Well your public library is usually funded by the city but yes we are not anarchists. Uzique might be one.
Search
Search results: 2,805 found, showing up to 50
As little Joeys?
The theory was corn syrup fattens you up more than regular cane sugar. I've read a few articles that say it does and doesn't, but apparently corn syrup creates fatty deposits in the liver. Either way, you are what you eat. Don't be surprised when you feel like and look like crap after eating processed food with generous amounts of fat, salt, sugar, trans fats, and preservatives.Dilbert_X wrote:
Aren't the fructose and sucrose contents different?
But I've also heard Australia consumes more sugar than anyone per capita. Aren't you fellas getting a bit portly as well?
Same reason you would throw a grenade uphill and hope it doesn't come back and kill everyone.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thing is, you're focussed on the mission. You have a hammer, all problems need to be hammered. There are other options.
A bit of smarts and the necessity to conduct the missionat all, with all its inherent risks, could have been avoided.
Combat Engineer - Same as Combat Medic in another thread.
Now explain why someone would throw a grenade in a hostage rescue.
Everyone has that defense major spittle.
I don't know. I am going to install Sim City 4 to find out lol.
You're right, it is nostalgia, but I'd rather work on a farm than in some factory. Lack of sun, gloomy work place, gloomy people, constant loud noises, exposure to hazardous waste at times. Bleh, someone might want to work there than in a cubicle lol.JohnG@lt wrote:
The funny thing is, the people that were grandparents in the 40s and 50s lamented factories and wanted to go back to working on the farm Everyone seems to want to retreat back to what they understood as a youth the older they get.
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
That being said, the $800 billion bailout will cost us much more than $800 billion.
edit: oops
That being said, the $800 billion bailout will cost us much more than $800 billion.
edit: oops
What about robots? Do you have something against them as well? They are so much more efficient at producing even though they replace many human workers. You forget, or maybe you never understood, that much of the things we enjoy today are because of advancements like machinery. Whether it be motorized tools or advanced electronics, they have allowed us to produce much more complex products and also existing products much more efficiently, quickly, and with greater accuracy and precision. We all can't work at factories unless we want to go back to the 40's or 50's and stay in a technologically stagnant world economy.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Of course it isn't, but much more complex than your " We all can be rich and ride unicorns that shit rainbows of glitter " approach to economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you think wealth is zero sum? Take it from one place and it piles up in another? It's not. That was disproven 234 years ago.
If a country is only exporting jobs and importing commodities then the country is screw'd. The US developed technologies, manufacturing processes, and new jobs that all got shipped away. Now the US can't make money off those things and is not generating wealth for the lower and middle class in the country.
Wal-Mart on the other hand is steadly developing a working class in an overpopulated country full of potential workers. This is fine if you are into globalization where there are no borders, but I live in a world where my kids can not compete with Lo Wang or Ho Chi-Mihn for jobs.
Yes. everytime HP, Intel, Microchip....... take 100,000 $50K/year jobs in the US and ship it to Wal-Mart where it becomes a $5K/year job. Nothing replaces that job and it drives down the cost of each computer chip produced by about 10 cents because labor is such a small part of the cost of manufacturing 40 billion computer chips per year.
Somehow, the single worker family was replaced by the two worker family which was replaced by the 2 worker family and a part-time job which was replaced by the 2 families sharing a house in debt with 4 people working...........
Why, because we have no decent paying jobs in the US and it takes 3-4 jobs to replace the one that was lost. Sure your plastic dog shit toy dipped in lead paint costs 20 cents less now but who gives a fuck when a household is putting in 100+ hours of work a week just to go in debt slower and bleed out the same way our government is.
So I guess your post isn't too comforting because when some commie in vietnam takes my job for $5K a year and I have to replace it with 3 service jobs (wal-mart greeter, waitor, bar-tender) to survive I want to know that the company that shipped my job there has to Pay a HUGE fucking tariff to sell the goods that fucking commie makes to anyone in the US.
This is like the same argument people make for having food grown here instead of importing it. The most poor nations are agrarian, yet we are saddened by the loss of farmers each year. California alone produces most of any given crop you see in your local super market. That productivity allows for year round items that are rather inexpensive these days.
Now if you are arguing that we spend more than we make, then obviously that is a problem and I don't disagree with that at all.
Liberals exaggerated their turnout, and I think conservatives are exaggerating this by a bit too. Not one empty water bottle?
Nice analogy. The free-market is like a plane without a pilot. Mmmhm.
You're so cute when you act dumb dill. Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside when I read your insightful posts.
You're so cute when you act dumb dill. Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside when I read your insightful posts.
So this makes it okay since it is targeted against a nation that subsidies exports by devaluing their currency (who doesn't subsidies industry spit?). If China can sell their products priced in a very weak currency and pay their workers dirt, do you really think this will stop jobs from being outsourced?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Unless I missed something these tariffs are targeted at specific countries that are NOT free market and manipulating currency so we can't trade with them unless we want to take it in the pooper.
I think this could be two different things but honestly I am too lazy to read or give a shit.
Currency Wars
We import far more than we export. Exporting isn't simply a currency issue. We also pay our workers significantly more than what other workers could dream to get paid. There is a very strong argument that the auto industry was killed by legacy costs, or at least one of the major reasons.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is, it helps exports and suppresses imports.I'm not in favor of that either, though the intent isn't to deliberately devalue the currency for the sake of exporting.
I'm not in favor of that either, though the intent isn't to deliberately devalue the currency for the sake of exporting. China does it whenever their currency rises in value. It should also be understood that instantly creating new money, in this case credit, doesn't have any effect on the dollar until it enters the money supply. The Fed has certainly created a lot of credit and much of it has not been touched, which explains why inflation isn't as high as it might have been had the government spent all that money or gave it away to everyone to spend.Dilbert_X wrote:
Quantitative easing = printing money = devaluing the U$
Its a conscious policy, the US is just blubbing because the Chinese worked it out first.
We should repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to having state legislature elect senators. They are too easily bought now.
Everyone with floating currencies devalue their currency. It is relative though, and China has it as government policy. We do to an extent, I suppose.
I don't believe in tariffs, even if someone were to argue that someone like China is cheating by devaluing their currency in order to keep a competitive advantage in exports. China can not inflate their currency without consequence. They fail to see that, and they fail to see that it is our purchasing power that ultimately progresses our standard of living more so than everyone working in factories making legacy wages.
He wasn't forced to run for president, was he?jord wrote:
You have to factor in that Obama has come into power in a harder economy than Bush did, but I can see what you're getting at and I'm just playing Devil's advocate. I'm not particularly fond of Obama myself.
Less judicial activism and more constitutional activism. Freedom of speech.
The way I see it, is that the governments of these nations spend quite a bit of money to build new stadiums for these events and expos so show how modern and advanced they are like the rest of the developed world. South Africa has huge wealth discrepancy between the whites and blacks, and also have an AIDs crisis, but forget that at the lovely world cup there.
I'm guessing a lot of number smudging and knowing and persuading a lot of the right people has a lot to do with some of these countries getting selected for these kind of things. Then again, I don't watch football.
I'm guessing a lot of number smudging and knowing and persuading a lot of the right people has a lot to do with some of these countries getting selected for these kind of things. Then again, I don't watch football.
I missed it too.
China is terrible. No one said England was poor. No one cares about Greece.Trotskygrad wrote:
china really isn't a poor country man...Turquoise wrote:
As the developing world rises in power, prosperity, and influence, more and more sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics are being held more frequently in poorer countries.
However, it seems that every time this happens, the local poor are disenfranchised more than normal or are otherwise whisked away to "keep up appearances". While there are lesser examples of this in wealthier countries, it seems a lot more stark in the developing world.
The justification for holding these events in developing countries is often one regarding prestige, but it seems like the cost to the poor of these countries is rather high.
What do you guys think?
greece didn't really whisk anyone away
england isn't really poor.
we must wait till 2016 in rio to see if this is true, but then again Brazil is part of the BRIC as well...
but yeah, you should say developing not poorer because all of the BRIC (well maybe not the R) have much higher growth rates in the economy than the US.
Maybe SA?
The bonds were using FICO scores but not differentiating thin and thick sheet scores. Two people have the same amazing credit score, but one has a very short credit history, and the other has a very lengthy one. Which one would you say is more reliable to repay their debt, given the choice?cpt.fass1 wrote:
They've already done a thing about the rating agency. When looking back on credit files, they've noticed that people who live in certain area's get larger drop in scores.
True. The subprime mortgage bonds had prospectuses that made it its own mini corporation (from the Big Short if I remember correctly) if you were to read all the legal jargon. They were very difficult to sift through and looking at the individual loans in these derivatives was near impossible. Derivatives are very opaque, but what do you expect with a financial asset meant to have a sucker at the receiving end?Turquoise wrote:
Well, the worst part is that rating agencies are corrupt as hell.
At this point, there's really little way of knowing if a rating is legit or not without digging into the mess to figure things out.
The credit industry is about as scummy as it gets.
The question would be, would gang activity be as high with drugs that are now cheap, sold by legitimate businesses instead of criminals, and be able to regulate? That is what I think has done the most harm to those communities. Placing nice lending agencies in the ghetto most white people have the privilege to have won't fix drug torn neighborhoods, or massive imprisonment of minorities for victimless crimes. That is racist.Turquoise wrote:
That would definitely help.Phrozenbot wrote:
Legalize drugs.
Legalize drugs.
You don't find H/J entertaining? ATG was a psycho.
I'm glad ATG is banned lol.
Blaming the people for being stupid enough to take out these type of loans makes as much sense as blaming this on racism. That isn't what caused the crisis, though it certainly is a problem. Without premium ratings from the rating agencies, the credit default swaps would have never left port. Why do you think CDOs were used for the bonds that couldn't get AA?LividBovine wrote:
Source
Man, I really didn't think it was true. I really wanted to blame the people for being stupid enough to get loans they couldn't afford. I know banks were taking advantage of a good situation and all, but geez.
Does the new financial controls legislation do enough to keep banks from doing this again?
New financial controls do essentially nothing different. Derivatives are still largely unregulated and of course, misunderstood by the government, but I am not arguing in favor of regulation of derivatives in themselves, but of fraud found in them and in the financial sector. As long as the government does not enforce the law and prosecute fraud, it will continue to exist.
No, but it means your argument is weak. I have never been to Europe, so I have no personal experience about the UK and the countries you compare them too, but I assume it has to do more with the UKs domestic issues more so than high taxes. Who is more of a welfare state?
"Correlation does not imply causation"
I'm unsure of the source. There used to be a sticky here that had the members mapped out until the originator of the thread stopped updating it.
Okay but that wasn't I was even arguing...JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes it was.Phrozenbot wrote:
So then, was your philosophical argument of value based more on necessity? Water > gold, especially in the desert?
Near Barry O? It must be killing you.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Source of graph please ?
I would also like to see that test run here again. It would be interesting. Almost every one checked between -9 -9 and -5 -5 I was surprised to see I landed at +1 +1
So then, was your philosophical argument of value based more on necessity? Water > gold, especially in the desert?
I wasn't arguing the philosophical value. My point was that a gold coin minted as legal tender isn't just valued at what the government says it is, the raw material it is made of is valuable as well, irregardless of how you feel as to why it is valuable or whether the reasons for it being valuable matter in some philosophical sense. Our currency is made out of cotton, how much is the physical value of a bill? If it is less than the value they deem it, between 1 to 100 dollars, they have free reign to make as much as they want.Macbeth wrote:
I'm thinking of 'intrinsic value' in a philosophical sense not financial. So we're not even arguing the same thing. My point is: if people didn't value it because it's shiny, it would otherwise be fairly worthless.Phrozenbot wrote:
The word choice is completely correct. If you went to a coin shop to buy a 1 ounce Canadian maple leaf, you would be paying $1,300 for the gold itself, the "intrinsic" value, plus a premium that it is a bullion coin and for the dealer to make a profit from the sale.Macbeth wrote:
What DSL said Phroz. You said " intrinsic value", the market doesn't decide ' intrinsic value'.
I'm not debating the merits of using it as currency, I'm just nitpicking about word choice.
Like JG said, most of the value is due to rarity. If gold were as common as lead, it wouldn't be worth nearly as much.
Again, we're arguing two different things. In terms of finance rarity does determine worth to a point. Rarity doesn't determine philosophical value.
So yeah we're on two different pages.
But +1 DSL
The word choice is completely correct. If you went to a coin shop to buy a 1 ounce Canadian maple leaf, you would be paying $1,300 for the gold itself, the "intrinsic" value, plus a premium that it is a bullion coin and for the dealer to make a profit from the sale.Macbeth wrote:
What DSL said Phroz. You said " intrinsic value", the market doesn't decide ' intrinsic value'.
I'm not debating the merits of using it as currency, I'm just nitpicking about word choice.
Like JG said, most of the value is due to rarity. If gold were as common as lead, it wouldn't be worth nearly as much.
Sexuality should be a private matter in my opinion.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
With the wonderful onus of having lied to the recruiter (though they encourage it, in fact). Still, it's hidden only until some homophobe with nothing better to do brings them in for questioning on suspicions.Phrozenbot wrote:
They can still serve, just with a hidden sexuality.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Heard it from them before. Tphphph.
Unless they're gay and want in the military. I wonder if they'll want to put a leash on violent video game bans.
So since people find gold shiny and attractive, that means gold is not a good form of currency? :\
The GOP has made a "Pledge to America" to undo excessive government growth, regulation, taxes, corruption, waste, and spending. It is a promise to pursue, establish, and protect conservative principles in government that the GOP stands for, but this time it is "for real".
I read it, and I feel mixed about it. There are certainly many things I agree with advocated here, but there is a lot missing in my opinion and some of the pledges I disagree with. My main concern is how much weight the GOP's word will hold. Can the old Republican guard be trusted to finally act on their party platform?
I am not a registered Republican, nor do I align with the Republican party. I am simply questioning the promise the Republicans are giving, much like the Democrats have been giving on "change". The Republicans were booted out for their failed policies, expansion of government and an explosion in debt. The democrats are likely to get the boot for much of the same reasons. Is this the same viscous cycle, or is this a sincere attempt of the Republican party to produce positive reform?
Things I would like to have seen are as follows:
*End the Fed. The inflation it has created has done significant harm to our economy and global economy to an extent. Floating currencies in theory can work, but it has been proven that governments are not disciplined nor reliable enough to be trusted with the ability to expand the monetary base as needed on a whim.
*Return to a gold standard or a bimetallism standard, which would include silver. Their scarcity and intrinsic value makes them excellent forms of currency, and are widely accepted as money or highly valued.
*Return all armed forces back to the United States. We have two oceans to protect us from invasion, and there currently is no military power capable of mounting a large enough amphibious offensive against us, unless I am mistaken.
*Term limits need to be enacted. There are too many career politicians in Congress. Yes, even Ron Paul can't serve forever. Experience in government has not refined our elected officials in a positive way by any means, only to give them more opportunity to milk the system.
*As far as I know, the government has a national list for rating agencies. They have decided who can rate and who can't, from my understanding. The government has been endorsing the wrong and failed agencies and I think the list should be abolished and that ratings should be shopped around freely. JG you probably understand this better than me, what say you?
And here are some pieces from the pledge I would like to comment on.
Do any of you agree with Judge Napolitano?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu8YotE2 … eature=sub
Interesting commentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VH2KYdZ … embedded#!
Ron Paul's thought.
So... just felt like spurring some thoughtful discussion, I don't know. My silly attempt ;(
Okay night all.
A Pledge to America (PDF)PTA wrote:
America is more than a country.
America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers
are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with
the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any
man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their
families, and the common good.
America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to
determine their own destiny.
Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the
Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of
Americans.
In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the
governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined
to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding
laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues
mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
I read it, and I feel mixed about it. There are certainly many things I agree with advocated here, but there is a lot missing in my opinion and some of the pledges I disagree with. My main concern is how much weight the GOP's word will hold. Can the old Republican guard be trusted to finally act on their party platform?
I am not a registered Republican, nor do I align with the Republican party. I am simply questioning the promise the Republicans are giving, much like the Democrats have been giving on "change". The Republicans were booted out for their failed policies, expansion of government and an explosion in debt. The democrats are likely to get the boot for much of the same reasons. Is this the same viscous cycle, or is this a sincere attempt of the Republican party to produce positive reform?
Things I would like to have seen are as follows:
*End the Fed. The inflation it has created has done significant harm to our economy and global economy to an extent. Floating currencies in theory can work, but it has been proven that governments are not disciplined nor reliable enough to be trusted with the ability to expand the monetary base as needed on a whim.
*Return to a gold standard or a bimetallism standard, which would include silver. Their scarcity and intrinsic value makes them excellent forms of currency, and are widely accepted as money or highly valued.
*Return all armed forces back to the United States. We have two oceans to protect us from invasion, and there currently is no military power capable of mounting a large enough amphibious offensive against us, unless I am mistaken.
*Term limits need to be enacted. There are too many career politicians in Congress. Yes, even Ron Paul can't serve forever. Experience in government has not refined our elected officials in a positive way by any means, only to give them more opportunity to milk the system.
*As far as I know, the government has a national list for rating agencies. They have decided who can rate and who can't, from my understanding. The government has been endorsing the wrong and failed agencies and I think the list should be abolished and that ratings should be shopped around freely. JG you probably understand this better than me, what say you?
And here are some pieces from the pledge I would like to comment on.
Limit government, limit regulation, limit spending, except when it concerns national defense. You will see "non-security" spending and jobs being criticized a lot in the pledge. I also do not feel we should impose sanctions against Iran. After the sanctions imposed against Iraq, we should be reluctant to even consider them.PTA wrote:
Above all else, the primary obligation of
the federal government remains providing
for the common defense against all threats
foreign and domestic. We offer a plan to
keep our nation secure at home and
abroad that will provide the resources,
authority, and support our deployed
military requires, fully fund missile defense,
and enforce sanctions against Iran.
page 7
Interesting quoting Reagan. Indeed, the quote seems to have much truth to it, however, Reagan describes himself in 3rd person again. I'm not sure if he was much of a taxer, but he did regulate and subsidize. The S&L crisis, for example, and the underlying problems because of it were kicked down the road to our current crisis, if you want to call it that. The conservative hero that wasn't.PTA wrote:
“Government’s view of the economy
could be summed up in a few short
phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it
keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it.”
- President Ronald Reagan
page 20
The rating agencies did more ham in my opinion. Credit default swaps were attractive because of their triple or double A ratings, and subprime mortgage bonds that did not qualify for those high ratings (about 20%) were repackaged into CDOs that did. Aside the point, abolish them all. This includes Ginnie Mae and anyone else in the area.PTA wrote:
End Government Control of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac
Since taking over Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that
triggered the financial meltdown by giving
too many high risk loans to people who
couldn’t afford them, taxpayers were billed
more than $145 billion to save the two
companies. We will reform Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac by ending their government
takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and
establishing minimum capital standards.
This will save taxpayers as much as $30
billion.
page 22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Xg6W4MlaAPTA wrote:
Keep Terrorists Out of America
We will prevent the government from
importing terrorists onto American soil. We
will hold President Obama and his
administration responsible for any
Guantanamo Bay detainees they release
who return to fight against our troops or
who have become involved in any terrorist
plots or activities.
Demand an Overarching Detention
Policy
Foreign terrorists do not have the same
rights as American citizens, nor do they
have more rights than U.S. military
personnel. We will work to ensure foreign
terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are
tried in military, not civilian, court. We will
oppose all efforts to force our military,
intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend
“Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists.
page 38
Do any of you agree with Judge Napolitano?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu8YotE2 … eature=sub
Interesting commentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VH2KYdZ … embedded#!
Ron Paul's thought.
So... just felt like spurring some thoughtful discussion, I don't know. My silly attempt ;(
Okay night all.
It... shouldn't?DrunkFace wrote:
Move to Florida.Harmor wrote:
Cybargs is absolutely right here.Cybargs wrote:
you have to account for state and local income tax as well. thats why when they report US taxes it seems pretty low comparatively but it's only federal taxes that are reported.
Here in the states we can have taxes leveed at the State, County, and City levels that stack on top of the Federal. E.g. California state has a 10.5% income tax whereas Florida has 0%.
Why should the Federal Government be held responsible for the taxes of some states?
Some people who are socially disconnected and don't mind it have more time to focus on work and learning, but not everyone and I was just suggesting that awful or stupid teen behavior from your peers at high school might be less likely to find their way into home school kids behaviors.
I think we have someone like that here, minus lowing.Kmar wrote:
Some of the people Stewart is mocking in the OP video are those who "think Obama is a secret Muslim planning to take over America so he can force his black radical Christianity down our throats." .. yes, they exist!
I don't know how some of China even exists with all the pollution. Then the large amounts of inflation as a result of artificially eroding their currency has inflated their economy in general.
Inflation does such a good job of skewing the market. BB just said we didn't have enough of it.
Inflation does such a good job of skewing the market. BB just said we didn't have enough of it.
I don't think they have poor social skills. In fact, maybe it is better they have less exposure to some of their peers.
Huge infrastructure bubble.11 Bravo wrote:
how so?JohnG@lt wrote:
Nothing. China is on the verge of imploding.
"If goods can't cross, then armies will."
Neither solutions worked for some reason. I remember the last time I tried installing drivers for my GPU I had similar issues, but ultimately I had success installing them. Driver Sweeper completely disrupted my system and luckily I had system restore enabled and reverted to yesterday...
I'll just stick with my outdated driver for now.
I'll just stick with my outdated driver for now.
You may have noticed that steam now delivers driver updates for ATI. I thought that was great idea, until the driver update failed for me. I decided to manually update my video card and I still get this error.
The furthest I get at the ATI Catalyst manager screen is when it asks me to install or uninstall. Once I click install, I get the above error. I tried running as admin and I still get the error.
System Specs:
CPU: Intel Core i5 750
GPU: ASUS Radeon HD 5700
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Help
The furthest I get at the ATI Catalyst manager screen is when it asks me to install or uninstall. Once I click install, I get the above error. I tried running as admin and I still get the error.
System Specs:
CPU: Intel Core i5 750
GPU: ASUS Radeon HD 5700
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Help
I like the design of our dollars. I think the rest of the world has funny looking currency. Except your gold coins :b
That wasn't equities he was talking about, he was talking about bonds. Ranieri from Salomon Brothers is the closest thing to being the founding father of mortgage bond securities which has largely helped finance home ownership in America, significantly enough to help develop a major housing bubble.Harmor wrote:
Tax cuts spurred economic growth. Only a small portion of the economy is regulated by the stock market. Much of the conomy is by consumer spending (todays is 70% of our economy).JohnG@lt wrote:
The tax cuts in the 80s weren't the prime mover in the economy, Michael Milken and Lewis Ranieri pushed the 80s economy. Warren Buffett pushed the 80s. High Yield Bonds (Junk Bonds) fueled the 80s, not tax cuts.