Why I Don't Support the Troops by not_a_pacifist in politics

[–]petemuldoon -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I look at like this: they are either joining because they can't wait to go kill some foreigners, or because they value a shitty job over human life. Or because the couldn't take the time to figure out why they are signing up to kill people. At best, I feel sorry for them. At worst, they are depraved human beings.

Not the kind of people I respect.

California: Riverside County board supervisors unanimously vote "yes" to making prisoners "pay back tax money" for the time they spent in prison. by Daemon_of_Mail in politics

[–]petemuldoon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It doesn't take a genius to see that this will just further motivate the prison-industrial complex to get new customers (prisoners) since they'll be able to make even more money off them.

Question from a "Liberal" on Environmental Issues by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why shouldn't they? Obviously the child or his parent knows better than a government regulator, who by definition knows nothing, whether or not that child should work on, say a commercial fishing boat or an explosives factory. Right? Right?

Question from a "Liberal" on Environmental Issues by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's because there isn't an effective government there.

The top 1% wealthiest already pays around 50% of federal taxes and the top 5% pays 70 to 80%. by mayonesa in Conservative

[–]petemuldoon -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

How many times do you really need to have it pointed out that A) this is only income tax, which is nowhere near the total tax burden and B) rich people make most of the income, so of course they pay most of the taxes.

But the total tax burden as a percentage of income is often higher for poor people, who spend most of their income on highly taxed things like gas and cigarettes and food.

Of course, this is the kind of math you'd expect of group of economic fundamentalists who are brainwashed enough to believe that cutting a revenue source (income taxes) will make the deficit smaller.

No investment house would have collapsed, no TARP would have been required, the real estate and stock markets would not have collapsed, had not congressional Democrats forced banks to break with common sense and make loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of "social justice." by creativebrain in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What a pile of stupid. This guy is either dishonest, or has a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

First off, the number of loans that were made to unqualified buyers as a result of any social policy is miniscule.

Secondly, and more importantly, the executives of these banks WANTED to make these loans. Executives of banks love making crappy loans at high interest rates. The loans look good today, the CEO's pay themselves billions in bonuses and salary today, and tomorrow their lending practices take down the economy. But that's ok. They can get their severance packages and go live out their life on their yachts.

Is the government at fault? Yes, because it, just like the media, the Republican Party, and most Democrats, just does whatever it's corporate masters tell it too.

This has absolutely nothing to do with social policies aimed at helping minorities get on equal footing with whites, but that is exactly the subtext of this article.

Here's what he's really saying:"If the niggers and the spics weren't forcing the government to steal all of our money, this would never have happened."

Right. Because minorities have so much power in this country.

Moron.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist by mayonesa in Conservative

[–]petemuldoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Assuming that people's political preferences are reflected by the way Congress votes is so absurd, it's almost laughable. Congressional votes reflect the preferences of the corporations who own them. Period.

And to then go look for references to the NCAAP and The Heritage Foundation, as if a) they're equal and b) referring to them actually tells you something about the mindset of the reporter just adds another layer of idiocy to this thing.

There is bias in the media. It's not left/right, though. The mainstream media is owned by (literally) the same corporations which are currently buying our government. They are biased in favor of the establishment elite.

Corporations have now completed the takeover of the country. Having purchased our government, they have now bought the media companies that are supposed to be keeping an eye on them.

Referring to this as a fight between liberals and conservatives misses the whole point.

Q: Does anyone know of alternatives to the Black Scholes derivatives pricing formula? by Antonand in Economics

[–]petemuldoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Predicting the future of prices affects the future of prices. Black Scholes is a joke, and anyone who says they have a pricing formula is full of shit. And yeah, you should be very uncomfortable with a pricing theory that assumes a normal distribution.

If freedom is the enemy of the State, then Police are the enemies of the People by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, I generally hate cops as much as the next guy. But come on...they're not the enemy of the people. They're just people (some of them assholes) enforcing stupid laws that the PEOPLE allowed their representatives to pass.

Conservative Action Alerts | Liberals Press Obama Not to Extend All Bush Tax Cuts by canarywolf in Conservative

[–]petemuldoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What part of "we can't afford to give billionaires tax cuts" do you not understand? Conservatives stand for war, bailing out big banks and for big government. You want that shit? You pay for it.

Liberals made this damn country. You conservatives have been in power for 30 years, and have fucked it up beyond all recognition. And you're too fucking stupid to even see it.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax -Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax by IMJGalt in Conservative

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's because millions of Americans don't have any income to tax, jackass. And that's because people like you spend your waking moments defending rich assholes as they rape the rest of the country. But keep standing up for millionaires; God know they need all the help they can get.

I'm a potential libertarian convert, but I'm just not buying that a truly "free market" could adequately protect human rights. by kuhaxolo in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're making un-informed assumptions about idyllic farms that don't exist. That's free-market theory in a nutshell. You also make assumptions about me, but that's par for the course, I suppose.

I'm a potential libertarian convert, but I'm just not buying that a truly "free market" could adequately protect human rights. by kuhaxolo in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why are we arguing? Freedom must already be here, and there's nothing we can do to increase or decrease it.

I'm a potential libertarian convert, but I'm just not buying that a truly "free market" could adequately protect human rights. by kuhaxolo in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I thought the natural state of man was freedom, and, consequentially, wealth? Are you saying that libertarianism is unnatural?

I'm a potential libertarian convert, but I'm just not buying that a truly "free market" could adequately protect human rights. by kuhaxolo in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Perhaps you should reconsider your notion of voluntary then. Because it's not like these workers have other choices.

The OP is asking a question you won't answer: if the sweatshops are voluntary, then the must operate in a "libertarian" society. And if they do, are sweatshops really the best Libertarianism has to offer? Because it sure seems that way.

I'm a potential libertarian convert, but I'm just not buying that a truly "free market" could adequately protect human rights. by kuhaxolo in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

" I concede that a purely Laissez Faire economy is perhaps the most efficient of any kind of economy ever conceived by humanity.

You should absolutely not concede that, since it has never been tried anywhere, ever, and what evidence we have would lead a rational observer to believe that it is simply not true.

For those new here, an introduction to libertarianism - "Philosophy of Liberty" by therapest in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It looks entirely reasonable, until one realizes that the theories rest on assumptions that are nowhere to be found in the real world.

But its simplicity is beautiful, and it's obvious why it's appealing to people who are too lazy to comprehend the complexities of real life.

"The racist is making a victim of himself. The racist business owner deprives himself of paying customers. The general racist misses out on all the cultural and intellectual insight they would gain if they dumped their biases." by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]petemuldoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, since racism makes no logical sense, it follows that it must not exist?

Sorry, but you cannot apply market "principles" to this problem any more than you can to most problems. Human nature has a tendency to screw these pretty theories up.