Mister Chartreuse

There is a lot of political rhetoric, mostly (read, exclusively) coming from the right, that plays on the middle and upper class' disdain for the poor - or, more specifically, recipients of government social assistance; buzz words/phrases like, "makers and takers," "welfare queens," and "parasites" dominate the right-wing sphere.

I suppose, on some intellectually detached level, I can understand why a self-sufficient, working individual would resent the recipients of their tax dollars; but when I hear people say things like, "the poor are just too lazy to work," or "why should I work to support those who refuse to work?," I have to cringe.

Statements like that would *only* make sense if the unemployment rate were 0%. But the unemployment rate is nowhere near 0%, and probably never will be. Realistically, there is always going to be *some* discrepancy between the size of the labour pool and the amount of labour necessary to produce the goods/services that will clear within any given economy; this will only become more true as technology and globalization continue to increase human productivity.

It doesn't seem sensible, to me, to berate those who are boxed out of the production process and unable to provide for themselves - even if they are, in a sense, "living off of the production of others" via social assistance - when it's inarguable that you're better off making upwards of 27K / year and paying federal income tax than you are collecting government assistance as an unemployed/working poor person.

At the end of the day, there are people fortunate enough to have found an economic niche with which to support themselves, and those who aren't. I'm not trying to downplay the baseline level of gumption and ambition it surely takes to wind up in the former category; but, really, people should be *thankful* they aren't in the latter camp and stop living life in ironic resentment of those less fortunate than themselves.

...and you only had the ability to save 1 of 2 things inside of it:

1) A 5-year old child

2) 20 lab dishes, each with a fertilized human egg in it.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then surely you would opt to save 20 human beings instead of one. Right? Imagine the appalled look on all the townspeople's faces if you came out of the barn having only saved 1 child instead of 20.

Republicanism is basically just a hypocritical version of Libertarianism, in my opinion. They don't hold any of the values they espouse.

"We stand for freedom"

Meanwhile, they push to ban abortion completely, mandate pointless transvaginal ultrasounds, limit access to contraception through completely unnecessary prescription mandates, bring mandated prayer back into public schools, block recognition of gay marriage, maintain the failed and morally insane war on drugs - I could go on. What definition of "freedom" could possibly encompass all of these blatantly freedom-restricting actions?

"We believe in free enterprise"

Nonsense. They support oil and agricultural subsidies. The GOP in North Carolina even tried to ban Tesla from operating in the state on the grounds that they don't use non-proprietary dealerships. Of course, the NC Automobile Dealer's Association had donated to their party recently.

To be frank, the GOP are a collection of corporatist slaves who pander to religious fascists for votes.

If you're ideologically consistent, sane or even just a little bit morally conscious, how can you support them?

His joke of a news site is constantly breaking web-traffic records. He is the *epitome* of mainstream media!

What a clown! LOL

...in order to instigate paranoia and have gun-sales surge? It seems pretty plausible to me, considering the gun-manufacturers kick so much money to politicians.

...but never refer to all of the subsidized farms or oil companies as "Government Oil" or "Government Crops".

It just seems a little bit inconsistent to me. And I'm against bailouts and all corporate subsidies, by the way.

Christians often compare the relationship between the brain and the soul to the one between hardware and software. At first glance, this analogy seems air-tight; the soul can't execute orders or receive certain sensory input if its brain, or "hardware" is damaged.

But it falls apart pretty quickly. If you destroy a piece of hardware, the software does not suddenly function perfectly again in some metaphysical form.

The opposite is, purportedly, true in regards to the brain and soul. The soul's function becomes more and more inhibited as the brain takes physical damage; but once the brain is completely destroyed, suddenly the soul functions perfectly again; and you can see, hear, talk, smell, taste, and talk to all of your dead relatives.

If this is true, and our souls can function perfectly without any kind of material foundation, then why do we have brains to begin with?

One of the main lines of argument against an assault weapons ban is that they (assault weapons) are the last line of defence against a, potentially, oppressive government. I reason that, since this argument is so often presented, there must be a fairly notable degree of certainty that this situation will, eventually, be more than hypothetical.

Please express your perceived likelihood of having to fend of a mass government oppression campaign within you lifetime (as a percentage).

The percentage of humans in Hell has nearly tripled since 1980. This spike in underground torture realm population has been exceeded by incarceration costs (nearly $38,000 per year, per soul, up from $15,000 in 1980, adjusted for inflation).

This is creating unnecessary strain on Heaven's budget, at a time where funds could be diverted to far more worthwhile causes like angel addiction prevention and sex education.

Is it not reasonable to consider abolishing the mandatory minimum sentence of eternity in Hell, since it has been demonstratively ineffective at reducing sin and rehabilitating inmates?

If you're going to defecate all over the room, at least have the decency not to complain about the smell. Am I right or am I right?

An introductory book, which describes terms/concepts like securitization, derivatives, bond-markets etc.

I want to understand these things to the end of knowing how to interpret/read company balance sheets, market speculation/volatility, currency markets etc, so that I can have some general financial/investment wherewithal.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

In the Ryan VS Biden debate, when the moderator mentioned the unemployment rate, Biden pointed out that it had recently dropped to 7.8 percent.

What was Ryan's rebuttal to this? Pointing out that there is town in Wisconsin with an unemployment rate higher than that.

Wow, what a great comeback. Even better would be if he pointed out that his pal, Dave, lost his job during the Obama administration. Then he could follow that up with "The unemployment rate of Dave sky-rocketed up to 100% during Obama's presidency! The American people deserve better than this!"

And people wonder why Biden was laughing at him the entire night.

If all taxes on the rich (and corporate tax) just hurt the middle class via company downsizing, then should these deified "job creators" just have tax exempt status? Should the tax burden just be shifted entirely off them onto the working class?

After all, there's no penalty for taking a middle class or poor person's money; they have no one to fire!

Do inform me if my logic is flawed (or too satirical to warrant address).

I'm constantly hearing this equation get implied, but there is never any elaboration.

I lose my job. I'm on welfare and food stamps for half a year (the taxes I paid while I worked likely more than cover it), then I finally get hired and continue to pay into the system.

...So at what part exactly was I "slave"?

By the way, I was never on welfare, I'm just employing a hypothetical illustration.

If so, why? If not, why?

Let me know if I'm missing something here.