NationStates Jolt Archive

My local talk radio dude says "yes".....

evidence

- economy is bad
- people are losing jobs
- soldiers are dying in Iraq
- women can now sue if they aren't paid fairly
- abortion is legal
- the government is spending money it doesn't have

Discuss.

1-3: Nothing to do with Obama.
4: That's a GOOD thing, and long overdue.
5-6: The government's been doing that for YEARS. It isn't unique to Obama.

Your local talk radio dude is an idiot.

"Separation in the moral sense" needs at the very least a tighter definition, as "morals" aren't exactly universal.
There is only one objectively correct moral code; therefore, the objections of those who do not subscribe to that moral code are not worthy of consideration.


Wait. You here have made a logical jump. You have gone from "individual" rights to "aggressors" vs "our rights". That is, you went from the idea that the rights are only of individuals, to the concept of community/society.
No, I haven't. When I said "our rights," I wasn't referring to a separate set of "group rights" but rather the aggregate of my individual rights plus your individual rights.

Btw, no executive => no taxes, no police, no prisons.
Who said anything about eliminating the executive? I'm talking about the legislative.

You are displaying a bad habit of pretending I said something other than what I actually said, and attacking that rather than my actual arguments. Please stop.

All taxation is inherently illegitimate, so getting rid of taxes is fine.


Why? Laws should always be made the most "general" possible; judges will apply them to specific cases.
No, that defeats the whole purpose of a written code of law, which is that it is always clear what is and is not a violation. There should be no room for "interpretation."

Ottieni il pensiero dal tuo sporco testa!
Hehehe!:tongue:

Nanatsu, this time your italian was WAY below your usual standards...

"Ottenere qualcosa da qualcuno": to get something from someone.
Better "Togliti" (imperative of togliere + enclytic -ti): "togliere" = "to remove".

"il pensiero"... better "questo pensiero" or "questa idea", demonstratives in italians are important.

"testa"... ends with "a"... hence it's highly likely that it's feminine: hence "dalla tua sporca testa".

To sum it up, it would be "Togliti questo pensiero dalla tua sporca testa!"
While formally correct, no italian would use this sentence; a more common variant would be:

"Toglitelo dalla testa!" (the enclytic -lo refers to what I said).
"Toglitelo dalla mente!"
"Toglitelo dalla testa, sporcaccione!" ("sporcaccione" meaning someone who likes "dirty" things...)

Nanatsu, this time your italian was WAY below your usual standards...

"Ottenere qualcosa da qualcuno": to get something from someone.
Better "Togliti" (imperative of togliere + enclytic -ti): "togliere" = "to remove".

"il pensiero"... better "questo pensiero" or "questa idea", demonstratives in italians are important.

"testa"... ends with "a"... hence it's highly likely that it's feminine: hence "dalla tua sporca testa".

To sum it up, it would be "Togliti questo pensiero dalla tua sporca testa!"
While formally correct, no italian would use this sentence; a more common variant would be:

"Toglitelo dalla testa!" (the enclytic -lo refers to what I said).
"Toglitelo dalla mente!"
"Toglitelo dalla testa, sporcaccione!" ("sporcaccione" meaning someone who likes "dirty" things...)

Yeah, I know. Even after posting that atrocity, I kept staring at it knowing I made a mistake. My apologies for murdering your language, I'm not a 100% today.:$

Scusa mi, Ris.

No, that defeats the whole purpose of a written code of law, which is that it is always clear what is and is not a violation. There should be no room for "interpretation."

Godel's Incompleteness theorem disagrees. No system can be both complete and consistent. Thus there is always room for interpretation.

There is only one objectively correct moral code; therefore, the objections of those who do not subscribe to that moral code are not worthy of consideration.

This "only one objectively correct moral code" being?


No, I haven't. When I said "our rights," I wasn't referring to a separate set of "group rights" but rather the aggregate of my individual rights plus your individual rights.

Mh. So you'd say that "group rights" exist only as sum of individual rights. I don't agree: rights like the right to a culture are inherently social, and have no meaning as individual rights (culture is necessarily a social phenomenon).


Who said anything about eliminating the executive? I'm talking about the legislative.

You said it. I told you: there would be only the judiciary. You said: yes.
Since the government is made by legislative, executive and judiciary...


You are displaying a bad habit of pretending I said something other than what I actually said, and attacking that rather than my actual arguments. Please stop.

You're displaying the bad habit of pretending not to have said what you just said.
I see that you're avoiding to clarify your arguments, by the way. I already asked you what is this "universal code of laws" (more or less) that you think deals away with the need for other laws, and you didn't answer.


All taxation is inherently illegitimate, so getting rid of taxes is fine.

Why?
Btw, is the judiciary supposed to work for nothing and live of charity?

No, that defeats the whole purpose of a written code of law, which is that it is always clear what is and is not a violation. There should be no room for "interpretation."

Then why the need for a judiciary at all?
INSIDE the code of laws, things are always simple clear... it's REALITY that is complex - and a lot more complex than any possible code.

Scusami, Ris.

:fluffle: Come potrei non scusarti?

:fluffle: Come potrei non scusarti?

Grazie, amico.:tongue:

Too early to say.

Godel's Incompleteness theorem disagrees. No system can be both complete and consistent. Thus there is always room for interpretation.

Please do not try to apply concepts out of their proper domain.

Legal philosophy and jurisprudence are not formal systems, so the laws governing formal systems do not apply.

Not to mention your understanding of the GIT is itself severely nonexistent, as it does not support the conclusion you draw even within its proper domain.

Please do not try to apply concepts out of their proper domain.

Legal philosophy and jurisprudence are not formal systems, so the laws governing formal systems do not apply.

Not to mention your understanding of the GIT is itself severely nonexistent, as it does not support the conclusion you draw even within its proper domain.

Why do I always get caught when trying to bend logic, facts and science to fit my worldview.... :confused:

No wonder I failed Trolling 101:(

Mh. So you'd say that "group rights" exist only as sum of individual rights. I don't agree: rights like the right to a culture are inherently social, and have no meaning as individual rights (culture is necessarily a social phenomenon).
Then you're wrong.


You said it. I told you: there would be only the judiciary. You said: yes.
No, I didn't. I said "yes" to "there would be no new laws."

I already asked you what is this "universal code of laws" (more or less) that you think deals away with the need for other laws, and you didn't answer.
Because it's irrelevant to this discussion. It was a red herring, a distraction. Same reason I didn't respond to the first question in the post to which I'm replying, or to a couple of later questions. We'll get to those later; first we need to establish the basics.

Then why the need for a judiciary at all?
Even if there's no need to sort out what the law says, there's still a need to figure out whether or not someone violated that law.

Why do I always get caught when trying to bend logic, facts and science to fit my worldview.... :confused:

No wonder I failed Trolling 101:(

Are you familiar with the term "scientific imperialism"? It refers to the attempt to use the scientific method to attempt to solve problems that are outside the domain of science and don't lend themselves well to that method.

This same basic issue exists in other fields, such as economics and (in the case of your misuse of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) mathematics, as well. Just replace "scientific" with the particular discipline that applies.

Bluthie, old boy, spare us your "there's only one objectively correct moral code, and it's mine" horseshit. No one is purchasing your product.

The rational, moral individuals are.

The rational, moral individuals are.

The rational, moral individuals according to whose definition? Your transparently flawed and entirely self-serving definition? Or the definition ascribed to by reasonable people?

The rational, moral individuals are.

What is it? Describe it to me.

All taxation is inherently illegitimate, so getting rid of taxes is fine.

The economy is relying on taxation and all the associated industries to make the rebound. Real estate and finance have already been pretty hard hit -- now you want to get rid of accounting and lots of lawyers, too? Unemployment ahoy!


Bluthie, old boy, spare us your "there's only one objectively correct moral code, and it's mine" horseshit. No one is purchasing your product.
Well, there is only one objectively correct moral code. It's the one that makes you feel guilty and unclean if you don't follow it. This varies from person to person of course, but it's about as objective as you can get to each person who follows it.

Then you're wrong.
A more polite way of wording it would be "then I disagree".


No, I didn't. I said "yes" to "there would be no new laws."
Oh, I see. I thought you'd meant "yes" to "no legislative, no executive, just judiciary".


Because it's irrelevant to this discussion. It was a red herring, a distraction. Same reason I didn't respond to the first question in the post to which I'm replying, or to a couple of later questions. We'll get to those later; first we need to establish the basics.

I'd say it's quite relevant. Because, if there's ONLY ONE code, this applies to discussions, also.
And, by saying that you're discarding all opinions of those who don't agree with this "code" of yours, you're talking about not just the basics of discussion itself, but even about WHY EVER should two people discuss matters.[/QUOTE]

Even if there's no need to sort out what the law says, there's still a need to figure out whether or not someone violated that law.
There might be a NEED, but there might not be a WAY.

edit, better worded: there might be a NEED, but there might be NO WAY.

Are you familiar with the term "scientific imperialism"? It refers to the attempt to use the scientific method to attempt to solve problems that are outside the domain of science and don't lend themselves well to that method.

Ehm... so, basically, you're meaning that logics (because Goedel's theorem is primarily an item of logics) cannot be applied to law?


mmh, I'd say that we're quickly approaching the point where...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=60944&stc=1&d=1234463195

Well, there is only one objectively correct moral code. It's the one that makes you feel guilty and unclean if you don't follow it. This varies from person to person of course, but it's about as objective as you can get to each person who follows it.

That makes it not objective, but subjective. It may seem objective to each individual person, but the fact that each individual person can have a different idea on what is "objectively" moral and ethical means that it is not objective at all.

That makes it not objective, but subjective. It may seem objective to each individual person, but the fact that each individual person can have a different idea on what is "objectively" moral and ethical means that it is not objective at all.

Exactly.

That makes it not objective, but subjective. It may seem objective to each individual person, but the fact that each individual person can have a different idea on what is "objectively" moral and ethical means that it is not objective at all.

Thank you for explaining my point.

Yeah, I know. Even after posting that atrocity, I kept staring at it knowing I made a mistake. My apologies for murdering your language, I'm not a 100% today.:$

Scusa mi, Ris.

You're still better with his language than I am with yours.

The economy is relying on taxation and all the associated industries to make the rebound.

Wrong.

Those are in part, if not totally, responsible for the current situation. Eliminating them would greatly improve the situation.

A more polite way of wording it would be "then I disagree".
Except it's not mere disagreement; it's that you are, in fact, objectively wrong.

And, by saying that you're discarding all opinions of those who don't agree with this "code" of yours, you're talking about not just the basics of discussion itself, but even about WHY EVER should two people discuss matters.
So that those who are wrong can discover their wrongness so they can change and be right.

edit, better worded: there might be a NEED, but there might be NO WAY.
The mechanics and philosophy of reliably establishing guilt are independent from the question of whether or not laws should be open to interpretation.

Except it's not mere disagreement; it's that you are, in fact, objectively wrong.

How can you tell?

Ehm... so, basically, you're meaning that logics (because Goedel's theorem is primarily an item of logics)
No, it is concerned with formal systems, which is only one small subset of logic.

You're still better with his language than I am with yours.

Awww Maine-chin, you're such a darling!:)

This has been yet another fascinating look into Bluth Corporation's amusingly hypocritical, illogical, impractical and frankly stupid positions. I'm fascinated, I am. This thread, and every other he posts in, definitely needs several hundred more posts of "A=A" and "Everyone except me is moral and rational" and "Then you're wrong."

This has been yet another fascinating look into Bluth Corporation's amusingly hypocritical, illogical, impractical and frankly stupid positions. I'm fascinated, I am. This thread, and every other he posts in, definitely needs several hundred more posts of "A=A" and "Everyone except me is moral and rational" and "Then you're wrong."

Oh, the irony.

You (or anyone else, for that matter) have yet to point out a single flaw in anything I have posted. You've made attempts, but they've all failed miserably.

Since you have no rational or intellectually valid response (which is no surprise, since there is none, since it is impossible to prove false that which is true), you resort to ridicule.

Oh, the irony.

You (or anyone else, for that matter) have yet to point out a single flaw in anything I have posted. You've made attempts, but they've all failed miserably.

Since you have no rational or intellectually valid response (which is no surprise, since there is none, since it is impossible to prove false that which is true), you resort to ridicule.

The most glaring flaw would be your presumed objectivity and infallibility. You are either an egomaniac or a child, holding your ears and shouting "la la la."

Oh, the irony.

You (or anyone else, for that matter) have yet to point out a single flaw in anything I have posted. You've made attempts, but they've all failed miserably.

See kids? He's great, ain't he? He'll be here all week, let's give him a round of applause.

Sorry dude. Only you share this analysis. People have pointed out many flaws in your reasoning, and you saying that they're wrong, insisting that you're right, and adding the word "objectively" to it does not make it so. It's a shame you are unwilling and/or unable to recognize that, but that's your own little problem.

Since you have no rational or intellectually valid response (which is no surprise, since there is none, since it is impossible to prove false that which is true), you resort to ridicule.

Oh, poor you. You get to call everyone else on this forum (!) immoral and irrational, but when you get it flung back in your face you start whining. Can dish it out but can't take it. Cry me a fucking river.

Except it's not mere disagreement; it's that you are, in fact, objectively wrong.

Explain me why, then.
Though I'd guess that your insisted use of "fact" and "objectively" is actually just a cover-up for lack of arguments.

So that those who are wrong can discover their wrongness so they can change and be right.

I didn't say "WHAT FOR". I said "WHY EVER", since you, by establishing a priori a SINGLE universal code of whatever is right and just and correct, intrinsecally rule that, when mr.A and mr.B are discussing, it's either:

Neither A nor B follow the universal code. Hence, their discussion is to be discarded as meaningless - there is no truth or valid method in it.
A follows the code and B doesn't. Hence, this is not a discussion, but an attempt by A to indoctrinate B.
A and B follow the code and hence have to agree. Hence, no discussion.

So, by your standards, we have either meaningless babble, one-sided indoctrination or silence. No discussion, so why would someone call it discussion?

Basically you're hinting that it's the 2nd case the more likely to happen. Still you wouldn't explain what this code of yours is, and why should it be the only one code, and why do you want to discard the opinion of those who don't buy into that code of yours.

I'm getting bored now.

The mechanics and philosophy of reliably establishing guilt are independent from the question of whether or not laws should be open to interpretation.
The mechanics and philosophy of justice are not independent from the question of the interpretation of law, as codes of laws ALSO specify the legal standard of fair trial and of juridical proceedings.

In politics and justice, form and substance enjoy a mutual feedback. Welcome to the world of neverending dialectics.

Awww Maine-chin, you're such a darling!:)

Entonces son usted, señorita más fina.:D

Wrong.

Those are in part, if not totally, responsible for the current situation. Eliminating them would greatly improve the situation.

No, you are the one who is wrong.





Hey, I think I have a surefire way to win arguments now. "Blah blah blah blah blah." "No, you're wrong." "Damn."

I don't think we will have a good grasp on his failure or success for at least another two years.

Take it from my own conservative standpoint who voted John McCain: NO.

No, Obama is not a failure as a president. For starters it's only what 30-40 days? I can't remember how much, oh well two months into his administration. Of course we are in the middle of a crisis, things usually get worse before they get better. He's got a lot to do for his first 90 days as it is, think about the next three years he has to endure. (And very likely the next three years to come, in 2012.) If you want to satire the Obama cult who felt things would magically get better day one, well that's a great way to do it.

No doubt though the radio commentator is a moron who's looking to tear Obama down every chance he gets. Frankly i don't buy into that nonsense. And honestly Obama has impressed me so far, even with some of the things I may disagree on.

Keep at it Obama!

You (or anyone else, for that matter) have yet to point out a single flaw in anything I have posted.

I already did.
You systematically avoid to answer direct questions, even if asked more than once. This means that you have no answer, or that you fear that your answer is going to be rejected.

No, you are the one who is wrong.





Hey, I think I have a surefire way to win arguments now. "Blah blah blah blah blah." "No, you're wrong." "Damn."

Not to mention the ever-popular "LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!:D

No, you are the one who is wrong.





Hey, I think I have a surefire way to win arguments now. "Blah blah blah blah blah." "No, you're wrong." "Damn."

You didn't use the magical word.
You should have said, "No, you are objectively the one who is wrong."

I already did.
You systematically avoid to answer direct questions, even if asked more than once. This means that you have no answer, or that you fear that your answer is going to be rejected.

No, man, you're wrong. You're objectively wrong. Wrongness defines you. Wrongity-wrong.

You didn't use the magical word.
You should have said, "No, you are objectively the one who is wrong."

Wrong wrongy wrong-wrong wronghead. I don't need to use the objective magical word, you wrongnik.
I'll stop now.

The most glaring flaw would be your presumed objectivity and infallibility. You are either an egomaniac or a child, holding your ears and shouting "la la la."
No, there's a third possible option. He could be a deliberate troll who has developed a neat little online character and act, which he uses to derail discussions because it amuses him to make himself the center of attention by distraction. Personally, I've chosen to bet on that option, and that's why I ignore him.

Entonces son usted, señorita más fina.:D

Gracias.:D

Uhm HELLO!!!
How long has Obama been in office compared to how long every one waited to Bush to fuck this country up horribley??
Answer that.
He's not a bad president b/c he can't take car of every thing in a day.
All these people never spoke up for any thing with Bush.
Every one just sat there and bitched about it.
Obama is probably trying.
It's going to take more the a term,
And he's taking up his life to do this.
You really have a problem with this people??
I'm not understanding,
Please clarify??
If Bush managed to take two terms to get our country this far into S***,
Then it's going to take a lot longer to get out of it.
It takes more time to get out of trouble then in it.

I don't think we will have a good grasp on his failure or success for at least another two years.
This. ^^ Just in case the topic of the thread has not already been thoroughly settled, i.e. that Obama is not a failure as a president, and that particular talk radio show host is as stupid as those guys appear required to be.

Wrong wrongy wrong-wrong wronghead. I don't need to use the objective magical word, you wrongnik.
I'll stop now.

Aha! I kept for me the SECOND, more powerful, magical formula...

IN FACT, it is you who are objectively wrongly wrong!

As I said before, eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand pwned you and does a silly little dance of triumph.


(though "wrongnik" was quite funny)


Anyway, I cannot fail to notice that he still OBJECTIVELY didn't explain yet what that universal sublime supreme all-pwning code of his should be, IN FACT.

I like that name: Ayn Rand. Ayn is a nice name, it has quite the ring to it.

I like that name: Ayn Rand. Ayn is a nice name, it has quite the ring to it.
Ayn rhymes with "mine" it's a rather harsh name.

Ayn rhymes with "mine" it's a rather harsh name.

Mine Ayn. A good name for a death metal band's song.

See kids? He's great, ain't he? He'll be here all week, let's give him a round of applause.

Sorry dude. Only you share this analysis. People have pointed out many flaws in your reasoning, and you saying that they're wrong, insisting that you're right, and adding the word "objectively" to it does not make it so. It's a shame you are unwilling and/or unable to recognize that, but that's your own little problem.



Oh, poor you. You get to call everyone else on this forum (!) immoral and irrational, but when you get it flung back in your face you start whining. Can dish it out but can't take it. Cry me a fucking river.

Hey, you're talking to the economics professor who thinks the country should sell its national monuments to the highest bidder. And I bet you unlike us peasants is he thoroughly familiar with the writings of eminent 20th Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Ayn rhymes with "mine" it's a rather harsh name.

And even if you use the most common mispronunciation, Ayn then rhymes with "pain." There's no getting around it. She was/is not fun to hang out with.

And even if you use the most common mispronunciation, Ayn then rhymes with "pain." There's no getting around it. She was/is not fun to hang out with.

Ayn In Pain! Rock band name gold!!!!!

Hey, you're talking to the economics professor who thinks the country should sell its national monuments to the highest bidder. And I bet you unlike us peasants is he thoroughly familiar with the writings of eminent 20th Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Familiar with? I bet a doughnut he's scandalously intimate with them.

Ayn In Pain! Rock band name gold!!!!!
We may reclaim her legacy yet. :D

I like that name: Ayn Rand. Ayn is a nice name, it has quite the ring to it.

Let's try to make it italian-like...


Ainna Randa (accent on the bolded letters...)

not italian enough...

Gina! Gina Randa! (quite better).

We may reclaim her legacy yet. :D

Right on!:D

Ayn In Pain! Rock band name gold!!!!!

We may reclaim her legacy yet. :D

How about Aynal Sodomy?

Ayn In Pain! Rock band name gold!!!!!

Ayn's a pain, and clearly she's insane?

Let's try to make it italian-like...


Ainna Randa (accent on the bolded letters...)

not italian enough...

Gina! Gina Randa! (quite better).

Gina Randa sounds like a good pr0n alias. If I ever become a pr0n artist, that would be my name. *nod*:tongue:

Gina Randa sounds like a good pr0n alias. If I ever become a pr0n artist, that would be my name. *nod*:tongue:

Mine is "Rock Hard", which is also a good name for a member of an '80s hair band.

Mine is "Rock Hard", which is also a good name for a member of an '80s hair band.

I lol'd!:D

He is not a failure, nor is he a success.

Oh, the irony.

You (or anyone else, for that matter) have yet to point out a single flaw in anything I have posted. You've made attempts, but they've all failed miserably.

Since you have no rational or intellectually valid response (which is no surprise, since there is none, since it is impossible to prove false that which is true), you resort to ridicule.

There's not a single flaw to point out because your entire position, and quite honestly by extension you as a person, is flawed. Every word you type begins its life with the very much mistaken assumption that your narrow and limited personal perspective has some sort of objective weight, when the sad reality is that your personal opinion has literally no bearing on the reality that surrounds it. You can continue to hock your ignorant excuse of an argument all over these forums, but no one is going to buy this premise that your subjective set of morals and ethics are somehow the objectively correct ones.

How can you tell?

don't MAKE me come down there.

Is that a question?

Do you have to ask?

what's too good?

"Ooooooh baby!" Do you realize the innuendo potential here?

i google image searched and found it. know what else is cute? kids. obama wants them all to have health care. how do you define failed president anyway?

I don't know why "take care of the cuties" never occurred to me as a policy for government, but the more I think about it, the more it seems brilliant.

Do you have to ask?

Yes.

Do you need to reaffirm?

A lolcat.

YA WE LULC4TZ LIKE TEH PR3Z!!! 111!!!

...google, anyway.

Actually, you are wrong.

whether you use "a" or "an" has not to do with the first letter of the word, as some would have you believe, but with the initial sound. Hence it is a[b]n[/n] honest mistake. Because even though H is a consonant, it's silent so the initial sound is "ah."

So, if you pronounce it el-oh-el-cat, than it should be an. If you pronounc is lul-cat, it should be a. But she's not neccessarily wrong.

Yes.

Do you need to reaffirm?

Do you see what I'm doing?

Do you see what I'm doing?

Should I?

If the borders weren't drawn up already, or if they ever came down, I think Maine and my home province of New Brunswick would get along really well. Mainely because it's the exact same place but with different flags.

Fixed! God, my wit kills me!

I always pronounce Ayn as "Ann" in my head. . .

Should I?

Would you like to play along?

If the borders weren't drawn up already, or if they ever came down, I think Maine and my home province of New Brunswick would get along really well. Mainly because it's the exact same place but with different flags.

New Brunswick is a cultural wasteland that's frozen solid most of the year, and where most of the people in the northern part of it think they're Québécois?

Would you like to play along?

Can I play along?

New Brunswick is a cultural wasteland that's frozen solid most of the year, and where most of the people in the northern part of it think they're Québécois?

Yeah, pretty much.

Can I play along?

Why wouldn't you?

Forget a honeymoon, Obama didn't even get laid on the wedding night.

I feel like Republicans are so scared of him making them irrelevant that they think if they rail him hard enough people will forget.

Forget a honeymoon, Obama didn't even get laid on the wedding night.

I feel like Republicans are so scared of him making them irrelevant that they think if they rail him hard enough people will forget.

He's not having much of a honeymoon with Pelosi, if you've noticed.

- economy is bad
- people are loosing jobs
- soldiers are dying in Iraq -Dubya's mess

- women can now sue if they aren't paid fairly
- abortion is legal -Good stuff

the government is spending money it doesn't have
So what's new?

My local talk radio dude says "yes".....

evidence

- economy is bad
- people are loosing jobs
- soldiers are dying in Iraq
- women can now sue if they aren't paid fairly
- abortion is legal
- the government is spending money it doesn't have

Discuss.

Wow! I am no fan of Obama butlet's give him a little time to prove himself before we rush to judgment.

There's not a single flaw to point out because your entire position, and quite honestly by extension you as a person, is flawed.
Incorrect.

Every word you type begins its life with the very much mistaken assumption that your narrow and limited personal perspective has some sort of objective weight,
It's actually quite objectively true, your irrational assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

when the sad reality is that your personal opinion has literally no bearing on the reality that surrounds it.
When have I ever claimed it did? Are you seriously incapable of understanding the massive difference between "It's true because I say it's true" and "I say it's true because it's true"?

but no one is going to buy this premise that your subjective set of morals and ethics are somehow the objectively correct ones.
That's not my premise; it's my conclusion--and it's not "subjective".

My premise is the Universe.

Incorrect.


It's actually quite objectively true, your irrational assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.


When have I ever claimed it did? Are you seriously incapable of understanding the massive difference between "It's true because I say it's true" and "I say it's true because it's true"?


That's not my premise; it's my conclusion--and it's not "subjective".

My premise is the Universe.

Okay. You keep claiming that you have objective proof. Yet, when called on it, the most you ever produce is A=A. Now, from that, derive every position that you claim to be objective fact. If you can't do so, you prove yourself to be either a troll or an idiot.

Okay. You keep claiming that you have objective proof. Yet, when called on it, the most you ever produce is A=A. Now, from that, derive every position that you claim to be objective fact.

What do you want me to do, exactly?

All my conclusions follow immediately from the fact that A is A. There are no intermediate steps. So there's not a whole hell of a lot more left to do.

it amazes me that people can read this story and think the problem with the city was that the crowd wanted to have sex with the (disguised as) male angels and not that they wanted to rape them.

It sorta sends the message that god's ok with the raping, not so much about WHO they were raping. The point about the stories is that the cities were destroyed because of their inhospitability towards strangers, not that they were "teh gay".

And by using the story as an excuse to marginalize gays in the community, the religious right is just as guilty of the behavior that, supposedly, merited destruction of cities.

So much for christian love...

^This.

The rational, moral individuals are.

Circular much? "My claim is true because everyone who is rational and moral believes in it. They are rational and moral because they believe my claim."

Mine is "Rock Hard", which is also a good name for a member of an '80s hair band.

Ebeneezer Screws.

Actually, you are wrong.

whether you use "a" or "an" has not to do with the first letter of the word, as some would have you believe, but with the initial sound. Hence it is a[b]n[/n] honest mistake. Because even though H is a consonant, it's silent so the initial sound is "ah."

So, if you pronounce it el-oh-el-cat, than it should be an. If you pronounc is lul-cat, it should be a. But she's not neccessarily wrong.

See also: "an hero", of Anon fame.

Incorrect.

no u

When have I ever claimed it did? Are you seriously incapable of understanding the massive difference between "It's true because I say it's true" and "I say it's true because it's true"?

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to understand the difference that is, as you say, massive. You think you're saying the second, but you're only saying the first.

That's not my premise; it's my conclusion--and it's not "subjective".

You're right. It's not subjective, it's just wrong.

My premise is the Universe.

Clearly not the one I'm in.

Incorrect.


It's actually quite objectively true, your irrational assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.


When have I ever claimed it did? Are you seriously incapable of understanding the massive difference between "It's true because I say it's true" and "I say it's true because it's true"?


That's not my premise; it's my conclusion--and it's not "subjective".

My premise is the Universe.

At this point I have to admit: I have no idea what you're talking about.

At this point I have to admit: I have no idea what you're talking about.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3041/pancakebunnypa9.png (http://imageshack.us)

Actually, you are wrong.

whether you use "a" or "an" has not to do with the first letter of the word, as some would have you believe, but with the initial sound. Hence it is a[b]n[/n] honest mistake. Because even though H is a consonant, it's silent so the initial sound is "ah."

So, if you pronounce it el-oh-el-cat, than it should be an. If you pronounc is lul-cat, it should be a. But she's not neccessarily wrong.

I think that the value of your understanding of english grammar is quite insufficient.

You should really repeat your early grades, if you can't spell "necessarily", or, within the same paragraph, switch randomly between "pronounce" and "pronounc", or write meaningless clauses like "if you pronounc is lul-cat" (it's unclear if it should have been "if your pronounciation is 'lul-cat' " or "if you pronounce it as 'lul-cat' ".

Overall, I'd say it's an F. Or a 2/10 in italian marks.

It's actually quite objectively true, your irrational assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Objectively true = its truth being independent from the subject observing it.

Hence, explain why it's true, or quit bragging about your "objectivity".


When have I ever claimed it did? Are you seriously incapable of understanding the massive difference between "It's true because I say it's true" and "I say it's true because it's true"?

Until you prove a logical and solid proof of the truth of your claim, the two sentences are exactly equal.

That's not my premise; it's my conclusion--and it's not "subjective".
My premise is the Universe.
Then, elaborate, avoiding logical jumps.

By the way, if your premise is the Universe, I get that you should know it quite well. So you might care about explaining me why the force of gravity is proportional to the (-2) power of the distance, and not to the (-2,000000000000000001).
And, of course, the answer cannot be geometrical BECAUSE the only one thing we're sure about the geometry of the space-time, it's that it's not Euclidean.


...or maybe you meant that your premise is your own experience... which might be a bit more accurate, but quite less impressive.


By the way, buster, you still haven't explained what that "universal unique code of rightfulness" is. Third request...

At this point I have to admit: I have no idea what you're talking about.

Objectively, in fact.

My local talk radio dude says "yes".....
- economy is bad
- people are loosing jobs
- soldiers are dying in Iraq
- women can now sue if they aren't paid fairly <- paid for more work than they actually do, because they don't have the time to work more
- abortion is legal <-This is good.
- the government is spending money it doesn't have
I agree (minus the point 5).

Most importantly, he isn't gay (or at least hasn't come out), which kinda kills the whole point of having a black president.

you prove yourself to be either a troll or an idiot.

This is a false dichotomy. ;)

Indeed. It means he is NOT a member of the accursed party that got the US into this crapper in the first place. You don't need to say anything else.

Which party was it that passed the law that required banks make sub-prime mortgages? Which party had an unhealthy obsession with Metropolitan Urban Limits that drove up the price of houses in the first place?

I believe the name of that party begins with a D

Why wouldn't you?

Perhaps I am clueless?

My local talk radio dude says "yes".....


Well there's your problem.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-economy-2.html

Not a failure, but if he keeps on with this sort of thing...

President Barack Obama speaking at the Caterpillar plant in East Peoria, Illinois Thursday afternoon on his economc stimulus plan (see video below) still before Congress:

"When they finally pass our plan, I believe it will be a major step forward on our path to economic recovery. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off. And that's a story I'm confident will be repeated at companies across the country."

Jim Owens, chief executive officer of Caterpillar who announced 22,000 layoffs recently and supports the president's plan, was asked if he agreed with that re-hiring assessment:

"I think, realistically, no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

Incorrect.


It's actually quite objectively true, your irrational assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.


When have I ever claimed it did? Are you seriously incapable of understanding the massive difference between "It's true because I say it's true" and "I say it's true because it's true"?


That's not my premise; it's my conclusion--and it's not "subjective".

My premise is the Universe.

In other words, you have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous assertions, you're completely incapable of forming even the most rudimentary arguments, and you're delusional to the point of madness in your interpretation of reality. You might as well post random excerpts from Berenstain Bears books.

I think that the value of your understanding of english grammar is quite insufficient.

You should really repeat your early grades, if you can't spell "necessarily", or, within the same paragraph, switch randomly between "pronounce" and "pronounc", or write meaningless clauses like "if you pronounc is lul-cat" (it's unclear if it should have been "if your pronounciation is 'lul-cat' " or "if you pronounce it as 'lul-cat' ".

Overall, I'd say it's an F. Or a 2/10 in italian marks.

:O A TYPO?!?! HEAVEN FORBID!

I think your understanding of the difference between spelling and grammar is quite insufficient.

My typos and misspelling do not actually change the fact that your assumption that she should've said "a" instead of "an" is pretentious and not necessarily correct. And it's true, at home I use firefox's spell checker, but when I'm in the computer lab at school using IE, I don't bother to double check the spelling of every word I type. Also, not that I expect you to sympathize, but my brain moves rather fast and sometimes my typing has difficulty keeping up, resulting in minor mistakes, such as a missing the word "as."

Also, if your going to be a Nazi about correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you should at least capitalize Italian, don't you think?

My local talk radio dude says "yes".....

evidence

- economy is bad
- people are loosing jobs
- soldiers are dying in Iraq
- women can now sue if they aren't paid fairly
- abortion is legal
- the government is spending money it doesn't have

Discuss.

Forgive me, but why on earth were you listening?

Perhaps I am clueless?

Well can you find out?

Well can you find out?

Maybe?

Maybe?

When?

When?

Should I try now?

Should I try now?

Don't you want to?

Don't you want to?

Must I want to?

Must I want to?

Do you want me to order you about? ( http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif )

Do you want me to order you about? ( http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif )

Oooh, are you that fesity?http://intjforum.com/images/smilies/flirt.gif

Oooh, are you that fesity?http://intjforum.com/images/smilies/flirt.gif

You win! I can't even BEGIN to respond to that smiley lol

Which party was it that passed the law that required banks make sub-prime mortgages? Which party had an unhealthy obsession with Metropolitan Urban Limits that drove up the price of houses in the first place?

I believe the name of that party begins with a D

A law that REQUIRED banks to "make sub-prime mortgages"? I assure you, as a banking and securities regulation attorney, no such law exists. If you are referring to 12 U.S.C. § 2901, as you probably are, then I assure you, despite what the right wing blogs tell you, it doesn't do what you think it does. not even close.

You win! I can't even BEGIN to respond to that smiley lol

All in good fun, my fellow nymphette.:wink:

You win! I can't even BEGIN to respond to that smiley lol
Too easy - http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif

Too easy - http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif

Is it me or you just challenged Dubsy and me to a smiley show-down?http://www.allservicelimo.com/images/Smiles_cool_smiley2_prv_1_.gif

Too easy - http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pimp.gif

Ah, but you didn't reply with a question, either, m'dear.

Ahh, I missed the whole point of starting a new game. Mornings really aren't my strength :p

Oh and just to drive the point home:

Public support for an $800 billion economic stimulus package has increased to 59% in a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Tuesday night, up from 52% in Gallup polling a week ago, as well as in late January.

A law that REQUIRED banks to "make sub-prime mortgages"? I assure you, as a banking and securities regulation attorney, no such law exists. If you are referring to 12 U.S.C. § 2901, as you probably are, then I assure you, despite what the right wing blogs tell you, it doesn't do what you think it does. not even close.
as a banking and securities lawyer....what is your take on the banking crisis and can we get out of it with the infusion of massive amounts of government money?

Which party was it that passed the law that required banks make sub-prime mortgages? Which party had an unhealthy obsession with Metropolitan Urban Limits that drove up the price of houses in the first place?

I believe the name of that party begins with a D

Oh, yeah, years of Bush deregulating it all, resulting in an utter decrease of trust as banks lent money like nuts, and some little pieces of regulation are to blame. :rolleyes:

Is it me or you just challenged Dubsy and me to a smiley show-down?http://www.allservicelimo.com/images/Smiles_cool_smiley2_prv_1_.gif
Sounds good - http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/apple.gif

as a banking and securities lawyer....what is your take on the banking crisis and can we get out of it with the infusion of massive amounts of government money?

You know that’s a tough question, and I”ll admit readily that being an attorney is different than being an accountant or an economist (no family, I can’t do your taxes for you, I’m not an accountant. Yes I know tax law, no that won’t help me do your taxes, get an accountant), but I do have some background in economics, so lemme take a stab at it.

There are two main issues facing our economy right now, which is the obvious one, unemployment and underemployment, as well as a general credit crunch. The problem with the American economy is that it is overwhelmingly service based, thus it’s very susceptible to to changes in the economic structure domestically, less so than a manufacturing and exporting economy (though they are far more susceptible to changes abroad). The American economy is largely predicated on people spending money. If people STOP spending money, we have big problems.

Think about it this way, if you lose your job, or are even less secure in your job, the first thing you do is stop buying luxury. You don’t buy the big screen tv, or the new jeans, or that xbox you wanted. And that store that sells Xboxes? If they make a 15% profit margin they’re lucky, so if just 16% of the money coming in stops..that store is now going broke. And it closes, and fires its workers. Now THEY aren’t spending money either.

Which is the whole idea of this bailout package, is two step. First is to create jobs. It doesn’t matter WHAT jobs. It could be, as Keynes put it, to have people dig holes in the dirt then fill them up again. Get money in their hands, and let them spend it. Get Americans back to buying stuff again. And when they do that, stores won’t have to fire people, and then THOSE people will have money in THEIR hands. Give people a job doing SOMETHING.

The second problem with our economy right now is a credit freeze. I know, I know, credit is what got us into this mess, but some credit is good. Businesses need credit. If they can’t get credit, they can’t buy inventory, they can’t pay rent, bad things happen. There isn’t a business in this world that hasn’t taken credit at SOME point. And to some extent, a situation of “yo, here’s free money, now fucking LEND IT” is good, as long as banks are required to do so.

Now the question is “can we get out of it without the bailout”. Well sure, eventually. Economy recover in time. Capitalism is like a weed, it’ll grow where ever given an inch. Sometimes though it grows to much that it strangles everything else, and starts to wither and die. At which point there’s really only two things to do. Prune the bad parts out and let the rest survive, or just defoliate the whole fucking thing and wait for it to grow back.

I have to say, just the title of this thread really pisses me off. I mean, I'm not satisfied with everything Obama has done, or failed to do. He's not perfect, and for all I know he may be just as bad as Bush. But Bush had eight years to fuck up America and the World. Can't we at least give Obama a few months to clean up the mess?

Case in point, of the complaints quoted in the OP, numbers 1, 2, and 3 are in no small part Bush's fault, and will take time to fix. Numbers 4 and 5 I conditionally approve of (5 also predated Obama's Administration), and number 6 is probably an unfortunate nessessity as a result of numbers 1, 2, and 3.

What do you want me to do, exactly?

All my conclusions follow immediately from the fact that A is A. There are no intermediate steps. So there's not a whole hell of a lot more left to do.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6899/birdhairal1.jpg

You know that’s a tough question, and I”ll admit readily that being an attorney is different than being an accountant or an economist (no family, I can’t do your taxes for you, I’m not an accountant. Yes I know tax law, no that won’t help me do your taxes, get an accountant), but I do have some background in economics, so lemme take a stab at it.

There are two main issues facing our economy right now, which is the obvious one, unemployment and underemployment, as well as a general credit crunch. The problem with the American economy is that it is overwhelmingly service based, thus it’s very susceptible to to changes in the economic structure domestically, less so than a manufacturing and exporting economy (though they are far more susceptible to changes abroad). The American economy is largely predicated on people spending money. If people STOP spending money, we have big problems.

Think about it this way, if you lose your job, or are even less secure in your job, the first thing you do is stop buying luxury. You don’t buy the big screen tv, or the new jeans, or that xbox you wanted. And that store that sells Xboxes? If they make a 15% profit margin they’re lucky, so if just 16% of the money coming in stops..that store is now going broke. And it closes, and fires its workers. Now THEY aren’t spending money either.

Which is the whole idea of this bailout package, is two step. First is to create jobs. It doesn’t matter WHAT jobs. It could be, as Keynes put it, to have people dig holes in the dirt then fill them up again. Get money in their hands, and let them spend it. Get Americans back to buying stuff again. And when they do that, stores won’t have to fire people, and then THOSE people will have money in THEIR hands. Give people a job doing SOMETHING.

The second problem with our economy right now is a credit freeze. I know, I know, credit is what got us into this mess, but some credit is good. Businesses need credit. If they can’t get credit, they can’t buy inventory, they can’t pay rent, bad things happen. There isn’t a business in this world that hasn’t taken credit at SOME point. And to some extent, a situation of “yo, here’s free money, now fucking LEND IT” is good, as long as banks are required to do so.

Now the question is “can we get out of it without the bailout”. Well sure, eventually. Economy recover in time. Capitalism is like a weed, it’ll grow where ever given an inch. Sometimes though it grows to much that it strangles everything else, and starts to wither and die. At which point there’s really only two things to do. Prune the bad parts out and let the rest survive, or just defoliate the whole fucking thing and wait for it to grow back.
actually my question is "can we get out of it WITH the bailout?"

im pretty sure that without government intervention we are in for a world of hurt that will affect the whole world and cost us more than the ...... 2 trillion we have put into it so far (when this stimulus passes).

but i do soooo hate to trust economists and politicians to do the right thing with huge amounts of money when i know next to nothing about how likely it is to work.

actually my question is "can we get out of it WITH the bailout?"

im pretty sure that without government intervention we are in for a world of hurt that will affect the whole world and cost us more than the ...... 2 trillion we have put into it so far (when this stimulus passes).

but i do soooo hate to trust economists and politicians to do the right thing with huge amounts of money when i know next to nothing about how likely it is to work.

Oh right, right, sorry. Well still most of what I said is fairly valid. I’m a Keynsian, at my core. I think government spending CAN work. I find utterly rediculus all the people who try to argue that “it wasn’t the New Deal that got us out of the depression, it was world war 2!” What was world war 2 other than a HUUUUUGE increase in government spending, on things like soldiers and food and boats and bullets, all backed by war bonds? I think the problem with the New Deal was a bit too ambitious, and a bit too cluttered, the War provided some very simple, and very focused areas of spending. It wasn’t. “if we fiddle with this, and mess with that…” it was “shit, we need guns…NOW”, which has an elegant simplicity all to its own.

But yes, I think this recession can be fixed by two things: 1) get people employed, and 2) get banks lending. And if it takes the government paying people to dig holes in the dirt then fill them up, so be it. Yes, I think it can work, but it’s going to take some real focus.

What was world war 2 other than a HUUUUUGE increase in government spending, on things like soldiers and food and boats and bullets, all backed by war bonds?
A devastation of pretty much every other economy in the world, giving the US a tremendous absolute competitive advantage over everyone else.

Oh right, right, sorry. Well still most of what I said is fairly valid. I’m a Keynsian, at my core. I think government spending CAN work. I find utterly rediculus all the people who try to argue that “it wasn’t the New Deal that got us out of the depression, it was world war 2!” What was world war 2 other than a HUUUUUGE increase in government spending, on things like soldiers and food and boats and bullets, all backed by war bonds? I think the problem with the New Deal was a bit too ambitious, and a bit too cluttered, the War provided some very simple, and very focused areas of spending. It wasn’t. “if we fiddle with this, and mess with that…” it was “shit, we need guns…NOW”, which has an elegant simplicity all to its own.

But yes, I think this recession can be fixed by two things: 1) get people employed, and 2) get banks lending. And if it takes the government paying people to dig holes in the dirt then fill them up, so be it. Yes, I think it can work, but it’s going to take some real focus.
so in the end its trusting that when the feds tell us that we are facing a firestorm and we better get out the big hoses, that they are right and we better start up the firetrucks.

im very convinced that they are right.

and i am also happy that mr obama has decided to get something for our money. instead of checks and tax cuts we will get some amount of stuff built/repaired for our risk.

I’m a Keynsian, at my core.

Someone should investigate this core you speak of http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif


Christ, what did you guys do for innuendo in my absence?!

A devastation of pretty much every other economy in the world, giving the US a tremendous absolute competitive advantage over everyone else.

well, yes, there's that too.

so in the end its trusting that when the feds tell us that we are facing a firestorm and we better get out the big hoses, that they are right and we better start up the firetrucks.

im very convinced that they are right.

and i am also happy that mr obama has decided to get something for our money. instead of checks and tax cuts we will get some amount of stuff built/repaired for our risk.

The problem with tax cuts in a recession is, well, they don't really do anything. You need that money to go out, it needs to circulate, it needs to be spent. People don't spend money in recessions, they horde it.

Someone should investigate this core you speak of http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif


Christ, what did you guys do for innuendo in my absence?!

how YOU doin?

Sounds good - http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/apple.gif

Bring it!http://media.bigoo.ws/content/gif/smiles/smiles_349.gif

Someone should investigate this core you speak of http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif


Christ, what did you guys do for innuendo in my absence?!

Ask Poli. On both topics. :D

The problem with tax cuts in a recession is, well, they don't really do anything. You need that money to go out, it needs to circulate, it needs to be spent. People don't spend money in recessions, they horde it.
yeah, i know.

turns out the best stimulus is to hand baskets of money to poor people--because they spend it as soon as they get it. they dont save any, they dont pay off any debt.

the 2nd best is infrastructure.

in not sure why we had to acquiesce to the republican obsession with tax cuts (since they are the least useful for stimulus) but i guess thats politics.

Bring it!http://media.bigoo.ws/content/gif/smiles/smiles_349.gif

Let me end this...

http://tsukiyomiproject.com/images/Leekspin.gif

Until they fix the problem with the massive amount of toxic assets being held by major banks, it really doesn't matter what's in the "stimulus".

If nothing smart is done (and it would appear that Geitner's strategy is not inspiring confidence with anyone) quickly, the "stimulus" will have been an 800 billion dollar fart in the wind.

Let me end this...

http://tsukiyomiproject.com/images/Leekspin.gif

Caguen... lo has terminado. Qué con poner a esa pija de Orihime.:mad:

But it made me laugh.:fluffle:

yeah, i know.

turns out the best stimulus is to hand baskets of money to poor people--because they spend it as soon as they get it. they dont save any, they dont pay off any debt.

the 2nd best is infrastructure.

in not sure why we had to acquiesce to the republican obsession with tax cuts (since they are the least useful for stimulus) but i guess thats politics.
I'm pretty incensed at the "compromises" made so far. To my mind the actually stimulative part of the stimulus package has been nearly halved by what is, really, an ideological dispute being pressed without any apparent reference to current reality. That factor alone pisses me off majorly. I only console myself that the current reality nearly guarantees this is only the first (or second) such stimulus bill that we are going to need, and more actual stimulus can be brought around next time it comes up. (Of course, by that, I mean more infrastructure and other public works projects.)

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, NA, even the strange, stream-of-consciousness, insistently-female lolcat-person corrects your spelling. You're doomed. :p
this cat loving 19 year old young woman hates it when people misspell things

I'm pretty incensed at the "compromises" made so far. To my mind the actually stimulative part of the stimulus package has been nearly halved by what is, really, an ideological dispute being pressed without any apparent reference to current reality. That factor alone pisses me off majorly. I only console myself that the current reality nearly guarantees this is only the first (or second) such stimulus bill that we are going to need, and more actual stimulus can be brought around next time it comes up. (Of course, by that, I mean more infrastructure and other public works projects.)
i try not to get incensed over theses things even if the republican tax cut's are a far worse idea than ...... family planning or resodding the national mall. it does tick me of that those tax cuts arent labelled as republican pet projects.

this cat loving, 19 year old, young woman hates it when people misspell things

You forgot a few commas there, sweetie. Other than that, you're a breath of fresh air.:tongue:

this cat loving 19 year old young woman hates it when people misspell things

but lack of commas apparently doesn't concern you...

but lack of commas apparently doesn't concern you...

Lack of capitalization and periods doesn't seem to concern anyone, anymore.

Grammatical periods, that is. Obviously it'd greatly concern me if I didn't get my period.

Lack of capitalization and periods doesn't seem to concern anyone, anymore.

Grammatical periods, that is. Obviously it'd greatly concern me if I didn't get my period.
the other (than spelling) stuff doesn't matter online. shorthand is ok. known(to me) british spellings ok. just not marshmellow instead of marshmallow and stuff

the other stuff doesn't matter online. shorthand is ok. known(to me) british spellings ok. just not marshmellow instead of marshmallow and stuff

:fluffle:

the other (than spelling) stuff doesn't matter online. shorthand is ok. known(to me) british spellings ok. just not marshmellow instead of marshmallow and stuff

That's a common misconception, lady. Proper grammar is appreciated online. You may not like it. Just do your parents, who put you through school, some justice, and write properly. It wouldn't kill you and would speak good of you. Besides that, a young 19 year old lady who doesn't know how to write speaks badly of you.:fluffle:

You forgot a few commas there, sweetie. Other than that, you're a breath of fresh air.:tongue:

Your fixes are a bit off too.

Your fixes are a bit off too.

I have a poetic, bogus lisence to be off, mister Canuck.

That's a common misconception, lady. Proper grammar is appreciated online. You may not like it. Just do your parents, who put you through school, some justice, and write properly. It wouldn't kill you and would speak good of you. Besides that, a young 19 year old lady who doesn't know how to write speaks badly of you.:fluffle:
I just don't bother to write properly online. I thought online only spelling applied and even that only sometimes. i play multiplayer games and people say wtf or idk or whatever.

I just don't bother to write properly online. I thought online only spelling applied and even that only sometimes. i play multiplayer games and people say wtf or idk or whatever.

This is, as you can see, a Generals forum. People here aren't playing.

This is, as you can see, a Generals forum. People here aren't playing.

If I could, I would sig that.

This is, as you can see, a Generals forum. People here aren't playing.

NSG is serious business!

NSG is serious business!

:tongue:

This is, as you can see, a Generals forum. People here aren't playing.

Too many people, at any rate, aren't playing.

I just don't bother to write properly online. I thought online only spelling applied and even that only sometimes. i play multiplayer games and people say wtf or idk or whatever.

where's that lolwut picture....

Hmm...

When he was at the Caterpillar plant the other day, Obama urged them to contact Congressman Shock and tell him to vote for the stimulus.

So, did any of the Caterpillar workers contact him? Yes, but evidently Obama was not able to convince the workers to support the stimulus.

TAPPER: All right. I'm not going to belabor it. The other thing is, Congressman Ed Schock yesterday, who President Obama urged Caterpillar employees...

GIBBS: Aaron Schock.

TAPPER: ...Oh, I'm sorry, Aaron Schock. President Obama urged...Caterpillar employees to lobby him; he went to the floor of the House today and said that he had stayed around for half-an-hour and not one Caterpillar employee came to him and urged him to -- to vote for the stimulus package and, in fact, over the course of time, 1,400 Caterpillar employees have urged him to oppose the stimulus package. And I was just wondering what you think that indicates, if the president comes to a factory, heralds what this bill will do for these employees, urges them to lobby a congressman, and, according to the congressman, not one of them does so?

GIBBS: Well, I haven't -- I haven't seen what the congressman said. I think...

TAPPER: Exactly what I just said.

Hmm...

When he was at the Caterpillar plant the other day, Obama urged them to contact Congressman Shock and tell him to vote for the stimulus.

So, did any of the Caterpillar workers contact him? Yes, but evidently Obama was not able to convince the workers to support the stimulus.

TAPPER: All right. I'm not going to belabor it. The other thing is, Congressman Ed Schock yesterday, who President Obama urged Caterpillar employees...

GIBBS: Aaron Schock.

TAPPER: ...Oh, I'm sorry, Aaron Schock. President Obama urged...Caterpillar employees to lobby him; he went to the floor of the House today and said that he had stayed around for half-an-hour and not one Caterpillar employee came to him and urged him to -- to vote for the stimulus package and, in fact, over the course of time, 1,400 Caterpillar employees have urged him to oppose the stimulus package. And I was just wondering what you think that indicates, if the president comes to a factory, heralds what this bill will do for these employees, urges them to lobby a congressman, and, according to the congressman, not one of them does so?

GIBBS: Well, I haven't -- I haven't seen what the congressman said. I think...

TAPPER: Exactly what I just said.

ok, they are part of the minority of americans who don't support the bill, your point?

ok, they are part of the minority of americans who don't support the bill, your point?

Obama, at a factory where people lost jobs, tells them (mistakenly) that their CEO will hire back people if the stimulus passes.

He tells them to call the congressman and tell him to support the stimulus.

Obviously, his leadership style is so ineffective, that they ignore him.

I have a poetic, bogus lisence to be off, mister Canuck.

Now I've got to ask, is that one of those wacky alternate spellings from across the way? ;)

This is, as you can see, a Generals forum. People here aren't playing.
It's connected with nationstates which is a game

It's connected with nationstates which is a game

It was a pun, mon ami.

It's connected with nationstates which is a game

The second most dangerous game.

The second most dangerous game.

the third being Mousetrap

Obviously, his leadership style is so ineffective, that they ignore him.

explains why support for the stimulus is rising, doesn't it?

Obama, at a factory where people lost jobs, tells them (mistakenly) that their CEO will hire back people if the stimulus passes.

He tells them to call the congressman and tell him to support the stimulus.

Obviously, his leadership style is so ineffective, that they ignore him.

As someone who has directly dealt with Caterpillar employees on a daily basis, it is my estimation that Caterpillar employees are morons. It goes God, union, CAT in their eyes.

Obama, at a factory where people lost jobs, tells them (mistakenly) that their CEO will hire back people if the stimulus passes.

He tells them to call the congressman and tell him to support the stimulus.

Obviously, his leadership style is so ineffective, that they ignore him.

I also like how you selectively quote the article, huh? Let's look at the rest, huh?

TAPPER: I just wanted to give you guys an opportunity to respond to two things from yesterday involving Caterpillar. One is the CEO of Caterpillar, after the president left the event, said that he did not think the stimulus package in and of itself would be able to enable him to rehire workers, certainly not in the short term. He put out a statement today saying that the stimulus package, "combined with other significant stimulus packages abroad, would help move the global economy towards recovery and, if these packages are enacted quickly, they could stimulate the need for our products, and that would likely over time provide capital and the opportunity to recall employees that have been laid off," certainly not exactly what President Obama said he had said. And I don't know what he said to begin with. But if you could clarify that. And also...

GIBBS: Well, let me -- let me -- let me take a stab at that one. I think what the president said that the chairman and the CEO said, if the recovery plan is passed, the company would be able to rehire some of those employees. And as you just read, he said that, if these packages are enacted quickly, they could stimulate demand for our products that would likely over time provide Caterpillar the opportunity to recall employees that have been laid off during this downturn. I think the statement that you just read and the statement of the president are very consistent.

Well holy crap, look at that, a statement by the CEO of Caterpillar, and Obama's statement are "very consistent".

Well holy fucking crap, don't you hate when your own source bites you in the ass?

I also like how you selectively quote the article, huh? Let's look at the rest, huh?



Well holy crap, look at that, a statement by the CEO of Caterpillar, and Obama's statement are "very consistent".

Well holy fucking crap, don't you hate when your own source bites you in the ass?

Owie.

Okay, now I just can't wait for Hotwife's attempted retort.

Obama, at a factory where people lost jobs, tells them (mistakenly) that their CEO will hire back people if the stimulus passes.

He tells them to call the congressman and tell him to support the stimulus.

Obviously, his leadership style is so ineffective, that they ignore him.

You know what is sad, is when I have only been on NSG for a week, and it's already painfully obvious that you are a flaming troll who uses baseless arguements that either oppose reality or have no backing.

If he was really so great everything would be fixed by now. He's had a whole month. Time for a recall vote!

He's got eight years of mismanagement by the right wing wacko Bush to correct & he's not been President for a month yet.

You know what is sad, is when I have only been on NSG for a week, and it's already painfully obvious that you are a flaming troll who uses baseless arguements that either oppose reality or have no backing.

sure, but, what'd you do with the other 6 days?

sure, but, what'd you do with the other 6 days?

Stalk Nanatsu :p

Stalk Nanatsu :p

he learns fast this one.

he learns fast this one.

NSG, for the most part, sparks debate. Debate excerises the mind, which then causes the mind to adapt and becoming more efficient. By becoming more efficient, the brain then learns at a faster pace, which sparks better debate, resulting in a wonderful cycle that *should* cause greater intelect among those who participate in debate here. However, DK is proof that there are flaws in the system. :p

NSG, for the most part, sparks debate. Debate excerises the mind, which then causes the mind to adapt and becoming more efficient. By becoming more efficient, the brain then learns at a faster pace, which sparks better debate, resulting in a wonderful cycle that *should* cause greater intelect among those who participate in debate here. However, DK is proof that there are flaws in the system. :p

Truly he is the Oracle to our Matrix.

Obama, at a factory where people lost jobs, tells them (mistakenly) that their CEO will hire back people if the stimulus passes.

He tells them to call the congressman and tell him to support the stimulus.

Obviously, his leadership style is so ineffective, that they ignore him.
Mm-hmm. Right...because a president making a speech and urging people to do something is a direct order to do that, so it's obviously a failure that they didn't all march out like Borg and do it. Because everybody knows that the president is the boss of the people. And of course, since the president is the boss of the people, the CEO of caterpillar should have immediately hopped to and done whatever his Fuhrer told him via the voice of the workers, right? :rolleyes:

Obviously, it is impossible that what actually happened was that Obama was misinformed as to the Caterpillar CEO's actual plan and said something that he probably should not have said. No...since his words were not magically realized overnight, it proves that people don't obey his every command, therefore he's a failed president.

Have you hired a team of staffers? I find it hard to imagine that just one person could crank out the volume of crap you've been dumping recently.

The man has been President for less than a month. Am I missing something here?

The man has been President for less than a month. Am I missing something here?
You're not the only one.

The man has been President for less than a month. Am I missing something here?

Not really. This looks to be indicative of the general level of prejudice and irrationality Obama's detractors will always display.

Gravitational Constant Remains Unchanged; Obama Presidency a Failure (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=576146)!

You know what is sad, is when I have only been on NSG for a week, and it's already painfully obvious that you are a flaming troll who uses baseless arguements that either oppose reality or have no backing.

ESF, meet DK. DK, ESF.:D

You're not the only one.

I wasn't expecting economic prsoperity in a month. Actually, I approve of how he's handling that. I am angry that he has:

1) "moved back" the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. From 16 to 19 to 23 months. I have no doubt it will be "revised" again.

2) refused to discontinue warrantless wiretapping.

3) refused to investigate potential war crimes by the Bush administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090207/..._st_pe/us_iraq
http://consumercal.blogspot.com/2008...retapping.html
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.p...168&Itemid=289
http://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2008/0...g-torture.html

I wasn't expecting economic prsoperity in a month. Actually, I approve of how he's handling that. I am angry that he has:

1) "moved back" the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. From 16 to 19 to 23 months. I have no doubt it will be "revised" again.
Yeah, except for the fact that he repeatedly throughout his campaign stated that he would revise his goals in response to the realities on the ground and the advice of the generals in charge, so there's no failing there yet.

Personally, I never thought that it was realistic to think we would exit Iraq in less than a year. I do not base my expectations on what a candidate says during a campaign.

2) refused to discontinue warrantless wiretapping.
Except that what he has said on numerous occasions was that he would review the program to see if there was a way to use it legally as an intelligence tool that is in keeping with US law, the Constitution and the principle of individual liberty and rights.

3) refused to investigate potential war crimes by the Bush administration.
Except that he did not say that. What he said was that he personally was more interested in looking forward than backward, which sounds very weasely, but which has been followed up in recent days by members of Congress and members of Obama's staff talking about how to implement investigations into potential war crimes by the Bush adminstration.

What he said was that he personally was more interested in looking forward than backward, which sounds very weasely, but which has been followed up in recent days by members of Congress and members of Obama's staff talking about how to implement investigations into potential war crimes by the Bush adminstration.

Then you've heard something I haven't. Do you have a link for that? Has there been talk about potential trials pending what the investigation reveals? I feel it imperative that we not turn a blind eye to this; it would be a tacit condonment of illegal actions.

NSG, for the most part, sparks debate. Debate excerises the mind, which then causes the mind to adapt and becoming more efficient. By becoming more efficient, the brain then learns at a faster pace, which sparks better debate, resulting in a wonderful cycle that *should* cause greater intelect among those who participate in debate here. However, DK is proof that there are flaws in the system. :p

lol.

When I first started posting on NSG he was here with his first account. I took a break from NSG, came back, he was still at it. I left NS altogether, came back two years later, and guess what? I suspect he's the easily amused type who sticks around for the reactions.

Not really. This looks to be indicative of the general level of prejudice and irrationality Obama's detractors will always display.

Gravitational Constant Remains Unchanged; Obama Presidency a Failure (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=576146)!

Not unlike the extreme Bush detractors.

Not unlike the extreme Bush detractors.

Yeah cuz of how Bush detractors claimed he was lying and reneging on his campaign promises by reducing the "campaign promises" down to a single word and then arbitrarily interpreting that one word to mean anything and everything in order to call him a liar.

Wait, that didn't happen. Bush was called a liar because he lied. Bush is "detracted" because of 8 years of disastrous presidency. Because of a very questionable election. It doesn't compare. Criticisms of Bush are valid. Declaring Obama a failure before he even took office is the very definition of prejudice.

So yes - your comparison here is retarded.

Then you've heard something I haven't. Do you have a link for that? Has there been talk about potential trials pending what the investigation reveals? I feel it imperative that we not turn a blind eye to this; it would be a tacit condonment of illegal actions.
You are too impatient. You get one glimpse of hope and you start right up again looking for trials. :D

I googled Pat Leahy* and tribunals together, but got too many hits on too many different subjects to find just what I want, so I apologize for only having my memory:

This week on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Senator Patrick Leahy gave a lengthy interview about his brand spanking new call for a "Truth and Reconciliation" type tribunal or commission which would seek to confirm and document the real record of the Bush admin's actions in regards to the war in Iraq. Everyone associated with the war would be called to account, including executives of corporate contractors. Those who agree to give FULL and COMPLETE and TRUTHFUL testimony UNDER OATH would be granted criminal immunity. Those who do not would be, in Leahy's words, "fair game for criminal investigations." Those who agree but give false or incomplete testimony would face prosecution for perjury.

This is a new line of approach to this problem, in addition to calls for criminal investigations already and currently made by John Conyers and (I think) Barbara Boxer.

It is also in addition to public opinion polls this week that show that over 50% of Americans want some action taken to settle the matter of potential war crimes (with fewer than (I think) 35% wanting nothing done about it).

After Leahy announced his idea, some lower ranking people connected to Obama (I think the guy who used to be his campaign manager; forget his name; want to say Axelrod, but I think that's wrong) have said that the White House would of course follow the law and Congress on this, but that president Obama at the moment is more concerned with looking forward blah blah economy.

So keep your shirt on, Maineiacs. Let's give them some time. There is no statute of limitations on these kinds of things.


*Of Vermont, a state where, according again to Rachel Maddow, Dick Cheney is already a wanted man, under indictment for violating the US Constitution. Apparently during one of that state's town meeting days (when populations vote directly on municipal matters), two towns (one being Brattleboro) voted to have their local DA's look into that, which was done, with the result that there are now outstanding warrants, and police in one or two Vermont counties are authorized to arrest Dick Cheney on sight. :D

EDIT: Correction: It is the police in two towns (Brattleboro and Marlboro), not counties, and the resolutions are deemd not enforceable, but still it shows grit and spunk. I <3 Vermont. :D http://www.mahalo.com/Bush_Cheney_Vermont

Stalk Nanatsu :p

:eek2:

*Of Vermont, a state where, according again to Rachel Maddow, Dick Cheney is already a wanted man, under indictment for violating the US Constitution. Apparently during one of that state's town meeting days (when populations vote directly on municipal matters), two towns (one being Brattleboro) voted to have their local DA's look into that, which was done, with the result that there are now outstanding warrants, and police in one or two Vermont counties are authorized to arrest Dick Cheney on sight. :D

EDIT: Correction: It is the police in two towns (Brattleboro and Marlboro), not counties, and the resolutions are deemd not enforceable, but still it shows grit and spunk. I <3 Vermont. :D http://www.mahalo.com/Bush_Cheney_Vermont

I hate my state. I have to live here and pay for this shit. Well, at least for a few more months.

And it's true, at home I use firefox's spell checker,

My. Do you really have to use spell checkers? Tsk, tsk.

Also, not that I expect you to sympathize, but my brain moves rather fast and sometimes my typing has difficulty keeping up...

No, I don't sympathise with people whose systems sport overclocked processors just to show off, but try to save on buses and peripherals.

By the way, a brain "moving" inside the skull must be quite painful... and also it must require some empty space.

Also, if your going to be a Nazi about correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you should at least capitalize Italian, don't you think?
No, I don't think so.
Because "Italian" (noun) should be capitalised, and "italian" (adjective) should not. Seesh.

;)

That's a common misconception, lady. Proper grammar is appreciated online. You may not like it.

Also, using local shorthands and jargon isn't very polite towards non-native English speakers.

Also, using local shorthands and jargon isn't very polite towards non-native English speakers.

Indeed. It also denotes a lack of interest on the debate at hand and a sloppiness I find so vulgar too.

Which party was it that passed the law that required banks make sub-prime mortgages?
Neither one, because those laws don't exist.

Edit: oh goddamnit Neo Art

Indeed. It also denotes a lack of interest on the debate at hand and a sloppiness I find so vulgar too.

Hai, Neko-tyan, soodesu yo! ;)

(yes, I prefer Kunrei)

I might remind you that he only came to power on the 20 OF JANUARY. and MOST of the problems are from the former president no ALL!!!!

You are too impatient. You get one glimpse of hope and you start right up again looking for trials. :D

I googled Pat Leahy* and tribunals together, but got too many hits on too many different subjects to find just what I want, so I apologize for only having my memory:

This week on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Senator Patrick Leahy gave a lengthy interview about his brand spanking new call for a "Truth and Reconciliation" type tribunal or commission which would seek to confirm and document the real record of the Bush admin's actions in regards to the war in Iraq. Everyone associated with the war would be called to account, including executives of corporate contractors. Those who agree to give FULL and COMPLETE and TRUTHFUL testimony UNDER OATH would be granted criminal immunity. Those who do not would be, in Leahy's words, "fair game for criminal investigations." Those who agree but give false or incomplete testimony would face prosecution for perjury.

This is a new line of approach to this problem, in addition to calls for criminal investigations already and currently made by John Conyers and (I think) Barbara Boxer.

It is also in addition to public opinion polls this week that show that over 50% of Americans want some action taken to settle the matter of potential war crimes (with fewer than (I think) 35% wanting nothing done about it).

After Leahy announced his idea, some lower ranking people connected to Obama (I think the guy who used to be his campaign manager; forget his name; want to say Axelrod, but I think that's wrong) have said that the White House would of course follow the law and Congress on this, but that president Obama at the moment is more concerned with looking forward blah blah economy.

So keep your shirt on, Maineiacs. Let's give them some time. There is no statute of limitations on these kinds of things.


*Of Vermont, a state where, according again to Rachel Maddow, Dick Cheney is already a wanted man, under indictment for violating the US Constitution. Apparently during one of that state's town meeting days (when populations vote directly on municipal matters), two towns (one being Brattleboro) voted to have their local DA's look into that, which was done, with the result that there are now outstanding warrants, and police in one or two Vermont counties are authorized to arrest Dick Cheney on sight. :D

EDIT: Correction: It is the police in two towns (Brattleboro and Marlboro), not counties, and the resolutions are deemd not enforceable, but still it shows grit and spunk. I <3 Vermont. :D http://www.mahalo.com/Bush_Cheney_Vermont

Impatient? Perhaps, but I just fear that, economic crisis or not, the longer we let this go, the less likely it is that anything is ever done. Maybe I'm just so used to illegality and incompetence being ignored, swept under the rug, and blatantly bragged about while the Constitution is ripped to shreds that I see it even where it's not happening. I hope that's the case.

On another note: Mr. Cheney, I don't know if you ski, but I hear that Killington is one of the best ski resorts on the East Coast, and it's not all that far from scenic Brattleboro. :D

Neither one, because those laws don't exist.

A thing I never understood, though, was this idea of the "right to credit" that circles around on various media.
I really don't get it - I bet it's linked to those pesky "revolving" credit cards, but generally it puzzles me quite a lot.

Impatient? Perhaps, but I just fear that, economic crisis or not, the longer we let this go, the less likely it is that anything is ever done.

You know, judging from what I get from the media, I'd say that Obama is taking some time, instead of rushing for it, to mark a different style with the Bush administration: that is, more respect for the role of the Parliament, and an attempt at bipartisanship on such a crucial matter like economy.

I'd wish he'd accelerate a bit; then again, I'm not the best analyst of US politics around, just to use an euphemism.

Hai, Neko-tyan, soodesu yo! ;)

(yes, I prefer Kunrei)

Daijobu desu, Ris-kun.
I should speak Nekoese to you from now on. :p

I like that nickname, Neko-tyan.:D

Daijobu desu, Ris-kun.
I should speak Nekoese to you from now on. :p

Iie, doozo. Watasi-no zisyo-wa tiisai desu.

(*puff* *pant*)

Iie, doozo. Watasi-no zisyo-wa tiisai desu.

(*puff* *pant*)

Ris-kun, nihongo hanase masu ka?

Sugoi!:)

Impatient? Perhaps, but I just fear that, economic crisis or not, the longer we let this go, the less likely it is that anything is ever done. Maybe I'm just so used to illegality and incompetence being ignored, swept under the rug, and blatantly bragged about while the Constitution is ripped to shreds that I see it even where it's not happening. I hope that's the case.

On another note: Mr. Cheney, I don't know if you ski, but I hear that Killington is one of the best ski resorts on the East Coast, and it's not all that far from scenic Brattleboro. :D
I am also very unhappy -- well, actually raging mad -- at the thought that nothing at all will ever be done about this. On the other hand, I am pessimistic, so I think we won't see criminal prosecutions. That said, though I am pleasantly suprised at the willingness of some members of Congress to pursue the truth, so I'm going to keep my hope on this tucked safely away in it's little box.

But I'm not going to bitch at Obama for not having jailed those assholes yet. The longer I have to wait, the more annoyed with him I will get, but I am not ready to say I regret voting for him now. And if all I will ever get from this is the fucking truth (which will be pretty refreshing by itself) and the amendment of laws to make it a shitload harder for anyone to ever do that crap ever again, then I will take that an be grateful, because it will be more than I expect.

A thing I never understood, though, was this idea of the "right to credit" that circles around on various media.
I really don't get it - I bet it's linked to those pesky "revolving" credit cards, but generally it puzzles me quite a lot.
Huh? I've never heard the phrase "right to credit" before. As far as I know, there is no such thing. But we have allowed our economy to become bloated on credit, and people are still thinking we cannot run an economy on anything but credit and the trading of debt. That, in my opinion, is stupid beyond words, but fixing it is going to be difficult.

:eek2:

Don't act soo surprised dear, you are one of the most interesting characters I have had the pleasure of coming across.

Don't act soo surprised dear, you are one of the most interesting characters I have had the pleasure of coming across.

I'm just a girl who likes wearing cat ears. Nothing interesting about that one.:tongue:

I'm just a girl who likes wearing cat ears. Nothing interesting about that one.:tongue:

Compared to the cast of characters in my life, it puts you at the head of the line for most interesting. :p

Compared to the cast of characters in my life, it puts you at the head of the line for most interesting. :p

Well, then. I guess I should feel special.:tongue:

Well, then. I guess I should feel special.:tongue:

Indeed you should. Everyone should feel special every now and then. :)

Indeed you should. Everyone should feel special every now and then. :)

Just every now and then.;)

explains why support for the stimulus is rising, doesn't it?

Stimulus can cause it to rise, yes.

NSG, for the most part, sparks debate. Debate excerises the mind, which then causes the mind to adapt and becoming more efficient. By becoming more efficient, the brain then learns at a faster pace, which sparks better debate, resulting in a wonderful cycle that *should* cause greater intelect among those who participate in debate here. However, DK is proof that there are flaws in the system. :p

I dunno. . . have you read some of the debates? I can't handle them anymore, I just skim for key points and potential innuendo.

Well, everything is pretty much potential innuendo, so I skim for the most entertaining potential innuendo.

My. Do you really have to use spell checkers? Tsk, tsk.

It's true. My brilliance can not encompass everything and, *gasp* I occasionally make mistakes. I probably do not need to use spell-checkers, except my dear friend Eeyore has gotten me into the habit of adding "k" in front of words like neck. And, more to the point, I'd have to proof read more carefully to avoid attacks from people with nothing better to do than nit-pick spelling and grammar on a forum. Spelling and grammar on an off-topic post, even!


No, I don't sympathise with people whose systems sport overclocked processors just to show off, but try to save on buses and peripherals.
I'm not sure if you are calling FF or my brain an overclocked processor. I assure you, I don't "sport" FF to show off, but because IE is unreliable, at best, and it's more convenient for most things. As for my brain, dear GOD do I wish I were more small minded and unintelligent! If the only concerns I had were the spelling and grammar of strangers, well, I probably would be a MUCH happier person. Alas, I'm afraid the truth of the matter is that I'm probably somewhat above average in intelligence, and significantly below average in humility. I do wish I could get my thoughts to slow down to a more reasonable pace, sometimes. Alcohol helps a bit. I'm afraid I totally miss your meaning with "save on buses and peripherals." It is true, despite my lack of humility, I can still admit when I'm unfamiliar with a turn of phrase.

By the way, a brain "moving" inside the skull must be quite painful... and also it must require some empty space.
I do so dearly hope you are not a native English speaker. Then your need to translate everything you read would explain being so nit-picky about language.

Maybe I can get Ifreann to explain to you that my brain(s) are kept in my boobs, and that there is absolutely NO empty space.


No, I don't think so.
Because "Italian" (noun) should be capitalised, and "italian" (adjective) should not. Seesh.
;)
Truly? I've never heard of that rule before. Perhaps you could link me to an explanation of this rule?

The question begs the answer, so obviously - very few people are actually expecting a serious response; here's one anyhow.

Compared too, let's say, the last president; is he a failure? Too early too call.

Compared too, let's say, FDR; is he a failure? Yes.

Compared too, let's say, Reagan; is he a failure? Too early too call.

It all depends on what you consider success, clearly; he's not going to get in his '100 days' with more open cabinent positions then Joe Biden has sentences that make sense. Yet that really is the crux of the whole Obama trip, in a nutshell. Over ambitious time scales and beliefs, only to be shot down by the mean - evil, reality. Yet of course, it's too early to tell... Too early to tell...

Maybe I can get Ifreann to explain to you that my brain(s) are kept in my boobs, and that there is absolutely NO empty space.

...

You have my attention.

Maybe I can get Ifreann to explain to you that my brain(s) are kept in my boobs, and that there is absolutely NO empty space.

?

A cup then ?

Oh right, right, sorry. Well still most of what I said is fairly valid. I’m a Keynsian, at my core. I think government spending CAN work. I find utterly rediculus all the people who try to argue that “it wasn’t the New Deal that got us out of the depression, it was world war 2!” What was world war 2 other than a HUUUUUGE increase in government spending, on things like soldiers and food and boats and bullets, all backed by war bonds? I think the problem with the New Deal was a bit too ambitious, and a bit too cluttered, the War provided some very simple, and very focused areas of spending. It wasn’t. “if we fiddle with this, and mess with that…” it was “shit, we need guns…NOW”, which has an elegant simplicity all to its own.

But yes, I think this recession can be fixed by two things: 1) get people employed, and 2) get banks lending. And if it takes the government paying people to dig holes in the dirt then fill them up, so be it. Yes, I think it can work, but it’s going to take some real focus.

Yes, but Keynesianism also resulted in the destruction of the value of our currencies worldwide in the 1970s. Keynesianism works best when you have the restraint of a gold standard. The problem now is that we are trying to solve our economic downturn by printing money, and we all know what that results in:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Hundred_billion_dollars_and_eggs.jpg

Yes, but Keynesianism also resulted in the destruction of the value of our currencies worldwide in the 1970s. Keynesianism works best when you have the restraint of a gold standard. The problem now is that we are trying to solve our economic downturn by printing money, and we all know what that results in:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Hundred_billion_dollars_and_eggs.jpg
lol it actually sounds kinda fun.

Ris-kun, nihongo hanase masu ka?

Sugoi!:)

Iie, keredomo watasi-wa zisyo-o motimasu yo! :D

And, more to the point, I'd have to proof read more carefully to avoid attacks from people with nothing better to do than nit-pick spelling and grammar on a forum. Spelling and grammar on an off-topic post, even!

Which is not what you're doing, by the way. Oh noes. Your very first reply to a post of mine was a grammar nit-picking. So?


I'm not sure if you are calling FF or my brain an overclocked processor.

Guess. :D

Alcohol helps a bit. I'm afraid I totally miss your meaning with "save on buses and peripherals." It is true, despite my lack of humility, I can still admit when I'm unfamiliar with a turn of phrase.

Less alcohol, then, and more attention to the text.


I do so dearly hope you are not a native English speaker. Then your need to translate everything you read would explain being so nit-picky about language.
Actually, I'm not a native English speaker. And, guess what, I didn't even receive formal teaching in English.


Maybe I can get Ifreann to explain to you that my brain(s) are kept in my boobs, and that there is absolutely NO empty space.

This solves the matter.

Truly? I've never heard of that rule before. Perhaps you could link me to an explanation of this rule?
My copy of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - Oxford University press, 1962 edition, gives Italian (noun) and italian (adj.) . So I guess it's the general rule.

Anyway, this conversation is quite lacking in humour. So, I'll drop it here.

Yes, but Keynesianism also resulted in the destruction of the value of our currencies worldwide in the 1970s. Keynesianism works best when you have the restraint of a gold standard. The problem now is that we are trying to solve our economic downturn by printing money, and we all know what that results in:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Hundred_billion_dollars_and_eggs.jpg

Isn't that the same period in which our currency was taken off the gold standard?

a cup then ?

lol!

Which is not what you're doing, by the way. Oh noes. Your very first reply to a post of mine was a grammar nit-picking. So?


My very first reply was actually defending Behaved from YOUR grammatical nit-picking. Just, ya know, for the record ;)

I'd wish he'd accelerate a bit; then again, I'm not the best analyst of US politics around, just to use an euphemism.
The American political system is designed to go slow - part of the checks against tyranny of the majority.

can we get back on topic here? a president needs a year to be called a failure ok everyone? the mods will get us unless we stay on topic.

the mods will get us unless we stay on topic.
O rly?

Of course he isn't a failure. He's barely had time to anything. Let the man have a chance first.

My local talk radio dude says "yes".....

evidence

- economy is bad
- people are losing jobs
- soldiers are dying in Iraq
- women can now sue if they aren't paid fairly
- abortion is legal
- the government is spending money it doesn't have

Discuss.http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h303/usa732/its-a-trap.jpg
Seriously though, it's the people's fault. They're a nation of whiners.
Buck up, little camper!

A Failure?

"History" isnt even willing to call George Bush a "failure" yet. I would like to meet this collective entity, or entities, named "History" who record these events for future reference , and inform them that they are, in fact, dumb as twice baked shit.

Within a month Obama has already begun fixing mistakes made by Bush and his Stormtroopers of Idiocy. Like, oh, say, forcing companies to pay equal amounts for women or men, who are doing the same job. Rediculous things like that that most of us thought had been sorted out about the same time as giving women the right to vote.

Im not so sure about this Economic Stimulus Package, however.
It seems that you and I, get nearly nothing. We get a tax credit that will add up to an extra 9 dollars in our pockets every paycheck.

Whoop de fuck.

You wanna get the economy rolling?
How about helping nearly every single american out of crushing debt?
How about forking out a couple grand, and I pay off my credit cards?
The company gets its money, and I have more money to waste on Chinese merchandise I dont need. Yay, Capitalism.

I like Obama. (thus far). Hes doing his best to keep things above board, and viewable to the american public. Gitmo's days are numbered, and our troops will be withdrawn from the giant fucking mistake we call Iraq. We can go to a website and actually see where the stimulus money is going. Hey...what a concept, actually letting us know where the government is spending our money.

But for all his impressive language skills, and by that, I mean he can actually speak English without sounding like a window-licking retard, his charisma and relative good looks, the man isnt a god. It seems as though too many people are seeing this guy like some sort of Messiah, who will wave his mighty political penis, and fix all our troubles.

Thats not gonna happen.
Its going to get a lot worse before it gets any better, folks, and you can directly thank George Bush and his cronies, and all the Republicans who supported his failures for the last 8 years. At best, perhaps Obama and Co, can keep us from sliding completely under, and maybe even keep us afloat until things get somewhat better.

Hes got an enormous plate of shit thats been handed to him, and calling him a failure, less than a month on the job is simply assinine.

If in one year, you still have a job, or a house, or any sort of savings, then Obama hasnt failed. Yes, its nearly that bad.

can we get back on topic here? a president needs a year to be called a failure ok everyone? the mods will get us unless we stay on topic.

Take it easy, NSG mods aren't so terribily strict about going off-topic.

By the way, while I don't think that Obama is a failure (and that equal-wage law he passed as first act was quite a good thing), yes a president can need less than one year to be called a failure.

Take Bush. Take him and Condi blissfully ignoring the warnings coming from the US intelligence services. Then, 9/11 happened. Less than ten months after the inauguration of the Bush presidency.

If that's not being a clear failure in just 10 months, then I don't know what being a failure is.

Take it easy, NSG mods aren't so terribily strict about going off-topic.

By the way, while I don't think that Obama is a failure (and that equal-wage law he passed as first act was quite a good thing), yes a president can need less than one year to be called a failure.

Take Bush. Take him and Condi blissfully ignoring the warnings coming from the US intelligence services. Then, 9/11 happened. Less than ten months after the inauguration of the Bush presidency.

If that's not being a clear failure in just 10 months, then I don't know what being a failure is.
But that did not come to light until more than a year after the fact, so Behaved's point stands, I think. There were no choruses of people in Bush's first year -- no, first two months! -- claiming that he was already a failure at that time. It takes about a year to assess performance.

can we get back on topic here? a president needs a year to be called a failure ok everyone? the mods will get us unless we stay on topic.

You avatar is sooooo cute!

Take it easy, NSG mods aren't so terribily strict about going off-topic.

By the way, while I don't think that Obama is a failure (and that equal-wage law he passed as first act was quite a good thing), yes a president can need less than one year to be called a failure.

Take Bush. Take him and Condi blissfully ignoring the warnings coming from the US intelligence services. Then, 9/11 happened. Less than ten months after the inauguration of the Bush presidency.

If that's not being a clear failure in just 10 months, then I don't know what being a failure is.
10 months is almost a year. i was approximating talking normal* circumstances. 9/11 was a national crisis. totally abnormal
*no disasters, average years

You avatar is sooooo cute!
i have it because i like it and it seems girly. i am a 19 year old female and am guarding against being called "he" again. that happened twice.

i have it because i like it and it seems girly. i am a 19 year old female and am guarding against being called "he" again. that happened twice.

Not this again. We know you're a girl, and that you're 19. Pass the page!

Not this again. We know you're a girl, and that you're 19. Pass the page!
i explaining my avatar to saintb

Apparently there's only room on this forum for 1 pair of kitty-ears!

Apparently there's only room on this forum for 1 pair of kitty-ears!

Not at all. Behaved is quite cute and meowlicious. The more felines the better.

meow meow meow. o

meow meow meow. o

You have to believe it. Meow with gusto, meow like you mean it!:fluffle:

i explaining my avatar to saintb

I think I should point out that I was sort of picking on you... not in a mean way, but in such a manner as to point out that a little bit of off topic discussion will not get a thread closed.

10 months is almost a year. i was approximating talking normal* circumstances. 9/11 was a national crisis. totally abnormal
*no disasters, average years

No. No no no. 9/11 is an act that would happen annually, at least, if intelligence didn't fucntion properly.

No. No no no. 9/11 is an act that would happen annually, at least, if intelligence didn't fucntion properly.

Paranoid, much?

And without access to said intelligence, you really have no proof of this.

are serious? he JUST GOT INTO OFFICE you can't honestly expect things to change overnight? That would be impossible. Honestly though, give him a year, by then, well be able to see how he's at least doing. If things are in any way better then they are now by that time, and nothing has gotten progressively worse, then hes done a damn good job. Even if he keeps everything exactly how it is, if the economy doesn't recede anymore, he'll have done a damn good job.

HEY! he has been president for less than a freaking month. Stuff doesnt change like SNAP. Anyways, this is all crap that bush left for Obama to clean up. GIVE HIM TIME.

No. No no no. 9/11 is an act that would happen annually, at least, if intelligence didn't fucntion properly.

Paranoid, much?

And without access to said intelligence, you really have no proof of this.
That must be how often his evil plans get thwarted by Bush's Howling Commandos, because unless he is the one being stopped annually, there is no way he could know or even guess at such a thing.

*gives TBC the hinky eyeball*

The OP depressed me.

Paranoid, much?

And without access to said intelligence, you really have no proof of this.

Not really, no, I don't. Nothing that isn't anecdotal anyway.

give him a break he has not failed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he has barely been in the oval office for 3 weeks, give him a break. Things dont change overnight

give him a break he has not failed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he has barely been in the oval office for 3 weeks, give him a break. Things dont change overnight

Never has irony hit me so hard.

The OP depressed me.
then i highly recommend that you dont listen to any conservative talk radio. its disgusting.