2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

billt721 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

*facepalm*

What is [em]wrong[/em] with people?

Door, ass, etc..

Yeah, given how may 'red states' are subsidized by 'blue states', I have no problem with them seceding.

Word.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And this somehow supports your constant need to play sides rather than hold a discussion?

This again, huh? You'll forgive me if the accusation of playing sides coming from someone who says things like "conservatives are incapable of understanding Cobert" fails to shame me into not expressing my political opinions.

Not trying to get into this discussion ( ), but the Colbert/conservatives thing is "truthy," there was a study several years ago that showed that conservative viewers of Colbert tended to not realize the show is satirical.

Skimming.

"And Papa John's? A PJ's customer interacts with two people: the person on the phone, the person giving your pizza. Nobody else has to interact with a customer at all."

No, but other people will make the pizza they're going to eat. Customer service - the decision to buy or not to buy - isn't just based on who takes the order. It's everything; the entire experience.

Fast food companies want to standardise portions and speed everything up. But unless production is automated, products will be affected by people. Could happier people make, on average, better products? Perhaps.

And the stupidity of this situation is that it would be very easy to sell an 14c price difference as a good thing. 'Hey, we're putting our pizza up a little bit. But that means that our staff will be looked after. And this small price difference means will be able to continue expanding and employing more Americans just as we are now.'

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And this somehow supports your constant need to play sides rather than hold a discussion?

This again, huh? You'll forgive me if the accusation of playing sides coming from someone who says things like "conservatives are incapable of understanding Cobert" fails to shame me into not expressing my political opinions.

If by "this again" you mean that someone is noting a logical inconsistency to your reply, then... yes? You cut off the quote and are pretending that it was the only thing said in that line of discussion so you can reply this way. It's a little weird. If you look at the whole thing -

Jayhawker wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bear wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Well then - I agree that Republican party members who vote Democratic are "wackadoodles" by definition :)

Serious question, does every idea or proposal instantly have to be qualified "Republican" or "Democratic"? Seems the label is far more important that the substance.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...

I appreciate the honesty contained in answering "why do you have to be so blatantly partisan" with a blatantly partisan link.

Sorry I didn't have time to fully comment on that link - the question posed wasn't "why are you so blatantly partisan" but "are labels or substance more important". I was saying that the reality to most people is that labels are more important - I'm not trying to say this is a left-only phenomenon either, it's all over both sides of the "politics as sport" spectrum. Although I consider myself a Republican, some of my beliefs don't toe the party line. I hope those beliefs become "Republican ideas" at some point.

Okay, so you showed off a blog by a hack that showed off a lame video, that if anything, showed how lame it is to be so focused on picking sides. And this somehow supports your constant need to play sides rather than hold a discussion?

You see the dialogue is thus - Bear seems to lament that people are more interested in the label over the content, and that's a bad thing. You respond with, I guess, yes the label is more important, and link a video that is actually making fun of people holding that attitude. Jayhawker points this out to you, and... now we're back to the "nuh uh, you did it, too!" which has nearly no meaning or relevance to the whole context here.

I guess the lesson is, in fact, the label is way more important. But also people who think that way are dumb. This truly is the era of having your cake and eating it too political viewpoints.

This is a stupid thing to be picking at each other over - I'm agreeing with Bear that for most people, labels are more important than policy. The video was meant to signify that. Full stop.

jowner wrote:
Demyx wrote:
jowner wrote:

Then you pick up your sh*t from hell hole U.S.A where your only option is working at Papa Johns.

The people who have no options other than to work at crappy fast food restaurants are generally the same people who lack the resources to just up and leave.

This is where I fall into conservative camps. Where there's a will there's a way.

I can be very sympathetic and liberal when its clearly a case that the odds are stacked against people in an unfair way.

Culturally my background is first generation immigrant so 'I can only work this sh*tty minimum wage job' doesn't really float for me.

Funny thing is, if you're first generation immigrant, the 'conservative camp' at the time complained about people like you to no end. They were always talking about how immigrants were just handed the American Dream on a silver platter instead of having to work for it like their own immigrant families.

Strange how that kind of thinking goes around.

Farscry wrote:
Demyx wrote:
jowner wrote:

I can be very sympathetic and liberal when its clearly a case that the odds are stacked against people in an unfair way.

And you personally know that no one in that situation doesn't have the odds stacked against them?

Apparently it doesn't matter just how bad your situation is. Bootstraps are free for the taking in any size, shape, and quantity.

1. Lose sh*tty-paying job that was the best you could get
2. Bootstraps
3. ??
4. PROFIT!

Seriously Jowner, you're coming across like Romney here. Sure, if you're single and in good health, then theoretically you could just up and pack all your sh*t on your back and walk across the USA to some better job market. But if you have poor health, no money, kids to worry about, ailing parents, or whatthef*ckever else to worry about, just packing up your sh*t and moving to Where the Wild Jobs Aretm is not necessarily a viable solution.

But hey, congrats on your own luck in not having to face real sh*t like that. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But I'm not naive enough to think that it's enough of a solution to hang my nation's policies on.

barking up the wrong tree.

Don't attach this to employment then. Its not some sh*tty Pizza franchises job to make sure Americans have health care.

Its a real cost. If the business owner wants to race to the bottom of the labour market by treating his employees badly thats his choice.

also good job inserting an entire paragraph argument I'm not making for me.

edit: Also I know plenty of non single people who picked up their sh*t and moved much much further then just across the USA in a much worse era's. I believe in leveling the playing field but when it starts turning into 'woe is me' is when I shut off.

Slightly off topic, but I thought that Green Bay supporters were pro workers' rights?

jowner wrote:

Don't attach this to employment then. Its not some sh*tty Pizza franchises job to make sure Americans have health care.

Its a real cost. If the business owner wants to race to the bottom of the labour market by treating his employees badly thats his choice.

It wouldn't be bad to untangle employment from health care coverage, although in the end there's the question of how much of a difference there is between making a corporation pay the costs of an employment benefit or making the owners of a company pay taxes to fund a social welfare program.

Ha! Worth it for the following sentence alone.

the article wrote:

Not only does Solomon, 28, have a thorough misunderstanding of our nation's electoral system, she also ran over her husband with her car because of this, according to Gilbert police.

billt721 wrote:

Ha! Worth it for the following sentence alone.

the article wrote:

Not only does Solomon, 28, have a thorough misunderstanding of our nation's electoral system, she also ran over her husband with her car because of this, according to Gilbert police.

Also this gem:

there are no indications she was impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time,
Stele wrote:
billt721 wrote:

Ha! Worth it for the following sentence alone.

the article wrote:

Not only does Solomon, 28, have a thorough misunderstanding of our nation's electoral system, she also ran over her husband with her car because of this, according to Gilbert police.

Also this gem:

there are no indications she was impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time,
article wrote:

It should be noted that President Obama won a grand total of zero of Arizona's 11 electoral votes, so it wouldn't have helped if Daniel Solomon had voted for Romney 1,000 times.

gore wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Stele wrote:

Trying to squeeze out a few more cents for stockholders is more important than having a healthy workforce? Only if you're an asshole.

No, the fiduciary duty of the CEO is to legally maximize profits for his shareholders.

The existing framework of Obamacare was created by Democrats and companies are simply working within that framework. It's true that someone thinks part time employees don't deserve healthcare - but that decision was made by Democratic legislators, not CEOs.

It's a pretty good example of the ripple effect of unintended consequences for bad legislation. You legislate that full time workers get health care from employers? The only rational solution is to have fewer full time workers.

The only rational solution? I would posit that a second possible rational solution would for the CEO to not be a dick to his employees.

Of course, I'm sure that previous generations of CEOs said their only rational solutions were to have child labor, ignore health and safety laws, and not have a forty hour workweek.

I mean, it's all about the bottom lie, right?

jowner wrote:

Don't attach this to employment then. Its not some sh*tty Pizza franchises job to make sure Americans have health care.

Its a real cost. If the business owner wants to race to the bottom of the labour market by treating his employees badly thats his choice.

also good job inserting an entire paragraph argument I'm not making for me.

edit: Also I know plenty of non single people who picked up their sh*t and moved much much further then just across the USA in a much worse era's. I believe in leveling the playing field but when it starts turning into 'woe is me' is when I shut off.

I wasn't even responding to the health insurance aspect at all. Re-read what I wrote. I was strictly responding to your crap-ass attitude towards those who are truly both misfortunate and in situations wherein they cannot simply "pick up their sh*t and move", as you put it.

And yet you still miss the point, responding with anecdotal evidence so you can wave your hands and ignore anything that's outside of your own limited experience. So... yeah, thanks for further proving my point.

[edit]To clarify further, since I feel like I should, I'm not making a statement about how frequently people find themselves in these situations. I'm just saying that it can happen, it does happen, and while you may find it distasteful for someone to lament being in such a situation, that doesn't change the fact that it happens, nor the fact that a nation as wealthy and capable as ours has no excuse to allow these things to happen. Which is one of the points I was making in my post a few pages back about our dysfunctional civilization's obsession with wealth accrual at any cost.

ruhk wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And this somehow supports your constant need to play sides rather than hold a discussion?

This again, huh? You'll forgive me if the accusation of playing sides coming from someone who says things like "conservatives are incapable of understanding Cobert" fails to shame me into not expressing my political opinions.

Not trying to get into this discussion ( ), but the Colbert/conservatives thing is "truthy," there was a study several years ago that showed that conservative viewers of Colbert tended to not realize the show is satirical.

I also pointed out that that liberals were equally susceptible to the same effect. It's not ideology, but the result of deadpan parody as satire. But I'm not surprised that Norman picked on part of a post to harp on, when taken as a whole said something completely different.

I'm sure he would be just as impressed with an academic article out of Ohio State that examined the inability of conservatives to realize that Stephen Colbert is laughing at them, not with them.

It mostly has to do with ambiguous information and our brain's power to fill in what we don't understand with our personal bias. It works the other way, too. It's just rare for conservative satire to be good enough to actually gain an audience.

That's my issue with Norman. It's hard to argue with someone that cherry picks in such a way as to distort the points being made.

Jayhawker wrote:

I also pointed out that that liberals were equally susceptible to the same effect.

I agree completely.

Jayhawker wrote:

It's not ideology, but the result of deadpan parody as satire.

That I don't agree with as much. Confirmation bias doesn't spring from ideology, but the ideology drives the unconscious sorting of information, and the ambiguous nature of deadpan satire facilitates it.

ruhk wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I also pointed out that that liberals were equally susceptible to the same effect.

I agree completely.

Jayhawker wrote:

It's not ideology, but the result of deadpan parody as satire.

That I don't agree with as much. Confirmation bias doesn't spring from ideology, but the ideology drives the unconscious sorting of information, and the ambiguous nature of deadpan satire facilitates it.

That's actually what I'm saying. I meant that it was not the particular ideology.

The class I'm taking is Advanced Expository Writing whose subject this semester happens to be comedic rhetoric It was created when the instructor found both conservative and liberal students that thought Colbert was conservative.

It's why I brought up Michael Moore, who had a TV show (on FOX!) where he poked the exact same fun at conservatives that the video linked to by Norman did to liberals.

Can we keep the divide going until 2016 and the new thread? We're off to a good start.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I still wonder what the productivity gains would be if we did not tie health care to employment and had single-payer.

My guess the gains would be rather jarring.

I can't even begin to count the number of people I know who stay with the job they have despite the fact they hate it because of the health insurance.

Imagine being in a job you actually want and like or even love and never having to worry about losing insurance coverage for yourself and your family.

It's not just straight up job mobility that is affected. Opening up for would-be entrepreneurs to give it a go without gambling with the health of themselves and their family would likely have a noticeable impact.

One of the petitions to secede was from someone in New Jersey.

A couple of thoughts:

1. I wonder what Christie thinks about this?

2. You'd think someone in a state devastated by a hurricane, receiving tons of federal aid to get things back to even keel, would think for an extra second or two about removing the source of said aid.

Just a few observations, because I'm feeling too lazy to quote.

1. Stupid exists on both sides of the political fence. The right side has a plethora of media voices that serve to amplify and enhance the stupid.

2. If Papa Johns made a decision to fire 1500 workers because it was moving to an online ordering system it would be a blip on the news. A company that gives away 1M pizzas for a promotion then cries about the effects of the ACA on it's bottom line can't be taken seriously. There's nothing in the CEO's assertion that holds up to closer examination.

3. Didn't we just have an election where people were free to vote for the candidate of their choice? These morons that are petitioning for succession should be given a one way ticket to Ubekibekibekistan. There's no provision in the Constitution that gives people the right to act like a spoiled child when your guy doesn't win.

I get the feeling the people calling for their states to secede are just going through a bit of post-election loss emotional withdrawal. Us liberal types were doing the same thing in 2004, hell even before the election was done with.

And this

Let's see where they are in a year.

Farscry wrote:
jowner wrote:

Don't attach this to employment then. Its not some sh*tty Pizza franchises job to make sure Americans have health care.

Its a real cost. If the business owner wants to race to the bottom of the labour market by treating his employees badly thats his choice.

also good job inserting an entire paragraph argument I'm not making for me.

edit: Also I know plenty of non single people who picked up their sh*t and moved much much further then just across the USA in a much worse era's. I believe in leveling the playing field but when it starts turning into 'woe is me' is when I shut off.

I wasn't even responding to the health insurance aspect at all. Re-read what I wrote. I was strictly responding to your crap-ass attitude towards those who are truly both misfortunate and in situations wherein they cannot simply "pick up their sh*t and move", as you put it.

And yet you still miss the point, responding with anecdotal evidence so you can wave your hands and ignore anything that's outside of your own limited experience. So... yeah, thanks for further proving my point.

[edit]To clarify further, since I feel like I should, I'm not making a statement about how frequently people find themselves in these situations. I'm just saying that it can happen, it does happen, and while you may find it distasteful for someone to lament being in such a situation, that doesn't change the fact that it happens, nor the fact that a nation as wealthy and capable as ours has no excuse to allow these things to happen. Which is one of the points I was making in my post a few pages back about our dysfunctional civilization's obsession with wealth accrual at any cost.

I'll respond with anecdotal evidence if your going to start inserting arguments I'm not making and using statements like 'your good luck' into responding to me. You don't know me so don't start assuming things.

You're also still missing the point as I'm not disagreeing. But honestly if people are going to make 'Woe is me' arguments that they have to work at Papa Johns and that's their only option I'm going to call bullsh*t. Walk across the street and apply at McDonalds. Then Burger King. I'm not really going to swallow whole the argument that the person has 0 other options.

Call me for the hand wringing for actual inequality like unequal pay for women etc. Or you know a joke health care system.

This started with me commenting on something Demosthenes said and my opinion is still pretty much the same. Hes free to run his business as he feels. Everyone else is free to not buy his pizza and not provide him the labour he needs to make his pizza.

Hes also free to attach his business to politics and watch what he gets in blowback from people thinking hes a dick. Thats part of the package. People work for and consume from companies on tangible grounds like fair trade/the environment etc. They can also do the opposite.

CheezePavilion wrote:
jowner wrote:

Don't attach this to employment then. Its not some sh*tty Pizza franchises job to make sure Americans have health care.

Its a real cost. If the business owner wants to race to the bottom of the labour market by treating his employees badly thats his choice.

It wouldn't be bad to untangle employment from health care coverage, although in the end there's the question of how much of a difference there is between making a corporation pay the costs of an employment benefit or making the owners of a company pay taxes to fund a social welfare program.

anytime you attach these things to employment its going to go through the cost benefit machine and come out the other side.

This is no different if you raised the minimum wage, taxed pizza dough etc.

If hes not interested in giving health care to his employees and putting them under 30 hours gets him out of it then its really no surprise.

I've worked in an organization where if part time workers hit a certain # of hours a year a full time position had to be created. Guess what the result was? Depressing hours so that full time positions are not made this way.

No one should be really surprised this is happening. Feel free to think hes a dick though.

jowner wrote:

I'll respond with anecdotal evidence if your going to start inserting arguments I'm not making and using statements like 'your good luck' into responding to me. You don't know me so don't start assuming things.

I can only respond to what you've written, and since part of your arguments have been emotional statements without clarification (which you've started clarifying now, fortunately) I can only respond to what seems to be the intended point.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, so wherever I misunderstood you, I do apologize and hope you can clarify further.

jowner wrote:

But honestly if people are going to make 'Woe is me' arguments that they have to work at Papa Johns and that's their only option I'm going to call bullsh*t. Walk across the street and apply at McDonalds. Then Burger King. I'm not really going to swallow whole the argument that the person has 0 other options.

Here's an example; before, you didn't make this point, you said they should pack up their sh*t and move to where the jobs are. This point is quite different from that, and I completely agree with you on your statement here. If you lose one crappy job, you can bust your ass to keep applying to and trying to get other crappy jobs instead.

The argument I was making wasn't that they have no options other than the job they just lost (although going months between jobs, which can and does happen to people regardless of the effort they put to finding a replacement job, can put a family destitute and onto the street). So here you're making assumptions about my argument too. I was merely making the argument that moving willy-nilly to another home to pursue jobs may not be a viable option.

jowner wrote:

Hes free to run his business as he feels. Everyone else is free to not buy his pizza and not provide him the labour he needs to make his pizza.

Hes also free to attach his business to politics and watch what he gets in blowback from people thinking hes a dick. Thats part of the package. People work for and consume from companies on tangible grounds like fair trade/the environment etc. They can also do the opposite.

Yup, and I never responded to any of these points. What set me off was your seeming ignorance about just how bad people's lives can get and just how little power they may have to change their situation. And yeah, I grew up poor during the 80's recession (food stamps, deadbeat dad, parents struggling with finding and holding down jobs at the bottom rung of society, etc) and my family eventually pulled through due to my parents' tenacity and good fortune. I've lived my entire adult life terrified of going through that as an adult, and busted my ass to get an education, good jobs, etc. I'm firmly in the middle class, and for the most part don't have to worry about the things I've been talking about in this side-debate with you. But I've educated myself on the reality of the world, and realize that not everyone can be as fortunate as me or my parents. So while most "woe is me" people actually do piss me off, there are "woe is me" people in the world - even in our nation - who sadly have complete justification in bemoaning their lot in life.

If you can't concede that, then that's willful ignorance on your part. *shrug*

jowner wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
jowner wrote:

Don't attach this to employment then. Its not some sh*tty Pizza franchises job to make sure Americans have health care.

Its a real cost. If the business owner wants to race to the bottom of the labour market by treating his employees badly thats his choice.

It wouldn't be bad to untangle employment from health care coverage, although in the end there's the question of how much of a difference there is between making a corporation pay the costs of an employment benefit or making the owners of a company pay taxes to fund a social welfare program.

anytime you attach these things to employment its going to go through the cost benefit machine and come out the other side.

This is no different if you raised the minimum wage, taxed pizza dough etc.

If hes not interested in giving health care to his employees and putting them under 30 hours gets him out of it then its really no surprise.

I've worked in an organization where if part time workers hit a certain # of hours a year a full time position had to be created. Guess what the result was? Depressing hours so that full time positions are not made this way.

No one should be really surprised this is happening. Feel free to think hes a dick though.

Well sure, we're all aware of the concept of the perverse incentive, but you're making a different argument now. You've switched from making a moral argument about what we shouldn't do to a practical one about what the consequences of an act will be. So I'm confused: what are you actually arguing?

jowner wrote:

I've worked in an organization where if part time workers hit a certain # of hours a year a full time position had to be created. Guess what the result was? Depressing hours so that full time positions are not made this way.

No one should be really surprised this is happening. Feel free to think hes a dick though.

I think this just keeps coming back to the idea that the only thing a CEO or executive should be concerned about is the bottom line. And that is - both morally and functionally - not true. It shouldn't be surprising, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he could NOT have just said, "This hurts my profits, but our company is built on family and small business values, and I am happy to be part of helping my employees have coverage. Now, buy some of my feel-good, wonderfully morally superior pizza!" That would be an incredible way to garner good will from both sides of the fence on this issue. And on top of that, again, the question of worker incentive and morale comes into play from a business perspective.

So let's not keep waving around the idea that this is obviously the only route someone in John Schnatter's position could take, and thus we must absolve him from any and all judgment regarding his choice.

Bloo Driver wrote:
jowner wrote:

I've worked in an organization where if part time workers hit a certain # of hours a year a full time position had to be created. Guess what the result was? Depressing hours so that full time positions are not made this way.

No one should be really surprised this is happening. Feel free to think hes a dick though.

I think this just keeps coming back to the idea that the only thing a CEO or executive should be concerned about is the bottom line. And that is - both morally and functionally - not true. It shouldn't be surprising, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he could NOT have just said, "This hurts my profits, but our company is built on family and small business values, and I am happy to be part of helping my employees have coverage. Now, buy some of my feel-good, wonderfully morally superior pizza!"

Funny thing is I was poking around on the website to see how Papa John's presents itself:

P.A.P.A.
People Are Priority Always. Our success depends upon our ability, as a team, to work together to achieve our goals and expectations.

http://www.papajohns.com/about/pj_va...

Team Members
People are our most important asset. Papa John's will provide clear, consistent, strategic leadership and career opportunities for Team Members who (a) exhibit passion toward their work, (b) uphold our Core Values, (c) take pride of ownership in building the long-term value of the Papa John's brand and (d) have ethical business practices.

http://www.papajohns.com/about/pj_mi...

so much for all that.

edosan wrote:

The only rational solution? I would posit that a second possible rational solution would for the CEO to not be a dick to his employees.

Of course, I'm sure that previous generations of CEOs said their only rational solutions were to have child labor, ignore health and safety laws, and not have a forty hour workweek.

I mean, it's all about the bottom lie, right?

You look at what the system is designed to do, and you work within those parameters. PJ's and similar operations are designed to move the product to consumers as efficiently and cheaply as possible, so reducing hours to avoid a huge added expense is a logical solution to the problem at hand.

Fish gotta swim.

Now, I shouldn't have said that this is the only rational response, but it's certainly a rational response. At a certain point PJ's can't keep reducing employees' benefits, or they'll start losing good employees to competitors (but given the current employment situation, I really don't think that's an immediate concern).

I think a lot of people want to see some kind of morality from corporations, but in most cases that's a ridiculous expectation for a system whose entire design is to compete as efficiently as possible. Spending money being "nice" is not efficient.

Corporations can be "good citizens" to the extent that the market demands that of them; it's good PR, employees (especially customer service employees) can be more efficient, and such companies can sell things at a premium based on that reputation. This is why e.g. Whole Foods is so successful.

But while there's a market for the upscale "good" employers, there's also always going to be a market for cheap pizza, and (right now anyway) there are lots of unskilled people who would be happy to have part time jobs making that pizza.

I'm not saying you should like how it works, but that's how it works, and any legislation needs to consider this. The outcome of employers limiting hours (even if Papa John himself doesn't, surely somebody will) to avoid FTEs as a result of Obamacare must have been expected. But even so, people who are moved to part time and lose some income might still have a better quality of life due to the government subsidized health insurance they will receive under Obamcare. 29 hours a week near minimum wage with health care is likely better than 40 hours a week near minimum wage without it.

Bloo Driver wrote:

It shouldn't be surprising, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he could NOT have just said, "This hurts my profits, but our company is built on family and small business values, and I am happy to be part of helping my employees have coverage. Now, buy some of my feel-good, wonderfully morally superior pizza!"

I'm not sure you have enough information to definitively declare that a viable option.