all of those bills are just ones the GOP themselves say are jobs bills, not anything having to actually do with jobs

And Obama's bill is just one that he says is a job bill, not anything having to do with jobs.

UCwhutididthere? From a fiscally conservative position, the GOP bills are about jobs. To a hard-left prog-lib-dyte, they aren't. To a fiscal conservative, Obama's bill is an absolute joke, but to a proglib-dyte it looks wonderful.

The truth is that both approaches are "methods" for creating jobs, but take different approaches. The GOP is using free markets, natural resource development, and small business tax breaks as a means of spurring job growth. The Democrats approach is taxes and deficit spending on temporary jobs and unions. But the past 3 years has shown us that Obama's approach is crap, and the GOP is saying "here's a viable alternative - let's try it". The Democrats in the Senate are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" Meanwhile the Democrats and President are saying, "Let's keep going what we've been doing for the past 3 years..." and the GOP in the House are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" It's a philosophical debate, and the nation as a whole prefers the GOP approach - not the President's. So he's trying to get the stupid and the suckers to buy into this moronic "do nothing" congress line. He's got nothing else because poll after poll shows both him and his plan are cratering.

the second thing you cite to is a bill basically eliminating the EPA

No - it is a bill to reduce the EPA to a less stupid level. EPA regulation of Co2 is not something the people voted for. It was rammed through by legislative fiat by Obama as a means of stifling energy production and imposing regulations on businesses which (in turn) hurt jobs. Obama's administration is rife with such bullcrap. He bans drilling in the Gulf which COSTS jobs. He blocks the Canada pipeline - which COSTS jobs. He blocks Ohio natural gas drilling - which COSTS jobs. Meanwhile he is literally dumping billions into failed projects like Fisker, Solyndra, and others which they KNOW are bad investments and are going bankrupt left and right. The GOP effort to halt that would almost immediately create over a MILLION jobs. The result will be more energy production, which will lower costs and create work. THAT is a job plan. Obama's plan kills jobs and raises energy costs.

I support Spurs and it would be interesting to compare speeds. We must have one of the fastest sides in the Premiership at the moment. Definitely think we'll get into the Champions League for next year once Newcastle start to fade.

>> ^shagen454:

Never forget the way America works. Tea Party protests were covered all over the media, the media never spoke of their tinges with racism and homophobia among many other things including being a sell out corporatist movement. They glorified those FOX fried fanatics.
They ignored the OWS movement from day one because they are not interested in investing in this movement because this movement is a direct threat to them. They made them look like idiotic, homeless, hippy bums. Shame on you.

To amplify this point, Nate Silver did some statistical analysis on this very topic, and found that the data backs up what you're saying.

Basically the OWS people only started getting headlines when they got pepper sprayed and arrested.

@mgittle okay, it sounds like we were mostly misunderstanding each other then. I pretty much agree with everything you said in the last post.

The only thing I'd point out is that the quote you cite from Modern Money Mechanics is right, but you're leaving out what happens after that in the process:

The lending banks, however, do not expect to retain the deposits they create through their loan operations. Borrowers write checks that probably will be deposited in other banks. As these checks move through the collection process, the Federal Reserve Banks debit the reserve accounts of the paying banks (Stage 1 banks) and credit those of the receiving banks.

Whether Stage 1 banks actually do lose the deposits to other banks or whether any or all of the borrowers' checks are redeposited in these same banks makes no difference in the expansion process. If the lending banks expect to lose these deposits - and an equal amount of reserves - as the borrowers' checks are paid, they will not lend more than their excess reserves.

Which is what I was getting at. A single bank that gets a $10,000 deposit, can't turn around and make $100,000 in loans itself. It loans out $9,000, and when that principal gets deposited in another bank, it can loan out $8,100, and so on and so forth.

With enough loan/deposit iterations, it can end up being as much as $100,000 in additional money in circulation, but like you said repaying the principal destroys that money again.

I'd also point out that all of the above would create money even if your currency is on a full gold standard.

But I guess before we go down that road, I probably should just ask you to elaborate a bit on your thoughts about the relationship between growth and fiat currency.

Like, what do you mean by "growth"? Increase in GDP? If GDP falls, how does that threaten the existence of fiat currency?

By my reading of economics, a shrinking economy is called a "recession", and that's exactly when modern economics says we should take advantage of the fact that we have fiat currency and use it to increase the money supply to spur growth.

>> ^juliovega914:

This type of gear is commonly used so that you can have a gear ratio (mechanical advantage) that is a variable as a function of angle of rotation of the gear. Its difficult to tell just from this video if that is happening in this case (as oppose to simply having a z-constrained contact point, not unlike a helical gear). If the contact point moves from left to right in the x direction (perpendicular to the axles, in the direction from gear center to gear center) the leverage changes and so you can have a regularly variable gear ratio, which is useful for certain applications such as periodic motion generators.
One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear. It would take an extremely small axial motion for the drive gear to transfer its torque to the right gear and away from the left, and would likely result in extremely minimal galling and gear damage since the gear is pretty much kept in proper shape. In a standard spur gear, this would require the use of huge numbers of extremely tiny teeth, which anyone who knows their solid mechanics would tell you that they are very weak compared to something like this.


I came back just to upvote your comment, I almost forgot

@SDGundamX (warning, long post, in 2 parts, w/tldr @end)

From the content of your reply I'm going to assume (or should I hope?) that you are playing the devil's advocate in your defense of religious belief/faith(addressed in 2nd comment below); correct me if I'm wrong. As for me, I readily admit that my defense of rudeness is presented in a spirit of controversy; I also prefer direct but insultless argumentation in these kinds of debates, but am not against the occasional use of painful - even insulting - truths.

On "Rudity"

Before answering on this subject, I think it is important to stress that the woman above is a comedian, something surely stated in her presentation at the show's beginning. I would defend her exclamation regardless, but the fact definitely makes it easier, since hyperbole, shock and insult are all tools of the comedian's/satirist's trade. You might say that she's not at a comedy show, to which I would answer that one need not be.

You ask for examples of rudeness/insult-laden arguments being productive. I would gesture very generally in the direction of those whose wavering minds were decided by the argumentation of the "New Atheists", some of whom are utterly disrespectful of faith and religious beliefs... 'insultingly so' I might add. Sure, they do not say outright "religious believers are idiots" (nor does Kate mind you), but say as much and worse about their beliefs. PZ Myers, one of the most foul-mouthed "New Atheists" on the web and irl (one example which even I found excessively harsh), has been encouraged by ex-believers to continue debating creationists (something he, like others, has renounced, because of the weight of the stupidity); because it works.

I don't think my personal anecdotal evidence counts for much, but since you asked (and since I'm rambling)... The process of my parents' deconversion from evangelical christianity, brought about by yours truly, contained copious amounts of insult, the quality and quantity of which would make the mild "idiot" comment above seem like a compliment in comparison. I'm not particularly proud of my teenage, anger-spurred vulgarity of that time, and were it to be redone I'd definitely tone it down, but I am proud of my relative success: one of my parents is now about as antitheist as I, and while I suspect the other of harbouring a remnant of faith in the supernatural, at least it is never brought up and no longer affects family life or decisions.

You might argue that my insulting descriptions of their dearly-held beliefs were not what convinced them, and you'd be partially right. There were plenty of actual arguments amongst the harsh words. But I was told later (by the parent I fully convinced) that my passionate (read "insulting") tirades against their beliefs is what got them to be questioned; it was the fact that a person they considered as not entirely unintelligent could voice such statements so bluntly that shook them from the comfort of their position of belief. I have also reacted with mocking contempt when facing friends and/or family tempted by other nonsense like conspiracy theories or homeopathy. After OBL's death, one of my close friends let slip that her soon-to-be husband was a 9/11 truther and that she found his stance convincing. I spoke my mind freely (as I do with friends), with words including "pathetic", "stupid" and "he's lost a lot of intellectual respect". Needless to say she was angered (especially since I'd never met the bloke yet), but it did not hinder her from accepting the follow-up argumentation. Had I been more diplomatic, she might have let my argumentation pass by ignored, in favour of an emotionally charged stance.

Yes, I realise the examples above do not concern public debate, but private discussion with people who already had a favourable opinion of me. I don't usually spend time in the company of people who dislike me (or vice-versa), nor do I make a habit of being blunt with people I don't know (okay, maybe a bit on the webs). I have been known to tell evangelical work colleagues that their belief that humankind is twice the offspring of incest is both ridiculous and disgusting, and yet they still speak to me (it helps that here in Europe such beliefs are held by a fringe). Dunno if it had any effect on their beliefs though (and really don't care).



tl;dr: it's a comedian's role to speak truths in uncomfortable ways; persuasion can still be efficient when insult is involved; I'm a contrary bitch with very few friends (but quality ones )
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

This type of gear is commonly used so that you can have a gear ratio (mechanical advantage) that is a variable as a function of angle of rotation of the gear. Its difficult to tell just from this video if that is happening in this case (as oppose to simply having a z-constrained contact point, not unlike a helical gear). If the contact point moves from left to right in the x direction (perpendicular to the axles, in the direction from gear center to gear center) the leverage changes and so you can have a regularly variable gear ratio, which is useful for certain applications such as periodic motion generators.

One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear. It would take an extremely small axial motion for the drive gear to transfer its torque to the right gear and away from the left, and would likely result in extremely minimal galling and gear damage since the gear is pretty much kept in proper shape. In a standard spur gear, this would require the use of huge numbers of extremely tiny teeth, which anyone who knows their solid mechanics would tell you that they are very weak compared to something like this.

capitalism is doing a dandy job undermining itself atm... it needs no help, other than what the banks/politicians (primarily Republicans, but also Democrats) are already contributing

it is quite simple to look back at history (which extends beyond 6000 yrs), and by looking at historical trends to extrapolate what future trends should be, to quite accurate degree

no one is saying taxes and regulation DIRECTLY affect the temperature... and if you believe that the left actually think that, you need to do a little introspection... however, again looking at history you can see that taxes/regulation are able to focus/define/direct economy and industry... its exactly what brought the US out of depression for example... so if your goal is to reduce environmental impact of industries that are leading sources of pollution, or to spur innovation/creativity in new, less harmful technology... taxes/regulation is how you do it

if you leave it up to the private sector alone, what motivation do they have to not do business as usual? the current US/World economy is less driven by innovation as it is driven by profit... someone comes up with a good idea? buy them out or leverage them out of the market if it competes with your product (or better yet buy their product, but sit on it... why bother going through the expense of changing systems)... the US has been brainwashed into thinking Capitalism is wringing every last drop of blood out of a stone, rather than creating new markets/fields

there has been alternative energy source vehicle technology for DECADES, yet they are just trickling into the market now... and its not because people haven't asked for it, its because profit is shortsighted and definitely not philanthropic... its because people stopped buying American gas guzzling penis extensions and started looking at the more economical foreign offering... industry couldn't predict that a shrinking middle class and rising gas prices would change the market... but change was there, so they might as well throw in that environmental issue people have been worried about for the past 50yrs

and when someone starts touting capitalism and poo pooing marxism, socialism, and the like... that's when I know I've been introduced to an idiot... you do realize your quality of life, your standard of living, services you consider essential, etc come from those ideals AS WELL AS Capitalism...

right?

and one or the other, on their own, taken to the Nth degree, are just as horrific as the other

an idiot who hasn't thought for themselves is QUITE ready to start cheering for one side or the other

Okay, I just past the half way point of this documentary, and I am beginning to get the feeling that the original filmmaker, Erin, REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wants this issue to stay alive, despite the fact that it's been naturally dwindling down drastically after the 1st week.

Restoring the vandalized sign? Really???? I mean that was just weird. And the roadtrip and the stickers, I can see that to someone else it wouldn't make sense. It seems like a personal thing than actually trying to solve the problem. She's tackling the problem in her own way, but to someone else it may look inefficient. Getting as much media coverage and exposure of this matters is good (for example, THIS DOCUMENTARY), but yet she is also doing a lot of extra things that are actually counter-productive. Erin is angry, and rightly so, but it's preventing her from thinking things through to become more effective. She's already lost some of her close friends because of her confusing acts, and I wouldn't blame them.

Take a look at 00:36:55 when the woman being interviewed thinks your car had been vandalized because of the car's license plate. Trying to change the licence plate to 'Fag Bug' would make it look like you are actually like the term, yet the very point of this trip is to speak against calling gays/lesbians 'ur a fag'. It's just confusing as fuck.

Obviously she didn't plan this trip months ahead, and it was a spur of the moment thing. And I am starting to get the sense of her personality, someone who reacts emotionally and fatalistically and dive into the cause. at 00:42:00 she talks of how her lease is ending and her girlfriend won't be there when she comes back from the trip. She's putting everything on the line, meaning that she took this trip without resolving these matters before hand. A lot of loose ends that creates all these problems for her. She suggests that this is the kinds of sacrifice she's making for this trip, but I personally think these 'sacrifices' could've easily been avoided had she though things through a bit. A different person could have gone on this trip and things may have been a lot more organized.

Starting from 00:45:50, She also mentions that 99% of negative feedback came from the gay community. Now she never gets into why that's happening. That's probably because she doesn't understand the phenomenon herself. I may have a wild guess as to say that the gay community may have the same issue I am having with Erin. Her whole trip and this 'movement' is very self centered and unorganized, and even though the goal of this project may be clear to Erin, the portrayal of the message is unclear and confusing for others. Again, this is another case where a bit of organization and less complication would have eased the tension between her and the gay community.

I commend her for putting all the efforts to fight for what she is passionate about. But frankly, she's doing some weird shit to try to keep this thing alive, nor is she making it easy for people to understand it.

I also upvoted to spur discussion.

Pat has a valid point about the cycle of bad parents --> loser kids --> bad parents. Sure, it pisses me off too, but any "justice" should be in some way restorative, preferably in favour of the victim, society at large, and the perp too. Taking away the rioter's homes doesn't help the carpet seller whose shop was burnt out. Taking away their social benefits doesn't reduce the likelihood of another riot. They should do time working for free moving in new carpets for the carpet seller. They should do time with Habitat for Humanity building homes for the newly homeless. They should go to schools to give talks on the dangers of fire in a residential building.

And so on.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
He didn't like being lumped into a big bucket, or painted with a broad brush? Yes, that is rather unfair. So why do the exact same thing to lawyers?

At what point in this video does he do that?

"I resist the urge to remind the other dinner guests that it's also true what they say about lawyers.".

So.. if you were one of said dinner guests at this likely fictional dinner, you would have left there thinking he never fired back at the lawyer.

In his retelling of it, he never mentions what the urge was to say. It was most likely just a vulgar shot back.. as in something like 'they have small.....', or whatver. I say this because he then mentions 'they're eating, and in polite company'.

That's kinda beside the point anyways, because his rant was more about the contrast of the lawyer in the story's outlook of doing work for pay - where he teaches out of a genuine desire to teach, that's what drives him.. not money. Though he may very well desire to be rich just like pretty much everyone else. Therefore it was an insult to him for the other person to discuss pay, and snub his nose offhandidly over it. Some people do jobs because it's "what they were born to do", despite pay.. it may be something they love (or more in line with what's being expressed in the video) because they believe they're doing good in the world. I don't see the poem being so much about being stereo-typed or lumped together into some "big bucket" with other teachers.

Ontop of all this if you're take anything political / union / non-union / whatever from this, that's your baggage.

I believe your whole anti-union political thought process is what spurred you to shoot this guy down in some fashion.. work in a jab somehow.

When lower and middle class spend money to buy things, the demand spurs more hiring, etc..

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^Grimm:
Or maybe just for people who like to have a good time and aren't dead inside yet.>> ^ForgedReality:
Seems like something they do often for tourists...


Or maybe you shouldn't have taken it that way. I just meant it seems like something they rehearse and do often, not just some spur of the moment thing like the title of this video makes it seem. I just said tourists because they would be less likely to recognize the routine.

Also.. that mentality doesn't work so well when it's between innings at the Tampa Bay Rays. That's generally broadcast nationally. And there'd likely be more of these videos if that were the case.

FFS, This is clearly an act. There ARE other videos of this same act, It takes less clicks of the mouse to find them then it did to type a rebuke of the idea that this is staged entertainment (and it was entertaining). The only thing "dead inside" here is some peoples ability to see the obvious.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^Grimm:
Or maybe just for people who like to have a good time and aren't dead inside yet.>> ^ForgedReality:
Seems like something they do often for tourists...


Or maybe you shouldn't have taken it that way. I just meant it seems like something they rehearse and do often, not just some spur of the moment thing like the title of this video makes it seem. I just said tourists because they would be less likely to recognize the routine.


Also.. that mentality doesn't work so well when it's between innings at the Tampa Bay Rays. That's generally broadcast nationally. And there'd likely be more of these videos if that were the case.

>> ^Grimm:

Or maybe just for people who like to have a good time and aren't dead inside yet.>> ^ForgedReality:
Seems like something they do often for tourists...



Or maybe you shouldn't have taken it that way. I just meant it seems like something they rehearse and do often, not just some spur of the moment thing like the title of this video makes it seem. I just said tourists because they would be less likely to recognize the routine.