Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration: Re-Elected! 332-206 (Probably)

11617192122102

Posts

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Taramoor wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.

    How long ago was that? Because I'm pretty sure that was made really illegal about 5 or 6 years ago.

    They're not buying it FOR the doctors in exchange for anything, they just happened to leave a buffet outside by accident.

    These things happen.

    Isolated incident.

    I'm pretty sure that's still illegal. Although prior to the relatively recent law, it was absolutely the way things worked. Which is why I'm curious as to when he worked there.

    TheCanMan on
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.

    Oh that spending isn't "wased".

  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.

    Oh that spending isn't "wased".

    Wase not, want not.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    I don't mind waseing not. But imma want all I wanna.

    See Diablo 3? I want it. You can't stop me.

    steam_sig.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    So I'm not sure how much truth there is to this. Thought I'd post this and let you guys figure it out.

    http://thephilanews.com/sign-the-petition-tell-obama-to-stop-supporting-sopa-2-0-30491.htm

    What say you? Is the white House supporting another SOPA-like bill?

    Quire.jpg
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.

    How long ago was that? Because I'm pretty sure that was made really illegal about 5 or 6 years ago.

    They're not buying it FOR the doctors in exchange for anything, they just happened to leave a buffet outside by accident.

    These things happen.

    Isolated incident.

    I'm pretty sure that's still illegal. Although prior to the relatively recent law, it was absolutely the way things worked. Which is why I'm curious as to when he worked there.


    "Drug dinners" as my father calls them, still happens.

    Hell, he was at one the other night on his birthday.

    The drug rep takes local doctors (a bunch of them) to a local restaurant, they all have dinner, and then listen to a lecture about a medical condition and/or medicine, or something combined. It's like a little mini conference.

    Do the dinners make it more likely that the drugs will get prescribed? possibly? But not necessarily. The reps are there from the overall companies, not for one particular drug.

    these things are only really a problem if you've got an immoral doctor.

    The thing that sucks is the lack of free samples the companies used to give out to offices. I went for years on birth control made up of free samples. That's not allowed anymore. And if it is, it's very rare.

    [/off-topic]

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • HarrierHarrier Registered User regular
    So I'm not sure how much truth there is to this. Thought I'd post this and let you guys figure it out.

    http://thephilanews.com/sign-the-petition-tell-obama-to-stop-supporting-sopa-2-0-30491.htm

    What say you? Is the white House supporting another SOPA-like bill?
    I'm honestly not surprised.

    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Either way that article offers nothing in the way of proof. SO I'd love to hear some before we decide the sky is falling.

    Quire.jpg
  • HarrierHarrier Registered User regular
    Also I'd gladly vote for candidates from an American Labor Party. Better them than Democrats, by far.

    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Harrier wrote: »
    Also I'd gladly vote for candidates from an American Labor Party. Better them than Democrats, by far.

    Wait, what you just said is that an imaginary party that you dreamed up to be better than the Democrats is better.

    I mean, if the Theodore Roosevelt Party, where very candidate is TR, existed that would be fantastic.

    But in the real world, the Dems are probably our best bet.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Harrier wrote: »
    Also I'd gladly vote for candidates from an American Labor Party. Better them than Democrats, by far.

    Wait, what you just said is that an imaginary party that you dreamed up to be better than the Democrats is better.

    I mean, if the Theodore Roosevelt Party, where very candidate is TR, existed that would be fantastic.

    But in the real world, the Dems are probably our best bet.

    Ha, I'll show you! I'm going to go off and clone Teddy Roosevelt fifty thousand times and make a political party entirely out of those clones!

    THEN WHO WILL BE LAUGHING?!?!

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    Also I'd gladly vote for candidates from an American Labor Party. Better them than Democrats, by far.

    Wait, what you just said is that an imaginary party that you dreamed up to be better than the Democrats is better.

    I mean, if the Theodore Roosevelt Party, where very candidate is TR, existed that would be fantastic.

    But in the real world, the Dems are probably our best bet.

    Ha, I'll show you! I'm going to go off and clone Teddy Roosevelt fifty thousand times and make a political party entirely out of those clones!

    THEN WHO WILL BE LAUGHING?!?!

    Not African wildlife, I'll tell you that much.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    Also I'd gladly vote for candidates from an American Labor Party. Better them than Democrats, by far.

    Wait, what you just said is that an imaginary party that you dreamed up to be better than the Democrats is better.

    I mean, if the Theodore Roosevelt Party, where very candidate is TR, existed that would be fantastic.

    But in the real world, the Dems are probably our best bet.

    Ha, I'll show you! I'm going to go off and clone Teddy Roosevelt fifty thousand times and make a political party entirely out of those clones!

    THEN WHO WILL BE LAUGHING?!?!

    I, for one, would welcome our badass overlords.

  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Our generation should just revive the Progressive Party (the Bull Moose Party).

    In regards to the pharma/doctor relationship, yes the drug reps still court doctors in various ways but they are spending more and more money on marketing/advertisements. There are certain pros and cons to this, one of the latter being the lack of free samples, but that's a discussion for another thread.

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Most sources consider NIH spending to be "healthcare", and the NIH spends a LOT of money on research.
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    What portion, exactly?

    Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.

    Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.

    How long ago was that? Because I'm pretty sure that was made really illegal about 5 or 6 years ago.

    They're not buying it FOR the doctors in exchange for anything, they just happened to leave a buffet outside by accident.

    These things happen.

    Isolated incident.

    I'm pretty sure that's still illegal. Although prior to the relatively recent law, it was absolutely the way things worked. Which is why I'm curious as to when he worked there.


    "Drug dinners" as my father calls them, still happens.

    Hell, he was at one the other night on his birthday.

    The drug rep takes local doctors (a bunch of them) to a local restaurant, they all have dinner, and then listen to a lecture about a medical condition and/or medicine, or something combined. It's like a little mini conference.

    Do the dinners make it more likely that the drugs will get prescribed? possibly? But not necessarily. The reps are there from the overall companies, not for one particular drug.

    these things are only really a problem if you've got an immoral doctor.

    The thing that sucks is the lack of free samples the companies used to give out to offices. I went for years on birth control made up of free samples. That's not allowed anymore. And if it is, it's very rare.

    [/off-topic]

    No, those things are a problem for everyone all of the time. It is an indisputable fact verified by conclusive research that this sort of thing influences everybody, no matter how intelligent or well-trained you are. No one is immune.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kruite wrote: »
    Our generation should just revive the Progressive Party (the Bull Moose Party).

    In regards to the pharma/doctor relationship, yes the drug reps still court doctors in various ways but they are spending more and more money on marketing/advertisements. There are certain pros and cons to this, one of the latter being the lack of free samples, but that's a discussion for another thread.

    They've figured out it's better to attack the patient. The patient will demand the drug, regardless of merit and probably shop around till they find a doctor who will agree with giving it to them.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    It's interesting to compare how much money pharma corps spend on sales and marketing vs actually researching and developing.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    My dad, an internist, considers drug reps a nuisance more than anything since they interrupt time spent with patients. He actively dislikes a few of them that come around.

    gotsig.jpg
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck NONSTOP INFINITE CLIMAX POSTING you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    less than 5% of the annual healthcare spending in the states is R&D

    its over $2 trillion (something like 2.5 now) spent on healthcare, with only roughly 100 billion being spent on R&D

    i am also uncertain what percentage of that figure is actually drug company marketing

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    sig.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.

    nope.avi

    Research falls under the NIH and NFS. The white house's tax bill thing lumps in the FDA and NIH, but even with that, we spend a total of 1.8% of tax revenue on research compared to 23.7% on "healthcare." Before Medicare is taken into account.

    sig.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I probably don't want to know, but tell me anyway

    sig.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I had an idea for a Dem ad, with hippy-ass protestors screaming and marching and chanting "something." You don't know what the something is because everything is mute and you see a bunch of pubs in suits in a building behind windows, ignoring them. Then it says.

    "When you don't vote, you don't have a voice."

    steam_sig.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I probably don't want to know, but tell me anyway

    They all rushed in and tried to make the Trayvon Martin issue about income inequality. Hell, you can still see it in how white commentators are trying to make the whole thing about ALEC.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I had an idea for a Dem ad, with hippy-ass protestors screaming and marching and chanting "something." You don't know what the something is because everything is mute and you see a bunch of pubs in suits in a building behind windows, ignoring them. Then it says.

    "When you don't vote, you don't have a voice."

    This needs to be a thing.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I probably don't want to know, but tell me anyway

    They all rushed in and tried to make the Trayvon Martin issue about income inequality. Hell, you can still see it in how white commentators are trying to make the whole thing about ALEC.

    Making it about ALEC is probably better for everyone in the long run actually.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    ALEC?

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Cantido wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I had an idea for a Dem ad, with hippy-ass protestors screaming and marching and chanting "something." You don't know what the something is because everything is mute and you see a bunch of pubs in suits in a building behind windows, ignoring them. Then it says.

    "When you don't vote, you don't have a voice."

    This needs to be a thing.

    Or then you show young people going into a voting booth and then their complaints blare through intercoms in the building.

    I dunno. Give me Final Cut Pro and some actors, I can do a better job than the Dems.

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    ALEC?
    What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

    Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

    What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman

    It's a conservative lobbying organization, funded by exactly who you'd expect, with the sole purpose of writing legislation to be passed by state governments in order to further a right-wing pro-corporate agenda.

    Most notably an incredible well funded, incredibly successful, incredibly powerful and incredibly secretive one.

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    As to the earlier questions, it still happens at the clinic, all the time. I keep in touch with all the people there.

    They show up with catered food around breakfast or lunch, leave reading material regarding the drugs, and will hang out in the break room with the hopes of catching a PA or a doctor so they can discuss the finer points of the drug with them.

    The reps are all super attractive men or ex-college cheerleaders. Who are also coached very well on how to talk about the drug to doctors as to not appear as uneducated on the topic as they likely are.

    It's not illegal if it is wrapped into the framework of talking to doctors about new research and ongoing trials and stuff that was recently printed in the journals.

    And if they happen to leave a stack of Procrit sticky notes or a phone cord detangler with their company logo on it? Cool beans.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I probably don't want to know, but tell me anyway

    They all rushed in and tried to make the Trayvon Martin issue about income inequality. Hell, you can still see it in how white commentators are trying to make the whole thing about ALEC.

    Making it about ALEC is probably better for everyone in the long run actually.

    Pretty much entirely irrelevant.

    Joining a march for a particular issue and instead pushing your preferred whatever is bullshit.

    sig.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    What's wrong with vegans? o_O What makes you think they belong in a group that are making OWS useless? OWS has mnay problems but it goes beyond simply appeasing said groups. It's their entire platform is far to vague and trying to please everyone simultaneously. That and they seem to be limited with their resources & creating a long term organization strong enough to effect politics in any meaningful way*.

    * getting dialogue started over certain issues is fine, it's just that's a first step not the only step

    Harry Dresden on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.

    In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.

    There might be a connection there. Maybe.

    So much rage

    OWS could have slingshotted into making actual changes to reduce wealth disparity and whatever else.

    Instead they decided vegans and anarchists were more important groups to curry favor from than people who wanted to promote their ideals within the existing political system.

    I want to punch every hippie, I swear to Christ.

    Did you hear about the shit they pulled at the hoodie march?

    I had an idea for a Dem ad, with hippy-ass protestors screaming and marching and chanting "something." You don't know what the something is because everything is mute and you see a bunch of pubs in suits in a building behind windows, ignoring them. Then it says.

    "When you don't vote, you don't have a voice."

    Voting only seems to give us the lesser evil. OWS needs to impact the system itself to get what they want, which won't be solved just by voting.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Maybe, but if you don't vote and the GOP wins more seats, we end up with more BS like what's going on in MI.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Maybe, but if you don't vote and the GOP wins more seats, we end up with more BS like what's going on in MI.

    True. However, the Democratic party do a terrible job selling themselves to voters. That is when they're not alienating voting blocs who are meant to be their allies. Give them someone worth voting for and they'll vote, not the slightly less corrupt
    asshole who will sell them out the instant they get into their shiny new office.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    You have to do something though. Anarchy doesn't work as long as there is some form of representation. These people want to get to the 100% my ideals without going through 1-99% Compromise is a thing that exists and if they are all or nothing, they will end up with less.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You have to do something though. Anarchy doesn't work as long as there is some form of representation.

    True. I'm not condoning anarchy, btw. I'm talking about getting directly involved in the political process itself.
    These people want to get to the 100% my ideals without going through 1-99% Compromise is a thing that exists and if they are all or nothing, they will end up with less.

    It's not a compromise when they're agenda is the first being thrown under the bus or ignored entirely from discussions at the political level when the "leaders" not only are politically closer to the opposition, it's no secret they despise said voting blocs. Making the Democratic party into a sane Republican party helps no-one except Republicans.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    You have to do something though. Anarchy doesn't work as long as there is some form of representation.

    True. I'm not condoning anarchy, btw. I'm talking about getting directly involved in the political process itself.
    These people want to get to the 100% my ideals without going through 1-99% Compromise is a thing that exists and if they are all or nothing, they will end up with less.

    It's not a compromise when they're agenda is the first being thrown under the bus or ignored entirely from discussions at the political level when the "leaders" not only are politically closer to the opposition, it's no secret they despise said voting blocs. Making the Democratic party into a sane Republican party helps no-one except Republicans.

    Republicans and America.

    Scenario: The GOP continues to eat itself alive, No True Scotsmanning itself into a sad parody of its already sad parody of an existence. The Democrats are now far too big, so they split into a Conservative and Liberal wing (the Tories in the UK basically being our Democrats after all). All this has happened before and will happen again.

    And there's a reason the left is thrown out first, they're the first ones to jump ship the minute things don't go their way.

    OWS has crossed the line from useful to hot air, imo, because the organization now is just saying "we're not interested in getting people into office". I'd like that to not be the case, but that's where we are today. It's time for OWS to grow up and put up or shut up. We've already got the Republicans trying to suppress votes, we don't need voters to do it to themselves, yeah?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Another knock on OWS is that they just can't make a single unified voice, each little clique or individual has their own idea about what needs to happen. And since they think they are right, they refuse to come to a consensus. So not only are they fucking themselves by not voting, at least against the GOP if not for the the Dems, they are fucking themselves by not uniting into one voice and tearing themselves apart through infighting.

    Ironically, it mirrors the current GOP in that some of the OWS protesters dislike those who want compromise and they are no true Scotsman as well.

    I'm all for having the moral high ground, but this is real life. Compromise is needed and if they want real change, they need to find a politician and support them. It will never happen because they love the smell of their own asses, but I think OWS is doing more damage than good now by preaching they won't vote.

    Fucking hippies.

This discussion has been closed.