• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

General political discussion

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't blame all technology. That's a leap you made that I distinguished was largely beneficial and distinct from driverless cars.

I listed a number of technological innovations that were beneficial to the working class and society. This isn't one of them and you know it. This is an attack on the working class, canon of modern society and a cannonball for capitalism.
No it is technology. it isn't an attack. at some point. truck drivers wont be needed and the overall benefits to society will make it happen.
It is no different from techonology eliminating Meter readers, Bank tellers etc

It is no leap I made . There is no difference. I have asked multiple times what the difference is and you have yet to make anything argument differentiating this technology from any other technology that has eliminated or made jobs obsolete.
It isn't an attack . Ive pointed out actual attacks. that will allow these people to hang out in the wind while their jobs are being passed out.

Should a company pay ten people to do a job when one machine can do the work of those ten people at a fractional cost? absolutely not.

This Automated Driver doesn't impact America it impacts Europe as well .

Does America really want to get behind on this like they did Japan in manufacturing ?How did that turn out? let go ask Detroit.

I mean how many examples of Technology. with significant amount of jobs lost does one need to conclude it is the way of things.

Free Market is supply and demand.

Let me ask you a question David.

If someone came up to you and said . hey david we can give you 10 uber cars with no drivers making just a tad bit more than you are now.

Would you take the deal? of course you would cause if you don't on of the other 9 uber drivers will.

You wouldn't give two shits about putting those other 9 guys out of work and certainly not offer them a share of your stake.


Automated driver technology is no different than any other technology that obsoletes jobs and creates none in return.

I haven't made any assumptions. nor have cited any technological advances that created jobs instead of making them obsolete.

I also pointed out that technology isn't phasing out just trucking but a large quantity of positions across the board

You want me to not care about those and only care about the trucking industry that those jobs are somehow more important than than the other projected50-60 million jobs that will be lost to technology over the next 15 years,
 
Last edited:
No it is technology. it isn't an attack. at some point. truck drivers wont be needed and the overall benefits to society will make it happen.
It is no different from techonology eliminating Meter readers, Bank tellers etc

It is no leap I made . There is no difference. I have asked multiple times what the difference is and you have yet to make anything argument differentiating this technology from any other technology that has eliminated or made jobs obsolete.
It isn't an attack . Ive pointed out actual attacks. that will allow these people to hang out in the wind while their jobs are being passed out.

Should a company pay ten people to do a job when one machine can do the work of those ten people at a fractional cost? absolutely not.

This Automated Driver doesn't impact America it impacts Europe as well .

Does America really want to get behind on this like they did Japan in manufacturing ?How did that turn out? let go ask Detroit.

I mean how many examples of Technology. with significant amount of jobs lost does one need to conclude it is the way of things.

Free Market is supply and demand.

Let me ask you a question David.

If someone came up to you and said . hey david we can give you 10 uber cars with no drivers making just a tad bit more than you are now.

Would you take the deal? of course you would cause if you don't on of the other 9 uber drivers will.

You wouldn't give two shits about putting those other 9 guys out of work and certainly not offer them a share of your stake.


Automated driver technology is no different than any other technology that obsoletes jobs and creates none in return.

I haven't made any assumptions. nor have cited any technological advances that created jobs instead of making them obsolete.

I also pointed out that technology isn't phasing out just trucking but a large quantity of positions across the board

You want me to not care about those and only care about the trucking industry that those jobs are somehow more important than than the other projected50-60 million jobs that will be lost to technology over the next 15 years,

How do you not see the difference between driverless cars or self checkout, and cars and the internet?

Please weigh their respective benefits and detriments.

"The way of things" is irresponsible oversimplification.

"Religion is good".


The atomic bomb and solar power., just science.
 
Last edited:
How do you not see the difference between driverless cars or self checkout, and cars and the internet?

Please weigh their respective benefits and detriments.

"The way of things" is irresponsible oversimplification.

"Religion is good".


The atomic bomb and solar power., just science.
Except that once you have 3.5 million people no longer in the trucking industry(which wouldn't happen overnight). Then supply and demand will shift. People and companies will spend less on transported goods because its Cheaper and more efficient leaving them with more money to spend on others things that they couldn't perhaps spend or do because 3.5 million people were in the truck industry.

Noone is guaranteed a job or trade until retirement.

You want to argue about different types of technology. Automation technology has been taking away jobs from factories long time and still continues to do so. All Middle class jobs.

It seems you want to produce a bunch of side arguments and argue over the definition of things.. more power to you.

however I don't see any viable alternative being suggeste d and you still haven't demonstrated an "attack" on the trucking and transportation industry that is any different from advances in technology of other industries that have eliminated a massive scale of Jobs.

What makes a truck driver more special than a Bank Teller or a factory worker?
 
Last edited:
Except that once you have 3.5 million people no longer in the trucking industry(which wouldn't happen overnight). Then supply and demand will shift. People and companies will spend less on transported goods because its Cheaper and more efficient leaving them with more money to spend on others things that they couldn't perhaps spend or do because 3.5 million people were in the truck industry.

Noone is guaranteed a job or trade until retirement.

You want to argue about different types of technology. Automation technology has been taking away jobs from factories long time and still continues to do so. All Middle class jobs.

It seems you want to produce a bunch of side arguments and argue over the definition of things.. more power to you.

however I don't see any viable alternative being suggeste d and you still haven't demonstrated an "attack" on the trucking and transportation industry that is any different from advances in technology of other industries that have eliminated a massive scale of Jobs.

What makes a truck driver more special than a Bank Teller or a factory worker?
No dude, you keep switching your arguments. I've had one, and you just churn out different things

This is boring.

I've explained my stance consistently. Read through them again if you'd like to understand rather then create another post just to talk. I'm not going to repeat my stance because I already have enough times. You either understand it and are trolling or don't and are a waste of time.
 
No dude, you keep switching your arguments. I've had one, and you just churn out different things

This is boring.

I've explained my stance consistently. Read through them again if you'd like to understand rather then create another post just to talk. I'm not going to repeat my stance because I already have enough times. You either understand it and are trolling or don't and are a waste of time.
Switching arguments?
Technology and in this case Automation technology. Is not some orchestrated attack. .

I don't even know what your stance is.. that automation technology shouldn't happen?

Automation technology is no different from any other technology that makes jobs obsolete.

That's what technology does is find new ways to do things not maintain the status quo.

It is really hard to take you seriously David when you say other jobs lost to technology mean nothing to you and are off topic.

Technology will always attack the way we do things and companies will invest and spend money on more cost effective ways to do business.
 
Switching arguments?
Technology and in this case Automation technology. Is not some orchestrated attack. .

I don't even know what your stance is.. that automation technology shouldn't happen?

Automation technology is no different from any other technology that makes jobs obsolete.

That's what technology does is find new ways to do things not maintain the status quo.

It is really hard to take you seriously David when you say other jobs lost to technology mean nothing to you and are off topic.

Technology will always attack the way we do things and companies will invest and spend money on more cost effective ways to do business.


Read my post from yesterday at 3:12.

Then answer the question I asked at 5:03 this morning.
 
House Republicans vote to rein in independent ethics office

Defying the wishes of their top leaders, House Republicans voted behind closed doors Monday night to rein the independent ethics office created eight years ago in the wake of a series of embarrassing congressional scandals.

The 119-to-74 vote during a GOP conference meeting means that the House rules package expected to be adopted Tuesday, the first day of the 115th Congress, would rename the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to the Office of Congressional Complaint Review and place it under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee.

The OCE was created in 2008 to address concerns that the Ethics Committee had been too timid in pursuing allegations of wrongdoing by House members. Under the current House ethics regime, the OCE is empowered to release a public report of its findings even if the Ethics Committee chooses not to take further action against a member.

The move to place the OCE under the Ethics Committee’s aegis stands to please many lawmakers who have been wary of having their dirty laundry aired by the independent entity, but some Republicans feared that rolling back a high-profile ethical reform would send a negative message as the GOP assumes unified control in Washington. President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to “drain the swamp” and has proposed a series of his own ethics reforms.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) opposed the amendment to the House rules package, speaking out against it in the Monday evening conference meeting, according to two people in the room.

But the measure’s sponsor, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), said in a statement that it “builds upon and strengthens” the current arrangement and that it improves the due process rights for the House members under investigation and witnesses interviewed in the course of OCE probes.

“The OCE has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work,” Goodlatte said.

Goodlatte’s amendment to the House rules “provides protections against any disclosures to the public or other government entities,” according to a summary provided by his office, and also mandates that the Ethics Committee — not the OCE itself — make any referral of a potential criminal violation to law enforcement authorities.

“Feedback from Members and staff having gone through review by the OCE has been that those under investigation need increased protection of their due process rights, greater access to basic evidentiary standards, and a process that does not discriminate against them for invoking those rights,” the summary said. “The amendment seeks to strengthen each of these needs while maintaining the basic core of OCE’s functions.”

The measure also prohibits the OCE from investigating anonymous complaints and limits its jurisdiction to the previous three Congresses, aligning its statute of limitations to the Ethics Committee’s.

An OCE spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

Ethics watchdog groups warned Monday that the amendment could undermine public confidence in Congress.

“Threatening its independence is a disservice to the American people who need a nonpartisan body to investigate the ethical failures of their representatives,” said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog organization. “The fact that they do not want an Office with ‘Congressional Ethics’ in the name is a pretty good metaphor for how ethics scandals will be dealt with if this rule passes.”

Democrats, then in the House majority, established the OCE in 2008 in the aftermath of the lobbying scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff to conduct ethics investigations free from political influence. But in recent years, some members of Congress have sought to limit the office and its work.

At the start of the last Congress, Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) pushed for a rule change to stress that people being investigated by the OCE could not be denied their constitutional rights and had a right to counsel. According to media reports, Pearce raised the objection because he felt a staffer in his office had been treated unfairly.

The OCE’s rules permit people under investigation to work through a lawyer.

Last summer, Pearce repeated such complaints during comments on the House floor, when he proposed an amendment to limit the OCE’s funding, arguing that it was justified by government-wide budget restrictions and the need “to give notice to the OCE that we’re watching what you’re doing.”

The pushback hasn’t come only from Republicans. In 2011, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) — who had been subject to an OCE investigation — drafted an amendment to slash funding from the OCE by 40 percent, calling the office “redundant and duplicative” of the House Ethics Committee. That amendment was rejected.

Democrats pounced Monday on the Republicans’ move. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the GOP “has acted to weaken ethics and silence would-be whistleblowers” and that the proposed arrangement “would functionally destroy” the OCE.

“Republicans claim they want to drain the swamp, but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Pelosi said. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

The House Ethics Committee is composed of sitting members of Congress, while the Office of Congressional Ethics is run by a six-member board with two alternates. One alternate position is currently vacant.

It does not have subpoena power, but its reports and investigations are often a first vetting in situations where members are alleged to have violated the rules of congressional conduct. Several of the cases reviewed by the OCE have been referred to the House Ethics Committee for further proceedings.

In the Senate, there is no equivalent of the Office of Congressional Ethics.
 
This is a little out of my wheelhouse..

What is the definition of "wrongdoing"? Or is that how it has been written: vaguely, to cover more area in gray?

I am for transparency, full force, I do however make the distinction between political wrongdoing and personal: Martin Luther King was an adulterer. That shouldn't define him, and if they had let it, he wouldn't have made the progress he did.
 
This is a little out of my wheelhouse..

What is the definition of "wrongdoing"? Or is that how it has been written: vaguely, to cover more area in gray?

I am for transparency, full force, I do however make the distinction between political wrongdoing and personal: Martin Luther King was an adulterer. That shouldn't define him, and if they had let it, he wouldn't have made the progress he did.

It was initially created after the jack abramoff lobbying scandal. Whether or not they ended up investigating personal matters, I do not know.
 
This is a little out of my wheelhouse..

What is the definition of "wrongdoing"? Or is that how it has been written: vaguely, to cover more area in gray?

I am for transparency, full force, I do however make the distinction between political wrongdoing and personal: Martin Luther King was an adulterer. That shouldn't define him, and if they had let it, he wouldn't have made the progress he did.

The House Ethics Committee is composed of sitting members of Congress, while the Office of Congressional Ethics is run by a six-member board with two alternates. One alternate position is currently vacant.

It does not have subpoena power, but its reports and investigations are often a first vetting in situations where members are alleged to have violated the rules of congressional conduct. Several of the cases reviewed by the OCE have been referred to the House Ethics Committee for further proceedings.

In the Senate, there is no equivalent of the Office of Congressional Ethics.
 
Probably should be pointed out that unlike other Committees, the House Ethics Committee is populated equally by members of both parties. The majority party does not get a majority on the Committee.
 
Does this guy need help packing his backs? I can help.

View: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/816786503414202369

This is actually a good thing to bring up for debate to stir the pot a bit. Because, in this case, Fartbango is correct.

The four attacks, Hood, Boston, San Bernadino and Orlando are all cases of domestic terrorism. None of the fuckers were trained, equipped or financed by any outside organization. They were independent actors who used Islam as an excuse and, in all but one case, it is debatable if Mohammedanism was the primary motivating factor.

It brings to question how should we classify true foreign-based terrorism. ISIS, in these cases (except Hood as that pre-dated ISIS), had nothing to do with these people outside somewhat claiming credit for their actions and the sort-of, kind-of lip service paid them by the perpetrators. Compare and contrast that to Al-Qaeda's attacks, and attempted attacks on the US.

If ISIS tweeting a thanks at anyone that kills in the name of Allah, even if they had no hand in the matter, is the criteria for classifying foreign versus domestic terrorism, should we then also classify Dylann Roof's attack in Charleston as foreign terrorism because of his expressed admiration for Rhodesia and being inspired by an Austrian-born former German corporal?

Is an idea that inspires the same as material support? Should we re-evaluate what we consider foreign terrorism because the nature of terrorism itself is evolving?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top