site entirely. They still have other stupid, racist, hateful, redneck bullshit bumper stickers and things but at least that particularly awful one is gone.
    I did not really even read the article after seeing the photo so I assumed it was sold in gas stations and such, but not at a certain site(I figured it was probably more than one). That is where I have seen it sold around here, well in my home town. I think the first time I saw it was when I was taking my kids to my parents' house and had to story for a drink at a gas station.
    Post edited by canine224 on
  • I've been seeing some reaction from the left on this law out of TN:
    HB0368
    00242666
    -1-
    SENATE BILL 893
    By Watson
    HOUSE BILL 368
    By Dunn
    AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49,
    Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific
    subjects in elementary schools.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
    SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, is amended by
    adding the following as a new, appropriately designated section:
    (a) The general assembly finds that:
    (1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about
    scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary
    to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
    (2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
    biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
    cloning, can cause controversy; and
    (3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how
    they should present information on such subjects.
    (b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school
    governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public
    elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create
    an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages
    students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical
    thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about
    controversial issues.
    (c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school
    governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public
    - 2 - 00242666
    elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist
    teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses
    scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students
    understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths
    and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being
    taught.
    (d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary
    school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any
    public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any
    teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand,
    analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific
    weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
    (e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
    be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination
    for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination
    for or against religion or non-religion.
    SECTION 2. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school term, the department of
    education shall notify all directors of schools of the provisions of this act. Each director shall
    notify all employees within the director's school system of the provisions of this act.
    SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring
    it.
    I'm reading this as a bill designed to put more science back into science teaching in the public schools but I'm seeing it portrayed as an anti-science bill. Am I missing something here?

    Aside from naming a few 'controversial' science subjects in the bills text nothing in the bills text says, 'god is science'.
  • Yea it seems to protect teachers when teaching science that someone might disagree with... though I have to read it closer.
Sign In or Register to comment.