At Some Point You’ve Made Enough: Fill in the Blank

Obama: “You’ve Made Enough Money”

President Obama says, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” This is one of those perfect setups that would be difficult to pass up without commenting. Here some responses found on the internet to the Presidents remark:

  • I think at some point the Government has printed enough money.
  • I do think at a certain point you’ve served enough days as President.
  • I do think at a certain point you’ve told enough lies.
  • I do think at some point you’ve got enough power.
  • I do think at a certain point that your welcome has expired.
  • I do think at a certain point the government has spent enough money.

The list of snappy retorts is far from complete, so here are some more I haven’t seen yet. At some point you’ve…

  • Broken enough campaign promises.
  • Divided the country enough.
  • Ignored the Constitution enough.
  • Spent enough on bailouts.
  • Borrowed enough money.
  • Created enough federal agencies.
  • Bullied enough countries.
  • Created enough regulations.
  • Preached enough on how we should live our lives.
  • Sold enough future generations into slavery.
  • Run our lives enough.
  • Created enough entitlements.
  • Distributed enough wealth.
  • Vilified making money enough–time to let it go.
Share Button

Fears of US Political Violence Put in Perspective: Softcore

Warnings of political violence and domestic terrorism in America seem to be all the rage these days. Bricks thrown through windows and buses being egged–oh my!

It is just talk; for real examples of political violence, you have to look outside of the US: places like Iraq, where today suicide bombers killed 42 people. Or South Africa, where President Jacob Zuma called for unity after the murder of a white supremacist on Saturday.

No curfews in America due to riots, as there are in India right now. Police in riot gear aren’t battling protesters, but they are in the UK where the EDL clashed with police over a new mosque being built.

Below is a video that sums up the fighting being waged in America today. When it comes to political violence and domestic terrorism, I think the US might just come in dead last.

Washington D.C Monument pillow fight April 3rd 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYLPvZiBuog

Share Button

Biggest Ponzi Scheme: Hey Kids, Wanna See Something Really Scary?

John Stossel: The Biggest Rip-Off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNae72uHow4

I have to admit to a sadistic thing I do I like to do:  telling 18 to 24-year-olds about Social Security. It’s priceless, the look of shock and disbelief that hits their faces when told that none of the money they pay into Social Security has been set aside for them.

Before the deer-in-the-headlights expression fades, I continue explaining that any money left over from payments to Social Security recipients is just spent on other things. Well, it used to be spent on other things, when there was something left over…

Then I go on to tell them what I did as a teenager, when I found out Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. I told my parents they really screwed up, it was all their generations’ fault. My mother responded, “Well, just wait and see; you’ll find out there isn’t anything you can do about it either.” Yep, Mom was right!

And if that wasn’t cruel enough, I finish with the total Medicare and Social Security unfunded liabilities of around 60 TRILLION dollars and a Dr. Evil laugh.

Share Button

Biggest Ponzi Scheme: Hey Kids, Wanna See Something Really Scary?

John Stossel: The Biggest Rip-Off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNae72uHow4

I have to admit to a sadistic thing I do I like to do:  telling 18 to 24-year-olds about Social Security. It’s priceless, the look of shock and disbelief that hits their faces when told that none of the money they pay into Social Security has been set aside for them.

Before the deer-in-the-headlights expression fades, I continue explaining that any money left over from payments to Social Security recipients is just spent on other things. Well, it used to be spent on other things, when there was something left over…

Then I go on to tell them what I did as a teenager, when I found out Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. I told my parents they really screwed up, it was all their generations’ fault. My mother responded, “Well, just wait and see; you’ll find out there isn’t anything you can do about it either.” Yep, Mom was right!

And if that wasn’t cruel enough, I finish with the total Medicare and Social Security unfunded liabilities of around 60 TRILLION dollars and a Dr. Evil laugh.

Share Button

Stock Photos: The “Ad Agencinem” Fallacy

In the Ad Agencinem fallacy – If an actor or model is used in a political ad, the political message itself is false by association. The underlying argument is if the everyday people in the photos aren’t people who’ve actually said they are against an issue, then there aren’t any everyday people opposed the issue.

If there was a disclosure requirement every time an actor or stock photo is used in advertising, then virtually every advertisement would require a disclaimer. As-seen-on-TV commercials would need an explanation that the anguished looks on the actors’ faces were put-on, just to make sure no one thought the people weren’t acting.

It is a given people in advertisements have been paid for the use of their likeness. Not pointing out that a person was paid to have their picture used in an ad is not a political deception.

For an example of the Ad Agencinem fallacy see ThinkProgress piece on American Petroleum Institute Uses Stock Photos Of ‘Americans’ To Defend Oil Subsidies

Big Oil is using fake “Americans” to defend billions in tax subsidies. The American Petroleum Institute is running full-page ads in Politico and Roll Call that attack Congress for “new energy taxes”:

The target of this ad is the Obama administration’s effort to remove $36 billion in loopholes and subsidies for the oil industry. As it turns out, the “Americans” presented in the ad are stock photos from Getty Images:

As one commenter on ThinkProgress put it:

pakaal says: API used an ad agency to make an ad for them. The ad agency used stock photos, as all ad agencies do. There is nothing newsworthy in that, and anyone who has worked in an ad agency would agree.

The use of stock images is not anything new. Here is an article about the same stock photos being used multiple times for different companies. Washington Street Journal – When Marketers See Double

The ad from Key Bank portrayed a heart-warming family moment: a dad pointing out something on his laptop to his smiling young daughter as she leans over his shoulder. In fact, the scene may have been a little too charming. The same image appears in a recent marketing brochure — from Bank of America.

Both banks say they bought the image from a photo agency that deals in stock pictures, not realizing the other was making the same selection. “We try not to use the same images as other competitors … if it happened, it happened,” says Joan Peloso, marketing services director for Cleveland-based KeyCorp, the bank-based financial services company

No one can tell from a photo if the people are Americans. You can tell they represent what Americans look like. If the ad agency had drawn pictures of typical Americans, there wouldn’t be an issue. There is no misrepresentation in the ad, because those photos are what Americans look like.

For a real example of misrepresentation in advertising, all you need to do is look at this ad right next to the article on ThinkProgress.

Clicking on the I lost my stomach in 4 weeks ad takes you to an Acai Berry Diet page. The ad has “Julia from News 6” volunteering to go on the diet.

To get started, I volunteered to be the guinea pig. I applied for a bottle of the Acai Optimum. While there are ton’s of Acai berry ads online, Acai Optimum is one of the most credible and trustworthy suppliers on the market. It included the free* trial of the product and it did not try to fool me into agreeing to additional hidden offers.

The person pictured as “Julia from News 6”–as everyone on Fark knows–is actually Mélissa Theuriau, French journalist and news anchor.


Share Button

If you take their money, you have to take their crap

There is a rule all of us know, but aren’t always consciously aware of: if you take their money, you have to take their crap. This is just how society works; it’s not written into law, but most us live by the principal every day without giving it much thought.

If you’ve ever asked a friend or relative for money, then you probably already know the rule. You may get the money, but with strings. “OK, here is the money, but I’ll expect to see you at the family gathering you usually avoid.” Or maybe even worse, “Here is the money, but I’d really appreciate it if you would return the favor and rub my foot corns.”

Sometimes the money comes with much larger strings attached. Taking money from someone else can lead to the person giving the money running your life. “Here is the money, but I’ll expect you to – stop smoking, go back to school, lose the facial piercings, start going to church, etc.”

Working for a living means you’ll take crap from your employer because they pay you. If you work the cash register or take payments at your job, you take crap from the customer. Even if you are self-employed, whoever you take money from has the unspoken authority to give you crap about your product or service.

Those who know the crap rule were not surprised to see the government complain about bonuses paid in the banks and auto industry. If you take money from the government, then it’s safe bet you’ll have to take some crap from them. The reverse of this is also true: politicians can expect to take crap from those who donate large amounts to their campaigns.

The rule works both ways most of the time – If you hand money to someone else, they have to take your crap. If you are at a restaurant and don’t like the service or food, you can freely complain or refuse to give a tip. If the service is lousy, you can threaten to take your business elsewhere.

There are some people who take your money and instead give you crap. Doctors, mechanics, and PC technicians have been known to take your money for service and turn around and give you crap about poor maintenance. People who ignore the unspoken crap rule do so at their own peril, because you can go and find someone else to take your money who will not give you grief.

In all the above examples, the person taking the money does a cost-benefit analysis. Is the crap I have to take for the money worth it? We all have our own crap-to-money calculations. As long we have some say in deciding how much crap we are willing to put up with, we usually play along. The crap rule is far from perfect, but at least it gives each person involved some limited control of the transaction.

The one area where the crap rule does not apply at all is between an individual and government. The rule here is that the government takes your money and gives you crap and you have no control. Government doesn’t have to play by the crap rule, because they have the power to take money from you without your consent.

Government takes money from you and then turns around and tells you you’re are too fat, greedy, lazy, stupid, ignorant, addicted, selfish, impatient, pampered, intolerant, unhealthy, unloving, fiscally irresponsible and to top it off, you complain too much. All these may be true; the point is, it’s a violation of the crap rule for the one who takes the money to give you crap!

When looking at government through the crap lens, it should come as no surprise that people are angry and fed up with governments in general. The little control we have in our daily lives is nonexistent when dealing with government. The natural rule of refusing to pay or seek service elsewhere just doesn’t apply when it comes to government, and that really is a load of crap.

Share Button

Who wants to be pro-FED?

The hypocrisy of the American two-party system is so equally balanced, I wonder if they meet secretly to decided which party gets to champion the political issues of the day. If they do meet to debate who gets what, I imagine it goes something like this:

Each year the Democratic and Republican parties hold this secret meeting and divvy up political issues. The meeting is moderated by the wealthiest investors, financiers, speculators, and businessmen in America.

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The Republican party is content to keep hold of the following issues – the elderly, low taxes, Christianity, guns, heterosexuals, the rich, small government and the military-industrial complex.

Chairman: The Democratic party is content keeping the young, income taxes, everything but Christianity, the police, homosexuals, the poor, big government, and the anthropogenic global warming complex.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: From what I understand both sides have already discussed privately education and Medicare. Both sides have agreed that it makes senses for the Democratic Party to take education because they already have the young and for the Republican Party to have Medicare because they currently posses the elderly.

Chairman: That leaves us with the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Neither party is willing to concede ownership, so the board has divided them as follows.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party –  Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Republican Party: It makes sense to put the economy and deficit reduction together because if the economy improves we can take credit for deficit reduction too. We should also get to be the champion for jobs because those are tied to the economy.

Democratic Party: Putting social security and healthcare with our party makes sense because both of those are designed to protect people, shouldn’t terrorism go to the us because terrorism is about protecting people too.

Chairman: Its been part of our bi-laws for decades, and once again I’m forced to remind all of you that its doesn’t matter if the issue grouping makes sense. The purpose of dividing the issues is so the American people are equally divided in their support of the parties. As long as the public is divided in support, both parties will remain in power.

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Share Button

Who wants to be pro-FED?

The hypocrisy of the American two-party system is so equally balanced, I wonder if they meet secretly to decided which party gets to champion the political issues of the day. If they do meet to debate who gets what, I imagine it goes something like this:

Each year the Democratic and Republican parties hold this secret meeting and divvy up political issues. The meeting is moderated by the wealthiest investors, financiers, speculators, and businessmen in America.

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The Republican party is content to keep hold of the following issues – the elderly, low taxes, Christianity, guns, heterosexuals, the rich, small government and the military-industrial complex.

Chairman: The Democratic party is content keeping the young, income taxes, everything but Christianity, the police, homosexuals, the poor, big government, and the anthropogenic global warming complex.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: From what I understand both sides have already discussed privately education and Medicare. Both sides have agreed that it makes senses for the Democratic Party to take education because they already have the young and for the Republican Party to have Medicare because they currently posses the elderly.

Chairman: That leaves us with the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Neither party is willing to concede ownership, so the board has divided them as follows.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party –  Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Republican Party: It makes sense to put the economy and deficit reduction together because if the economy improves we can take credit for deficit reduction too. We should also get to be the champion for jobs because those are tied to the economy.

Democratic Party: Putting social security and healthcare with our party makes sense because both of those are designed to protect people, shouldn’t terrorism go to the us because terrorism is about protecting people too.

Chairman: Its been part of our bi-laws for decades, and once again I’m forced to remind all of you that its doesn’t matter if the issue grouping makes sense. The purpose of dividing the issues is so the American people are equally divided in their support of the parties. As long as the public is divided in support, both parties will remain in power.

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Share Button

If Celebrities Became Presidents

A common tactic in politics is to take some views and expand them to an extreme to make others afraid of them.

One of the most common ones is President Obama will reshape the country into a communist country like Soviet Russia. Even if the President were a devout communist, the slippery slope in American politics isn’t very slippery. The last year has shown even the most powerful person on Earth isn’t powerful enough to reshape America.

This isn’t just a left or right tactic. When Mike Huckabee was running for President, the attacker said the country would become a theocracy like Iran. For Ron Paul, the attack was the country would turn into anarchy like Somalia.

Just because one person isn’t powerful enough to reshape the country doesn’t mean we can’t have fun with the idea. Here are some new forms of government if celebrities were to become President.

  • Abe Vigoda: Immortal-ocracy
  • Barbara Walters: Bahwah-ahquacy
  • Carrot Top: Ginger-ocracy
  • Charlie Sheen: Rehab-ocracy
  • Chris Hansen: Itsatrap-ocracy
  • Joel McHale: Snark-ocracy
  • Kelly Osbourne: Ozzy-ocracy
  • Kevin Smith: Twoseat-ocracy
  • Kim Kardashian: Booty-ocracy
  • Moot: Anon-ocracy
  • Nadya Suleman : Octo-ocracy
  • Snooki: Friggin’ocracy
  • Snoop Dogg: Hip-ocracy
  • Tiger Woods: Player-ocracy
Share Button

TMD;ST – Too Much Debate; Stopped Thinking

After seeing there is yet another health care plan from President Barack Obama, I’m becoming an advocate for ignorance and apathy. There is an eleven page PDF about the Presidents latest proposal and my first thought was to respond with tl;dr (“Too long; didn’t read”). The country needs a retreaded health care proposal about as much as the internet needs another opinion… like this one. At this point one more health care proposal or debate is just tears in rain.

I know my first reaction to something isn’t always the best response. I’ve tried to stay informed on the health care debate. I want to have at least a semi-informed view. After hearing this issued debated through a two-year Presidential campaign and a year of Obama’s Presidency I think there has been enough debate. I’ve heard so much about health care that parts of my brain have gone on strike and are boycotting my natural curiosity.

You know that soft spot on a baby’s head? That is what health care is on my brain. The optimist and lizard portions of my brain have been demanding curiosity supply some good news about the economy. Since natural curiosity has done such a poor job supplying any news to satiate the cries from optimism, other portions of my brain have started listening to ignorance and apathy calls to censor optimism. The ugly mess our nation is in, has been reproduced in my consciousness.

The conspiracy part of my brain is still somewhat active (and trying to convince the logic center that the plethora of health care bills is a plot to bring about this apathetic response). Logic is demanding more proof before it will seriously consider conspiracy’s argument.

The logic center is just out of luck in hopes of further information, because TMD; ST (Too Much Debate; Stopped Thinking.)

Share Button