|
Post by Shayne the Kid on Jan 31, 2009 19:24:29 GMT -8
there are other interrogation techniques that are much more effective and other forms of torture which are also more effective and never runs the risk of killing or causing permanent damage to the prisoners. Like what? Mr Smarty Pants.
|
|
|
Post by Jil on Jan 31, 2009 19:38:16 GMT -8
Sean must have a good heart or something. Why wouldn't you want to do permanent damage? ...
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 31, 2009 22:43:09 GMT -8
+8234986293848156958 good to have you back jil, where you been?
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 1, 2009 9:59:48 GMT -8
there are other interrogation techniques that are much more effective and other forms of torture which are also more effective and never runs the risk of killing or causing permanent damage to the prisoners. Like what? Mr Smarty Pants. I hear Chinese water torture works, and then there's sleep deprivation. I guess I get most of my knowledge of torture from tv shows, but if you watch Babylon 5, Secret agent man, Burn Notice, and certain episodes of Star Trek: TNG your bound to find some techniques that are actually applicable to the real world and fit the above requirements. Sean must have a good heart or something. Why wouldn't you want to do permanent damage? ... Thank you. I think sometimes that people vastly over estimate my soullessness and I appreciate the compliment. I wouldn't want any permanent damage done because their people too who, if innocent have to go back to their normal lives after everything is done and I think that that would be hard if you're missing a limb or came back with emphysema or some bazaar medical condition. Just thinking ahead. Besides, when America takes over the world, who's going to vote for us in the "free election"?
|
|
|
Post by Sean Corkum on Feb 3, 2009 23:46:52 GMT -8
Yah dude. Racist white people.
What's wrong with that?
It's not like they hate anybody or have it out for anyone.
Duh-dur.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 5, 2009 21:43:34 GMT -8
to use an overused phrase from johnny mac, "PORK BARREL SPENDING!"
this stimulous bill is full of crap that doesnt have anything to do with jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 6, 2009 18:21:45 GMT -8
to use an overused phrase from johnny mac, "PORK BARREL SPENDING!" this stimulous bill is full of crap that doesnt have anything to do with jobs. I agree with you but I don't think that it is entirely Obama's fault. Obama had some pretty good ideas and, in fact, the original draft was pretty good even though there were a lot of redundant programs. If you read the Paul Krugmen op-ed columns for the past month (every Monday) you will notice that he tells Obama at first that there is not only too little spending but also too many tax brakes. Later he becomes progressively more skeptical of the stimulus package. I think that this has more to do with the House and Senate party officials. You see, the House and Senate Republicans still lean heavily on tax brakes and reducing government interaction and regulation and this has been hindering progression of the bill. Krugman even says that "Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal" which was what REALLY brought use out of the Depression and is basically Big Government, high spending, infrastructure packages, and a lot of what would now be considered socialism. Basically Conservatives and House and Senate Republicans worst nightmares. The House Dem.s are almost as bad though (haven't heard much about Senate Dem.s). House Dem.s are the reason that you get all of these really stupid expenditures and stuff that really just discredits the stimulus package and a second Christmas. Basically what's happening is that the yearly budget reports from state government agencies, like the ASGS (Arizona State Geology Survey) or the various Department of Energy's, and said departments are getting their reports back with Representatives saying things like "are you kidding, this is a once in a life time opportunity; think BIGGER." I think most of what you are seeing is that Obama is trying to get this thing passed and is having to compromise the hell out of this thing (BADLY I might add) just to get it past the republicans and even after that the democrats are just making things worse by putting so much stupid shit in there that it makes it even harder to pass by the republicans especially in the Senate, which is where it is right now, that the republicans are saying that they will allow it if they can cut even more of what the bill is SUPPOSED to do right out and Obama, for the sake of compromise, is letting them. It's a vicious circle that I fear will eventually lead the country into the ground spearheaded by this now impudent bill. GOD I AM SO PISSED!
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 8, 2009 9:35:03 GMT -8
i have heard lots of studies saying the the new deal actually made the depression last longer.... but im not going to say that thats what i believe, because i havent actually looked into it.
however, i am not worried about how much we're spending, i am concerned with what we're spending it on. have you looked at a detailed breakdown of the bill? most of it has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. a lot of it is just a liberal agenda packed into a bill their calling of utmost importance so that the people have no choice but to pass it.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 8, 2009 13:01:05 GMT -8
I haven't actually read it, all I know is the few sound bits and a budget report from an Arizona energy and resources agency. Like I said, it's mostly from House Dem.s being retarded. the bill has been ripped to shreds by both parties so that they can put in all the stupid shit that doesn't really do anything.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 8, 2009 23:36:38 GMT -8
to use an overused phrase from johnny mac, "PORK BARREL SPENDING!" this stimulous bill is full of crap that doesnt have anything to do with jobs. I agree with you but I don't think that it is entirely Obama's fault. Obama had some pretty good ideas and, in fact, the original draft was pretty good even though there were a lot of redundant programs. If you read the Paul Krugmen op-ed columns for the past month (every Monday) you will notice that he tells Obama at first that there is not only too little spending but also too many tax brakes. Later he becomes progressively more skeptical of the stimulus package. I think that this has more to do with the House and Senate party officials. You see, the House and Senate Republicans still lean heavily on tax brakes and reducing government interaction and regulation and this has been hindering progression of the bill. Krugman even says that "Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal" which was what REALLY brought use out of the Depression and is basically Big Government, high spending, infrastructure packages, and a lot of what would now be considered socialism. Basically Conservatives and House and Senate Republicans worst nightmares. The House Dem.s are almost as bad though (haven't heard much about Senate Dem.s). House Dem.s are the reason that you get all of these really stupid expenditures and stuff that really just discredits the stimulus package and a second Christmas. Basically what's happening is that the yearly budget reports from state government agencies, like the ASGS (Arizona State Geology Survey) or the various Department of Energy's, and said departments are getting their reports back with Representatives saying things like "are you kidding, this is a once in a life time opportunity; think BIGGER." I think most of what you are seeing is that Obama is trying to get this thing passed and is having to compromise the hell out of this thing (BADLY I might add) just to get it past the republicans and even after that the democrats are just making things worse by putting so much stupid shit in there that it makes it even harder to pass by the republicans especially in the Senate, which is where it is right now, that the republicans are saying that they will allow it if they can cut even more of what the bill is SUPPOSED to do right out and Obama, for the sake of compromise, is letting them. It's a vicious circle that I fear will eventually lead the country into the ground spearheaded by this now impudent bill. GOD I AM SO PISSED! Where is "username" when you need him? Me and him had an hour long discussion the other day about this. In fact, he actually has an entire chapter in a book he's writing about FDR and the misinformation regarding his social programs and big spending. I'll see if I can get him on here, or maybe get a few excerpts from that chapter....
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 5:53:42 GMT -8
Let me guess...The depression didn't actually end until...was it Truman...and that if he had just done like Nixon everything would have been soooo much better. I've heard it before on msnbc and fox and I thought it was bullshit then what do you think I'll think of it now? Tax cuts to the rich, trickle down economics, it's all bullshit that doesn't work and the past 4 years are evidence of that. And if anyone so much as mentions Bill Clinton I think I'm going to have an aneurysm. I know Bush likes to complain about how he "inherited a recession" but if I'm not mistaken it was during the Clinton admin. that we had our Golden Age. Oh and by the way, he's the only president who can start a war and not make the economy go up, way to suck balls Bushy. And I Am So Tired Of Every Conservative SUCKING Nixon's BALLS! The guy is dead you don't have to suck up anymore. He wasn't that great anyway. He increased the national debt, damaged social security, and disgraced the Presidency what a great guy. I like Nixon soooo much that in fifty years I'll still be paying through the nose for his presidency and the example he set for all future presidents, I'm so excited.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 9, 2009 12:23:03 GMT -8
Let me guess...The depression didn't actually end until...was it Truman...and that if he had just done like Nixon everything would have been soooo much better. I've heard it before on msnbc and fox and I thought it was bullshit then what do you think I'll think of it now? Tax cuts to the rich, trickle down economics, it's all bullshit that doesn't work and the past 4 years are evidence of that. And if anyone so much as mentions Bill Clinton I think I'm going to have an aneurysm. I know Bush likes to complain about how he "inherited a recession" but if I'm not mistaken it was during the Clinton admin. that we had our Golden Age. Oh and by the way, he's the only president who can start a war and not make the economy go up, way to suck balls Bushy. And I Am So Tired Of Every Conservative SUCKING Nixon's BALLS! The guy is dead you don't have to suck up anymore. He wasn't that great anyway. He increased the national debt, damaged social security, and disgraced the Presidency what a great guy. I like Nixon soooo much that in fifty years I'll still be paying through the nose for his presidency and the example he set for all future presidents, I'm so excited. Haha I never said a word about Clinton, Bush, or Nixon. I don't think all conservatives "suck Nixon's balls," by the way. I think you're going off on a completely irrelevant tangent and assuming that all people that don't agree with you must have the same arguments. Now I really wanna get username on here.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 9, 2009 13:32:43 GMT -8
Let me guess...The depression didn't actually end until...was it Truman...and that if he had just done like Nixon everything would have been soooo much better. I've heard it before on msnbc and fox and I thought it was bullshit then what do you think I'll think of it now? Tax cuts to the rich, trickle down economics, it's all bullshit that doesn't work and the past 4 years are evidence of that. And if anyone so much as mentions Bill Clinton I think I'm going to have an aneurysm. I know Bush likes to complain about how he "inherited a recession" but if I'm not mistaken it was during the Clinton admin. that we had our Golden Age. Oh and by the way, he's the only president who can start a war and not make the economy go up, way to suck balls Bushy. And I Am So Tired Of Every Conservative SUCKING Nixon's BALLS! The guy is dead you don't have to suck up anymore. He wasn't that great anyway. He increased the national debt, damaged social security, and disgraced the Presidency what a great guy. I like Nixon soooo much that in fifty years I'll still be paying through the nose for his presidency and the example he set for all future presidents, I'm so excited. Somebody flashed the Libertarian Signal. Don't worry, world. Here I am. Let me break it down for ya: Damn. I really don't know where to begin? Do I start with the fact that printing off nearly three trillion dollars financed by foreign-held securities is one of the worst things we could possibly be doing right now? What happens, you suppose, if our foreign guarantors decide that they no longer have confidence in the American economy's ability to rebound? Want me to spell it our for you? There will be no more money. Despite what the Democrats would have you believe, dollars don't just grow on trees and they certainly don't magically multiply once you put them into the economy. You want evidence? If that were the case, then why does Obama want to limit salaries for executives working at TARP-effected financials? Their having higher salaries would just as surely put money in the economy, right? Why is one sort of throwing money at the problem different than another sort of throwing money at the problem? I'll tell you why: because Obama is running a perpetual campaign, playing to the populist notions of this country all the while completely obfuscating the fact that he has no fucking clue what he's doing. If you labor under the false impression that most legislators or the President have anything close to an idea what they are doing, I would like to refer you back to Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act that got us into this whole mess in the first place. It turns out that just because poor people getting to have homes sounds like a good idea it turns into a downright shitty idea once those poor people can no longer pay for their mortgages and consequently drag the entire credit market down with them. You know why that happened? Because Jim was not an economist. He was a well-meaning peanut farmer. Do you know what I am not comfortable with? Having people who do not work in the business world and who are not subject to the consequences of their actions (beyond not getting re-elected; boo-fucking-hoo) throwing money around like they know how it works. The Congressional Budget Office has already project that the net effect of the stimulus bill will be an over-all deepening of the recession and a net decrease in GDP. Why? Because it turns out that when you award massive amounts of public funding to whatever random is quick enough to put his hand up first, you crowd out private investing. Nobody gets the benefits of those dollars multiplying, either, because issuing such a massive amount of money (by the time that it's said and done, we'll hit nearly half of our GDP in government slosh, which is a big number) will fundamentally devalue our currency. What we need to fix this problem is a recession, because right now our economy is built on unsound credit. You don't just take out more credit cards when you're already in default on the ones you've already maxed out. And you certainly don't do that all the while trying to convince me that by maxing out this one last credit card, you'll finally gain the liquidity you need to pull yourself out of the hole you've dug for yourself. Well, you do if you are the Democrats in congress. Which is fine and dandy, because when this thing fails (and it will), they will hopefully be punted out of office and back into the private sector where you don't just spend other people's money on credit. We need a recession, and until our government lets that happen, we'll continue to see volatility like we've never seen before as the market continually tries to play catch-up with whatever moronic scheme Congress is pushing that week, hoping that perhaps some crumbs will fall off the table when what they should be doing is reevaluating their portfolios, cutting costs, increasing productivity, and acting like a business instead of a beggar. That's what Congress is doing: turning corporations who formerly lived or died by virtue of their ability to compete into welfare cases who live and die by the grace of a few hundred Washington bureaucrats. And if I hear this populist "rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" nonsense one more time outta anybody's mouth as a justification for why we shouldn't cut taxes, cut regulations, and let businesses do what they are good at, I am going to just ignore whoever brings it up because it's obvious that if they keep typing for any longer than it takes for them to throw out such a stupid assertion they might fall down and strangle themselves with their keyboard cord, and I can't have that on my conscience. Newsflash, you touchy-feely reality-challenged tardos who think this way: corporations survive because they are good at giving people what they want and doing so as cheaply as possible. Put another way, the business of corporations is making dollars work harder. And, yes, there are a few people at the top of many of the largest corporations who will make more money in the next few hours than you will your whole life. Get over it. Or, if it bothers you that badly, go bust your ass through eight years of college, four years of internships, and then forty years of eighty-hour workweeks and you too can live the good life. But whatever you do, don't tell your representatives in government to raise their taxes, because raising taxes means lost jobs. I know it seems like some kinda arcane magic trick, this science of economics, but believe me... You add a cost (taxes) one place and you have to subtract a cost (jobs) from another place. Corporations aren't like the government; they can't just print money whenever they feel like it. They actually have to maintain a balance sheet. And before you bitch about trickle-down economics, go and read a fucking book, for the love of Mike. Or, I dunno, use some common sense. What the fuck do you think rich people do with their money? Seriously? Answer me that question! Do you think they hide it under their lavish curtained king-size beds? For all I know, you might. No, tard, they don't. They spend it. Then it goes back into the economy in a measured, informed way based on what people actually want and need rather than what some unconcerned third party believes the economy needs because he read last week in Time that a fountain in Baton Rouge was cracked and needed some repairs that cost $250 billion. Cripes. The government is terrible at spending money. They have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever gotten anything right. Name me one non-emergency first responder government program that works as advertised, and I will send you an signed photograph of me sticking my head up my own ass and kissing my own brain. Alternatively, I will point out all the reasons why you are wrong about that program, and you must agree to whatever terms I come up with after my fury has subsided. Ball's in ya'lls' courts, tards. Let's do this.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 13:42:08 GMT -8
No. I know you didn't mention them but that's where all of your arguments come from. The tax cuts and trickle down economics as well as other ineffective economical tactics come from Reagan. I actually got Nixon and Regan mixed up so what I really meant was Reagan. The Bush thing is my support for why Reaganomics (Reagan+Economics) doesn't work and the Clinton thing is my answer to counter arguments from Bush. When ever you hear conservatives talk about the economy they always start talking about Reagan and I'm just really sick of it. Reagan is cool and all, but all of his policies have lead us to this point and to say that what he did is what FDR should have done is ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 9, 2009 13:59:22 GMT -8
No. I know you didn't mention them but that's where all of your arguments come from. The tax cuts and trickle down economics as well as other ineffective economical tactics come from Reagan. I actually got Nixon and Regan mixed up so what I really meant was Reagan. The Bush thing is my support for why Reaganomics (Reagan+Economics) doesn't work and the Clinton thing is my answer to counter arguments from Bush. When ever you hear conservatives talk about the economy they always start talking about Reagan and I'm just really sick of it. Reagan is cool and all, but all of his policies have lead us to this point and to say that what he did is what FDR should have done is ignorant. What the fuck? Seriously? * Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. * Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. * Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. * The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. Clinton didn't do shit to help the economy. If you will recall, the Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 1994. The Congress is where all spending bills originate. The White House signs stuff. So, really, if you want to contend that the 90s were a time of magical economic expansion, you'd also have to concede it was the Republicans that made it happen. But really, that would be wrong too. What really helped the economy to expand in the 1990s? You're looking at it. The internet, the most revolutionary invention since Henry Ford's assembly line, was the economic driver of that decade. Now, a case can be made that the internet bubble's bursting was a direct result of the Fed's raising interest rates six consecutive times coupled with the Clinton-era bullshit prosecution of Microsoft. Clinton didn't create the prosperity in the nineties, but Clinton-era policies certainly helped to put a kibosh on them. Say goddamn.
|
|