I'm thinking... Ivy League College?

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

I think the ivy is fake.

>> ^PHJF:
K-12's only purpose is to prepare students (at least somewhat) for higher education. Curriculum is almost entirely survey-level, which is fine, because broad curriculum gives a better chance for students to find SOMETHING which interests them. I LEARNED from high school that I like to write, that I like science, that I like building things (from web pages to adirondack chairs), and that I like history. I had some good teachers, I had a few bad teachers, and I had some really great teachers. But almost ALL of my teachers were genuinely interested in their fields, and they wanted to interest students as well. One of my history teachers would lecture with such unbridled enthusiasm and energy that it would have been difficult to NOT pay attention. At the end of it all the only standardized test I took was the ACT. I can't go faulting four years of high school on a single exam.
All that being said, I enjoyed high school. It's unreasonable to expect K-12 to cover virtually every prospective field and vocation. They give you art, music, literature, mathematics, history, sports, woodworking, auto repair, physics, chemistry, biology, languages, drama, etc. etc. Provided teachers are doing their jobs, there are PLENTY of opportunities for students to get some direction.
One thing I quickly noticed after arriving at university was that almost none of the students were proficient writers. Now I know I didn't exactly go Ivy League, but students of higher education, if nothing else, need to know how to write. The matter was made far worse by my composition professor, a hippy who decided not to challenge and improve her students but overlook their (many) shortcomings and pass all with flying colors. My term paper for that class was a lengthy treatise decrying her "methods" as doing direct damage to her students' future education and careers. The grade she awarded that paper didn't reflect agreement on her part.


I learned proper writing when I started my own book about useless drivel... never from school. In fact, I never liked writing or reading until I deployed to Iraq and learned the arts because I was bored.

K-12's only purpose is to prepare students (at least somewhat) for higher education. Curriculum is almost entirely survey-level, which is fine, because broad curriculum gives a better chance for students to find SOMETHING which interests them. I LEARNED from high school that I like to write, that I like science, that I like building things (from web pages to adirondack chairs), and that I like history. I had some good teachers, I had a few bad teachers, and I had some really great teachers. But almost ALL of my teachers were genuinely interested in their fields, and they wanted to interest students as well. One of my history teachers would lecture with such unbridled enthusiasm and energy that it would have been difficult to NOT pay attention. At the end of it all the only standardized test I took was the ACT. I can't go faulting four years of high school on a single exam.

All that being said, I enjoyed high school. It's unreasonable to expect K-12 to cover virtually every prospective field and vocation. They give you art, music, literature, mathematics, history, sports, woodworking, auto repair, physics, chemistry, biology, languages, drama, etc. etc. Provided teachers are doing their jobs, there are PLENTY of opportunities for students to get some direction.

One thing I quickly noticed after arriving at university was that almost none of the students were proficient writers. Now I know I didn't exactly go Ivy League, but students of higher education, if nothing else, need to know how to write. The matter was made far worse by my composition professor, a hippy who decided not to challenge and improve her students but overlook their (many) shortcomings and pass all with flying colors. My term paper for that class was a lengthy treatise decrying her "methods" as doing direct damage to her students' future education and careers. The grade she awarded that paper didn't reflect agreement on her part.

Yay for magic... who needs evidence anyway?

And everyone knows that herbal medicines aren't chemicals, and aren't dangerous. May I suggest hemlock, amanita muscaria, and poison ivy as fine examples of the safety of herbal medicines?

I'm definitely not a fan of the pharma companies, but come on...this shit's just claiming that herbs = good, and that just ain't being honest.

Dude, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand what I'm saying. So I'm not going to tailor my posts to cater to your whims, sorry. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say, then simply ignore my posts and move on. It's really that simple.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.


Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.

In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.


I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.


My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.


Wow... Apples to science here.

First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...

Way different scenario.

Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...

Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.

But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

Hi @NetRunner,

I like immigration in general. However, importing poverty doesn't seem wise. The more poverty we import, the larger a burden it is on the rest of society. Hence California's catch 22: either reduce social services, close state parks, etc, or go bankrupt. Even very high taxes are no longer enough to allow California to behave as if it is a well-off state.

@NetRunner: "My observation was that my peers in school went on to make vastly more money than me, despite their loafish and unintellectual mediocrity and ethically shallow outlook, while the people in my neighborhood went on to make vastly less money than me, despite their innate industriousness, untapped intellectual depth, and generally virtuous outlook on the world."

"Untapped intellectual depth:" That's really a big part of inequality... some folks tap their own depths, and other folks wait for others to tap their depths for them.

When we say people are unable to better their situations, we don't mean they're physically incapable of it... we mean they're ideologically incapable of it. They can't make the sacrifices I make because they're ideologically incapable of doing so. They must watch sports, make bad sexual and marriage decisions, and must generally waste their time in innumerable ways because their ideology is ineffective and they won't change.

I was recently dating a woman who has an ivy league doctorate, but who has the temperament of a short-term thinker. She's in the process of re-training to be a community college instructor in an only tangentially related field because it's more laid back, even though the pay is worse. I tried giving her some career management advice, but her options are limited because she doesn't have a good ideology.

It seems backwards to ask us to subsidize other people's predictably bad ideologies.

@NetRunner: "But then, you're making an easy enough mistake. A man who'd never lived anywhere but an isolated tropical island would deny snow exists, much less is something which people would need to stockpile salt and sand for..."

I've spent around 1/3 of my life living beneath the poverty line. I understand the value of a dollar.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'victorian, film, nude scene, ricky gervais, stephen merchant, graham norton, show' to 'victorian, film, nude scene, ricky gervais, stephen merchant, graham norton, show, ivy' - edited by calvados

Since you so much want to dig in this grave of lost souls, qualm, I might as well make a final response.

My position has not changed in any way. I have apologized for the act I did to Ivy and she accepted it. That's the extent of what I did. Everything else here is bullshit; peggedbea lied about a bunch of stuff, alien_concept overreacted, rash is a self-righteous idiot and so are you. Nothing more to it. I don't miss the Rachel that posted this, but I do miss the Rachel that I befriended long before this.

I think peggedbea is a sack of shit, but there we are - obviously she's not too fond of me either, but that's her problem. Ivy and bea, especially bea, need to learn that words have meaning too and they had a part in grooming the environment that lead to all this.

There are a bunch of people who responded in this thread who have no idea what they're talking about, someone like MinXyMoo, who seems to just be a sock-puppet account of any of the haters - I've never interacted with that piece of shit, so how can he/she make the accusations that they did? I should have instabanned the account for the personal attack out of the blue.

I've no need to apologize for anymore of this. Anyone else who posts in this post can go fuck themselves, like you should qualm. Go die somewhere, alone, miserable, angry at the world that shunned your pest-ridden cadaver.