Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.

This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.

Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.


>> ^HaricotVert:

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?
Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.
I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.

So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.

This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

Depending on where you end up you're talking anarchy island (Somalia), communism island (Cuba), or a hybrid place not unlike the USofA.

There are left and right libertarian doctrines... If you're talking about the right, with private ownership of land, money exchanged for goods, etc., ... all that noise is just (A) people who are easily convinced that they are not to blame for their problems, and (B) hypocrites who don't recognize the hundreds of times that they daily benefit from publicly funding resources.

Don't like the EPA? Visit China... a sunny day and you can't see sky scrapers a mile away through the pollution.

Don't like high taxes? Visit countries with low taxes... good luck not getting robbed, because they fucking suck. Its not fucking rocket science to see why...


What many libertarian really MEAN to complain about is that they don't like spending they see as wasteful. Get in line.

I don't know a damn thing about you. I don't claim that you are anything like any other religious person in existence or in history, except for one thing - a belief in a supernatural higher power that there is no real basis for believing in. And in that very specific aspect of your personality, yes, I generalize you. No matter what kind of monster you yourself try to paint me as being, I just don't feel bad about that. Sorry that I can't catalog the personal details of billions of individual believers for anonymous online discussion purposes. I'm sure you are otherwise a wonderful human being and I certainly bear you no ill will.>> ^smooman:

>> ^Sketch:
You are right, I am not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, because that would make me a complete idiot. If it helps for me to compartmentalize it for you, then yes, where your beliefs in religion, superstition and the supernatural are concerned, I actively think that you are an idiot. Does that clear it up and make you feel better? Now you can go do rocket science, or brain surgery or any number of things that probably make you a great deal smarter than me in a possibly infinite minus 1 number of subjects in peace.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
It's not, but if that's how you want to put words in my mouth, then so be it. Smart people can, and do, believe stupid shit sometimes. It happens.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
For the record, in my estimation, if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in idiotic superstition.

"if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in things only idiots do, thus making you an idiot"
thats basically what you said


well it does actually. the modifier of superstitions, in this case, idiotic, explicitly implies that the believers of such are by association, idiots. This is further enforced by your choice of diction indicating that all persons of religious persuasions believe in what you would describe as "idiotic superstitions". this is merely a debate in semantics but.....whatever. i think i know what you were trying to say. you just said it in the most absolute, presumptuous, generalized way


its amusing to me that you like to think you know my beliefs and my deepest convictions, or superstitions as you call them, based on the mere fact that i am religious. cuz we're all the same right? perhaps to you. by that fact, it is you who are foolish, not me.....or are all atheists the same? (hint: theyre not, and neither are we religious types)
if its more comfortable for you to paint with such broad strokes, then by all means, keep using that sweeping brush, but dont expect me to admire your haste to color all religious peoples as bumbling neanderthals clinging to ancient fairy tales and superstitions that you vehemently insist we are.

but what do i know, im just a superstitious, religious, idiot

>> ^Sketch:

You are right, I am not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, because that would make me a complete idiot. If it helps for me to compartmentalize it for you, then yes, where your beliefs in religion, superstition and the supernatural are concerned, I actively think that you are an idiot. Does that clear it up and make you feel better? Now you can go do rocket science, or brain surgery or any number of things that probably make you a great deal smarter than me in a possibly infinite minus 1 number of subjects in peace.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
It's not, but if that's how you want to put words in my mouth, then so be it. Smart people can, and do, believe stupid shit sometimes. It happens.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
For the record, in my estimation, if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in idiotic superstition.

"if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in things only idiots do, thus making you an idiot"
thats basically what you said


well it does actually. the modifier of superstitions, in this case, idiotic, explicitly implies that the believers of such are by association, idiots. This is further enforced by your choice of diction indicating that all persons of religious persuasions believe in what you would describe as "idiotic superstitions". this is merely a debate in semantics but.....whatever. i think i know what you were trying to say. you just said it in the most absolute, presumptuous, generalized way



its amusing to me that you like to think you know my beliefs and my deepest convictions, or superstitions as you call them, based on the mere fact that i am religious. cuz we're all the same right? perhaps to you. by that fact, it is you who are foolish, not me.....or are all atheists the same? (hint: theyre not, and neither are we religious types)

if its more comfortable for you to paint with such broad strokes, then by all means, keep using that sweeping brush, but dont expect me to admire your haste to color all religious peoples as bumbling neanderthals clinging to ancient fairy tales and superstitions that you vehemently insist we are.


but what do i know, im just a superstitious, religious, idiot

You are right, I am not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, because that would make me a complete idiot. If it helps for me to compartmentalize it for you, then yes, where your beliefs in religion, superstition and the supernatural are concerned, I actively think that you are an idiot. Does that clear it up and make you feel better? Now you can go do rocket science, or brain surgery or any number of things that probably make you a great deal smarter than me in a possibly infinite minus 1 number of subjects in peace.>> ^smooman:

>> ^Sketch:
It's not, but if that's how you want to put words in my mouth, then so be it. Smart people can, and do, believe stupid shit sometimes. It happens.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
For the record, in my estimation, if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in idiotic superstition.

"if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in things only idiots do, thus making you an idiot"
thats basically what you said


well it does actually. the modifier of superstitions, in this case, idiotic, explicitly implies that the believers of such are by association, idiots. This is further enforced by your choice of diction indicating that all persons of religious persuasions believe in what you would describe as "idiotic superstitions". this is merely a debate in semantics but.....whatever. i think i know what you were trying to say. you just said it in the most absolute, presumptuous, generalized way

government... not involved...

I agree. Government really has no role in this, and should not be involved. "Marriage" is a ceremony with religious origins. If religions don't want to adminster 'marriage' to gay couples, then I don't see any problem with that. However, the issue is that marriage has become tied into specific legal and social benefits as a result of government promotion. I don't have a problem with that coming to an end. Let's get the government out of it. Make it so marriage is a purely religious ceremony, which also gains the societal and legal benefits of a 'civil union'. Then make it so gay couples, polygamists, or whatever can get their civil unions which will give them all their benefits. There. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science. Make 'marriage' a thing that churches can choose to administer (or limit) to whomever they wish, and let the civil union be the thing that confers the legal rights. It's ridiculously simple.

I'd love to believe that we just witnessed a teachable moment there...but my cynicism tells me that the caller just gave up.

But in all seriousness. More people need to be taught this. You are not in a bubble where your actions only affect you, you and six billion other people are all part of the same system, so it's in EVERYONE's interests to work together for the common good.

It's not religion, it's not rocket science. You don't have to be an atheist or have advanced degrees in science and philosophy to understand this.

I guess maybe they hope to be able to start a self-sustained reaction?

Without destroying reality in the process?

What the fuck do I know, IT'S ROCKET SCIENCE.

"...maybe she doesn't have the money to pay..."

She has a house and two horses on some pretty big acreage. If she can't afford the property tax then sell the place. It's not rocket science.

Ultimately she's the one who screwed herself. She owed taxes, I presume for many years, she didn't pay, instead she fought the city in court and lost. Instead of selling her place to pay for what she owed she decided to stick her head in the ground and hope it would all go away.

I'm sorry I just have no sympathy for people that stupid and self-centred.

>> ^kymbos:

I'm continually impressed with how well he presents and delivers a message. And he's right about reform in general, and health care in particular. People have unrealistic expectations about timeframes and political process.
That said, prudential regulation - the cause of the fincancial crisis - is not rocket science. It doesn't require Government ownership, or limits on salaries and bonuses.


Yeah I'd be impressed to if he wasn't lying. Also I don't like his assassination policy in foreign countries...Drones keep killing innocent people...Obama keeps smiling.

I'm continually impressed with how well he presents and delivers a message. And he's right about reform in general, and health care in particular. People have unrealistic expectations about timeframes and political process.

That said, prudential regulation - the cause of the fincancial crisis - is not rocket science. It doesn't require Government ownership, or limits on salaries and bonuses.

omg someone needs to fix the fucking dupe suggestions. It's the same exact title, ROCKET SCIENCE! *isdupe

Once again you had a dead video. It's not rocket science.

I've addressed all of those posts you bring up yet again earlier and honestly have better things to do with my time. I'm still puzzled who minxymoo is and how he or she "knows the full story" because obviously that person knows more than I do... and I was there. The rumor mill churns, the lies run rampant. Fun at the old factory.

I am still left puzzled as to why you, @qualm, put all this effort into it? You seem to be the only person interested in pursuing this. I can only think that you have nothing better to do with your life, which is just sad. Are you trying to be a hero like Rasch did and save the poor women who can't defend themselves? They've all moved on from this issue - it's just you, the lone troll, sitting back whining about it. Fucking wankers.

I also think it's hilarious that you continually cannot spell my user name.

Your continual harassment is not welcome. Keep it up and face a ban eventually. You cannot hurt me anyway, so you're just stroking your own ego.