873,000 Jobs in September

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:14 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Malice wrote:Yeah yeah yeah the system is broken both parties are bad blah blah blah wishing things were better is not going to change anything and in the meantime voting against Obama is, I believe, morally unconscionable.
Voting to continue a broken two-party system is not going to change anything, and actually impedes those of us trying to effect change. Also voting for anyone who does not represent your views is, I believe, morally unconscionable.


Why? I'm honestly curious here--why do you think there exists a moral obligation to take meaningless stands?

I mean, we're a few weeks away from the election here. The 3rd party candidates are indisputably not positioned to win a single electoral vote, or even enough of the popular vote to change anything. In 1968 George Wallace won 10 million votes and 45 electoral votes. 4 years later the third party candidate, John Schmitz, ran under the same party as Wallace and received 1 million votes and no electoral votes. In '92 Ross Perot got 18% of the popular vote (and no electoral votes); 4 years later he ran again and got half that. The notion that a good showing in the Presidential race for a third party leads to later gains is demonstrably bullshit. Back in July one poll put even tentative support for any one third party candidate at 3% or less. (So low that both major parties have essentially ignored them, taking on none of the 3rd party's views--Obama, for instance, refuses to lighten up on marijuana, and Romney has swung from far-right to center-right and back without ever really engaging with Libertarians.) So what makes you think that 3% is going to do anything to help the state of third party candidates in the future?


Oh, changes were made as a result of each of these. For instance, post '92, changes were made to keep Perot out of the debates, were they not? I'll grant that this isn't the most desirable of changes, but it's an effect. I'd also argue that Perot's focus on economics shifted the tone of the election.

Now granted, that's a lot harder to argue when your party is in the 1% range...the influence you have then is pretty weak compared to stronger showings. However, even then, getting votes often makes it easier for your party to get on the ballot next year, and being on the ballot is something that results in a lot better voting than write-in has. Therefore, sure, it has effects.

And hey, many third parties actually successfully run people for lower offices. In some ways, the presidential campaign also serves as a publicity event to support such things. Gotta get your views out there, and attract interested people.

Not to mention, in the long run...voting for the lesser of the two evils doesn't even matter for most people. I live in MD. I know we're going dem. We always, always do. It's predictable as hell. So, there's really no motivation to vote to stop candidate X. I can't.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Impeach, all this talk of libertarianism is great and all, but where were you during the republican primaries? What about the primaries for 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, and 2002? You don't get to hide for 10 years and then come out and diss the democratic candidate because he wants to be strong in foreign policy. Why are you complaining now when your vote matters the least? Why are you challenging a presidential race and not say state or congressional members? A third party challenge is best during primaries, where there are less voters and candidates are receptive to small groups.
You want a perfect candidate? Then fuck ronpaul, he's a racist piece of shit who takes money from white power groups. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/ ... l-has-said

We know Obama is a mediocre president, but he's a mediocre president that shares more of our positions than the other candidate. You can have fun being so principled that you get to watch, but not touch anything important. Look, libertarianism is an interesting concept, but I don't agree with any of their reasoning, just some shared goals. Like I would want the drug war ended, or to retreat from Afghanistan, but I'm just using them to get their votes for something I want. What's a libertarian gonna do if I want to end the war on drugs, but then I add later that we're gonna punish casual drug users with forced labor? What are you gonna do? Vote against it? How important is keeping all your principles? It's just one rape a month, I'm sure that's worth ending the war on drugs.


Where was I during the republican primaries? Uhhhh, Missoula, Montana. Is that what you meant? I haven't been hiding for the past 10 years or for any of that time. In 2002 I was in middle school. Since about 2006 I started talking to people about the destruction of our civil liberties, interventionist foreign policy, the private federal reserve and crap like that. I was concerned about these things before I even knew who was running in the election. Isn't that what people are SUPPOSED to do? You decide what you want BEFORE the election and vote for someone who will bring that about, so yes I did "diss" Obama for treason and war crimes. I never said I wanted a perfect candidate but RonPaul is the only one who won't absolutely STOMP on what I would like to see happen.

Some of things I would like to see in this country include the right to a fair trial, safety from unlawful arrest, A SMALLER MILITARY BUDGET, and the end of the war on drugs. Some things which I would NOT like to see in this country include war with Iran or anyone else, wall street sellouts in the white house, further removal of civil liberties, and the transfer of war powers from congress to the UN and NATO (look up the Panetta testimony). For reasons like this I have never voted for a presidential candidate that wasn't RonPaul. RonPaul is also, not a racist. That one stupid little newsletter is all you people ever have against him. It must have been talked about in every single mainstream news interview he got. He has said time and time again that he didn't write it, he didn't know it was in there and he doesn't endorse it. Stop it with the god damn race card already.

Obama is NOT a mediocre president. He is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Just look at this executive order that he issued called the national resources preparedness act. This is not libertarian propaganda this is the text of an actual EO that Obama issued so anyone who wants an educated opinion on what Obama's policies really are would want to read this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

Malice wrote:
Impeach wrote:I would have to disagree with A. A government is not supposed to be there to push their own agenda onto us. Since the tax money is actually OURS then it should be used to fund OUR plan, not the plan of the people who take it from us. If we as taxpayers don't start insisting that the agenda being funded with our money must be ours, then an absurdly high military budget, the war on drugs, the TSA, and the presidential dictatorial kill list are not going away. Sounds crazy but I really think that directing where our own money gets spent will help make sure that bullshit like that doesn't get paid for unless we agree. Sounds extremist but I think that is fair.


This paragraph is nonsensical. It only makes sense if "The Government" were an alien entity that came to Earth every two years and fucked with your stuff according to its weird and alien agenda.

In reality, the government is made up of elected representatives, which means anything it does is our plan, we own it. You can argue that it's a bad plan and it should be changed; but it is our plan in every meaningful sense. Nobody is going to agree in total with everything the government does. The democratic process is about compromising with other people to create the best and most widely representative plan going forward. Enough people believe The Affordable Care Act should be enacted that, yes, it is our plan that our taxes be used for those things. Your task is to take up this argument with those people, not with "The Government".


Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is nonsensical. What are you confused about, though? If it's the "I disagree with A" part then try to remember: you had a list in your last post, the first item of which was labeled "A". Since I didn't agree with it, I told you.

Something that I don't understand is what would make you think that anything government does is our plan? Were you even aware you said this? You got it backwards man, their job is to ENACT our wishes, not inform us of them. Did you take an oath to defend and uphold the government?

Impeach wrote:I don't understand what you mean by trusting Obama not to abuse that power. The presidential kill list is an abuse of power in and of itself. Obama has already ordered the killing of more than one american citizen without a trial. Legally, that's murder. Their rights were protected by the same constitution that yours are, but now they aren't. How are you OK with that? Do you also trust him with the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial? Is it fair for him to have that power just because he is 'liberal'? And did you ACTUALLY just argue that people should stop calling Obama out for his unconstitutional ways because people might get upset and not vote for him? That stuff MUST be talked about and the president MUST be held to task EVERY TIME NO MATTER WHAT. I hate Romney just as much as you do (Actually I probably hate him 10 times more) but how shitty a candidate he is will not have an affect on how shitty a voter I am. I am not going to compromise on the right to not be kidnapped and murdered because 'the' other guy is worse. I will never vote for these things because it subsidizes insanity and as you said, we need a sane opposition. People really have to start thinking outside this one dimensional democratic/republican nominee spectrum because both ends are obviously covered in shit. The system has been organized like this for so long that the the two parties have become big brand names that people just automatically trust to be the best. Anyone from anywhere else must automatically not be a real candidate so everyone just makes the same stupid mistake every 4 years. You vote for people instead of their policies.


Well, for example: Obama ordered the killing that American citizen without a trial. That American citizen aided terrorists and lived in a country where we couldn't stop him from aiding terrorists other than with physical force. Drone strikes are the most cost-effective method we have for solving problems like that. I have yet to find a better solution, other than maybe using the Special Forces as black ops kidnappers (which is going to end up killing people anyway, including our own soldiers, and is equally damaging to the victim nation's sovereignty), and the only alternative is to not solve those problems and let our enemies continue to hurt us with impunity. I don't like this situation but drones seem to me to be the least bad option here. Do you have an argument that isn't just "but it's bad!"? Do you have other solutions to this problem, or a convincing argument as to why we can't afford to solve the problem? I'm open to changing my mind.


You sound like a Bush supporter. I'm not interested in solutions to your "terrorist" problem. I am interested in solutions to the "I live in a country where I can be murdered without a trial" problem.

Besides, If Anwar Al-Awlaki was such a dangerous man that the rule of law had to be ignored for our safety then why didn't they nab him while he was having lunch at the pentagon? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html



Yeah yeah yeah the system is broken both parties are bad blah blah blah wishing things were better is not going to change anything and in the meantime voting against Obama is, I believe, morally unconscionable.


I'll bet you do, Mr. independent thinker.

Impeach wrote:You and me both, brother. Except they The Affordable Care Act part. Keep your hands of of my rights and my wallet. O bamacare isn't actually mine because it was paid for by stolen money.


What stolen money? Is all taxation theft? Or just taxation for programs you personally don't agree with? Do you have a better solution for the health care market?


Wait, you think it is LEGAL for the federal government to mandate that I purchase health insurance? And again, stop with this "show me a better solution to this particular problem" argument because it doesn't interest me what personal gain you have tied to my rights.


The Great Hippo wrote:New rule: Saying any variant of 'Taxation is theft!' immediately disqualifies you from participating in any sane discussion concerning government, taxation, or civilization in general. People who say things like this are not libertarians. They are 'internet libertarians'. IE, morons. You know how I can tell?

Because they say things like 'Taxation is theft!'.


You realize that without people saying those things, the taxes would still be going to the British empire? New rule: saying any variation of "taxation is NEVER theft and those who disagree are of a lower cast and their opinions have no value!" immediately disqualifies you from taking the intellectual high ground.
Last edited by Impeach on Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

All of that aside, the ronpaul isn't running in this election. If you like his ideals, all well and good, but you might consider finding someone who is actually running who best represents those ideals to you.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:19 pm UTC

He might have a shot with Gary Johnson, or is he the Green Party candidate?
Anyway, http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/n ... or-update/
You mean Clinton or George HW Bush right? Way to criticize a decades old executive order. Look, I think you're misdirecting anger at the system with anger at the person who currently leads it.

I do agree with you that murdering terrorists without a trial is a slippery slope, but look at what I just wrote. You're not gonna get a majority of the public to be against killing terrorists. It's on par with statements like "I don't think anyone should have the right to firearms, and the NRA which currently leads the debate on that is the worst person alive." You need to chill out and can it with the conspiracy theories. Yes, predictions of a new world order where the UN and NATO or PanAmerica controls everything is a conspiracy theory that won't get much traction on this forum. You have plenty of room to maneuver here, you can talk about the erosion of civil liberties, the undue influence of lobbyists and the military industrial complex, etc etc. Why do you gotta sink to conspiracies?

Ok, let's talk about compromising. The upcoming election is about Romney and Obama. What's more important to you, extra growth in the military spending or avoiding a tax on healthcare? Or, do you not like government providing social services and general welfare, or are you more concerned about the government using "enhanced interrogation" again? Romney and Obama provide one, but not the other. Each candidate stands on one side of these issues, but not on a lot of the stuff you talked about before. No change on the federal reserve, the war on drugs, or the undue influence of lobbyists.

Actually, you live in Montana, so democratic opinions don't really matter. During the next primary, ask your representative how he feels about Romney or hell, the GOP position on all these issues you're so adamant about.
Edit: I looked at your state, you only have 3 representatives. 2 senators, and a house, and only the House is open for election. Go send him a letter, and ask him about his opinion on the war on drugs and foreign policy. Montana is a small state, it should be pretty easy to mount a primary challenge to that Steve Daines loser. Or, you can go support him because he's on your side about The Affordable Care Act, and getting government out of your life. But then you've become what you hated so much, someone who compromised his ideals.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:25 pm UTC

Johnson's Libertarian. That's an option, to be sure. Look 'em all over, see which candidate is most like what you want. If that's a third party candidate...that's absolutely fine. Go for that. Hell, send letters to representatives telling them what you want, if you like. No harm in that.

But voting for people not running is like voting for yourself. Those votes just get ignored by all concerned.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Jave D » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:07 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:You decide what you want BEFORE the election and vote for someone who will bring that about, so yes I did "diss" Obama for treason and war crimes.


Oh, of course. "Treason." It's always treason, isn't it? Just like with teapartiers, it's always nazism, and with Republicans, it's always communism or marxism. It's never something like "I disagree with this policy and here's why." That wouldn't be edgy or hip.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:11 pm UTC

Ugh, yeah, I hate that accusation. No, Obama is not guilty of treason by any reasonable interpretation of the term.

The constitution pretty harshly limits the term. I'd say it was specifically done because of such tendencies, too. Treason happens in the following ways.

1. You make war on the US.
2. You give aid and comfort to our enemies.

The latter provision was pretty obviously meant in a very specific "supporting the people we're at war with" sense. Using this as hyperbole basically always makes your argument look ridiculous.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:He might have a shot with Gary Johnson, or is he the Green Party candidate?
Anyway, http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/n ... or-update/
You mean Clinton or George HW Bush right? Way to criticize a decades old executive order. Look, I think you're misdirecting anger at the system with anger at the person who currently leads it.


Well this EO actually goes back as far as the Reagan administration and has been reissued many times since then but that doesn't mean Obama is not also at fault for signing it. There are differences between the two, for instance Obama transferred the power this act grants from FEMA to the president, but even without any differences, no president should be issuing such sweeping executive orders like that. I will be angry every time it happens, not just the first.

I do agree with you that murdering terrorists without a trial is a slippery slope, but look at what I just wrote. You're not gonna get a majority of the public to be against killing terrorists. It's on par with statements like "I don't think anyone should have the right to firearms, and the NRA which currently leads the debate on that is the worst person alive." You need to chill out and can it with the conspiracy theories. Yes, predictions of a new world order where the UN and NATO or PanAmerica controls everything is a conspiracy theory that won't get much traction on this forum. You have plenty of room to maneuver here, you can talk about the erosion of civil liberties, the undue influence of lobbyists and the military industrial complex, etc etc. Why do you gotta sink to conspiracies?


What conspiracy theories did I talk about? More importantly though, why would everyone be unwilling to entertain the idea that political conspiracies are not extinct? Of COURSE there are conspiracies in politics. You don't have to believe in that nephelim and illuminati crap to realize that. Im not making any arguments right now, I'm just a little confused why

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

are thought to not exist in today's politics. Worse than that, it seems simply stating a FACT that implies the existence of a conspiracy is enough to set some people off. If you think that this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tacks.html
implies this "a new world order where the UN and NATO or PanAmerica controls everything" then perhaps you are a conspiracy theorist....

Ok, let's talk about compromising. The upcoming election is about Romney and Obama. What's more important to you, extra growth in the military spending or avoiding a tax on healthcare? Or, do you not like government providing social services and general welfare, or are you more concerned about the government using "enhanced interrogation" again? Romney and Obama provide one, but not the other. Each candidate stands on one side of these issues, but not on a lot of the stuff you talked about before. No change on the federal reserve, the war on drugs, or the undue influence of lobbyists.


Why is the election about Obama and Romney? No it isn't. Why are those the only possible choices? Because they are the only two people participating in one of he most bullshit debate series in the history of human politics? There is no way in hell I will cast a vote for either of those assholes because I am not going to "compromise" with the right to a fair trial.

Actually, you live in Montana, so democratic opinions don't really matter. During the next primary, ask your representative how he feels about Romney or hell, the GOP position on all these issues you're so adamant about.
Edit: I looked at your state, you only have 3 representatives. 2 senators, and a house, and only the House is open for election. Go send him a letter, and ask him about his opinion on the war on drugs and foreign policy. Montana is a small state, it should be pretty easy to mount a primary challenge to that Steve Daines loser. Or, you can go support him because he's on your side about The Affordable Care Act, and getting government out of your life. But then you've become what you hated so much, someone who compromised his ideals.


Well I've only lived in Missoula for a year now but already I have sought out and talked face to face with both of our senators and decided I don't like either of them. Before than I lived in Princeton, NJ where I grew up where I sent DOZENS of letters to my senators and reps.

Tyndmyr wrote:Ugh, yeah, I hate that accusation. No, Obama is not guilty of treason by any reasonable interpretation of the term.

The constitution pretty harshly limits the term. I'd say it was specifically done because of such tendencies, too. Treason happens in the following ways.

1. You make war on the US.
2. You give aid and comfort to our enemies.

The latter provision was pretty obviously meant in a very specific "supporting the people we're at war with" sense. Using this as hyperbole basically always makes your argument look ridiculous.


Treason also includes attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or attempt to remove it's soveriegnty which is just what Obama did by going to war in Libya without congressional approval. Besides being a clear violation of the war powers act, for the president to say that the power to declare war no longer lies with congress is a clear act of treason. Why is that such a ridiculous thing to say?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Ugh, yeah, I hate that accusation. No, Obama is not guilty of treason by any reasonable interpretation of the term.

The constitution pretty harshly limits the term. I'd say it was specifically done because of such tendencies, too. Treason happens in the following ways.

1. You make war on the US.
2. You give aid and comfort to our enemies.

The latter provision was pretty obviously meant in a very specific "supporting the people we're at war with" sense. Using this as hyperbole basically always makes your argument look ridiculous.


Treason also includes attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or attempt to remove it's soveriegnty which is just what Obama did by going to war in Libya without congressional approval. Besides being a clear violation of the war powers act, for the president to say that the power to declare war no longer lies with congress is a clear act of treason. Why is that such a ridiculous thing to say?
Because it indicts James Maddison as guilty of treason for the pocket veto.

Listen: Treason is a very specific word with a very specific function. It exists to describe a betrayal of country and nation--not power-grabs within the country's government itself, and not Presidents acting like cowboys. We also have a phrase for abusive, unconstitutional expansions of executive power; it's called 'abusive, unconstitutional expansions of executive power'. Use that, because it's actually what you're trying to say.

By insisting on the word 'treason', you accomplish absolutely nothing beyond injecting inflammatory political rhetoric into what should be a calm, rational discourse about abuses of executive power. You are effectively destroying any chance of bringing these issues to light--because instead of treating the issue like an adult, you've decided to act like a child. The end result? Everyone assumes the only people disturbed by issues like these are morons. In other words--you are making it harder for intelligent, reasonable people to oppose the expansion of executive power.

If this issue is important to you, then start acting like it. Talk about the abuse of executive power and its implications further down the line. Because hey--that's shit that concerns me too! But if we're going to start by calling this an act of treason, then all you've done is associate a real issue with boorish hyperbolic rhetoric.

In short, stop acting like a six year old and come join the 'grown up discussion', where we don't use the word 'treason' to describe Presidents we don't like--only Presidents who actually commit treason.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:54 pm UTC

The reason I told you to can it with the conspiracy theories is because you are stating wild accusations that have subpar to no evidence backing them up. You said and I paraphrase, "Panetta plans to transfer war powers to the UN and NATO." That's the standard fear-mongering statement of those who believe that there is a new world order coming. If you aren't a believer in the conspiracy to transfer powers to a new world order, you can see how I was mistaken. Just like I may be mistaken into thinking you are very bad at reading comprehension based upon the "evidence" you have posted. It's so hard to judge people correctly since all I have is the crappy posts that you have made.

"Why is the election about Obama and Romney? No it isn't. Why are those the only possible choices? Because they are the only two people participating in one of he most bullshit debate series in the history of human politics? There is no way in hell I will cast a vote for either of those assholes because I am not going to "compromise" with the right to a fair trial."
Why do I have to pay private insurance companies to screw me in health insurance? It doesn't have to be that way. There are more people participating in our country than just you. There's no way in hell I will compromise my right to better healthcare. See, now we're even.

Oh, and for you, the election doesn't matter regarding Romney and Obama. Romney will undoubtedly carry your state in the election, so you don't need to worry about that "pointless" election. Since you said you spoke to your representatives, how did the conversation go?

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Wnderer » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am UTC

Yaay!! New job numbers for October!.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

They revised the September job increase up from +114,000 to +148,000. That's much close 873,000. Oooh, but the number of part time workers fell by 269,000 offsetting last months increase of 582,000. Some slight volatility there. But I think table A1 says it all.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

jobsOct.jpg


The technical term is flat.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Xeio » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:11 am UTC

Flat? Most of the sources I've seen say this is growth (still not great growth, but growth). Participation is up, which is the reason for the unemployment rate increase. And part time work due to economic conditions is down which is also a good thing.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:19 am UTC

That's the great thing about these numbers, you can spin them however you want. So, go ahead and grab the popcorn, and listen to talking heads distort and twist numbers (and sometimes, just flat out abuse them, like Fox News who takes the delta of the seasonally adjusted number of people employed and subtracts the number of new job seekers to say there's really only 1000 new jobs).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Xeio » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:26 am UTC

Well at least we only have 4 more days of this. Not like this last minute jobs report is going to change much anyway.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:32 am UTC

I'm just wondering if this means we will stop coddling the middle class and start considering some policies that might help the poor.

Really, I just want Obama to take Florida and all the states that are leaning his way for 332 electoral votes and a >50% popular vote, just because it would completely invalidate the relevance of the tea party movement. I don't like Obama, but Romney is a fucking joke.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I'm just wondering if this means we will stop coddling the middle class and start considering some policies that might help the poor.

Really, I just want Obama to take Florida and all the states that are leaning his way for 332 electoral votes and a >50% popular vote, just because it would completely invalidate the relevance of the tea party movement. I don't like Obama, but Romney is a fucking joke.

You won't get it, most likely. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
He'll probably get around 300 electoral votes, and a barest of a majority (roughly 50%).
This election will be about maintaining what we have since the senate won't change hands, nor the house or white house. Maybe the next cycle, get some more Hispanics and minorities into the voting booth. Realistically, I don't even expect that since you can easily divide the Hispanic vote by playing on their conservative views on social issues and throwing them a bone on immigration.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:50 am UTC

Well, the three that are the most uncertain are Colorado, Virginia, and Florida. Florida gives Obama a 45% chance, where Colorado and Virginia give Obama about a 67% chance. 332 is against the odds, but it's not that unlikely either. For the popular vote, I'll be happy with 50.1%, which I think is likely.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:34 am UTC

Winning big in the electoral college is easy, just get a minor lead across all states, like he did in 2008. It doesn't translate into support for his policies. The electoral college often exaggerates leads, don't be fooled by it. It's important since it controls how you win, but it's not a good indicator of how popular your mandate is. You should focus more on the Senate and House races to see what direction the country is going in. Or on the margin of victory in each state to see how strong of a mandate Obama has.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

The point is to prove that they can't get the tea party to the presidency. The direction of the country will change when the economy changes, which will happen in the next four years for the better regardless. I don't want Romney in office when the economy recovers, because I don't want the conservatives using his policies as proof that they help the economy. The short term recovery is inevitable; the long term effects of austerity will be devastating.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Derek » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:47 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The short term recovery is inevitable; the long term effects of austerity will be devastating.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what the Keynesian argue? That austerity could cause a double dip recession, but you can't have deficit spending forever (for obvious reasons). Actually I think most people agree that we need to have a balanced budget at some point, or else we end up like Greece. The argument is whether it should be done now, despite still being in recovery, or if it should be balanced later when the economy is strong again.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:06 pm UTC

A balanced budget is necessary eventually, but it needs to come through increases in taxes for the rich and reduction of military spending (which will happen partly just because the wars wind down), not through cutting social programs at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Silknor » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:58 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The point is to prove that they can't get the tea party to the presidency. The direction of the country will change when the economy changes, which will happen in the next four years for the better regardless. I don't want Romney in office when the economy recovers, because I don't want the conservatives using his policies as proof that they help the economy. The short term recovery is inevitable; the long term effects of austerity will be devastating.


That's a strange definition of short-term, it may be true if you're talking about 3-5 years, but not the next year or two. It's true that no matter what policies we pursue, we're likely to see a lot of job growth over the next four years, and whoever is elected president is likely to (wrongly) receive a lot of credit for that. But if by austerity you mean the fiscal cliff, the negative effects in the short-run are severe, strong enough to likely push us into a double-dip recession.

A balanced budget is necessary eventually

Derek wrote:you can't have deficit spending forever (for obvious reasons). Actually I think most people agree that we need to have a balanced budget at some point, or else we end up like Greece.


This is a common argument, but it's wrong. Outside of 1969 and 1998-2001, we've run deficits every year since 1961. See table 1.2 here. What we can't do is continually increase the debt as a percent of GDP. That doesn't mean we need a balanced budget, just that that nominal growth has to increase GDP more than the deficit increases the debt. Note also that a balanced budget doesn't always mean a balanced budget, it's often used to mean primary balance (receipts equal spending excluding interest payments on the debt).

Greece in particular is a misleading comparison because Greece, as a Eurozone member, lacked control of its own currency, and thus had a much smaller range of tools available to manage its debt, trade deficit, and growth than the U.S. does. Greece is closer in those respects to a U.S. state than the entire U.S.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:11 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Ugh, yeah, I hate that accusation. No, Obama is not guilty of treason by any reasonable interpretation of the term.

The constitution pretty harshly limits the term. I'd say it was specifically done because of such tendencies, too. Treason happens in the following ways.

1. You make war on the US.
2. You give aid and comfort to our enemies.

The latter provision was pretty obviously meant in a very specific "supporting the people we're at war with" sense. Using this as hyperbole basically always makes your argument look ridiculous.


Treason also includes attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or attempt to remove it's soveriegnty which is just what Obama did by going to war in Libya without congressional approval. Besides being a clear violation of the war powers act, for the president to say that the power to declare war no longer lies with congress is a clear act of treason. Why is that such a ridiculous thing to say?
Because it indicts James Maddison as guilty of treason for the pocket veto.

Listen: Treason is a very specific word with a very specific function. It exists to describe a betrayal of country and nation--not power-grabs within the country's government itself, and not Presidents acting like cowboys. We also have a phrase for abusive, unconstitutional expansions of executive power; it's called 'abusive, unconstitutional expansions of executive power'. Use that, because it's actually what you're trying to say.

By insisting on the word 'treason', you accomplish absolutely nothing beyond injecting inflammatory political rhetoric into what should be a calm, rational discourse about abuses of executive power. You are effectively destroying any chance of bringing these issues to light--because instead of treating the issue like an adult, you've decided to act like a child. The end result? Everyone assumes the only people disturbed by issues like these are morons. In other words--you are making it harder for intelligent, reasonable people to oppose the expansion of executive power.

If this issue is important to you, then start acting like it. Talk about the abuse of executive power and its implications further down the line. Because hey--that's shit that concerns me too! But if we're going to start by calling this an act of treason, then all you've done is associate a real issue with boorish hyperbolic rhetoric.

In short, stop acting like a six year old and come join the 'grown up discussion', where we don't use the word 'treason' to describe Presidents we don't like--only Presidents who actually commit treason.


How would this indict Madison for a Pocket Veto? And why would that matter as to whether or not removing war powers from congress is treason?

The word 'treason' is not "inflammatory political rhetoric' unless you get upset. By dismissing what I am saying because you don't like that I used the word treason, YOU are the one associating it with "boorish hyperbolic rhetoric' and YOU are the one who is making it harder for people to have this discussion. I didn't say 'treason' because I don't like Obama, as you suggested. I said it because I honestly think that transferring the power to declare war from the US congress to the UN, NATO, or any other foreign entity counts as treason. I don't think this is so childlike to say. And by the way it's NOT called 'abusive, unconstitutional expansions of executive power" because the UN is obviously not part of our executive government.

sardia wrote:The reason I told you to can it with the conspiracy theories is because you are stating wild accusations that have subpar to no evidence backing them up. You said and I paraphrase, "Panetta plans to transfer war powers to the UN and NATO." That's the standard fear-mongering statement of those who believe that there is a new world order coming. If you aren't a believer in the conspiracy to transfer powers to a new world order, you can see how I was mistaken. Just like I may be mistaken into thinking you are very bad at reading comprehension based upon the "evidence" you have posted. It's so hard to judge people correctly since all I have is the crappy posts that you have made.


Well what I actually said was "look up the Panetta testimony, and did you? If not, watch it now. It's a 9 minute clip from c-span, not rightwing propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuWJQrw ... re=related

I am not talking about American Idol and you should take this seriously enough to watch the video and see what Panetta himself said. If you think that the statement that Panetta wants to transfer war powers to the UN or NATO is "the standard fear-mongering statement of those who believe that there is a new world order coming" then chances are you've dismissed a lot of other good information that those people have tried to show you.

"Why is the election about Obama and Romney? No it isn't. Why are those the only possible choices? Because they are the only two people participating in one of he most bullshit debate series in the history of human politics? There is no way in hell I will cast a vote for either of those assholes because I am not going to "compromise" with the right to a fair trial."
Why do I have to pay private insurance companies to screw me in health insurance? It doesn't have to be that way. There are more people participating in our country than just you. There's no way in hell I will compromise my right to better healthcare. See, now we're even.


Did you just compare my right to a free trial with what you call your "right" to better healthcare? Explain to me how you can have a right to ANY healthcare when you require someone else's service? Do you have a right to someone else's labor? You certainly have a right to ASK for their labor but they have a right to refuse it. Everyone living in a first world country like ours can sure expect to have healthcare but unless they do it themselves, it is not one of their rights. Now, what makes you think you "have to pay private insurance companies"? Before O bamacare, you didn't HAVE to buy insurance from anyone. You had the right to enter into a private arrangement with an insurance provider but you did not have to. Now we have a law mandating that all citizens must purchase insurance so we are even about my right to a fair trial? I don't get it.

Oh, and for you, the election doesn't matter regarding Romney and Obama. Romney will undoubtedly carry your state in the election, so you don't need to worry about that "pointless" election. Since you said you spoke to your representatives, how did the conversation go?


Well I said I met with my senators. They were at the missoula county fair last year and both of them were bullshitters. My brother was there and we talked to Tester for almost an hour strait during which time he assumed us that he was for smaller government, civil liberties, and end to the wars and blah blah nothing but bullshit. Went home, looked him up, found that out and now I'm not voting for him, but you aren't really asking how it went you are implying that you think I was lying, right?

Actually, you live in Montana, so democratic opinions don't really matter. During the next primary, ask your representative how he feels about Romney or hell, the GOP position on all these issues you're so adamant about.
Edit: I looked at your state, you only have 3 representatives. 2 senators, and a house, and only the House is open for election. Go send him a letter, and ask him about his opinion on the war on drugs and foreign policy. Montana is a small state, it should be pretty easy to mount a primary challenge to that Steve Daines loser. Or, you can go support him because he's on your side about The Affordable Care Act, and getting government out of your life. But then you've become what you hated so much, someone who compromised his ideals.


I'm not going to be doing any of that.

Jave D wrote:Oh, of course. "Treason." It's always treason, isn't it? Just like with teapartiers, it's always nazism, and with Republicans, it's always communism or marxism. It's never something like "I disagree with this policy and here's why." That wouldn't be edgy or hip.


I have a cat, does that help? Liberals like cats, right?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:17 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:I didn't say 'treason' because I don't like Obama, as you suggested.
There are two possibilities here: Either you're using 'treason' because you don't like Obama, or you're using 'treason' because you genuinely don't understand what the word 'treason' means.

Or both. So, three possibilities.
Impeach wrote:The word 'treason' is not "inflammatory political rhetoric' unless you get upset.
By criticizing the President, I hereby find you guilty of treason against the United States.

Now let's spend the rest of this thread arguing about why I'm right.

Don't like it? Too bad; describing you as guilty of treason isn't inflammatory political rhetoric unless you get upset.

Bharrata
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Bharrata » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:06 am UTC

Impeach wrote:Did you just compare my right to a free trial with what you call your "right" to better healthcare? Explain to me how you can have a right to ANY healthcare when you require someone else's service? Do you have a right to someone else's labor? You certainly have a right to ASK for their labor but they have a right to refuse it.


Who pays for the public defender during your free trial? Who pays for the judge and his impartial opinion? Who pays for the jury of your peers to listen to your case? Who pays for the bailiff?

Your right to a free trial includes the right to their respective labors, does it not?

Is this right to a free trial contingent upon your willingness to share your labor as a juror (or judge or lawyer depending on your occupation) in kind when you are called to do so for a peer?

In what way is this right to a free trial different than a right to healthcare if it is predicated upon all parties' recognition that when they provide for the common good such provision provides for themselves as well?

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby lutzj » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:16 am UTC

Bharrata wrote:
Impeach wrote:Did you just compare my right to a free trial with what you call your "right" to better healthcare? Explain to me how you can have a right to ANY healthcare when you require someone else's service? Do you have a right to someone else's labor? You certainly have a right to ASK for their labor but they have a right to refuse it.


Who pays for the public defender during your free trial? Who pays for the judge and his impartial opinion? Who pays for the jury of your peers to listen to your case? Who pays for the bailiff?

Your right to a free trial includes the right to their respective labors, does it not?

Is this right to a free trial contingent upon your willingness to share your labor as a juror (or judge or lawyer depending on your occupation) in kind when you are called to do so for a peer?

In what way is this right to a free trial different than a right to healthcare if it is predicated upon all parties' recognition that when they provide for the common good such provision provides for themselves as well?


A trial is imposed upon the individual, and it is therefore up to the people running the trial to ensure that it is fair. It's worth adding that the justice system is among the few things that libertarians consider a necessary and valid use of state power.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:32 am UTC

Impeach, that video had Senator Sessions put more words in Panetta's mouth than you do. I watched the video, and it was just Senator Sessions trying to accuse Panetta of ignoring the war powers act, and then getting upset that Panetta didn't change his wording.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/politics/ ... index.html

"Well I said I met with my senators. They were at the missoula county fair last year and both of them were bullshitters. My brother was there and we talked to Tester for almost an hour strait during which time he assumed us that he was for smaller government, civil liberties, and end to the wars and blah blah nothing but bullshit. Went home, looked him up, found that out and now I'm not voting for him, but you aren't really asking how it went you are implying that you think I was lying, right? "
Uh, I was actually going to ask you how you treated your own senator, but fuck you very much for the accusation good sir. Nice of you to say that you talked for over an hour, but then disregarded everything he told you. So did he say he was for that smaller government crap and his google search of his record proved contradictory?

You've made extreme claims with only the lightest of dialogue that even looks like evidence. Do you got something tangible, or are you just gonna try to scare me by claiming talks over foreign policy amounts to tyranny?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:19 am UTC

lutzj wrote:A trial is imposed upon the individual, and it is therefore up to the people running the trial to ensure that it is fair. It's worth adding that the justice system is among the few things that libertarians consider a necessary and valid use of state power.
Right. And getting hit by a car or getting cancer are totally not impositions on the individual.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:36 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
lutzj wrote:A trial is imposed upon the individual, and it is therefore up to the people running the trial to ensure that it is fair. It's worth adding that the justice system is among the few things that libertarians consider a necessary and valid use of state power.
Right. And getting hit by a car or getting cancer are totally not impositions on the individual.


Not by government, generally(and yes, if you're hit by a government car, they absolutely should pay).

Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause. So consider, the government charges you with a crime...you go to court, get a lawyer if you can't afford one, and life is great. If, on the other hand, the government charges your money via civil court(yes, they can name your money as a defendant), now, your money has been seized, getting a lawyer may be problematic on account of not having money, and you get not defense. There's a clear problem there, and a loophole that can be misused.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:36 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause.
And people with common sense are very big on preventing problems in the first place.

Tyndmyr wrote:So consider, the government charges you with a crime...you go to court, get a lawyer if you can't afford one, and life is great. If, on the other hand, the government charges your money via civil court(yes, they can name your money as a defendant), now, your money has been seized, getting a lawyer may be problematic on account of not having money, and you get not defense. There's a clear problem there, and a loophole that can be misused.
So we all agree that if 'fair trial' is a right and 'healthcare' is not a right, the determining factor isn't 'one requires the services of a third party and the other does not'. The difference is, as you put it, a clear problem and a loophole that can be misused. Or, as I would paraphrase, 'can we run a fair and just society if everyone does not have access to this resource?'
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:52 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause.
And people with common sense are very big on preventing problems in the first place.


Making sure that whoever makes the problem pays for fixing it goes a LONG way towards prevention. Consider the industrial examples...if companies don't have to pay towards clean-up costs, they tend to take a very uncaring view towards creating messes with waste disposal and the like.

Tyndmyr wrote:So consider, the government charges you with a crime...you go to court, get a lawyer if you can't afford one, and life is great. If, on the other hand, the government charges your money via civil court(yes, they can name your money as a defendant), now, your money has been seized, getting a lawyer may be problematic on account of not having money, and you get not defense. There's a clear problem there, and a loophole that can be misused.
So we all agree that if 'fair trial' is a right and 'healthcare' is not a right, the determining factor isn't 'one requires the services of a third party and the other does not'. The difference is, as you put it, a clear problem and a loophole that can be misused. Or, as I would paraphrase, 'can we run a fair and just society if everyone does not have access to this resource?'


It's not about requiring the services of a third party...it's that the cost can be imposed upon you by a third party. You may have never done anything to a given person, and they can still sue you since...you can sue for literally anything. And yes, libertarians(and others) would view such imposition of costs in self defense as a loophole that can be exploited for all manner of bad stuff. The primary focus is not on giving everyone access to the resource per-se...that's merely a necessary part of avoiding the flaw of cost imposition. Even if you CAN afford a lawyer, someone suing you for something ludicrous to drive you broke is still an abuse.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Xeio » Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's not about requiring the services of a third party...it's that the cost can be imposed upon you by a third party.
How is the court system itself not a third party in this case?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not about requiring the services of a third party...it's that the cost can be imposed upon you by a third party.
How is the court system itself not a third party in this case?


It is. However, the important part is not the participation of the third party, but the imposition of costs. Imposition of costs at will is exploitable, regardless of if a third party is involved or not. Hell, theft is one form of cost imposition.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:53 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause.
And people with common sense are very big on preventing problems in the first place.
Making sure that whoever makes the problem pays for fixing it goes a LONG way towards prevention. Consider the industrial examples...if companies don't have to pay towards clean-up costs, they tend to take a very uncaring view towards creating messes with waste disposal and the like.
You know what goes a long way towards prevention? Prevention.
Yes the libertarian model where 'IF you cause a problem and IF you get caught and IF you can't bribe the person to stay quiet and IF the person who caught you decides to sue you and IF your lawyers can't suppress the evidence and IF you lose the case, you will have to pay the cleanup' can go a long way towards prevention.

OTOH, the regulated market model where 'you WILL be inspected and IF you get caught, you WILL have to pay a fine' actually prevents things.

As you said, Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause. Any prevention is incidental.
As I said, people with common sense are very big on preventing problems in the first place. Any problems that have to be fixed afterwards is incidental.

Tyndmyr wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:So we all agree that if 'fair trial' is a right and 'healthcare' is not a right, the determining factor isn't 'one requires the services of a third party and the other does not'. The difference is, as you put it, a clear problem and a loophole that can be misused. Or, as I would paraphrase, 'can we run a fair and just society if everyone does not have access to this resource?'
It's not about requiring the services of a third party...it's that the cost can be imposed upon you by a third party. You may have never done anything to a given person, and they can still sue you since...you can sue for literally anything. And yes, libertarians(and others) would view such imposition of costs in self defense as a loophole that can be exploited for all manner of bad stuff. The primary focus is not on giving everyone access to the resource per-se...that's merely a necessary part of avoiding the flaw of cost imposition. Even if you CAN afford a lawyer, someone suing you for something ludicrous to drive you broke is still an abuse.
You actually only get a Public Defender for criminal cases. So everything you've said is wrong. Even if you weren't wrong, the solution would be to have the loser pay court fees, not have the entire court system be publicly funded.

Tyndmyr wrote:It is. However, the important part is not the participation of the third party, but the imposition of costs. Imposition of costs at will is exploitable, regardless of if a third party is involved or not. Hell, theft is one form of cost imposition.
And, even if you weren't wrong, and even if the problem didn't have a simple much better solution than the one you were proposing, we would still be stuck at the point where your 'reasoning' (if it can really be called that) doesn't even solve the problem you invented. If it is an 'exploit' for A to be able to be able to impose costs at will upon B, your 'solution' simply has A imposing the same costs on C instead.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Beltayn
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Beltayn » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:45 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause.


So who "caused" someone getting cancer?

p.s. Don't even think about trying to bring up charities.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:58 pm UTC

Beltayn wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Libertarians are very big on people paying for the things they cause.


So who "caused" someone getting cancer?

p.s. Don't even think about trying to bring up charities.


This is fairly irrelevant to the court issue, but the answer is "it depends". Cancer is a complex issue with many potential causes. If you smoked cigarettes for 20 years before getting lung cancer, probably you. If your company exposed you to known carcinogens for 20 years before you got cancer, probably them. It's impossible to know for certain, but you can certainly establish risk and likelihood.

The whole "If you get caught and don't bribe your way out" applies to basically any system. 100% compliance with any set of rules is unlikely. Inspection is going to be pretty likely in basically any system, too. It's...kind of necessary to determine what working conditions are, and those are going to be necessary to establish in pretty much any system.

nitePhyyre wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:So we all agree that if 'fair trial' is a right and 'healthcare' is not a right, the determining factor isn't 'one requires the services of a third party and the other does not'. The difference is, as you put it, a clear problem and a loophole that can be misused. Or, as I would paraphrase, 'can we run a fair and just society if everyone does not have access to this resource?'
It's not about requiring the services of a third party...it's that the cost can be imposed upon you by a third party. You may have never done anything to a given person, and they can still sue you since...you can sue for literally anything. And yes, libertarians(and others) would view such imposition of costs in self defense as a loophole that can be exploited for all manner of bad stuff. The primary focus is not on giving everyone access to the resource per-se...that's merely a necessary part of avoiding the flaw of cost imposition. Even if you CAN afford a lawyer, someone suing you for something ludicrous to drive you broke is still an abuse.
You actually only get a Public Defender for criminal cases. So everything you've said is wrong. Even if you weren't wrong, the solution would be to have the loser pay court fees, not have the entire court system be publicly funded.


Er...that's rather the point. Only allowing a public defender for criminal cases allows for abuse of civil cases. Yes, recouping costs after a victory is fine. However, what about the example where a person just can't afford representation at the time?

Take the instances where the government sues the cash a person has on them, confiscating it. The person now lacks money to hire a lawyer, yes? There is no guarantee that a lawyer can be had only on condition of "if you win", and even then, it puts you in a bad negotiating position with regards to finding a lawyer. This allows civil court to be used as a weapon to silence people, force them to accept settlements, yadda, yadda.

nitePhyyre wrote:And, even if you weren't wrong, and even if the problem didn't have a simple much better solution than the one you were proposing, we would still be stuck at the point where your 'reasoning' (if it can really be called that) doesn't even solve the problem you invented. If it is an 'exploit' for A to be able to be able to impose costs at will upon B, your 'solution' simply has A imposing the same costs on C instead.


The reason for this is that first off, A and C are very often the same people. The government brings a *lot* of civil suits. Secondly, C is not very vulnerable to manipulation in this way. Consider the case of the RIAA. They frequently sue people for ludicrous amounts of money, and generally manage to get a small settlement out of the deal because frankly, court costs will exceed the cost of settlement. This situation goes away if C is paying the costs.

Loser paying is hard on smaller players(read, individuals), since companies are far more able to absorb court costs.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:17 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I didn't say 'treason' because I don't like Obama, as you suggested.
There are two possibilities here: Either you're using 'treason' because you don't like Obama, or you're using 'treason' because you genuinely don't understand what the word 'treason' means.


Gosh the sheer arrogance of some people. You would make an excellent scientist.

Or both. So, three possibilities.
Impeach wrote:The word 'treason' is not "inflammatory political rhetoric' unless you get upset.
By criticizing the President, I hereby find you guilty of treason against the United States.

Now let's spend the rest of this thread arguing about why I'm right.

Don't like it? Too bad; describing you as guilty of treason isn't inflammatory political rhetoric unless you get upset.


True, it's not inflammatory rhetoric, it's just really stupid. You can spend the rest of this thread doing whatever you want, man.


Bharrata wrote:Who pays for the public defender during your free trial? Who pays for the judge and his impartial opinion? Who pays for the jury of your peers to listen to your case? Who pays for the bailiff?

Your right to a free trial includes the right to their respective labors, does it not?

Is this right to a free trial contingent upon your willingness to share your labor as a juror (or judge or lawyer depending on your occupation) in kind when you are called to do so for a peer?

In what way is this right to a free trial different than a right to healthcare if it is predicated upon all parties' recognition that when they provide for the common good such provision provides for themselves as well?


I think this has been pretty much covered since my last post. A trial is the plaintiff's one chance to prove your guilt, not your chance to prove innocence. You are already innocent until proven guilty. The courthouse belongs to the people and in order to punish someone for a crime you must first give them a fair trial. Because nobody is allowed to punish someone for a crime without giving them a fair trial, you can be assured that you will also have one. Often times the loser pays the court fees and the state pays some as well and it is probably not perfectly fair but lets not suggest that there is no right to a fair trial.

sardia wrote:Impeach, that video had Senator Sessions put more words in Panetta's mouth than you do. I watched the video, and it was just Senator Sessions trying to accuse Panetta of ignoring the war powers act, and then getting upset that Panetta didn't change his wording.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/politics/ ... index.html


I am really not interested in the opinion of some random CNN guy when I can look at the video for myself and watch Panetta saying "When it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of international legal basis on which to do it, as we did in Libya"

You remember Libya, right? Remember how congress did not authorize war? What was Obama's response?

"Do I think that our actions in any way violate the war powers resolution? My answer is no so I don't even have to get to the constitutional question."

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politi ... powers.cnn

What about the part where he says "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress"

"Well I said I met with my senators. They were at the missoula county fair last year and both of them were bullshitters. My brother was there and we talked to Tester for almost an hour strait during which time he assumed us that he was for smaller government, civil liberties, and end to the wars and blah blah nothing but bullshit. Went home, looked him up, found that out and now I'm not voting for him, but you aren't really asking how it went you are implying that you think I was lying, right? "
Uh, I was actually going to ask you how you treated your own senator, but fuck you very much for the accusation good sir. Nice of you to say that you talked for over an hour, but then disregarded everything he told you. So did he say he was for that smaller government crap and his google search of his record proved contradictory?


Essentially, yes. I had lived in Montana for all of two weeks when the fair was going on so I never bothered to know the senators. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason so I talked with Tester for a while to get to know my senator. Did some research, saw he voted for NDAA, decided not to support him. At the polls I actually met Gary Sanders who was running for district rep. Wasn't planning to even vote for district rep but, while he may have lied, he promised to go after any an all legislation that violated the US or montana state constitution, which earned him my vote too.

You've made extreme claims with only the lightest of dialogue that even looks like evidence. Do you got something tangible, or are you just gonna try to scare me by claiming talks over foreign policy amounts to tyranny?


Extreme claims, huh? Which ones? I would be more than happy to back them up with something concrete? Honestly. But please don't sit there and think that your posts are all that scholarly either. Care to back some of this up?
"The only reason the GOP would like Libertarian positions would be as an excuse to get stuff they want."

"fuck ronpaul, he's a racist piece of shit who takes money from white power groups."

Or how about your concept of "compromise?"

"Ok, let's talk about compromising. The upcoming election is about Romney and Obama. What's more important to you, extra growth in the military spending or avoiding a tax on healthcare?

"how important is keeping all your principles? It's just one rape a month, I'm sure that's worth ending the war on drugs."

Can you clarify what gave you the idea that you do not have a right not to be raped at all?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Xeio » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:48 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I didn't say 'treason' because I don't like Obama, as you suggested.
There are two possibilities here: Either you're using 'treason' because you don't like Obama, or you're using 'treason' because you genuinely don't understand what the word 'treason' means.
Gosh the sheer arrogance of some people. You would make an excellent scientist.
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So, when did Obama declare war on the United States or assist its enemies?

Even if he did violate the war powers act, that is not treason.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:Gosh the sheer arrogance of some people. You would make an excellent scientist.
Crackpots usually mistake clarity for arrogance. It's part of what makes them crackpots.
Xeio wrote:
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So, when did Obama declare war on the United States or assist its enemies?

Even if he did violate the war powers act, that is not treason.
Crackpots also think words mean whatever they want them to mean. Also, crackpots think they're experts on everything. Particularly on who the real experts are.

I'm a crackpot about crackpots, btw.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: 873,000 Jobs in September

Postby Impeach » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:32 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:Gosh the sheer arrogance of some people. You would make an excellent scientist.
Crackpots usually mistake clarity for arrogance. It's part of what makes them crackpots.


And arrogant mofos usually mistake their own unwavering certainty in their beliefs and their inability to question themselves as "clarity," don't they.

Crackpots also think words mean whatever they want them to mean. Also, crackpots think they're experts on everything. Particularly on who the real experts are.

I'm a crackpot about crackpots, btw.


Xeio wrote:
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So, when did Obama declare war on the United States or assist its enemies?

Even if he did violate the war powers act, that is not treason.


Well, the question of what "adhering to their enemies" comes to mind for me. If it includes the act of recognizing the authority of a foreign entity over that of congress then this would constitute treason but my point is not that it fits the definition of treason, it's that we should be upset about it regardless. The constitution is not a perfect document and we should say "what's the perfect system of laws? Let's look it up in the constitution" but nevertheless it is the law of this country and we should not let it be violated. If we decide that we want to CHANGE the laws, we can do that. Treason or not, I think people should be upset over the removal of war powers from it's rightful place.
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests