Throbbing Member
But that's not what Google did. When he typed in "mainstream media is...", Google took the liberty of saying it is dead. It is dying. It is fake. It is fake news. That's all that it told him.
That's all algorithm, you can't really fault Google for what people are searching for, otherwise you are asking for censorship
Active Member
Looks like Trump's budget will increase defense spending by $54B while cutting non-defense spending by same.
Are you guys preparing for war or something? That looks like a hefty increase in defense spending.
Edit: I am wondering if Trump is dumb enough to start a war just to prove his point that the US has the biggest military.
"We never win wars anymore. We never fight to win. We have to start winning wars again."
https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/836241915418849282
Last edited by Deepvoid; 02-27-2017 at 11:49 AM.
Active Member
republican health plan be rich or die
-louie
Active Member
let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised
-louie
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
2017. George W. Bush as a voice of reason. Wat."I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy. We need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive, and it can be corrosive, and it's important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power. Whether it be here or elsewhere. One of the things that I spent a lot of time doing was trying to convince a person like Vladimir Putin, for example, to accept the notion of an independent press. And it's kinda hard to tell others to have an independent, free press when we're not willing to have one ourselves."
http://www.today.com/video/george-w-...e-885676611701
tempus est umbra in mente
Melania is threatening the Daily Mail with a huge lawsuit for running a story about her being a sex worker or something...Originally Posted by WorzelG
Regardless, it's meant to send a message. Trump's team loves misinformation and tabloid trash, just not when it's launched at them. It's Trump saying "let's get things nice and sparkling clear here..." to tabloids in general.
Active Member
Let's be clear: defense spending IS a jobs program full stop.
24.24.1.1397
That's akin to saying arts spending IS a jobs program. Yes, it pays people to do a specific job, but that's not the purpose of it. This money isn't being allocated to military spending because it'll give people jobs.
Literally ALL government spending is a "jobs program" because it means paying a person of group of people to do a thing, which is their job, because they're getting paid to do it.
Active Member
I'm not saying that it's wrong that government uses the money to build defense while increasing employment. No different, to me, then infrastructure programs. I'd like to think arts programs enrich society too.
Active Member
I'd much rather the CCC at this point.
Bite me
I've been saying that for years; that kind of program, with technical training and manual labor with good pay, instead of the constant (unrealistic) focus on the often-impossible and debt-crushing college education, would help inner city kids, decrease crime, help people in rural communities, etc.
24.24.1.1397
But to call it a "jobs program" is simply a terrible false analogy. Like I said, you could call ANY government spending "a jobs program" because ANY government spending means paying a person or persons for a service, aka, a job.
Bite me
For Trump, who wants to "bring back jobs," it absolutely could be a way to increase jobs where he take total credit for it. It's not a GOOD method, because of the cost, obviously (financial and human). But, he doesn't care; he's kowtowing to the Republicans and his base.
It's a pretty common capitalist economic belief that war "creates jobs." As does increased defense. As @Dra508 said, from a government spending and job-creation standpoint, defense is no different than infrastructure.
Anyway, increasing defense spending isn't just a Trump goal, it's been a HUGE Republican goal for, shit, ever. And ever since it was disclosed that Russia's nuclear stockpile is way bigger than ours, military people have been pissed off; we had an agreement to stop the nuclear arms race, but Russia has thrown that out the window.
Last edited by allegro; 02-27-2017 at 06:42 PM.
Bite me
Also, it's a really common notion, especially among the older generations that survived World Wars etc., that "this country needs a war to help the economy." And to bolster patriotism.
See this: "America needs a new war or capitalism dies"
See also Post-World War II Economic Expansion.
See also:
For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war’s effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The war’s rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the war’s global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945.War Bonds
All told, taxes provided about $136.8 billion of the war’s total cost of $304 billion (Kennedy, 625). To cover the other $167.2 billion, the Treasury Department also expanded its bond program, creating the famous “war bonds” hawked by celebrities and purchased in vast numbers and enormous values by Americans. The first war bond was purchased by President Roosevelt on May 1, 1941 (“Introduction to Savings Bonds”). Though the bonds returned only 2.9 percent annual interest after a 10-year maturity, they nonetheless served as a valuable source of revenue for the federal government and an extremely important investment for many Americans. Bonds served as a way for citizens to make an economic contribution to the war effort, but because interest on them accumulated slower than consumer prices rose, they could not completely preserve income which could not be readily spent during the war. By the time war-bond sales ended in 1946, 85 million Americans had purchased more than $185 billion worth of the securities, often through automatic deductions from their paychecks (“Brief History of World War Two Advertising Campaigns: War Loans and Bonds”). Commercial institutions like banks also bought billions of dollars of bonds and other treasury paper, holding more than $24 billion at the war’s end (Kennedy, 626).
Active Member
better explained the broken window: http://economics.about.com/od/output...w-Fallacy.html
-Louie
Bite me
Your link is broken, see this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para..._broken_window
But it has criticisms:
The interpretations assume that the "window" has positive value and that replacing it is not a good investment. In the broader scope, offsetting factors can reduce or even negate the cost of destruction. For example, new technologies developed during a war and forced modernization during postwar reconstruction can cause old technologies to become valueless. Also, if two shopkeepers keep their "window" beyond the point where it would maximize their profit, the shopkeeper whose window is broken is forced to make a good investment – increasing his comparative profit, or rather, reducing his comparative loss. Regardless, while wanton destruction of real value may not be a net loss, it is of course still a misfortune, not a blessing. Others argue that the broken window may not result in reduction of spending by the victim, but rather, a reduction in excessive savings. "The logic of limited resources only applies when the economy is using most of those limited resources. If there are slack resources, we need merely mobilize some of the slack resources."[who said this?] The reductio ad absurdum of breaking 100 windows, then, applies only when underutilised resources have been used, and the tailor is forced to divert resources from more productive means.
It has been argued that the parable, while intuitive, may not correspond to actual evidence. For instance, some economists argue that natural disasters can often result in improved growth in both the short and long term.
Active Member
I guess I would rather see things like education and health care things other than killing people who pray to a different god than I do
-Louie
Active Member
What she said.
Bite me
I think the increase in defense spending is just that: DEFENSE spending. Not OFFENSE spending. We are not currently in an actual "war" anywhere, nor is it likely based on current circumstances or events. But Republicans believe in a large standing armed forces and stockpiled equipment for preparedness and a show of strength. The Dems believe in spending only as needed. It's a philosophical difference not solely based on hawkish or imperialist idiology. It's a reaction to various recent events, including North Korea launching test missiles, Russia threatening nearby regions, China flexing its military muscles, and Iran pushing the nuclear envelope, etc.
McCain and the Republican military gang are currently bitching that Trump didn't raise the defense budget ENOUGH.
We all pray to the same God. God's name is just different. But the idea that this country is out to kill a bunch of Muslims just for being Muslim is erroneous.
Last edited by allegro; 02-28-2017 at 06:57 AM.
Active Member
Does it really matter who has the bigger stockpile other than a numbers game? It's men and penises but on a 'I'm going to blow up the whole world" kind of way.
tempus est umbra in mente
and instead of pursuing a rollback in our outrageous collection of nuclear arms, Trump is promising to make America the most nuclear-having country in the world again.
FFS, I think we're going to look back at these insane meandering speeches, where he says things like "why shouldn't be on good terms with Russia?" and "The Russia thing is ridiculous" and saying oh, how we would be getting along so well with Russia if the media would just let him... We have over 4,000 nukes. We used to have over 30,000. 4000 is still enough to wipe out all life on this planet pretty much, though, so why the hell would we want or need more?!
Active Member
Not according to this guy...
Active Member
war has no long term roi's it's not sustainable
-louie
Bite me
The huge budget increase for modernization and increasing of nuclear weapons started during the Obama administration. It went largely unnoticed. I've linked articles in here already. Just an FYI.
tempus est umbra in mente
I just don't understand the rationale behind getting more nukes. If we were ever to arrive at the horrifying juncture in history where we would have expended a nuclear arsenal that size, I don't think anyone who survived would want to live on this planet anymore.
Regarding Obama and the previous administration's approach to nuclear weapons, I honestly don't know concretely how that went. I read some articles saying he was ramping up the arsenal, and others saying he was dialing it back. I would look into it again for clarification, but it doesn't change how I feel about it, and at this point I guess it doesn't matter. We're where we're at now.
Last edited by Jinsai; 02-28-2017 at 11:59 AM.
Bite me
Here is a good article.
Here is the current status.
Last edited by allegro; 02-28-2017 at 03:50 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
this is a surprisingly interesting thing I stumbled on
the intro is kind of rambling, but the follow up videos are interesting
Active Member
someone last night call trump a "cheeto", good name,
-louie
Throbbing Member
I honestly dont think Palestine will survive a few more decades if not this administration...it will be gone soon....
At least then the Israel/Palestine conflict will be over??????
In the Western world its all about nationalism.. protecting democracy...from invaders...the right wing of Israel is seen favourably..as from the islamic barbarians....
Radical right wing groups protecting European soveignity will continue to emerge...
As what was inevitable after the myopic decision Angela Merkel took.
Last edited by Exocet; 03-01-2017 at 07:54 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
