*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Oct 23, 2014, 01:50:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
658127 Posts in 9262 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 44 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21
Print
Author Topic: the continuing story of the 2008 political election  (Read 85769 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jess
Registered user

Posts: 3571


« Reply #75 on: Feb 04, 2008, 09:44:16 PM »

*Also I'm just curious: was anyone else pulling for Edwards early on?

Me. I wasn't really planning on going into the primary with a backup plan. I'm still a bit pissed that he quit before I got to vote for him.

I was for him early on, but if he were still in it, I'd be voting for Obama at this point, because Edwards wouldn't win, and Obama was my close second choice, whereas Hillary was my distant third. Also, Edwards did start pissing me off some with the nature of some of his anti-Hillary comments. One of the reasons I liked him was that he had the strongest stance on women's issues, but that feels less convincing when he starts being a bit of a sexist ass.
Logged
WhereTheSlimeLive
Registered user

Posts: 2326


« Reply #76 on: Feb 05, 2008, 12:09:59 AM »

he hasn't picked a side to support yet though

anyways, I just saw Obama in Boston.  He was a very natural speaker, but I was way more thrilled with Ted Kennedy.
Logged

Puddle Pants
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #77 on: Feb 05, 2008, 12:37:01 AM »

I meant they're not only redistributive, but they're nonsensically redistributive.
I'm afraid that I can't see the point you're trying to make. Could you make it clearer?

Quote
Further, "predominant theory in current debates about justice" may be true, but only among people who are spending serious amounts of time engaging in theoretical debates about justice.
And? At the moment it's your word against theirs, and I'm more inclined to trust the people who have made this their life's work rather than your hand-waving, if you don't mind.

Quote
There's many other types of manufacturing where it doesn't make sense to pay $15 to an American to do the job when you can pay $2 to someone somewhere else and see no real distinct suffering in terms of quality.  I'd like to see some demonstration of the provable decrease in quality of Mexican manufacturing, if you get a chance, as well.
Doesn't it bother you at least a teeny tiny bit that you are saying that Americans should abandon jobs they have so that those items can be manufactured elsewhere based on cost, when the difference in costs comes in its entirity from the exploitative labour practices on the other end? That you thereby encourage other countries to continue and expand said exploitation, by offering them a market only if they continue to produce goods cheaply, that is, drive their workers into the ground in the name of profit? Would you like to be a Burmese clothing worker? Or perhaps a miner in China, who still, I might add, has seen no benefit from the immense wealth flowing into Beijing? Haven't you considered it at all that, by offering a market on these conditions, you are doing everything in your power to bring pain and misery to the lives of other people?
Logged
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #78 on: Feb 05, 2008, 12:46:43 AM »

Sometimes you're a bit much for me, my old friend, but right now, you're making me grin ear to ear.

(Sorry don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion at hand, though it's fascinating to watch. Also if this thread is doing anything for me it's making me a bit firmer in my resolve that political and reformist solutions don't come even close to addressing the problems, a resolve that had weakened some lately due to wanting an easy fix for some of this mess we're in. It's easy to get distracted by shining smiling faces making promises to undo the evil work of evil men. But I'ma shut up before we get into a drag-out that none of us wants anything to do with.)
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #79 on: Feb 05, 2008, 12:51:04 AM »

That said, I do have a hard time taking people seriously when they talk about redistribution of wealth. Well, most people.



(Sorry, not helping)
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #80 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:06:29 AM »

gi's third paragraph in that last post is amazing. i feel like his point is something a lot of people choose to ignore.

hell, let me rant about that for a second. here in america, we've greatly improved labor conditions and gone a great deal towards making sure all workers get a living wage (still a ways to go, i admit, but we're way better off than burma or china). so what happens? the businessmen take control of the government and change the laws so that industry can flee en masse to all of the countries where labor conditions and wages have NOT been improved. it hurts american workers whose job market starts to decay, and it hurts the people overseas who, as gi points out, end up forced to work for crappy wages in crappy conditions because it suits the interests of the rich in THEIR country. and it makes a mockery of all the work the american working class did to improve their own lot in life, especially considering how much worse the jobs that are available in america now are than the ones that left 20 or 30 years ago were. so the poor everywhere lose, and the rich everywhere win. same old story.

personally, the laws i'd really like to enact would be laws that prevent american companies from using labor in countries where labor conditions are worse than they are here. it would hopefully give other countries the incentive to treat their workers better instead of worse, as well as making it more economically advantageous to bring jobs back to the usa. and before anyone tells me that this is directly antithetical to the free market, let me just mention that i know this, and furthermore, fuck the free market.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #81 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:08:24 AM »

The average laborer in a developing nation isn't going to have their life get better or have their wages increase w/o free trade.  I agree that we should do more to enforce international labor standards than we do, but the best way to do that, IMO, is to have shareholders put pressure on corporations, not to close off the borders.

GI: Your assertion that they spend most of their lives studying ethics and I am just hand-waving is pretty hilariously poor logic.  My point was that they study ethics and problems of ethics, as far as I know from your referencing, not the operations of governments and policy outside of a vacuum.
« Last Edit: Feb 05, 2008, 01:10:23 AM by DCDave » Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #82 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:09:50 AM »

hah, dave, that's never going to happen. reminds me of george w. bush encouraging businesses to set voluntary limits on their own pollution. yeah, that's really gonna work. suuuuure.

corporations act exclusively in their own interest. they have no conscience. if you want a corporation to behave ethically, you need to pass laws that force it to do so.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #83 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:14:35 AM »

hah, dave, that's never going to happen. reminds me of george w. bush encouraging businesses to set voluntary limits on their own pollution. yeah, that's really gonna work. suuuuure.

corporations act exclusively in their own interest. they have no conscience. if you want a corporation to behave ethically, you need to pass laws that force it to do so.

Shareholder activism worked reasonably well in pulling Coca-Cola out of South Africa, Andrew.  Corporations generally don't like to have their brand identity tied to child labor, strip-mining, etc.  If America cracks down hard on MNCs, they can just relocate their head office.  If shareholders crack down hard on MNCs, they have to restructure ownership drastically.
Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #84 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:38:26 AM »

Shareholder activism worked reasonably well in pulling Coca-Cola out of South Africa, Andrew.  Corporations generally don't like to have their brand identity tied to child labor, strip-mining, etc. 

Apparently they don't mind violent union busting and assassinations, however
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #85 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:48:21 AM »

If shareholders crack down hard on MNCs, they have to restructure ownership drastically.

yeah, well, i wish there was a way to ensure that that would happen, but the last thing i'm gonna place my confidence in is the benevolent action of the rich.

also, what jeb said.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #86 on: Feb 05, 2008, 02:18:38 AM »

GI: Your assertion that they spend most of their lives studying ethics and I am just hand-waving is pretty hilariously poor logic.  My point was that they study ethics and problems of ethics, as far as I know from your referencing, not the operations of governments and policy outside of a vacuum.
Dave, you appealed to a certain theory of justice as a justification for what you're proposing. That's fine, that's what theories of justice are for. But when you do so, you cannot expect that to close the argument. There are competing views, more or less the idea of justice that the other people here hold in one form or another, which says that it's the government's job to at least work towards a more egalitarian distribution of resources. When you argue against that, which you are, you cannot just assert its opposite. That would be to beg the question. Which is what you did.

You didn't claim that it was expedient, you claimed that it was just.

Please, may I ask you not to attempt to brush me and others aside because of what you feel to be your authority? It is a formal fallacy, you understand, and you claim at least some interest in logical cogency.
Logged
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #87 on: Feb 05, 2008, 08:17:45 AM »

If shareholders crack down hard on MNCs, they have to restructure ownership drastically.

yeah, well, i wish there was a way to ensure that that would happen, but the last thing i'm gonna place my confidence in is the benevolent action of the rich.

also, what jeb said.

No need to be rich to be a shareholder.  A good number of shareholder action campaigns are undertaken by people who aren't rich.

GI: Your assertion that they spend most of their lives studying ethics and I am just hand-waving is pretty hilariously poor logic.  My point was that they study ethics and problems of ethics, as far as I know from your referencing, not the operations of governments and policy outside of a vacuum.
Dave, you appealed to a certain theory of justice as a justification for what you're proposing. That's fine, that's what theories of justice are for. But when you do so, you cannot expect that to close the argument. There are competing views, more or less the idea of justice that the other people here hold in one form or another, which says that it's the government's job to at least work towards a more egalitarian distribution of resources. When you argue against that, which you are, you cannot just assert its opposite. That would be to beg the question. Which is what you did.

You didn't claim that it was expedient, you claimed that it was just.

Please, may I ask you not to attempt to brush me and others aside because of what you feel to be your authority? It is a formal fallacy, you understand, and you claim at least some interest in logical cogency.

I said that to me, redistributive taxation seemed non-equitable.  I said TO ME.  I pretty clearly outlined that -my- position was proportion of pay vs. proportion of benefits received.   I didn't assert the opposite as fact,  I claimed it as opinion.  Andrew then counterclaimed that the rich have special privileges regarding the portion of what they pay, and I attempted to illuminate the opposite. 

Quote
This always seems non-equitable to me, because it's not as though people at higher levels of earning receive disproportionate benefits on average.  But I guess you're way more OK with taxation as a form of income redistribution than I am

Additionally, I went on to discuss the manners in which income could be productively redistributed, and the non-existence of programs for productive means, as well as my opinion on the current state of federal spending vis a vis additional revenue to further illuminate why I think an additionally redistributive tax policy wouldn't work very well against a set of reasonable policy goals.  If you want to address the current state of the US Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, or other government poverty programs, then we can talk about how to set up more egalitarian structures in those, and the additional tax revenues it would take.  If you want to appeal to authority, or make this a discussion about a utopian system, I'm not interested, because you'll just talk about books you read.
« Last Edit: Feb 05, 2008, 08:33:37 AM by DCDave » Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #88 on: Feb 05, 2008, 08:36:58 AM »

Not reading this thread, but I've got a ruler if anyone wants to compare dick measurements with me.
Logged
davy
Registered user

Posts: 24822


« Reply #89 on: Feb 05, 2008, 11:01:50 AM »

Logged

The drummer IS the foundation, p3wn.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #90 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:45:14 PM »

Can Obama Beat the Clock?

Barack Obama has only one enemy left standing and it's not Hillary Clinton. It's time itself. All the evidence is in: the more that voters are exposed to Obama, the more they flock to him. The more they see Hillary Clinton, the more stagnant her numbers.

If the election were held last Tuesday, Clinton would have walked away with it. If it were to be held a week from this Tuesday, Obama would waltz to victory.

The latest surveys reveal an unmistakable and unprecedented surge by Obama, nationally and in almost every key state on this Tuesday's calendar of 22 primaries.

And one key survey even has him ahead in the gold-ring state of California where, a month ago, he was down by 20 points.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
girl
Registered user

Posts: 9144


« Reply #91 on: Feb 05, 2008, 01:50:27 PM »

Hillary Clinton just called me to ask for my vote.
Logged

this is a story and you're not in it
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #92 on: Feb 05, 2008, 02:57:00 PM »

Tidbit related to me by my grandfather, who overheard this at a restaurant in my hometown.

"Well, I don't want to vote for a nigger, but I sure ain't gonna vote for no woman."

Progress.
Logged
Nick
Registered user

Posts: 195


« Reply #93 on: Feb 05, 2008, 03:08:09 PM »

Huckabee wins WV
Interesting that McCain peeps prefer Huck to Romney
Logged
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #94 on: Feb 05, 2008, 03:12:07 PM »

a)  they want him to stay in, because almost all his votes would go to Romney.  Without Huckabee in the race, Romney would probably be way up in GA, for example.

b)  all the candidates have expressed personal dislike of Romney, including Huckabee.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
girl
Registered user

Posts: 9144


« Reply #95 on: Feb 05, 2008, 04:08:22 PM »

So, how do they decide who goes where on the ballot? (I haven't tried looking it up, I was just wondering if anyone knew.) Edwards' name was still there, as was Dodd's. They were both in front of Hillary.
Logged

this is a story and you're not in it
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #96 on: Feb 05, 2008, 04:15:31 PM »

State Democratic party.
Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #97 on: Feb 05, 2008, 04:28:54 PM »

Heh, Obama's definitely listed first here.

Also people please research and vote downballot.

And if you're in Chicago please please please vote for Deratany over Berrios at minimum.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
girl
Registered user

Posts: 9144


« Reply #98 on: Feb 05, 2008, 04:55:35 PM »

I looked it up. It's decided by a random drawing. It was a little odd that there was no one handing out pencils or flyers or anything outside the polling place this time. Maybe it's because I usually vote later in the day?
Logged

this is a story and you're not in it
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #99 on: Feb 05, 2008, 05:10:17 PM »

There were like, 15 people covering every possible point of entry to my polling place, ALL representing the machine ticket.  It's because I live in a heavily Puerto Rican neighborhood, with an incumbent Puerto Rican state senator, but the machine is backing her challenger, a white dude.  Oh, Chicago with your shadiness.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21
Print
LPTJ | Archives | The Hangar | Topic: the continuing story of the 2008 political election
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc