Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Shaps]

Without the government "being in the way" we'd still have small children working in coal mines and smelters would be dumping their byproducts into our drinking water supply. Men and women both would all be making slave labor wages sixteen hours a day, 7 days a week. No, big government has enforced fairness in the workplace and progressive corporations like Walmart, Amazon, Costco and a large number of the big banks are placing their lowest high wage scale into actual living wages. Everything you said champions the idea of getting out of the way of exploitation. The labor market is facing a massive upheaval ON IT'S OWN and being forced to offer living wages. Yes, prices will increase marginally to compensate and they will be forced to become more efficient, but so what, this is also what happens in a free market.

You're sitting here trying to argue both sides of the coin and failing at both by trying to cherry pick from my argument without really understanding what it is you're reading. Corporations /should/ pay higher taxes, as should those making middle six figure salaries. The non-cash earnings scam being perpetuated by corporate America should also be curtailed by taxing the stock at it's market value and then taxing or refunding the gain/loss when it's actually sold. These simple tax changes are being fought bitterly by your Republican vultures and looters. But you clearly think the amorality of society is solely based upon the failure to curtail the size of our government, forcing loveless couples to remain together for the sake of a foolish idealism around two parent households.

From what you said here, we're almost saying the same thing - but from different sides of the road/perspective.

The Government is supposed to ensure that exploitation does not occur - Good.

The Government is supposed to ensure fair business and trade practices. That is why there are anti-trust and monopoly laws. - Good.

This is where the divide comes... you're arguing on one hand monopoly companies like Walmart, Amazon, Costco, etc. - just because they pay a bit higher in wages - are actually doing good (which it would seem on the face of it)... then in the same breath talk about how Corporations should pay higher taxes (which they don't). It's a PR move for them to raise worker wages, all the while earning more on the backend through tax deductions and buying off politicians.

This is my point economically... the base laws/rules/legislation is on the books to try and ensure fair business practices between individuals, businesses, and corporations. It has been distorted because of the greed/lack of principle/ineptitude of our elected leaders who no longer act as a referee/arbiter of fair practices, but rather as advocates for specific business interests. The human element of our leadership has failed us all, not the system if it were implemented fairly.

As for the "forcing loveless couples to remain together for foolish idealism"... it's not about idealism... it's about how/what's best to raise a child. The statistics are conclusive on this matter. A child raised in a two parent home, statistically, have much better outcomes than those that do not. That's not me promoting some "idealism", that's cold hard fact. If you want to fight against all of human evolution, all of the statistics, and all of the natural inclinations of humans with regards to their children... then that's on you.

Why is it so wrong to promote the hopeful, and helpful, perspective of if you and your partner love each other and wish to be together... and a child is involved... it is good to work towards the goal of staying together... not only for themselves, but for the health of the child. That's a bad outlook? That's some "foolish idealism"?

I'll be a fool then, and try to believe in the better half of humanity. Doesn't mean I don't see the selfishness, depravity, and weakness of the human condition. But statistics bear out what happens when one way of life is accepted over another. Just how it is.

[rolfard]

From what you said here, we're almost saying the same thing - but from different sides of the road/perspective.

The Government is supposed to ensure that exploitation does not occur - Good.

The Government is supposed to ensure fair business and trade practices. That is why there are anti-trust and monopoly laws. - Good.

This is where the divide comes... you're arguing on one hand monopoly companies like Walmart, Amazon, Costco, etc. - just because they pay a bit higher in wages - are actually doing good (which it would seem on the face of it)... then in the same breath talk about how Corporations should pay higher taxes (which they don't). It's a PR move for them to raise worker wages, all the while earning more on the backend through tax deductions and buying off politicians.

This is my point economically... the base laws/rules/legislation is on the books to try and ensure fair business practices between individuals, businesses, and corporations. It has been distorted because of the greed/lack of principle/ineptitude of our elected leaders who no longer act as a referee/arbiter of fair practices, but rather as advocates for specific business interests. The human element of our leadership has failed us all, not the system if it were implemented fairly.

As for the "forcing loveless couples to remain together for foolish idealism"... it's not about idealism... it's about how/what's best to raise a child. The statistics are conclusive on this matter. A child raised in a two parent home, statistically, have much better outcomes than those that do not. That's not me promoting some "idealism", that's cold hard fact. If you want to fight against all of human evolution, all of the statistics, and all of the natural inclinations of humans with regards to their children... then that's on you.

Why is it so wrong to promote the hopeful, and helpful, perspective of if you and your partner love each other and wish to be together... and a child is involved... it is good to work towards the goal of staying together... not only for themselves, but for the health of the child. That's a bad outlook? That's some "foolish idealism"?

I'll be a fool then, and try to believe in the better half of humanity. Doesn't mean I don't see the selfishness, depravity, and weakness of the human condition. But statistics bear out what happens when one way of life is accepted over another. Just how it is.

Recent studies show children raised in a loveless home "for the benefit of the child" have more unintended consequences than expected. While statistics may indicate children in two parent homes do better, that doesn't actually show how a bad marriage can have more bad than good happen to the child.

Here's one (of many) recent articles on the matter;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-kids-divorce

Statistics don't always provide the whole story, for example statistically you'll never die from food poison if you never eat food. It's 100 percent true.

[Shaps]

Recent studies show children raised in a loveless home "for the benefit of the child" have more unintended consequences than expected. While statistics may indicate children in two parent homes do better, that doesn't actually show how a bad marriage can have more bad than good happen to the child.

Here's one (of many) recent articles on the matter;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-kids-divorce

Statistics don't always provide the whole story, for example statistically you'll never die from food poison if you never eat food. It's 100 percent true.

Good point.

Both can be true.

Doesn't mean society should promote, encourage, or advocate for the dissolution of two parent households. It's not a bad thing to promote healthy relationships, sacrifice, and understanding between people. It's not a bad thing for people to understand that their own selfish inclinations must be moderated some if they willingly enter into a relationship, and a child is involved. It's not a bad thing to promote the hope that two parents will stay together and give a better chance of an outcome to their child.

That doesn't mean that your statement is false. That doesn't mean that single parents can not succeed and give their child a wonderful life. That doesn't mean people should be so unhappy in a situation, they must remain in it.

It only means that promoting positive relationships, stability, and hope for the best situations for children should not be denigrated.

A bad situation is a bad situation - in single or two parent homes - doesn't matter. Doesn't take away from the overwhelming fact that those raised in two parent households tend to do better in life. Just what it is. Doesn't mean there aren't outliers/other situations like you present.

[Gelston]

Recent studies show children raised in a loveless home "for the benefit of the child" have more unintended consequences than expected. While statistics may indicate children in two parent homes do better, that doesn't actually show how a bad marriage can have more bad than good happen to the child.

Here's one (of many) recent articles on the matter;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-kids-divorce

Statistics don't always provide the whole story, for example statistically you'll never die from food poison if you never eat food. It's 100 percent true.

It normalizes bad relationships for children. They see their parents acts a certain way towards each other and they think that is the norm.

[Taernath]

Hey, shut the fuck up about whatever you're arguing about and post funny political stuff.

[Shaps]

Hey, shut the fuck up about whatever you're arguing about and post funny political stuff.

Yea it's pretty obvious if halfway semi-conscious. People like feeding their ego though, and really think that their efforts are justified. The 20% of insane people fucking over the normal 80%. They say humans learn, we don't. Humans will always human.

[Jeril]

Yea it's pretty obvious if halfway semi-conscious. People like feeding their ego though, and really think that their efforts are justified. The 20% of insane people fucking over the normal 80%. They say humans learn, we don't. Humans will always human.

It's probably less than 20% of people who are actually profiting from this. Those 20% you speak of are just tools.

[Shaps]

It's probably less than 20% of people who are actually profiting from this. Those 20% you speak of are just tools.

Haha fair enough. I usually give 10% of crazy to both sides, and put the normal folk in the middle.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-focu...223416846.html

The downplaying is going to start. Watch for the spin.

"Though no one knows the exact value of the U.S.-supplied Afghan equipment the Taliban have secured, defense officials have confirmed it is significant."

Not saying it is or isn't. But "fact-checking" something when "no one knows" is a little funny. Definitely not worth a full page article.

[Tgo01]

Illinois Democrats are already gerrymandering the shit out of their state since they lost a seat.

I'm sure we'll see all Democrats who bitch and moan about gerrymandering be all over this story.

Oh wait...no...they only care when Republicans gerrymander. Carry on then!