Be careful what you wish for. Unicorns are constantly snagging their horn on low tree branches when they gallop.

I'm sure you would be a smart unicorn, so it wouldn't happen to you so much, but you'd have to hear about it from the rest of them. And that might get old.

I think the bottom one is important because it shows that we really don't like the insane exponential growth of the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Damn unicorns are always kvetching about something, aren't they? Sure, the media paints them as a gentle ethereal creature but once you've spent some time among them you know better!

Puh. Subjective and irrelevant.

I don't think anyone needs to tell anyone that they don't like the fact that there are insanely uber-rich. Except the uber-rich, they might not know we don't like it.

I think it's important to understand what society thinks is "fair", even if we don't necessarily do anything to force it to be. It's definitely politically relevant I believe.

I like that its changed so much in the last few years.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :eyebrow:

Kinda funny. Great comeback.

I, for one, would be very interested in seeing a monkeycorn. Surely there's a surgeon out there who can make this happen.





ETA: Oh, dear ghod, they exist!
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/im...dEFMczKn_5vgAN

:D

Tony Soprano explains Bain Capital.
I assume it's mostly tongue-in-cheek rather than a serious accusation, but.

:lame: I must have missed the Tony part... I couldn't see through all the bullshit.

We've been watching Downton Abbey, the main theme of which is the breakdown of the stark class system in Europe around WWI. It's fascinating to compare to now. Back then, the uber-rich were very uber-rich indeed--though I'm not sure how the distribution of wealth would compare to now--but they also were expected to support the poor beneath them. Pretty much the whole village is Lord Grantham's responsibility, including things like singlehanded funding of the local hospital.

Waitafuckingminutetheresunshine!

How comes Infi gets to be a unicorn? Why is it the hobo-killer gets to play horny ponies?

I've never been called sunshine before. :)

Infi gets to be a unicorn because she needs the horn to skewer hobos.

And also because I'm ethereal and lovely and different. And I asked first.

Thanks Spexx! :)

I must admit, I hadn't considered the practical application of the horn with regards hobokilling.

Do you have a student loan ?
Do you or your children plan to go to graduate school ?

If so, watch the news on Thursday...

NY Times
6/29/12
Editorial
The Deal on Student Loans
We may see Medical Schools offering the B.A. instead of M.D.'s :rolleyes:

Is it just me or has the "likeability" factor of both candidates completely tanked in the last month? Imma looking at a Bull Moose moment.

Now Griff, Mitt understands that people don't like him, but his wife, Ann, is very likable.
He sends her out to "explain" to us the some of the more difficult aspects the campaign.

On Thursday morning's ABC Good Morning America,
Ann Romney explained her and her husband's refusal to make their
tax returns public for any other years than 2010 and 2011, by saying:

And nothing endears someone to me quite like when they refer to us as "You people". lol

Wasn't referring to you - "You people" = the press.

Griff, yep pretty much. If the R's had as charismatic an option as Obama, I'm not sure this would even be close.
I still believe that O wins in a landslide unless something drastic happens between now and November.

I don't agree.

I heard her say it on GMA and it absolutely snagged my ear just the way Sheldon described it. She *may* have been intending the grammar of her sentence to refer to the reporter she was having a conversation with. But.... She then goes on to talk about that information being all that's needed to know and understand and how that will affect the election. Who the hell decides the election?? Not the reporters--the electorate. We/"you people", the voters.

She made a gaffe only insofar as she candidly revealed her point of view about the voters. It's on par with Mitt's revelation about his position on corporate personhood. There's no overlap between his universe and my universe. And he keeps reinforcing that. And that ignorance alienates him from my political affections. Too bad for him.

Cause if you insist on reading it the other way, she's suggesting that the reporters decide the election. Just as insulting and twice as stupid. Do you really think that's it?

It's a while since I witnessed a politician so unable to muster anything approaching the 'common touch'. And that's from someone whose leading politicians attended Eton and Oxford and are directly descended from aristocratic royal servants and courtiers.

This seems appropriate:

From five years ago, when the tories were in opposition and David Cameron was courting the ordinary voter:

You people = Liberals, in this case. Because we've long stopped pretending to believe that reporters are objective in any way. It's my side vs. your side, and the reporter's questions will always make it clear which side he's on. She's only dismissing half the electorate, not all of it.

Doesn't that eliminate everyone in entire State of Texas ?

We left in 1963, and I think we were the last liberals in the state :rolleyes:

Nah, there's still Austin.

...huh... that's weird.

All politicians in Texas run on the slogan: "I'm more conservative than he is."

UT - The only bastion of liberals (?) in Texas, and
the only song the band plays is "The Eyes of Texas"

Sorry I got here late. I'll take option C - What Clod said.
I'm rather certain she did NOT mean the voters.

I'm uncertain what it takes to makes Classic "certain"

But here is the ABC interview... her remark comes at 2:08 min... judge for yourself.

But listen to what else she says in the interview
... making more tax returns public would just lead to more questions and/or attacks...
Then she's back to broad generalities.

But what is the specific plan that Mitt Romney has that will
create all those jobs this country needs so much faster than Obama?

It is very clear to me that is exactly the case. In fact, just before that:

Mrs. Romney: "When he was Governor of Massachusetts - didn't take a salary for four years."

Reporter: "Why not show that then?"

Mrs. Romney: “And you just want to give more material for more attack. And that’s really -
that’s just the answer.”

Who was the word "you referring to in this instance? To the interviewer(representing the media.)
Same as a few seconds later when the "you people" comment was made.

I stand by my impression. Would I prefer he made his tax returns public? Meh, why not.
I cannot say that has ever been an issue with which candidate I voted for though.
I think they will show he is a Billionaire at worst. They will however offer more fuel to the fire of the
"Out of touch rich guy mantra" which is a cornerstone of the Obama campaign.
The election should be about jobs & the economy, not how wealthy a candidate is or isn't and
certainly NOT about their tax returns. YMMV.

Ok, let's talk about this point. Wealthy? Whatever. But he touts his wealth (I have friends who own NASCAR/Pro Football teams, only the two Cadillacs, let's wager $10,000, etc etc etc) as abundant and irrefutable evidence of his skill as a businessman. Ok, mad fucking skills, skyhighstacks of skillz, yo.

The thing is, our government isn't a business. It's very very different from business. The skills he has in business, I think some will apply, but lots will not and most especially his talent for making profit, the very reason for existence for a business.

What is profit in government? It's practically a non sequitur. The measures of success in business don't apply in government. The tools that work in business don't apply in government. I don't want my government run like a business.

Now before you pop a vessel straining to disagree with me, I know that there are actions and ideals contribute to success in both realms. But he doesn't talk about his ability to lead by inspiring those around him, he talks about how he loves to fire people. He's king of making profit. He's got lots of friends who are business owners. How will those qualities make him a good president?

He's been governor of Massachusetts. That is a real qualification. But he's *running from* that, sadly, especially because of the "albatross" of "RomneyCare". Really sad. Being President is hard. Practically no one has any experience at it, only presidents, eh? Other chief executives. I don't get any whiff of megalomania coming from Romney, thankfully. I think he's sincere. I just strongly disagree with is positions about the primacy of businesses.

I don't want my government run like a business. Done well, that would be a catastrophe.

OK, so please address the question:

I know, but you have to realize that some people disagree with you.
No idea. But I will say that having his taxes become the focus of the election will not help answer that question.

How about focusing on whether or not he felt compelled to pay his fair share of tax? Whether or not he engaged in off-shore tax schemes. And whether or not the business he ran was creating jobs or removing them to low wage economies elsewhere.

Daily Show was good on why the tax issue is important/relevant.

This is a bit of a dire vid, taken from someone's tv, but it's worth it. Turn the sound up. I think he pretty much nails why peopl get upset with Romney. It isn't 'because he's rich'.

I do realize some people disagree with me. Duh.

But no one will like the world that results from having a government that is run like a business. That would be a disaster. Look, our military is ... pick your superlative. Efficient. Disciplined. Honorable. Effective. Et cetera. But running our government like the military would be a different disaster. Just because it's an effective model doesn't make it a model that should be followed.

Our government isn't a business. We don't have the same inputs and outputs as business.

In business, the boss can do what he likes. Your time is his time. Your equipment is his equipment. Your information is his information. He can do what he wants, control what you do/say/see/hear when you're on the clock, wouldn't you agree? That has certainly been my experience. I doubt Boss Romney has deviated from this as Boss.

It's this kind of thinking that leads to remarks like this:

Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."

This is not acceptable as President. But he **thinks** it's acceptable as President. He says exactly that. Pandering? Campaigning? Bloviating? I don't care. Right now, all I have to judge him on are his past actions and words. These are clear words, repeated, not just uttered in... a moment of passion. I don't want a President that promises to decide what I can and can't see on my computer

More partisan Bullshit.
The concept was/is a filter available for parents to monitor what their children have
access to view on their computer. It was never intended to block all pron from adults.
Why is that idea not acceptable to you? What is wrong with offering an option for parents to selectively CHOOSE to use should they want to do so?

I'm opposed to the president vowing to "make sure that a filter is installed on every computer sold in America". Why? Why is this important for him to vow? Why is it important for him to make sure that... ... every computer? Really? All the ones used in business? Cause... of the children? Or the computers used in science applications? Or the computers purchased by the military? What about computers purchased by adults with no children? Why must those computers have a needless filter for non existent children?

You're right it is partisan bullshit, but controlling *conservative* bullshit.

@ Dana - I'd love to hear it, but even with all the sound on max, I wasn't able to follow it.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=820736#post820736

listen to first half.

@dana

ironically, this was your post in the beginning. you didn't need to find the second clip of very low quality.

eta: well crap. vid is taken down.

further eta:

try this link for the full episode, the beginning part is the Bain Capital/Romney part. With acceptable audio.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...012-louis-c-k-

Hmm. So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?
Don't want it? Don't turn it on. As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

Why is Romney saying this?

Sorry.

We agree. Hmm.
I don't know where you're getting that, I didn't say that, I'm not saying that. My question is what is the government's compelling interest in having "pornography filters" installed on every computer sold in America? We have lots of regulations, usually in the public interest, like public safety or public health. Seatbelts come to mind. You can't buy a new car without them. Of course, you don't have to use them, though not using them is usually a violation of the law. And only stupid people continue to argue that NOT wearing them is a good idea.

What I don't want is the government deciding what I can access on my computer. Let's follow your preinstalled but unused idea. For the children, of course. Why not include child seats preinstalled on every new car sold in America? I'm giving you a huge advantage here because the evidence for the efficacy of child seats is infinitely better than the evidence of the efficacy of pornography filters. It's a dumb argument.


Cheaper for who? The company that makes the software that will now have to give it away? Or... cheaper for the company that's buying the computer with some software preinstalled? Who pays for the software? Is it free? If it's free then it's already free, why not just let people get it for free?


You declined my request for your opinion as to why Romney advocated such a position. I'll tell you mine. It was just plain pandering. Playing to his audience who believes such a thing is up to the government "THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!". That kind of audience. It's still a bullshit thing for Romney to vow. Who decides what is pornographic. Fuck. We dwellars still can't decide absolutely what's nsfw. Now we want the government deciding it? It's technically impossible, short of just making the computer like a cardboard prop Dilbert provides for his pointy haired boss.

My point is Romney's either pandering, which I find disappointing, or he's a dumbass for thinking it's actually possible, which is kinda sad, or he's a zealot, which is scary. Unless you have a more comforting explanation, I'm gonna stick with pandering, kind of a cheap corruption. "I'll trade you an empty peace of mind soundbite for the appearance of your support. I'll accept real support by those among you who actually believe my spiel."

Hmmm.

Agreed - Same principle.
They aren't. You're argument is invalid. I found your original INCORRECT, conveniently selected quote extremely misleading.

No idea.
The parents.
Again - False.

It's stoopid anyway. Most internet providers these days offer filtering systems as standard. But the kids can just work their waythrough them anyway. So...when the government mandated filters are no longer effecrive, who is resopnsible for ensring they are brought up to date with the latest effort to stop computer savvy children looking at titties?

Now THAT I agree with!

giggle - she said titties.

you don't understand how a filter like this works, do you?

How is it made? How is it configured to determine what is pornographic? Saying "the parents decide" isn't viable for the filter. For direct supervision of the kids, sure. But for a filter to work, it has to ... it has to "know" what "pornography" (and drug culture and violence and sex and perversion--not selective misleading quoting *whatever the hell that meant*--Romney's own words) IS. It has to know what to filter, right? Who decides that? What is the standard?

Y'know... don't feel compelled to answer. You're not Romney of course. It is pure pandering, whoring. It can't be done. If it could be done, believe me, you'd be a rich man, the creator would be rich that is. Lots of people are scared of sex and his remarks are simply playing on that fear.

ok

I do agree that making tax returns public is/should not be a deal-breaker.

But why make an issue of the previous 2 years, as opposed to 12 ... none at all ?
If someone is planning to run for the Presidency, or any political office,
they are certainly going to start planning their campaign at least two years before the election.
This gives plenty of time to "re-arrange" their finances,
and either hide or obscure whatever they might consider embarrassing.

Whatever ... it seems to be the precedent that McCain and Romney have set,
at least until a future candidate refuses to release any financial records at all.
.

I believe this story gives a good sense of the issue with Romney's tax returns.

I really doubt that Romney did anything illegal. However, he most likely manipulated the financial system to benefit him at the expense of others. This is probably standard procedure within the elite upper class, therefore Romney doesn't see anything wrong with it. Yet, he knows it is controversial enough that his financial doings can easily be spun (justifiably or not).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...p-view/260168/

Excellent. That really gels with my image of that world and that kind of business environment.

There are plenty of wealthy people in the public eye whose money does not make them a target for people's anger and disdain. But when one of them offers himself up as a potential leader for a nation of hardworking individualists and entrepreneurs, Romney's particular flavour of wealth seems insulting. Particularly coupled with his aggressiveness towards anybody else getting 'something for nothing' and 'free stuff'.

Personally, the way I see it is this: nobody is obligated to pay more tax than they are legally bound to. If there is a legal way of reducing that tax burden then have at it. But...reducing it too much starts to show a lack of consideration for the national community. People like Romney paint their stance on tax as anti-big government, but it plays an awful lot like anti-American to me. Morally irresponsible. Now that's all well and good and we can all roll our eyes at the shennanigans of the moneyed few. But when someone wants to lead the country I would want to see a person who cares enough about the country to pay a fair level of tax.

Lamp, its even worse. He gave them to McCain when he was being vetted for the VP spot.

:facepalm:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-America.html

It's just an adviser, but still. If he surrounds himself with idiots like that...