Could someone explain why FOX News is so detested by the AF?
How are they worse than any other main stream news channels ?
(I am not an American)
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 12:16:07 AM
Could someone explain why FOX News is so detested by the AF?
How are they worse than any other main stream news channels ?
(I am not an American)
Rupert Murdoch (does great things in Australia and GB also), Mr Ailes (recently fired for sexual harassment); connection to Republican propaganda, candidates and psyop of all kinds ... like Salon over in Democrat central committee.
Partisanship ... which I generically despise them for ... but then I despise (over this past election year) Salon and other Democrat party propaganda organs. If even one of them had genuinely supported Bernie ... I could forgive them. For two Presidential elections in a row, Fox News has supported the freak show that is the Republican party primary lineup. Trump schooled them however, not just the liberal media.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 12:16:07 AM
Could someone explain why FOX News is so detested by the AF?
How are they worse than any other main stream news channels ?
(I am not an American)
Because it's so intensely biased to push conservative agendas that it is flat out unreliable. They blatantly lie and deliver half-truths.
Other mainstream media outlets are also pretty bad, but Fox news is so bad that they are a parody of themselves.
If it makes you feel better, there are tons of liberal media outlets that are equally absolute shit as Fox news and The Blaze, as well.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 12:36:30 AM
Because it's so intensely biased to push conservative agendas that it is flat out unreliable. They blatantly lie and deliver half-truths.
Other mainstream media outlets are also pretty bad, but Fox news is so bad that they are a parody of themselves.
If it makes you feel better, there are tons of liberal media outlets that are equally absolute shit as Fox news and The Blaze, as well.
It is maybe a bad thing to propagandize the voters, but particularly poor form to do it incompetently and blatantly.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 12:36:30 AM
Because it's so intensely biased to push conservative agendas that it is flat out unreliable. They blatantly lie and deliver half-truths.
Other mainstream media outlets are also pretty bad, but Fox news is so bad that they are a parody of themselves.
If it makes you feel better, there are tons of liberal media outlets that are equally absolute shit as Fox news and The Blaze, as well.
Yeah, lots of news outlets get stuff wrong (http://thecolligere.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/6a00d83451d69069e20120a54d2da3970c-800wi.jpg) or present true things in an intentionally misleading way (http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/files/2012/08/foxgraphic.jpg). But Fox News takes it to the next level (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#Photo_manipulation), becoming practically synonymous with lying. Fox News is the media equivalent of conservapedia, and anyone who hasn't figured that out yet probably never will.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 21, 2017, 01:24:33 AM
Yeah, lots of news outlets get stuff wrong (http://thecolligere.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/6a00d83451d69069e20120a54d2da3970c-800wi.jpg) or intentionally misleading (http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/files/2012/08/foxgraphic.jpg). Yet Fox News takes it to the next level (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#Photo_manipulation), becoming practically synonymous with lying. Fox News is the media equivalent of conservapedia, and anyone who hasn't figured that out yet probably never will.
Jesus. Those photo manipulations... what the fuck? lol I didn't even know they went that low
Fox News has a strong right-wing bias and is therefore untrustworthy as a news source. That's why.
I remember following 9/11 they deliberately showed footage of a Palestinian wedding celebration to make viewers think that they were celebrating the terrorist attacks. Fox News routinely lies, and even sued for the right to lie, and won.
The major difference I see is, like many things in this "left v right" debate, is that FOX is just so disgustingly deceitful and unwilling to admit it... but that there is not an even remotely equal left leaning rag that mirrors it in terms of popularity and reaching power.
It feels very much like the "SJW" debate; while we cry over issues ten states away, that a few people decided on, that effects no one out side their community but somehow heralds the end of the great, free America we know... the exact opposite group controls the house, the Senate, the supreme court and now the presidency and are actively passing laws that actually effect everyone, but that's more-or-less okay because we have to hate both sides equally and thus focusing on them is wrong, or how dare someone's gender or sexuality differ from mine and they want to be treated the same as anyone else. Shit, we just had someone ask what is wrong with mocking the disabled.
It's part of the reason I have been phasing this forum out of my routine, and I think it's the same reason many other's have as well; for a group of "free thinkers" it becomes extremely closed minded and toxic if you don't hate the same people we do.
QuoteBecause it's so intensely biased to push conservative agendas that it is flat out unreliable.
I see now. Thanks for clearing it up.
Here is my opinion.
I do not think there is any major difference in the two political parties.
Americans (and other countries) are fooled that it makes a difference. It does not.
The name of the game is to seize power. Other than that, they are self serving politicians, looking after themselves.
Here in the UK we have the labour and the conservative party.
In the last election the conservative party won.
Absolutely nothing changed, except the Prime Minister.
Might as well not bothered voting at all. ( I didn't)
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.†-
Mark Twain
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 01:48:54 AM
I see now. Thanks for clearing it up.
Here is my opinion.
I do not think there is any major difference in the two political parties.
Americans (and other countries) are fooled that it makes a difference. It does not.
The name of the game is to seize power. Other than that, they are self serving politicians, looking after themselves.
Here in the UK we have the labour and the conservative party.
In the last election the conservative party won.
Absolutely nothing changed, except the Prime Minister.
Might as well not bothered voting at all. ( I didn't)
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.†- Mark Twain
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S CONSERVATIVE; IT'S THAT THEY FLAT OUT LIE. THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH LYING. IF ALL YOU GOT OUT OF THIS WAS "I don't like Fox News because it's conservative media" YOU'RE ARE BLATANTLY IGNORING THE FACTS AND POINTS WE BROUGHT UP.
For fuck's sake, dude. Out of all the things we supplied you with for your question, that is all you got from it???
Like..... Hydra even linked you with direct examples of why they are a useless news source. It has nothing to do with them being conservative. It's that they have practically zero truth in their broadcasts
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 01:48:54 AM
I see now. Thanks for clearing it up.
Here is my opinion.
I do not think there is any major difference in the two political parties.
Americans (and other countries) are fooled that it makes a difference. It does not.
Trump's presidency is making plain that there is a stark difference between the two.
The parties are diametrically opposed on the following issues (not an exhaustive list):
Abortion, gay marriage (and gay rights in general), global warming (and environmental issues in general), church/state separation, healthcare, taxation of the rich, education, ... and that only scratches the surface.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 02:56:06 AM
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S CONSERVATIVE; IT'S THAT THEY FLAT OUT LIE.
The two go hand in hand.
Quote from: Atheon on January 21, 2017, 03:32:30 AM
The two go hand in hand.
Not the point.
Sent from your mom.
News for you.
All Mainstream Media lies.
Either by fabrication, distortion or by omission. Period.
All depends on which lies you want to hear.
Most mainstream news is sourced and verifiable, and adhere to journalistic standards. When they do make false statements, they post retractions and corrections.
Always check sources and cross-check with other organizations. And the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence is needed to verify it. And if they mention reptilians, the Illuminati or the New World Order, you can summarily dismiss it.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 03:44:00 AM
News for you.
All Mainstream Media lies.
Either by fabrication, distortion or by omission. Period.
All depends on which lies you want to hear.
1- No shit. That's not news to.... probably anyone here.
2- some media is worse than others. Fox is one of those that is worse than others.
Fox is in a similar spectrum to the very liberal huffington post, which I personally cannot take seriously, worse than Fox is The Blaze and Info Wars and on the Liberal side, the worse ones are US Uncut, Addicting info, etc
There are more middleground media, like New York Times, BBC, NPR..... that is way less biased and provides more factual reporting. It's still not perfect, but holy hell. They don't spell Fox news "Faux News" for nothing.
I think the 'Democratic' party is a misnomer.
There is nothing democratic about it as recent events have shown.
Renaming it the 'Communist party' would be more appropriate.
When the globalist manage to create their global utopia all your dreams will come true.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 04:25:46 AM
I think the 'Democratic' party is a misnomer.
There is nothing democratic about it as recent events have shown.
Renaming it the 'Communist party' would be more appropriate.
When the globalist manage to create their global utopia all your dreams will come true.
You asked us about Fox News, we answered about fox news. I disagree with Atheon that conservative media and a removal from reality go hand in hand, at least not more than liberal media.
There is both liberal and conservative media that is completely unreliable, where some are more reliable. Fox news is one of them that is completely not reliable.
Is this clear? or do I have to spell it out a different way?
Don't bother.
It is just my opinion. Take it, or leave it.
Besides, my post was not aimed at you personally, but to the forum generally.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 04:25:46 AM
I think the 'Democratic' party is a misnomer.
There is nothing democratic about it as recent events have shown.
Renaming it the 'Communist party' would be more appropriate.
That's an absolute load of horseshit, pr.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 04:25:46 AM
I think the 'Democratic' party is a misnomer.
There is nothing democratic about it as recent events have shown.
Renaming it the 'Communist party' would be more appropriate.
I mean it is total shit but it's not communist lol. Actual communists hate the american democrats.
Quote from: Atheon on January 21, 2017, 06:48:05 AM
That's an absolute load of horseshit, pr.
https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA
https://youtu.be/GOEweZtlonQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUqRXQbg4Ik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cP_mdQvKaU
Are you "getting it"yet?
>asks people to explain something
>snarks off and changes the subject anytime someone doesn't agree with him
>says he doesn't actually care anyways, continues to post over And over
My God, aren't you an insecure little man...
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/213/189/3a6.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on January 21, 2017, 09:09:51 AM
>asks people to explain something
>snarks off and changes the subject anytime someone doesn't agree with him
>says he doesn't actually care anyways, continues to post over And over
My God, aren't you an insecure little man...
What will happen to useful idiots when they are no longer needed?
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 04:25:46 AM
I think the 'Democratic' party is a misnomer.
There is nothing democratic about it as recent events have shown.
Renaming it the 'Communist party' would be more appropriate.
When the globalist manage to create their global utopia all your dreams will come true.
Both parties have whored with the Mandarins in Beijing since Nixon. Is it bad if Russia gets a little love?
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 21, 2017, 06:59:49 AM
I mean it is total shit but it's not communist lol. Actual communists hate the american democrats.
To the Hard Right anything left of what they perceive as "the center" is Communist.
Quote from: Atheon on January 21, 2017, 04:04:47 AM
Most mainstream news is sourced and verifiable, and adhere to journalistic standards. When they do make false statements, they post retractions and corrections.
Always check sources and cross-check with other organizations. And the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence is needed to verify it. And if they mention reptilians, the Illuminati or the New World Order, you can summarily dismiss it.
FDR mentioned the NWO in ... 1941. In a speech to the American people and Congress. I guess he is Reptilian too.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 21, 2017, 06:59:49 AM
I mean it is total shit but it's not communist lol. Actual communists hate the american democrats.
If you mean "communist" today, you mean Cuba and Venezuela? Yes, Cuba and Venezuela hate the Democrats, and the Republicans, because they hate Americans. You can't count Putin or Xi as communists now ... they are mercantilist autocrats. The proper term (and it applies to both parties) is Globalist. Technically they are Mensheviks ... not the classic Bolshevik. So perhaps to you, Trotsky wasn't a true communist ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 21, 2017, 09:34:00 AM
If you mean "communist" today, you mean Cuba and Venezuela? Yes, Cuba and Venezuela hate the Democrats, and the Republicans, because they hate Americans. You can't count Putin or Xi as communists now ... they are mercantilist autocrats. The proper term (and it applies to both parties) is Globalist. Technically they are Mensheviks ... not the classic Bolshevik. So perhaps to you, Trotsky wasn't a true communist ;-)
We would prefer you use the term "Personsheviks", please.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 09:24:22 AM
What will happen to useful idiots when they are no longer needed?
Nailed it.
Quote from: Atheon on January 21, 2017, 03:31:06 AM
Trump's presidency is making plain that there is a stark difference between the two.
The parties are diametrically opposed on the following issues (not an exhaustive list):
Abortion, gay marriage (and gay rights in general), global warming (and environmental issues in general), church/state separation, healthcare, taxation of the rich, education, ... and that only scratches the surface.
Bernie may have a variant position on taxing the rich, but then he isn't a real Democrat, the Clintons are. The other stuff, you are pretty much correct on.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 09:24:22 AM
What will happen to useful idiots when they are no longer needed?
They always have room for more sugar cane workers in Cuba.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 05:03:19 AMIs this clear? or do I have to spell it out a different way?
You were already crystal clear. It's just not something PR is willing to accept, unfortunately.
(https://giant.gfycat.com/RingedYellowHyrax.gif)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 21, 2017, 10:22:03 AM
You were already crystal clear. It's just not something PR is willing to accept, unfortunately.
(https://giant.gfycat.com/RingedYellowHyrax.gif)
Ok cool.
Sent from your mom.
Fox isn't allowed to call itself "News" in Canada, as I understand it. Cold must make people smarter.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 21, 2017, 01:04:59 PM
Fox isn't allowed to call itself "News" in Canada, as I understand it. Cold must make people smarter.
That was Bill Hicks's theory too
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 01:54:41 PM
That was Bill Hicks's theory too
Maybe Canadians aren't asshats ... eh?
I haven't watched Fox in a while, but at this point I think it might be fair to say that MSNBC is just as bad. I really liked MSNBC once upon a time, but at this point they are turning into the Onion. Maybe even more absurd than the Onion.
Trump saying "America first" is dark and Hitlerian!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XvZL69uB8
Chancellor Merkel wasn't amused. Germany is afraid we aren't their bitch anymore. This is why the Nato reaction ... without the US, they need to study Russian ... just like they already did in 1815. Not as bad as it sounds, the Russians are always under the sway of French croissants ... and that really pisses the Germans off.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 21, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
Trump saying "America first" is dark and Hitlerian!
The Committee to Defend America First was an isolationist group that existed for about a year before Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 8th, 1941, it closed its offices for good.
The isolationists wanted to ignore what Hitler was doing in Europe, "it's not our problem!" Happily, the American public thought the Axis was a problem. Polls showed greater than 65% said we have to fight the Axis sooner or later, and that they were a threat to the US way of life. Polls also showed that the majority were okay with arming US freighters for defense against the U-boats, even if that meant war with Germany.
The principle star of the America First show was Charles Lindbergh, who quite happily let Herman Goering lead him around Germany by the nose and failed to check the tail numbers of the "many" airplanes he saw there. His estimate of German airpower was 3 times higher than reality. He got a medal encrusted with swastikas for that bit of aid-and-comfort.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 21, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
I haven't watched Fox in a while, but at this point I think it might be fair to say that MSNBC is just as bad. I really liked MSNBC once upon a time, but at this point they are turning into the Onion. Maybe even more absurd than the Onion.
Trump saying "America first" is dark and Hitlerian!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XvZL69uB8
Yeah, I mean I guess it sounds ridiculous, if you don't know history and don't understand the reference...
Quote from: Baruch on January 21, 2017, 02:11:45 PM
Maybe Canadians aren't asshats ... eh?
No, that people that live in colder weather are generally smarter and more educated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx4maV6EJQM
Trotsky was a Menshevik. He understood the rise of Hitler even better than Churchill. He also understood Stalin even better than Churchill. But then he was Jewish ;-)
The neo-libs are basically Mensheviks, in the US and around the First World. Totalitarian internationalist, rather than totalitarian nationalist (like Hitler and Churchill).
So yes, the historical references are obvious, to Mensheviks. They think that all Germans are Nazis, and that all Nazis are Hitler. Slavs and Jews have good reasons to fear Germans. And Trump is German-American. So is my mother. You will all be made to bake strudel and like it! Churchill initially admired Mussolini. The British Royal Family was pro-German and initially pro-Nazi (until King Edward abdicated). They recently brought out the old photo of young Princess Elizabeth making the Zeig Heil ... and one of her grandsons got in trouble at a fancy dress party dressed as a Hitler-Jungen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166699/Is-moment-Edward-forced-Mrs-Simpson-Sieg-Heil-Picture-shows-Duke-raising-Duchess-s-arm-salute-crowds-visit-Italian-island-1938.html
(http://www.popspotsnyc.com/pretzel_logic/Pretzel_logic.jpg)
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 08:22:15 PM
Yeah, I mean I guess it sounds ridiculous, if you don't know history and don't understand the reference...
Maddow explained that in the clip, but I think that's silly. He can't use the simple generic term "America first" because some other shitty people used it too? What should America be? Second? Remember when Obama said that the US shouldn't be the world police anymore and that they should focus on fixing things at home? Yeah, I don't think Trump means it either. The world police you will remain.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 21, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
I haven't watched Fox in a while, but at this point I think it might be fair to say that MSNBC is just as bad. I really liked MSNBC once upon a time,
I haven't watched MSNBC since I got rid of my TV 5 years ago. In fact, I got rid my TV partly because of the noise, usually political in nature. I decided I could get enough noise from the Internet, if I wanted it. Since then, even the Internet has become more intrusive. I go to read an article and half way through the first paragraph, a video starts up (always set to maximum volume). Sometimes the video might be related to the article. That's bad enough, but when it's about something else, I react with loathing, because they deny me a right to concentration. Usually I ditch the article right there, give the site a hardy "Fuck Off", and find something else. But I still have more control over the internet because there is a wealth of alternate stuff to take a chance on.
When I first discovered MSNBC, I thought it was kind of cool to be shitting all over Republicans the way Republicans shit all over Democrats, but eventually I got just as tired of the format as I did of Rush Limbaugh, because it's unhelpful noise. Sure there was lots of truth in it, but it's objective was to redirect attention away from Policy A, and to create a general hatred of the opposition, when Policy A was actually of more importance than simply getting angry in general. Throw in an annoying weasel like Chris Matthews cutting everyone off mid sentence, and it becomes offensive.
I'd rather take offense on my terms, rather than have someone assume that by turning on the TV, I am granting permission to someone else to think for me, to stir up every last bit of hatred he can find, and then start loading his own trip into the cauldron of my own. Most political "news" today is designed to do just that.
I'm old enough to recognize the limited nature of time, and I'd rather milk the joy out of the rest of mine. I should have learned that in my 20s. But it's never too late to tune out the annoyance of the noise makers, and pot stirrers. Humans are capable of getting pissed off on their own. Do we really need a conductor to tag those bits of hate and turn them into a symphony of chaos?
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 22, 2017, 09:02:23 AM
Maddow explained that in the clip, but I think that's silly. He can't use the simple generic term "America first" because some other shitty people used it too? What should America be? Second? Remember when Obama said that the US shouldn't be the world police anymore and that they should focus on fixing things at home? Yeah, I don't think Trump means it either. The world police you will remain.
Instead of America First, how about American--As Good As We Can Be. ? That way, we would not have to worry about who is first, second, third--just can we do 'this' (whatever) better???? In my personal life I find striving to be the best meant that I had to study in detail who I was to be the 'best' of. I became about personalities and not what I could do to be the better--just the best. So, if I focused on what I could do better I did not then have to worry about the other guys. Maybe I can't be the best in a particular thing, but I could still do the best I could. Or, maybe I can even transcend the 'best' rather than stopping there. When countries start talking about being the first in everything, then it is very easy for Nationalism to take hold--and that is always militant and dangerous.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 22, 2017, 09:02:23 AM
Maddow explained that in the clip, but I think that's silly. He can't use the simple generic term "America first" because some other shitty people used it too? What should America be? Second? Remember when Obama said that the US shouldn't be the world police anymore and that they should focus on fixing things at home? Yeah, I don't think Trump means it either. The world police you will remain.
Whether or not you agree with why people would be upset about it is irrelevant. The fact is, it stirs up many bad memories of the past. Another thing to note is that his speech was put together and written by the alt-right Steve Bannon. So it's more of a clue that him saying "America First" was a reference to that.
Sent from your mom.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 22, 2017, 12:03:57 PM
Whether or not you agree with why people would be upset about it is irrelevant. The fact is, it stirs up many bad memories of the past. Another thing to note is that his speech was put together and written by the alt-right Steve Bannon. So it's more of a clue that him saying "America First" was a reference to that.
Sent from your mom.
Heard that Trump wrote the first draft ... would be disappointed if that isn't true ... but then no President has written his own speeches since Kennedy, as I understand it.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 22, 2017, 12:03:57 PM
Whether or not you agree with why people would be upset about it is irrelevant. The fact is, it stirs up many bad memories of the past. Another thing to note is that his speech was put together and written by the alt-right Steve Bannon. So it's more of a clue that him saying "America First" was a reference to that.
Sent from your mom.
Hip Hip Hooray:
This comes from the German “hep hep,†which was originally a shepherds’ herding cry, so the origin itself was not racially charged. However, during the Holocaust, German citizens began using it as a rallying cry while hunting for Jewish people in the ghettoes. Its anti-Semitic usage even dates back to the 1819 riots (the “Hep-Hep Riotsâ€).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/offensive-words-_n_4144472.html
Now that you have this information, do you think it's still acceptable to say hip hip hooray? That's what I thought. Silly argument. I hope Trump continues using those words and continues offending the thin skinned.
lol really? a herding cry that was used on literal sheep... farm animals, and THEN to round up Jewish people... you are using that as an argument?
This isn't about a term that was once used generally, and then after got associated with a negative event. It's about a term that was coined with malicious intent from the get-go. Similar to "nigger" which will also never be an un-offensive word.
By the way, this article even said that it did not originate as a racist term, so you literally sabotaged yourself with that.
At this point, it's pretty clear you are only arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'm gonna back out.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 22, 2017, 07:57:28 AM
(http://www.popspotsnyc.com/pretzel_logic/Pretzel_logic.jpg)
my friend got to see them this past year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 22, 2017, 03:40:08 PM
lol really? a herding cry that was used on literal sheep... farm animals, and THEN to round up Jewish people... you are using that as an argument?
This isn't about a term that was once used generally, and then after got associated with a negative event.
Why does that matter? The Nazis weren't the first to use the swastika. If you want other examples, whites started using "no can do" to mock Asians. Whites started using "long time no see" to mock indigenous/ native Americans. People don't mean to mock when they use those phrases today. If people don't like America first, that's fine and to each their own, but every country should put itself and it's people first.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 22, 2017, 05:33:11 PM
Why does that matter? The Nazis weren't the first to use the swastika. If you want other examples, whites started using "no can do" to mock Asians. Whites started using "long time no see" to mock indigenous/ native Americans. People don't mean to mock when they use those phrases today. If people don't like America first, that's fine and to each their own, but every country should put itself and it's people first.
Not if George Soros is right about politics, and John Lennon is right about religion ;-)
Quote...but every country should put itself and it's people first.
If they want to fail, perhaps. Selfishness is not a viable long-term investment.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 22, 2017, 06:24:23 PM
If they want to fail, perhaps. Selfishness is not a viable long-term investment.
There are many starving people in India ... you go first ;-) Clearly you are no investor. Investment is most often a win-lose proposition, not a win-win proposition.
Quote from: Baruch on January 22, 2017, 07:17:39 PM
There are many starving people in India ... you go first ;-) Clearly you are no investor. Investment is most often a win-lose proposition, not a win-win proposition.
I invest in causes outside of America, but still within my realm of influence (refugees at the border, church food drives in Mexico). I expect my country to do the same. While short term it probably is a lose-win for me-them, in the long term having more stable neighbours sympathetic towards my people rather than resentful towards them is a huge net gain for a relatively small expenditure.
India does not fall within my realm of influence because I don't have the capital for it to do so. My resources are better spent locally. But if I was a a country, then improving the standards in India, or any potential client, would be within my realm of influence and would be beneficial to my own agendas as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 22, 2017, 06:24:23 PM
If they want to fail, perhaps. Selfishness is not a viable long-term investment.
My idea of putting your own country first does not align with Trump's talking points when he talks about putting America first. To me, putting your country first does not mean taking away support from allies or not doing your part to help limit the damage from climate change, etc. Less aggression towards the Russians would be a good thing though. Giving up on regime change in Syria and no longer trying to replace Assad with ISIS and other terrorists would be a good thing I think. People loved it when Obama said he was going to focus on fixing things in America rather than being the world police. The right attacked hard when he said he would try to get along with others, like Iran for example. You agree that America should be put first too. You just have a different idea of what it means to put America first.
Average annual GDP per capita (worldwide) in 2016 was $10,313. That is your net product/service. Obviously your family income x number of family members is less than that. After taxes at many levels it is smaller still. So work all year, but once you have produced $10,000 in produce/service per capita ... then spend the rest of the year giving it away to the nearest poor person (after you deduct business expenses/profits and taxes first of course, that is ... from the net amount). If you can't live on less than $10,000 per capita per year, then that is your problem, not ours. If you make less than $10,000 per capita per year, you have too many children or can't afford a non-working wife. Put the wife into a paying job. Put the kids up for adoption and stop having more. If the wife won't work for money, kick her out. If you have an adult child living at home who isn't working, make them get a paying job. If they won't get a paying job, kick them out. Also get some greater skills so you can get a more valuable job, this applies to all working members in your family unit. This is the iron rule of arithmetic. It isn't magic or based on how you feel right now. Children should not work for a living, they need to go to school. If they won't go to school, send them to Grandma/Grandpa with a one way ticket ... obviously you are incompetent as a parent, and shouldn't be allowed to raise them. The law of the jungle is this ... either you outrun the cheetah, or you become cat food. Some wildebeests will end up as cat food, just make sure you aren't it.