>> ^campionidelmondo:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Homer-Simpson-Gonna-Be-Dumb


Change video for NIMBLE DODGE! not a dupe no more!

"You're beautiful in your wrath. Were Wang younger and more nimble at dodging swords, I might give you to him and keep the furs. For they, too, are beautiful."

"I shall keep you, Bortai. I shall keep you, and responding to my passion, your hatred will kindle into love."

"Before that day dawns, Mongol, the vultures will have feasted on your heart!"

*SMACK!*

Yeah, bitch deserved it.

But seriously. John Wayne as a Mongolian?? I'm not sold.

If that is the line he is walking, then it is a fine one. Where does the power of the bully pulpit end and the responsibilities of another branch of government begin? I really see this as a response to all that fox news pressure of "you're not emotional or doing enough" ect ect (which was all completely stupid). IF this was something they were already going to do, and IF he is interfering with the responsibility of the courts, THEN all this is, is political. Then again, why should that surprise me

What is less arguable an aim would be on the hole itself. The executive position was designed for quick, nimble action to respond to fast threats; not to take the role of universal arbiter. In the end, worse things can and have happened. I am not worried about today, per say, just tomorrows monster.

This is all so terrible. I LOOOOVE how they can't make the breaker islands until they get a rubber stamp from some red tape government body, go go nimble government powers!

I know that one of those failures was caused by a pen that fell out of a crew chief's pocket and was sucked into the intake, completely fouling the engine. Foreign Object Debris(FOD) is a problem for all aircraft but I've seen lots of crap scraped out of an F-18 and some of it was probably a pen at one point. Most aircraft just chew that stuff up and you don't notice it until it's time for maintenance. This actually grounded the plane.

Also, I should point out that the F22 isn't really a "nimble dogfighter" in the traditional sense. If you're flying circles around other planes in one of these then you have failed as an F22 pilot. While it is in theory a decent dogfighter it's intended that it never be in a dogfight, having shot down the enemy aircraft long before establishing visual contact and ideally without them ever knowing where the missile came from.

Yeah, that failure rate seems... Well, unbelievable. In fact I don't believe it until they elaborate. And I thought one of the points of the F35 was that it was an "F22 Lite" the USA could afford to sell to other countries without revealing all their super secret technology? Though now it seems they were just too embarrassed to let anyone see it.

Air supremacy fighters are pretty much a moot point in todays warfare anyway. The face of warfare has changed so much in the last 20 or so years it's difficult to imagine a conflict where a nimble dogfighter would be necessary for success. Still, I liked the idea of the F22. Though I would have preferred the RAH-66 Comanche to see the light of day, maybe they could've afforded that one if the F22 had been given up early. That thing was stunning and the old Kiowa (I understand that the Comanche was supposed to be a recon chopper, a replacement for the Kiowa, at least partially. If you know better feel free to correct me.) really is getting old.

such strong and nimble hands... oh and the food looks delicious.

And this was really the way you think a government would do it? First rig up buildings with explosives in secret without anyone knowing, then somehow get people to agree to be suicide pilots of planes, then have those planes be passenger planes so that they are not just killing the people in the buildings but those in the planes, and then have them be piloted into the buildings, and then demolish the buildings with explosives.


Really?


You really think they would do this? I know the governments do some seriously horrible shit, and that the attack on Irag was not driven by trying to get anyone remotely connected to 9/11... but you really think that the US government would create something this convoluted when there are plenty of simpler ways to create a reason to attack another country and make your populous afraid of an unseen bogeyman.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that even blatant facts that kill their suppositions are treated as merely 'bogus information from the man' and discounted, whereas utter drivel masquerading as science that agrees with them is lovingly circulated ad nauseum.


>> ^NobleOne:
^ Spoco2: why is it so unbelievable really? Has there never been government conspiracies or secrets? In your context of your argument the Government never killed Kennedy even after coming up with the idea of backing money to silver, pulling out of Vietnam, or dis-banding the CIA... Though i am sure it was one shooter with one bullet that went all nimbly bimbly bouncing around the car and pushing Kennedy back and to the left. That was how long ago and we still don't know all the facts on it.... I am sure as shit not that naive to think it was one guy from a 3rd floor book depository with a bolt action rifle... or the coincidences that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy were all killed within the same time frame... Or how about over throwing the Shah in Iran or the contras in Nicaragua.... Man the list is overwhelming.... Trillions of dollars in Oil will make people do i am sure just about anything....

^ Spoco2: why is it so unbelievable really? Has there never been government conspiracies or secrets? In your context of your argument the Government never killed Kennedy even after coming up with the idea of backing money to silver, pulling out of Vietnam, or dis-banding the CIA... Though i am sure it was one shooter with one bullet that went all nimbly bimbly bouncing around the car and pushing Kennedy back and to the left. That was how long ago and we still don't know all the facts on it.... I am sure as shit not that naive to think it was one guy from a 3rd floor book depository with a bolt action rifle... or the coincidences that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy were all killed within the same time frame... Or how about over throwing the Shah in Iran or the contras in Nicaragua.... Man the list is overwhelming.... Trillions of dollars in Oil will make people do i am sure just about anything....

V.B. Nimble, V.B. Quick

V.B. Wigglesworth wakes at noon,
Washes, shaves and very soon
Is at the lab; he reads his mail,
Swings a tadpole by the tail,
Undoes his coat, removes his hat,

Dips a spider in a vat
Of alkaline, phones the press,
Tells them he is F.R.S.,
Subdivides six protocells,
Kills a rat by ringing bells,

Writes a treatise, edits two
Symposia on "Will man do?,"
Gives a lecture, audits three,
Has the sperm club in for tea,
Pensions off an ageing spore,

Cracks a test tube, takes some pure
Science and applies it, finds,
His hat, adjusts it, pulls the blinds,
Instructs the jellyfish to spawn,
And, by one o'clock, is gone.

Very nimbly-bimbly! Flurrycat rules.

I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

Labour unions are given power through Federal and State government. In both cases business claim that minimum wages, safety standards, and work agreements pushed through by labor unions stifle business growth. Labor is seen as an input factor in economic thinking, not as a group of people. Mises always argued for the elimination of minimum wage for example. Furthermore if you remember the when the Detroit bailout was being discussed it was the Union workers that were blamed for over inflating their wages.

If labor mobility is taken as presented in Austrian economics then all trade restrictions must be done away with, there is efficiency reached when US manufacturing jobs are taken to less regulated non union parts of the world such as China.

The business has great power then its workers to dictate the terms of employment, dissatisfaction with labor conditions would mean mass firings and replacements, the exact reason why China has no labor problems with regards to unions there are so many people vying for the jobs as is.

Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium.

Fair price is never set in the capitalist market, its is the abnormal profits price that is set. With migration of manufacturing to Chinese nations there has been no price fall in basic commodities like clothes. Per unit production costs are in the pennies, however the price charged is inflated. So what you bought for 50$ made in the US is still $50 when made in China, even though production costs are reduced. This applies to almost every industry. Even though market competitiveness is supposed to drive down price we do not see that as there is unspoken collusion of where to set the price. Or rather how much can you set such that demand is stable but with the highest profit creation possible. There is an entire course on profit maximization at the expense of the consumer.

It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced.

What about Government intervention on child labour laws? Social externalities and pollution? In the last 8 years the argument has always been that firms in a free market system can account for externalization given the chance because they are hurting their own market in the long run.

However firms operate on short term profit maximization, and do the best they can in socializing their losses, and privatizing their gains. See Banking bailout.

It is only government regulation that allows or rather forces through economic incentives such as carbon trading to make firms pollute less or increase the welfare with regards to its work force.

Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts.

Really? Explain how socialistic and free market governments flourish in places like Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Finland and shit even China? Mixed economy systems are the most prevalent in the world yet somehow you claim they are all made to internally fail because there is government intervention. That flies in the face of historical fact.

China is the perfect example because you have centralized government which allows free market activity in the economy but nowhere else basically proving Mises belief that the free market leads to democracy in a populace is not altogether sound.

The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans.

Utter right wing spin rubbish, I mean do you even think about it? A 1977 act results in a market meltdown some 32 years later. Be serious. The banks knew the risks, they just hoped the bubble wouldn't burst before making out, further increased exposure by repacking toxic debt and then selling that off as investment packages.

There clear causality found in the 1994 to 2004 time of Fed debates regarding regulating sub prime and derivatives markets, remember junk bonds of the 1980s? Same shit different name but far more severe effects.
For more http://www.videosift.com/video/Klein-Blames-Greenspan-Deregulation-for-Economic-Crisis

Greenspan believed that banks would self regulate themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7687101.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html

Committee chairman Henry Waxman, a Democrat, suggested that Mr Greenspan had added to the problem by rejecting calls for the Fed to regulate the sub-prime sector and some complex, risky financial products.

"The list of regulatory mistakes and misjudgements is long," Mr Waxman said.

"Our regulators became enablers rather than enforcers. Their trust in the wisdom of the markets was infinite," he added, saying that the mantra became "government regulation is wrong".

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned.

Of course it does, but that makes my comment sound like an endorsement of communism and central planning, its not, its rather a clarificaition in that there is no idealized free market system that enables all citizens to be free in the vein of Rand and Friedman. One extreme is a mirror of the other.

Goverment intervention is needed to regulate markets through laws, laws that protect from monopolies from emerging and allow free market competitiveness to occur. To state that a free market system would simply regulate and account for all external costs that it imposes is ridculous.

At the end of the day the onus of proof lies at the feet of Free marketers to prove it can, well the derivatives and sub prime market was a free market entirely with no regulation and see how much profit maximazation and risky behavior that developed, primarily because each firm was acting as an independent actor working towards its own profit maximization.

What did it create? A huge social externality that they were bailout out for, so we continuously social the costs and risks through government and privatize the profits and benefits because that is capitalism.

If we allow free market thinking to take over all these banks should have been allowed to fail for their risky behavior in the market, but that would mean socio-economic collapse, though I think it would have been better since it would clarify to any one else that risky business behavior has its costs. But the people running the banks are tied closely to those running the economy, and you can't have a major change in the Wall Street it would create a huge loss of investor confidence that would create even worse effects. Business confidence is a frighteningly fickle beast.

Ha. I love this, people follow Misean view of economics without realizing that at it's cores it is against all statism and democracy as a whole. How would you like to be ruled over corporations and business interests?

You make an assumption here that is false. Businesses get the ruling over us when they are able to enforce the rule of law over us. When we are free to choose what we want when we want it, the consumer is in power.

On the other end of the spectrum, the labor side (means of production). There will always be a fight between the business owners and the workers. When there are many workers, the companies will be able to force lower wages, and vice versa, that is just the way it goes. I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

When the power is in the hands of the people, they have to recognize that their dollar is indeed power, and where they choose to invest it directly affects the world around them. It is a world where much more thought and responsibility has to be taken into account.

I realized that capitalism possess no soul and could not work unless we were all robots and did not care about the welfare of others.

Business is all about providing solutions for people directly. You aim is for consumer satisfaction. Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium. It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced. When we are forced to pay twice what a hair cut is worth because we need to make sure the barber is placed in a position in society that we wish to make the new minimum, you undermine the consumers right to evaluate what things are worth, and thus undermine the entire price structure. Things will begin to break down and inflation will result, lowering the buying power of everyone and thus returning this man to the same status of which you wished to lower him out of, and over-complicating things by placing a moral agenda on economics that all don't hold to.

The key to good governance and national economy is the mixture of both
This is dialectic reasoning to think you can mix to things that are fundamentally opposed to each other. Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts. The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans. The result was the sub prime mess of today; enterprising capitalist's found a way to exploit poor government controls for economic redistribution of wealth and manged to make the poor, more poor, and the rich more rich...which is usually now much government "level the playing field" laws go.

I was assured a full....
You were assured something, but where they something you even wanted? Where they something you asked for? The main problem with this whole idea is the massive waste that goes on, communism is extremely ineffective. It provides things to those that provide nothing. It provides things to those who do not want those things. It essentially is the most unfair system one could make when trying to make something effective and efficient. This is why Soviets could launch objects into space, but could not provide soap or women's pantyhose to its people, there is no real model for determining the value of things OTHER than peoples demand for them. There is no government system you could make until after you have a pricing model for them, it hasn't been shown to be possible without massive inflation or more widespread enforcement of market strategies.

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned. The idea of the philosopher king (or planners)lacks the merit or the understanding of human nature. People are greedy. To place the power of all our lives in the hands of the few only begs for the worst kinds of tragedy that the world have known. More over, the few that we ask to do it are no wiser on those things than ourselves. Do you think that the hundreds of people on capital hill know what the best course of action is on green energy? Do their one or 2 advisers? No they don't. The only thing they can do, is force it. Even if it isn't the most wise course of action.

I love rhythmic gymnasts! Lithe, nimble, usually of legal age, and prissy, catty bitches all!

He doesn't really look very nimble enough to be able to really take advantage of the extra second a roll of toilet paper flying past the cat's face might buy ...

... he should take fishing rod or long pole, tie a rope and a feather duster to it and sling it around near the cat ...