Apparently New Zealand is governed by morons

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Here's one technique people can use - though it isn't quick. When you find a hot button issue, save some of the links, and save the text of the pages. Check back on those pages a year later and run them side by side with what you saved in a word processor that shows revisions. Now look at all the red text and start trying to figure out why they changed it, especially, if they never mentioned the revisions.

And make sure to track both the view you agree with and those you don't. You'll probably find a few surprises that will dismay you. If you do it long enough, you will probably find that some of the people you dislike do have sides of them that you agree with on issues, and that they are just as human, just as fallible and loveable as anyone else.

"

Corporate Psychopaths are reportedly (Boddy 2005b) drawn to business
organisations because within them are the sources of power, prestige and money
they seek to accrue to themselves. A Daily Mail article (Utton 2004) reports
Professor Hare as saying that “Wherever you get power, prestige and money you
will find them (psychopaths)”. The article says that psychopaths tend to be
manipulative, arrogant, impatient, impulsive and charming and have no
conscience.

Another article (Kaihla 1996) claims that Corporate Psychopaths find
wealth and success as highly manipulative corporate careerists and have a
profound lack of empathy and remorse for the harm they do others.
Another article in the Irish Sunday Times (McConnell 2004) reported on another
academic’s research in the same area saying that Michael Barry reports that some
of the country’s business bosses display recognised psychopathic behaviour.
These included an ability to be charming, a thirst for money, power and status
and an ability to manipulate others and be expert liars. He said “the world of
business often rewards people who have these traits, and common sense
suggests that some are occupying high office” but he declined to name any CEOs
showing such signs.

"

Jojas wrote:

It goes without saying that you find these types of people in politics and the media as well.

"

Jojas wrote:

They might be, as an ideal, be just as lovable and fallible as anyone else. But that should not stop one from opposing them and keeping them as far away from power as possible.

"

Jojas wrote:

And I find it not that hard to recognize these kinds of people. They all have the same mantra: I am a selfish asshole because reasons, and you can be a selfish asshole because reasons. That is the kind of society they want to create, because that is where they can flourish.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If I have complete voluntary control over my ability to feel empathy or guilt, does that make me a psychopath?

"

Wazz72 wrote:

"

Statistics corrected for population:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/

C'mon this chart is even more misleading! Norway first - and will stay there for long unless something as big as the Brevnik massacre happens in another small country - lol if you do this kind of corrected charts at least take a longer timeframe! I'd like to see the last 50 yrs, not only 4.

And btw US has more deaths and way more mass shootings than all the other nations combined, but the populations are about the same - 314millions vs. around 300millions combined, this alone says a lot!

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

Jojas wrote:

Regarding your statement about racism: You're probably referring to black on black (or white, yellow, brown) murder rate being higher than any other murder rate. But what difference does it make? It's murder, it's in the US, from US citizens to US citizens. It is a problem about which the USA has to do something. Not go, yeah the blacks are ruining our statistics, and let's just leave it at that. No, find the reasons for that, and try to bring about change.

I think the problem lies within the mentality pushed nowadays.

There's too much victimization on black america and division through blaming whites for everything (Im looking at you Al Sharpton) instead of admiting there's a huge problem that should be tackled and that black people can do it.

Too many people think they need to carry the shackles of their ancestors and make their identity about it, they dont. they are individuals in a growingly more acceptable society, the extremist left isnt helping anyone grow and I wonder when will people realize it.

For that matter, there's so much stupidity in race division that often youngsters consider that guy that is studying hard to be "trying to be white". Gangster culture is destructive.
You are not though because you took a bullet before in a shoot-out. You are just a worthless low-life thug.
We need a new Martin Luther King Jr. Someone who can preach for a higher standard of african-americans and for love between races. Not some Black Panther leader who will excuse any thug's actions and blame it on "whitey".

For that matter, the division on political sides nowadays should really be tackled as well. I mean, at least propaganda. The majority already learned the dangers of extreme right, but people are ignoring too much the dangers of extreme left, I see so much brainwashing that I, as a free-thinker and someone more moderate get to see people often calling me a right-winger as a defamatory definition whenever I dont agree 100% with their thoughts. that is pretty much the left boogeyman.
(hell, some people are so brainwashed they think the KKK was aligned with the conservatives... jesus)

Now not to mean that extreme right-wing doesnt do the same, just that people are not aware of left extremist as much. I see very little discussion and more racism calling than anything.
Needlessly race-baiting articles should be tackled as well. there's a difference between reporting news, making suppositions and clarifying them as such and passing bias suppositions as factual truth. (Im looking at you The Young turks, pretty sad, you used to be objective in the past, but guess that doesnt rack in as much money)


Regarding guns in the US now, I think its not as simple as banning guns.
There's way too many circulating in the country already.
Just thighter control and regulation for acquisition of such.
training included ofc, how stupid someone needs to be to give an uzi to a child? (remember that?
)
I also think the right to own a gun is something good, we are living in peaceful times but if a country ever suffers an invasion, whether or not you can own a gun can make a difference between you and yours having a chance or being slaughtered if your local forces fail u. Also defence of property ofc.
As someone who lives in europe, the threat of ISIS seems pretty real right now. will it take a direct invasion for countries to start to actively hunting them down? If such happens, are people just supposed to resign to their fate and die? I doubt my local police force could do any shit against an armed group, and my country has a small military. If such were to happen I could barely defend myself and my family. Americans have a luxury they dont understand.

I think what's more important is discipline, especially mental. Education is a huge factor. (this ofc relates to all the issues I was talking about)

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Interesting. So when did they switch sides? I've been told several times that yeah it's basically correct what the guy said in the video but at some point the parties switched sides so the Republicans are the racists now and the Democrats are the good people.

I would encourage you to watch the video again.

Nobody changed sides. That's ridiculous on the face of it. Who coordinated this sudden polar change?

Instead, Lyndon B. Johnson (a real son-of-a-bitch; reading up on him is a helluvan eye-opener) instituted his "Great Society" programs, including welfare (whose sole Constitutional justification was using a word from that document to name handouts not otherwise within the Federal government's enumerated powers) in order to make his party look like they cared about poor, black Americans.

All the way up to the beginning of the '60s, it was the Republican party which promoted civil rights, fought tooth and nail by the Democrats. Then, by being able to point at Republican objections to the legislation, the Dems could say that the GOP didn't want to help black people. It's been downhill since then, and the consequences to black Americans have been horrendous.

By the way, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, was a Republican. ='[.]'=

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Jojas wrote:

@DalaiLama: Politifact made a fact checking comparing cable news networks. They found that 60% of claims made by pundits of Fox News are "mostly false", or worse. In comparison 44% of (MS)NBC and just 21% of CNN pundits' claims are "mostly false" or worse. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

This is just fact checking of media outlets, and does not take into account the common denominator of many of the misrepresentations of the right wing media: fear-mongering, or at the very least instilling resentment.
You say the left is just as guilty as the right. But which prominent figure on the left is even remotely comparable, in ignorance, in their bullying discussion tactics, and in extremism, to those on the right? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Or Jon Stewart? Bill Maher? Really, none of them even come close.

I fear that nothing good will come of bringing up specific citations or examples. There will only be hurt feelings, anger and ultimately probations. It can take anywhere from a few minutes to several dozen hours to verify a single sentence or idea, and I've no interest in spending a few weeks proving someone else wrong in a viewpoint.

It won't make them a friend, and it won't change their viewpoint. It can win a debate, and it can win viewers to your side. It can generate a lot of ill will, and it can make teachers and executives frustrated and bitter.

I'm not discussing this to convince you or anyone else. I am doing so to represent that there is a valid opposing viewpoint for people to consider. That's all. People will decide for themselves anyways, but I feel it is better if they have heard both sides of the story before they render their personal verdict.


I will say that relying on someone else to check the veracity and logic of a politician's claims, than you have given up a large measure of how much political spin you can detect. Whether the source is biased, or unbiased, or moderately unbiased is only partially relevant. Sites like politifact can be a good starting point. Checking the sources is another. Sometimes it's as easy as reading the original source and seeing that the person citing it is really twisting/spinning the viewpoint. They might just misinterpret their source, or not have a good grasp of the issue. In any case, learning how to detect when someone is lying or hiding something is a valuable skill that will serve most people well.

Here's one technique people can use - though it isn't quick. When you find a hot button issue, save some of the links, and save the text of the pages. Check back on those pages a year later and run them side by side with what you saved in a word processor that shows revisions. Now look at all the red text and start trying to figure out why they changed it, especially, if they never mentioned the revisions.

And make sure to track both the view you agree with and those you don't. You'll probably find a few surprises that will dismay you. If you do it long enough, you will probably find that some of the people you dislike do have sides of them that you agree with on issues, and that they are just as human, just as fallible and loveable as anyone else.

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights