I can remember when I ounce wanted to die back in my second year of high school. I was attracted to a girl that was in my math class. Then I caught her picking her nose after a quick glance her way. That was the day the music died and my boner left me.

These kids today, I'm telling ya...

What does “Lid” mean?

Common terminology used in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s to describe approximately an ounce of cannabis. While the origin of this term varies, many agree that it comes from the specific style of coffee cans used during the 1960s, the lids of which peeled off like sardine tins.

If the dollar has no actual value…you’re sunk from the start.

Improving gdp is the only way to add value today….much easier said than done, and possible to go backwards at light speed.

Are you calling the US a developing country? Deflation isn’t a concern for most. It’s pretty rare.

If you improve the economy artificially, the bill will come due someday inconvenient and likely cause depression, not just recession.

Restarting countries didn’t all borrow, some tried to take over the world and ignore all their debts. Just saying.

If you have gold backing your dollar, even if your dollar somehow collapsed you’ve still got all the gold. That’s just one reason it’s smart. If you don’t issue dollars for every ounce of gold in reserve, you can add dollars without the risk of inflation, then remove them when possible.

You keep saying it has no advantages, I’ve listed many.

Outrageous idiotic bullshit. Gold is a commodity universally valued. Bitcoin is worse than nothing, it costs money just by existing and has absolutely no value besides what idiots will pay, that’s like basing your economy on beanie babies and saying it’s the same as physical gold. WTF man?

@StukaFox, funnily enough today I was thinking of a joke I used to tell back in the day. I couldn't find just now in a 2 minute search making it less likely you've heard it before, so I'll write out a quick version. It's not the funniest or the dirtiest, but it's fun to tell.

So a guy's looking to kill himself and fortuitously comes across a sign saying 'for an interesting death enquire within.' This being a joke he decides he has to give it a go.

Inside is an absolutely huuuuge naked woman. She first instructs him to put his belt on her. He struggles, but eventually manages. "Now," she says "pull it tighter until I'm thin." With every ounce of strength and leverage he can muster he gets the belt to the last notch. Struggling for breath she says "Now eat my pussy". He's starting to suspect a scam, but he goes for it anyway. "Harder!" she gasps, grinding against him. He pushes back against her as hard as he can. "harder! HARDER!" He's pushing so hard he's struggling to breathe. He suspects she's just trying to smother him with her pussy when he feels her starting to orgasm. He pushes harder still. Her muscles tense and pulse until suddenly the belt can't take it any more - POP! Ssccchhhhlllup! And he was never seen again.

----

Bonus clean joke I saw when I searched for the one above: Don't challenge Death to a pillow fight unless you're prepared to face the reaper cushions.

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Jedi has every ounce of fact in its history and creation that any other religion or cult has.

...but honestly, I just found the juxtaposition funny.

If someone accosts another person, especially a stranger, they stop them or go up to them and speak to them in a way that seems rude or threatening.
[formal, disapproval]
A man had accosted me in the street. [VERB noun]
Synonyms: confront, challenge, address, stop More Synonyms of accost
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word Frequency
accost in British
(əˈkɒst )
verb
1. (transitive)
to approach, stop, and speak to (a person), as to ask a question, accuse of a crime, solicit sexually, etc

It is suggesting the police were in error or were being rude at best.
This is how most people of my generation would understand the term.
So all I have to do is shed my clothes now and let things swing in the wind and I can do whatever I please, even coming within feet of the potus?
I don't think It would be a pretty picture/outcome for several reasons.
Biased reporting.
Just because Fox does it doesn't make it right.
You admit you can't even stand watching Fox for more than a couple of minutes.
You therefore have no ground to stand on.
You must endure it until your hair starts falling out as I have with CNN.
That's about 5 minutes.

Another definition might work as well.
The reporter constantly berated,grandstanded and hogged the microphone refusing to show an ounce of decorum.
He pulled an Acosta.

"In the summer of 1935, C.J. "Johnny" Baker and H. Muir staked the original 21 "Giant" claims for Bear Exploration Company. The claims were on Great Slave Lake's Back Bay and along what is now the historic Ingraham Trail.

By 1937, Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd. acquired Burwash's assets. From these, the subsidiary Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd was created. The company fell on hard times and by 1940, operations eventually came to a standstill. Frobisher Explorations took over the site in 1943. However, the advent of World War II halted the operation once again. Gold was not a priority in times of war, and there was a shortage of men to work the site.

Soon after the war ended, Giant Mine officially opened, and production moved into full swing. The first gold brick was poured on June 3, 1948.

From May to December 1948, the mine produced 8,152 ounces of gold from 49,985 tonnes of ore. With the nearby Con Mine also operating, Yellowknife was experiencing the rapid growth associated with a booming mining industry.

Those original claims would lead to the production of seven million ounces of gold and one of the longest continuous gold mining operations in Canadian mining history; however, they also led to a legacy of contamination."

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100027388/1100100027390

This guy kept showing up on that horse and he is the shittiest rider possible. Really, it's painful to watch him. If he had an ounce of self awareness he'd understand how bad he looks.

If I was on a trail ride with this guy I'd make him get off the horse and walk it to an enclosed arena where he'd at least be a little safer.

And I feel bad for that horse, getting it's head yanked around with a tom thumb bit like that.

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

This only applies to the metric system. For the empirical system, it gets even more confusing. Here's a simple quote from NASA's Pre-Jesus era website:

The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force. If you weighed 100 pounds at the north pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less.

Whenever we talk about weight in pounds, we need to define where with respect to the center of our little bluey.

Simple...the prisons are full of low level drug dealers for selling an ounce of pot, so thieves and abusers have to be set free.

Nope, just gave a sterling example of why the woman in the video is right and why angry as fuck feminist types (male or female) give up their place in the conversation (as opposed to getting chased off by mean old men) because they can't address their fellow human beings (again, male or female) with an ounce of common courtesy. =)

My my, it never ends with you people, does it?

You literally bend everything you see or hear to fit whatever convoluted, torturous, labyrinthine, alien viewpoint you've devised through ignoring any semblance of reason or clear thought.

I am a Liberal(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/liberal) for God Sakes, and I can't believe what I am hearing from you...

Forget it, I bloody quit trying, you win, Tralala, enjoy whatever new hell you people can think up for yourselves. Maybe once the people you elect take every ounce of freedom you enjoy, and completely ignore any of your say in the matter, you will see.