prev <-> next
[2012-10-09 16:28:07] - -Daniel
[2012-10-09 16:28:04] - I get on an emotional level that Greece is sad they are in sorry place and have to pretty much totally let Germany dictate their economy at the moment but I'm with Paul that its stupid to be angry with Germany about it. I would be angry at the leaders of Greece if I were Greek but that goes back to my first question, did I elect those leaders or what?
[2012-10-09 16:26:35] - The thing I never understood about Greece was how they got there. I know their debt is high, but was that the fault of voters voting people in expressly to give them more entitlements or was it a few people in charge making terrible decisions? -Daniel
[2012-10-09 16:20:33] - The indirect hit of "if things get bad we just leave the union", being the exact opposite of the catastrophic U.S. civil war might we have nearly opposite effects as well. In which case you can expect segmentation and an eventual collapse of the euro as a bloc, and quite possibly war. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-09 16:19:35] - a: Yeah, I readily admit my analogy doesn't really work. I just can't think of something equally ridiculous. The Greeks are hurting through their own fault. Germany is offering to help if the Greeks show any sign of not digging a deeper hole. Their thanks? Being compared to Nazis. -Paul
[2012-10-09 16:19:19] - mig: I think the most likely scenario for default was Greece got voted off the Euro island and went back to a new drachma which then instantly hyperinflated so as to balanced debts. That's crushing to the Greek economy, and rather like austerity, actually. But the impact on Germany would be minimal (directly). -- Xpovos
[2012-10-09 16:09:48] - xpovos: well greece failing could potentially lead to the EU failing, which is probably a negative for Germany. Not sure how negative, though perhaps you could make the argument that the negative would be short term and they'd be better off in the long run. - mig
[2012-10-09 16:02:21] - http://www.catholicmemes.com/bad-time/catholics-for-obama/ Hee. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-09 16:02:10] - a: Presupposition: Greece failing brings down Germany. Quite likely it doesn't. If it did, then Germany isn't feeding entitlement, they're practicing self-defense, albeit a painful variety. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-09 15:58:48] - "Just because Germany might be the only country willing to bail out Greece doesn't mean Greece should feel entitled to other people's money, right?" agreed. but it does break your analogy into pieces. and the "gratitude" part fails a little bit. if germany is greece's only option, then greece could fail and bring germany down with it. ~a
[2012-10-09 15:53:17] - a: Well, I guess that's why I'm asking if somebody knows something I don't. Even going by your devil's advocate situation, though, why does that make it any different? Just because Germany might be the only country willing to bail out Greece doesn't mean Greece should feel entitled to other people's money, right? -Paul
[2012-10-09 15:29:39] - a: to me that would be irrelevant. Greece's problems are mainly their own doing. Their own bad fiscal policy led them to this. Now, if greece's situation was the result of something like a catastrophic natural disaster or something crazy like that I could maybe sympathize with people saying Germany is being too harsh for having conditiosn to its aid. - mig
[2012-10-09 15:16:37] - paul/xpovos/mig: trying to be devil's advocate here: i don't actually hold any of these beliefs. what if germany is the only option of countries that they're allowed to borrow money from? iow, what if germany countrols a large portion of the EU (they do) and what if they have to go to the EU? ~a
[2012-10-09 14:58:28] - paul: for the most part that sums up european entitlement attitude. - mig
[2012-10-09 14:57:33] - Xpovos: And I guess he would have to inexplicably call me a nazi while doing it too. Not sure I can come up with a ridiculous enough metaphor, actually. -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:56:51] - Xpovos: I suppose, but even as far as entitlement goes, this seems rather bold. This seems like a homeless guy spitting in my face for giving him $5 and asking him not to spend it on booze. -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:52:45] - Paul: You fail to understand entitlement. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-09 14:49:14] - Shouldn't there be at least a little sense of gratitude by the Greeks that Germany is bailing them out at all? -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:47:54] - And now people are complaining because the Germans want stipulations on Greece if they are going to loan them money? And Germany is supposed to feel sorry for being the most powerful economy because it reminds people of the Nazis? Doesn't a lot of this seem incredibly backwards? -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:45:49] - Since they just don't want to randomly throw money at a country that has proven itself to be irresponsible with money, they but some stipulations on the bailouts (get your financial house in order). -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:44:48] - Now Greece's unsustainable system is collapsing because they spent much more than they should've. In the interests of trying to hold the Euro together, Germany has been bailing them out. -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:44:01] - Greece enjoyed some nice low interests rates while on the Euro because of the relative strength of the German economy, along with Germany's reluctance to run up it's debt. -Paul
[2012-10-09 14:42:38] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-faces-image-problem-in-greece-thanks-to-its-growing-clout/2012/10/09/5d39d49c-115d-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_sto Maybe somebody who understands this situation can explain something to me. -Paul
[2012-10-09 10:06:14] - http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/10/07/reports-entire-cities-dead-on-certain-realms/ apparently over the weekend some people managed to either hack the WoW client or servers to give themselves admin like touch of death commands and they went on a killing rampage in all the cities. Kind of reminded me of the south park wow episode. - mig
[2012-10-05 16:03:07] - paul: if it's tomorrow, not really. - mig
[2012-10-05 15:50:12] - mig and Daniel: Any interest in basketball this Saturday? I know it's late notice, which is why I'm throwing it out on the message board before making an invite. -Paul
[2012-10-05 15:40:31] - paul: well yes. I was referring more to general tax cuts rather than specially targetted ones (which I consider really no different than stimulus spending). - mig
[2012-10-05 14:55:17] - mig: Sure you can! Only give tax cuts to the middle class while raising it on the rich. -Paul
[2012-10-05 14:15:29] - paul: the advantage with the stimulus is that you can easily implement wealth redistribution! can't really do that with tax cuts. - mig
[2012-10-05 14:01:56] - Well the big difference is in who controls how the money gets spent. With stimulus it is largely dictated by government. With general tax cuts, it's mostly directed by the individuals. - mig
[2012-10-05 13:45:23] - Daniel: As for lower taxes = stimulus thing, I know they are definitely different in terms of implementation, but I thought the theoretical rationale for stimulus was to inject money into the economy, which would help growth. Wouldn't not taking money out of the economy work pretty much the same way as taking it out and then injecting it back in? -Paul
[2012-10-05 13:40:39] - Daniel: Well, I think I'm with you in terms of the changes probably being small considering the numbers currently being thrown around, and I also agree there are plenty of other variables that play into things. -Paul
[2012-10-05 13:30:45] - daniel: did you ever sell that $75+ diablo 3 item??? how much did you get, and what kind of item was it? - aaron
[2012-10-05 13:28:42] - I'm still thinking about your lower taxes is similar to the stimulus plan comment. I can see how they have some similiarities but I'm not sure they are the same yet. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 13:28:07] - So I guess I'm dubious of using taxes to help/hurt our economy overly much, so lowering the taxes in order to grow the economy seems like an iffy proposition to me. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 13:27:20] - Paul: I think mostly I believe that taxes don't have a lot do with economic growth or decline currently. There seem to be a myriad of other factors that all be more important than a change in your tax %. I guess if it was a really big tax % change but I'm not aware of any large numbers being thrown around. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 13:15:30] - xpovos: http://i.imgur.com/xhMCk.jpg snoop dogg came up with a few more reasons for your "90 days 90 reasons" list - aaron
[2012-10-05 13:10:38] - Daniel: Also, I think (and I want to stress that I'm not sure about this) that most economists agree that higher tax rates are bad for economic growth (generally), but I've never heard any good reasons why some think it's only a one-way street. Higher tax rates hurt economic growth but we can never get that lost growth back by lowering them? -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:58:05] - Daniel: I mean, I honestly can't figure out how anybody who supports economic stimulus as a way to boost the economy could think that tax cuts wouldn't work. It's basically the same concept done a little differently. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:55:18] - Daniel: TLDR? Yes, there is info that shows lower taxes help growth (but there are also those who claim it does not) AND it is something that just intuitively makes sense to me (while the opposite POV does not). -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:51:08] - Even if they put that money in a bank, the bank would then have more money to be able to loan out to other people. It seems to me the whole theory behind stimulus measures and Keynesian economics is getting more money dumped into the economy. Wouldn't a lower tax rate be one of the most efficient ways of doing that? -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:49:20] - "decide to TAKE their tax refund" -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:49:01] - Daniel: I don't even fully understand the counter argument for saying that lower tax rates wouldn't encourage greater economic growth. In order for that to happen, wouldn't that mean everybody (and every business) would decide to tax their tax refund (from the lower tax rates) and stuff it under their mattress and do absolutely nothing with it? -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:46:29] - Daniel: Personally, lower tax rates leading to greater economic growth just makes sense to me because lower tax rates means more money being left to the private sector. Those lower tax rates make it easier for businesses to make money, which makes it easier for them to invest in expanding and new opportunities. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:45:01] - "growing economy means greater tax revenue even with constant tax rates" I can agree with that. IF lowering taxes made the economy grow I could see how a tax cut stayed revenue neutral, yes. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 12:43:38] - Daniel: And that, I think, ties into your first question. You can find plenty of information and explanations showing low tax rates help grow economies and you can find just as much arguing the opposite point. As far as I know, it's by no means something that has been proven and I wonder if it's even possible to prove. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:40:14] - Daniel: The problem, of course, is that it's always impossible to tell how much economic growth can be credited (or blamed) on tax cuts. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:39:27] - Daniel: If you accept both of those, then I think it's certainly believeable that a tax rate cut can be revenue neutral for the government, assuming the growth in the economy offsets the reduction from the tax rate cuts. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:38:13] - Daniel: Which I think pretty much everybody can agree on, right? And if you accept that lowering tax rates can help an economy grow (which I understand is the point under contention and is the basis for your first question, but bear with me for a moment)... -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:37:02] - Daniel: Well, to answer your second question first, I don't think what I said has to rely on us being on the downward slope of the Laffer curve. If you accept that a growing economy means greater tax revenue even with constant tax rates... -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:31:52] - Paul: Right you are suggesting we are on the downward slope part of that Laeffer curve that Miguel posted. I understand the concept, just am curious if there is any way to tell where we are on that curve. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 12:30:19] - Paul: Is there info that shows lower taxes help growth or is that just something that intuitively makes sense to you? -Daniel
[2012-10-05 12:29:07] - Daniel: Because if cutting taxes helps to grow the economy, and a growing economy helps increase government revenue, then cutting taxes could be (counter-intuitively) revenue neutral. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:28:25] - Daniel: I wouldn't go so far as to say that cutting taxes is a good deficit reduction move (I think addressing spending, particularly things like Medicare, Social Security and Defense over PBS, is the key deficit reduction move), but it might not explode the deficit as much as people think. -Paul
[2012-10-05 12:26:40] - Daniel: Right, I was going to point out that I don't know exactly what point Romney was trying to make, but I think the better point to make is that lower taxes probably generally help economic growth. -Paul
[2012-10-05 11:48:27] - mig: So that graph would imply that regardless of tax rates we get ~19% of GDP in revenue so then the question would become whats the relationship b/w taxes and gdp? -Daniel
[2012-10-05 11:39:54] - Well there's this. Though I'll freely admit it could be an amazing coincidence. - mig
[2012-10-05 11:32:09] - So other than Romney's anecdotes is there data suggesting that we are on the downward slope of the Laeffer Curve where reducing taxes would increase our tax income? The wiki article has a CBO study which seems to suggest that we aren't but I don't have any sources other than that. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 11:26:39] - Daniel: That sounds like basically what I thought he was trying to say. I think his primary point was that there is a third way to reduce the deficit (outside of raising taxes and cutting spending), which is to grow the economy. -Paul
[2012-10-05 11:25:30] - daniel: that does sum it up more or less, he's describing the Laffer Curve in a nutshell. - mig
[2012-10-05 11:22:17] - Does that sound like an accurate representation of Romney's basic beliefs / ideas on taxes, economy, and deficit? -Daniel
[2012-10-05 11:21:44] - Conversely Romney asserts that if we raise taxes the extra amount of money gained that way will be undermined by an overall shrinkage in the tax base as the higher tax rate results in less jobs which means less people paying taxes thus hurting our ability to pay down the deficit.
[2012-10-05 11:20:32] - which will help pay off our deficit. -Daniel
[2012-10-05 11:19:41] - On a slightly different note I was thinking about what Romney was talkinga bout in the debate and am curious if people agree with how I distilled his position: To improve the economy we need to lower taxes. Lower taxes will help people start/grow businesses which will improve the economy. With an improved economy more people will be paying taxes...
[2012-10-05 09:32:00] - Daniel: http://cheezburger.com/6639181312 Also, see #3. I just read that today and thought about how you had the idea first.
-Paul[2012-10-05 09:29:16] - Daniel: The same could easily be said about Obama's proposal to increase taxes on the rich, though. I'm fine if he wants to phrase it as some kind of "fairness" issue (even if I completely disagree with it), but implying that it would create a meaningful difference in reducing the deficit I just can't take seriously. -Paul
[2012-10-05 09:26:04] - Daniel: I definitely agree that any specifics that Romney has laid out in terms of cutting spending to reduce the deficit is a joke, and would be offset many times over by his proposals to increase spending. -Paul
[2012-10-05 09:02:39] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/carlos-corpor%C3%A1n-face-plant-slide-signals-end-worst-041353755--mlb.html the astros keep finding ways to symbolicly show how bad their season has been. at least the season is over now. - mig
[2012-10-04 19:27:37] - that's a poor justification i mean. - mig
[2012-10-04 19:27:11] - daniel: good zing, but as I said earlier that's a justification to keep funding pbs, - mig
[2012-10-04 16:00:08] - http://gawker.com/5948893/neil-degrasse-tyson-wrote-the-only-thing-you-need-to-read-about-mitt-romneys-vow-to-cut-funding-for-pbs I like NdGT. -Daniel
[2012-10-04 15:52:59] - It couldn't be a head-to-head debate, though. Would work really well in the primaries. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-04 15:41:04] - I'd watch it. -Daniel
[2012-10-04 15:39:50] - Daniel: Ooohh, and he can give them points and take them away? Nice. I'll gladly watch a debate moderated by Tony Reali Around the Horn style. -Paul
[2012-10-04 15:30:07] - Paul: 100% agree. Needs to be like Around the Horn on espn where the moderator can mute candidates. It would lead to people flipping their shit but would ensure people had to stay on point. -Daniel
[2012-10-04 15:21:44] - But it was a constant annoyance of mine during the Republican primaries. -Paul
[2012-10-04 15:21:32] - Daniel: What I really wish for is for moderators to make the candidates answer the question which is asked instead of just using the closest applicable talking point. It wasn't as big of an issue last night, since the moderator seemed mostly interested in tossing out a subject and then letting them talk to eachother... -Paul
[2012-10-04 14:58:07] - Daniel: We need British style rhetoric. We don't have quality debates because our politicians are all lawyers, not rhetorists. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-04 14:53:09] - Paul: Yeah I often wish for better debate formats and moderators with a spine but I'm not sure I will ever see that. -Daniel
[2012-10-04 14:34:28] - Daniel: For instance, I think if Obama trounced Romney in the non-policy parts last night, we could've witnessed that start of another Obama/McCain beatdown. Now? We might actually have a closer matchup (although I suspect Obama still wins). -Paul
[2012-10-04 14:33:27] - I feel like the only thing left to do is compare the style part. Besides, how the candidates presented themselves will probably, sadly, play a part in who some undecideds decide to vote for. -Paul
[2012-10-04 14:32:26] - Daniel: I'll definitely agree that the debates all seem to be about non-policy things and that it's completely silly. Considering how vague both candidates have been, how much they agree on many issues, and how little connection there seems to be between what people say during debates and how they govern... -Paul
[2012-10-04 14:28:33] - Also it's a problem of the debate format. After all, who can you explain potentially complex issues in the time they give you? - mig
[2012-10-04 14:24:32] - daniel: you're right about that, but when the entire debate is 2 people repeating the same substance-less platitudes and slogans they've been repeating over the last several months, what else are you going to evaluate their performance on. - mig
[2012-10-04 14:19:58] - just how well they handle themselves, interact with other, and come across on TV. -Daniel
[2012-10-04 14:19:44] - Most of the reasons I've heard for saying Romney won the debate are non policy reasons. I don't disagree with the idea that Romney presented himself well but I'm not sure that I think he actually presented any good ideas. This is part of my struggle with debates, that we don't even care about what they say (because they don't say anything new or of import) its...
[2012-10-04 13:55:42] - I think it was a clear indicator of what we've heard before, that Obama doesn't like Romney (at all) and has no respect for him. He couldn't contain his disdain for him or his answers and quite probably underestimated the fire the centrist weasel would show. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-04 13:30:52] - best excuse for Obama's performance last night? was it the thin air at high altitudes or was it because he doesn't watch enough MSNBC? - mig
[2012-10-04 13:11:19] - paul: while I suppose people think it's "good form" for debates. I find the Romney smiling stare to be really creepy. - mig
[2012-10-04 13:04:33] - a: not when you have prosecutors and distrcit attorneys more concerned about securing convictions at any cost rather than doing their actual job. - mig
[2012-10-04 12:53:06] - i'm surprised that one person can do such a thing. aren't there checks and balances etc? ~a
[2012-10-04 12:37:29] - http://blog.bioware.com/2012/10/04/mass-effect-3-retaliation-multiplayer-dlc/ big big mass effect 3 multiplayer changes coming October 9th in the form of free DLC... a new faction (collectors), new units for existing enemy factions, maps with hazards, and a multiplayer achievement system - aaron
[2012-10-04 12:12:48] - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57522579-504083/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-crime-lab-arrested-for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/ i don't know if anyone has been following the deal with the mass. drug testing lab, but holy shit that is a debacle. - mig
[2012-10-04 11:27:17] - Daniel: To be clear, it doesn't change my opinion of either candidate much at all, and I'm also a little dubious if it will affect the election much, I was just really surprised that Obama seemed so out of sorts. -Paul
[2012-10-04 11:25:34] - Daniel: I also thought his body language seemed bad. Romney spent most of his time (speaking and non-speaking) looking at Obama, and always seemed to be smiling, never frowning or shaking his head. Obama seemed to spend a lot of time looking at the moderator or looking down at the podium and even frowned and shook his head a few times. -Paul
[2012-10-04 11:23:40] - Daniel: Yeah, I didn't think he fell apart, but I was expecting him to dominate the charisma/style side of the debate against what everybody says is a robotic Romney. Instead, Romney seemed more confident and had better body language while Obama seemed to struggle to come up with things to say and I felt like he kept wandering to different topics. -Paul
[2012-10-04 10:56:22] - and there's expectations. Obama is regarded as an excellent communicator (though he often laments he doesn't communicate to "the people" well enough) and to see him get outperformed by a gaffe prone weasel will make people feel a little bit more down on his perfomance. - mig
[2012-10-04 10:49:50] - daniel: I think the big deal was that Obama seemed to be wanting to fight the democrats Tea Party image of Romney and instead ended up facing weasly centrist Romney, and it seemed Obama was totally caught off guard by it. - mig
[2012-10-04 10:42:47] - Paul: I watched maybe 40 minutes of the debate last night. I didn't think Obama did great but I didn't think he fell apart or anything. I thought Romney seemed more aggressive but that seemed normal since he isn't the incumbent. I thought mostly they said things I'd already heard before. If they did say something new I didn't catch it. -Daniel
[2012-10-04 10:36:58] - I was surprised Obama didn't do anything with the 47% gaffe. I wonder if that's going to turn out like Bush's "major league asshole" comment where we gasp about it for a week and then forget about it. - mig
[2012-10-04 10:22:58] - http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/10/02/whoops-a-daisy-significant-outdoor-bust-in-lethbridge-history-wasnt-weed this is your brain addicted to the war on drugs... - mig
[2012-10-04 10:15:36] - http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-the-media-undermined-president-obamas-debate-performance/ interesting hypothesis about last night's surprising Obama performance. - mig
[2012-10-04 10:00:30] - "reason ... ThinkProgress ... agree that Obama did a rather poor job" stop the presses! haha. actually, the real news is that NPR all agrees obama did a poor job. ~a
[2012-10-04 09:57:18] - xpovos: that is very true, but I get sick and tired of people using that line to argue against cuts. Just because it's small potatoes doesn't mean we shouldn't put it on the chopping block. If it's something that government shouldn't be doing, it shouldn't be doing it. - mig
[2012-10-04 09:54:49] - paul: i didn't see it, but reason had a google+ hangout session with some people (including a writer from ThinkProgress) and they all seemed to agree that Obama did a rather poor job, despite some serious problems with the way Romney handled certain things during the debate. - mig
[2012-10-03 23:24:30] - Anybody watch the debate? I thought Obama was surprisingly bad. Even ignoring if I agreed with his points, he seemed to ramble a lot and go off topic, even having to keep asking the moderator for more time to continue his thought process. He spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney but I honestly can't remember much of substance that he said. -Paul
[2012-10-03 18:12:37] - But defense can take a cut too, sure. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-03 18:12:31] - They're both right. There's room to cut in defense, we are in far too many countries, and the real money is in entitlements. FY2012 entitlement/mandatory spending is pretty much exactly FY2012 receipts. In other words 100% of 'discretionary' spending, including the military is borrowed. We don't fix this without hitting entitlements. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-03 18:06:59] - mig: Wow, a rookie is their #1 starter? Didn't realize their pitching was in such bad shape. -Paul
[2012-10-03 16:33:48] - http://sports.yahoo.com/news/washington-picks-darvish-first-playoff-185819226--mlb.html "Washington picks Darvish as first playoff starter". Well, that's not a confusing headline or anything. - mig
[2012-10-03 16:05:05] - http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/03/donald-rumsfeld-spars-with-john-stossel-over-defense-spending i <3 john stossel. - mig
[2012-10-03 15:51:52] - Xpovos: Yeah, I remember wondering if they were going to have him win the game after they clinched a playoff spot, or the NL East, or the first playoff game.... -Paul
[2012-10-03 15:44:17] - mig: Up 3-1 bottom of the 8th. Liking that. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-03 15:27:36] - paul: seemed like the perfect time. Last game of the season, and the game result is *mostly* meaningless. - mig
[2012-10-03 14:51:18] - Paul: I'm not going to say I "care", but that's pretty hilarious all the same. I think that's a good time to pull out the Teddy. Confirm NL East title and on pace for best record in the NL? Teddy earned it. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-03 14:38:21] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2012/10/03/teddy-wins-first-presidents-race/ For those who care, Teddy finally won. -Paul
[2012-10-02 11:53:36] - I think the best description of the site that I've heard: "90 Days, Half a Dozen Reasons Obama Helps Rich Straight People Feel Less Bad About Their Own Privilege." - mig
[2012-10-02 11:52:40] - xpovos: some of the 90 reasons are hilariously bad. The R Money thing is just pathetic beyond belief (truly an intellectually convincing argument!). My favorite one is Day 7, where the author basically says him being in a yurt in Mongolia made him realize that Obama understands the world at large for ... some reason. - mig
[2012-10-02 11:43:51] - g: i haven't watched the NSFW video but.... i guess that's probably also useful if i'm bored and don't have a cell signal?? albeit in a slightly creepier way - aaron
[2012-10-02 10:45:35] - aaron: or the NSFW video? ~g
[2012-10-02 10:45:23] - aaron: iOS? ~g
[2012-10-02 10:10:15] - xpovos: oh cool! something like that seems like it could be fun for when i'm sitting around bored and don't have a cell signal, i'll have to check it out - aaron
[2012-10-01 22:13:15] - More fun inside the beltway politics: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259517-graham-says-hell-block-reimbursements-in-layoff-notice-fight -- Xpovos
[2012-10-01 18:29:21] - NSFW: Safe Sex - Gagnam Style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TpN2wWBtE -- Xpovos
[2012-10-01 17:10:10] - aaron: There is an iOS version of Medici, it was $0.99 last night. Ridiculously cheap. The knock on it is that the AI gets predictable quickly, but it supports multi-human play, I think. Probably not over the network. http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/1337/review-medici -- Xpovos
[2012-10-01 15:21:02] - xpovos: i thought this one was particularly well thought-out: "if you just rearrange a few letters, romney becomes r money. i believe mitt romney wants to get his mitts on r money" - aaron
[2012-10-01 13:52:34] - http://90days90reasons.com/index.php I'm reading these not expecting to see anything new, or anything that will change my mind, but to see how the arguments are phrased and presented. Largely I've been disappointed. It makes me wonder if similar arguments that I think are well crafted for a different point of view are actually just as feeble. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-30 13:10:35] - http://imgur.com/RZwjd this used to be my Lady Gaga pandora station.... for some reason, now it only plays this... - aaron
[2012-09-29 07:13:51] - yeah good call on the "A". i think he wouldn't have a shadow if the sun was directly above. i.e. none of the people in the crowd are casting shadows behind them. ~a
[2012-09-28 13:31:21] - mig: Looks like he ran up the wall then jumped off. You can see where his foot was in the wall in the letter "A" of the word "Great". Don' t know about his shadow though. -Daniel
[2012-09-28 13:17:57] - mig: what a super weird photo... and where is his shadow! - aaron
[2012-09-28 12:44:49] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/jay-bruce-appears-levitate-field-photo-151644788--mlb.html this allegedly was not photoshopped. - mig
[2012-09-28 11:17:49] - http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14137872-first-thoughts-after-nine-battleground-polls?lite&google_editors_picks=true Holding out hope that if Romney's campaign unravels enough fast enough, people might be tempted to abandon ship and vote third party.
-Paul[2012-09-28 07:09:29] - a: That is very sucky. Feel better soon. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-28 06:59:28] - adrian is sick today! ~a
[2012-09-27 17:07:18] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6Cw_3q1Pg#! worst movie death scene ever - aaron
[2012-09-27 16:55:10] - ha http://i.imgur.com/34Uoc.jpg - vinnie
[2012-09-27 16:00:47] - Daniel: Fair enough. I would consider it, but I just don't support drone strikes against civilians, so that's a dealbreaker.
-Paul[2012-09-27 15:31:03] - Paul / Xpovos: Still voting for Obama. -Daniel
[2012-09-27 12:15:45] - Paul: Reshared. I doubt it does much good, but I'm hopeful. Both because I need Obama gone and because I thing Johnson would be awesome. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-27 11:12:14] - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/ A little long, but I thought it made a lot of good points. -Paul
[2012-09-27 10:08:02] - Real refs back tonight. I guess I'm kind of amused because there were a lot of sport talking heads that said it would take fans actually tuning out NFL games for them to act. But I guess some bad publicity is actually bad. - mig
[2012-09-26 12:24:16] - This office clearly has its priorities
[2012-09-26 09:50:25] - xpovos: I would have thought it might be based on coruscant's orbit... since its the capital... but it depends on when the "year" was determined... ~g
[2012-09-25 18:06:13] - aaron: I guess... if you drove at a constant speed. I think my point was that the birthday is probably on the galactic calendar rather than the actual Tatooine calendar which might be confusing, but only if being a moisture farmer means dealing a lot with the Tatooine suns a lot. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 16:35:29] - xpovos: i don't know if my brain could deal with the complications of having a non-solar birthday... it would always fall on different days and months? i guess it would just be kind of like, celebrating each time your car's odometer rolls over another 10,000 miles, or something like that - aaron
[2012-09-25 16:31:26] - http://imgur.com/fHuhw have you seen this dog? - aaron
[2012-09-25 16:11:10] - adrian likes this. ~a
[2012-09-25 16:10:19] - But more likely since it's multi-planetary they have an arbitrary defintion of a unit of time based on some remote (non-Tatooine) source. Quite possibly the "parsec". -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 16:09:48] - a: Depends on the orbit patterns. Figure-8, or more likely secondary orbit around the 'primary' sun which would be in orbit around the 'secondary' sun. Figure 8 is easy, one full 8. With the dual orbits it could be either the 'lunar' style year or the 'solar' style. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 16:00:12] - i have to ask, with two suns, how do you count a year to even figure out when your birthday is? ~a
[2012-09-25 15:59:34] - oooh. and scott mcquade! ~a
[2012-09-25 14:52:07] - a: u share a bday with Luke Skywalker! ~g
[2012-09-25 14:25:30] - a: well thankfully we've trended away from that. - mig
[2012-09-25 14:12:43] - mig: you could be arrested for blasphemy in taxassachusetts less than 100 years ago. wp. ~a
[2012-09-25 13:46:27] - I know there are certain exceptions that most people are ok with (like porn being aired during primetime), but I'm a little surprised that most people aren't concerned about the government banning political speech (which should be the most protected, IMO) at any time, let alone near an election (a fairly important time for political speech). -Paul
[2012-09-25 13:44:41] - migvos: Personally, I just think it's dangerous for the government to be banning certain videos from being aired at certain times at all, ignoring whether or not money is speech, the issue. It just seems like a censorship issue. -Paul
[2012-09-25 13:44:40] - on a somewhat related free speech note - being arrested for blasphemy: not just a trend isolated to the middle east. - mig
[2012-09-25 13:33:49] - mig: To paraphrase: Money buys many things. Some things money buys are illegal. Most are legal. Money can be used to purchase speech, which is itself protected. The fact that speech is purchased does not make it any less protected. As a result, it is politically advantageous to buy lots of protected speech. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 13:31:22] - political speech, I don't see how that's not a violation of the first amendment. The intent is clear. To limit speech. - mig
[2012-09-25 13:30:14] - a: you keep saying "money isn't speech". but that is a misdirection of the issue. Money isn't speech in a literal sense. But speaking in very many cases cost money. Producing content almost always incurs some kind of cost. If you are telling people (other issue: corporations are not people , but there are people behind corporations) for the purpose of creating
[2012-09-25 13:17:57] - a: Ok, just to be clear, do you agree with the previous law that prevented such videos? You think it's a good idea to ban political videos from airing near an election? -Paul
[2012-09-25 13:08:23] - "Should it be illegal to air a political video close to an election?" yes but only if it breaks laws that previously prevented such a video. ~a
[2012-09-25 13:05:44] - a: I don't think it's unique to comcast. Verizon I'm pretty sure requires a "business plan" to get a static ip. I blame nimda. - mig
[2012-09-25 13:04:20] - mig: don't know if you noticed, but my ip changed again. i looked at getting a static ip from comcast because i've started to use this computer to do more for work. it's a joke how fucking expensive a comcast static ip is. it would cost me 370% more to get a static ip. ~a
[2012-09-25 13:03:02] - a: Ignoring whether it's a free speech issue or not, you don't think it's a little scary for the government to be able to say, "Sorry, that video is bad and it's illegal to put it on the air."? -Paul
[2012-09-25 13:01:49] - a: If I make a video expressing my love of Ron Paul and criticizing Romney and Obama, can I post it to youtube on November 1st? October 1st? September 1st? What if I pay money to put it on TV? What if some friends helped me make it? Where is the line drawn? -Paul
[2012-09-25 13:00:15] - a: Fair enough, and it gets us back to my main questions: What parts of Citizens United do you think should be illegal and why? Should it be illegal to air a political video close to an election? -Paul
[2012-09-25 12:59:05] - And I'm still do not see how PACs spending money to produce and air ads is any different than Fox spending money to pay for pro-Romney coverage/pundits/shows and NBC spending moneyto pay pro-Obama coverage/pundits/shows. What is so different about PACs that makes them so neafarious and evil? - mig
[2012-09-25 12:54:49] - a: There's less issue with truth, I think. True statements can me made to be very false with appropriate wording and doublespeak. That's the heart of a lot of political ads. The media may tend to avoid that, but that could easily change if the campaigns couldn't spin their own version of the truth themselves. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 12:50:01] - they basically do, mig. the rules for pacs are laughably ignored. they send both checks (with pac and without pac) in the same fucking envelope. ~a
[2012-09-25 12:47:34] - PACs dont' give money to candidates either. - mig
[2012-09-25 12:37:00] - mig: the 1st amendment gives them a free pass. if money isn't speech, and companies aren't human, then i'm not violating the 1st amendment when i say politicians can't accept money from companies for reelection campaigns. ~a
[2012-09-25 12:31:46] - xpovos: it is less arbitrary than money. the news coverage at least tries to be truthful. and when news coverage isn't truthful, it isn't covered by the 1st amendment. ~a
[2012-09-25 12:30:17] - paul: in my more extreme plan yes. in my less extreme plan, i'd just be happy with Citizens United being overturned. ~a
[2012-09-25 12:29:24] - thanks vinnie! ~a
[2012-09-25 12:23:12] - also, sorry you're sick! - vinnie
[2012-09-25 12:22:44] - a: happy birthday, let's see if I can make the sideview of a cake: @XXXXX@XXXXX@XXXXX@ - vinnie
[2012-09-25 11:53:24] - a: why do they get a free pass? Newspapers routinely endorse candidates. Both Fox and NBC have pundits who advocate election or defeat of specific candidates. I don't see why they are distinct from a PAC or candidates themselves buying ads. - mig
[2012-09-25 11:53:19] - a: But do they do a fine job of telling you about the Vermin Supreme candidates? What if his ideas were just as prima facia preposterous, but genuinely valid. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul here, but I might as well be. Your letting the media pick winners and losers, not voters. It's no less arbitrary than money. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 11:49:54] - a: Ah, ok, so you just want to ban candidates from buying TV/Radio/Mail ads? -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:47:22] - paul: i never said anything about equal coverage. the news organizations don't receive any money from any candidates and do a fine job telling me about the non-vermine-supreme candidates. ~a
[2012-09-25 11:41:23] - thanks. it sucks to be alone and sick on my bday. but i have you guys! wooo! ~a
[2012-09-25 11:41:08] - oh, happy birthday, and come home soon! - mig
[2012-09-25 11:39:30] - a: happy birthday! ~g
[2012-09-25 11:36:39] - a: Do blogs count as media? -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:36:07] - a: I'll go back to Miguel's questions. If the media has to provide some sort of equal coverage in order to try to remove money from politics, does equal coverage need to be given to <a href="www.verminsupreme.com">Vermin Supreme</a> and President Obama? -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:34:19] - a: Well, I do think arbitrary is a bad way of determining things. I think most people who support age limits on things claim it's not arbitrary, but based on stuff like maturity. -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:31:32] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#Europe
[2012-09-25 11:30:28] - a: and if that's the line you want to take with your 17 yeard old kid, more power to you. Some parents (and governments) in europe don't agree with you though. - mig
[2012-09-25 11:28:26] - a: I don't think 17yos should be allowed to drive. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 11:23:27] - "then it seems completely arbitrary to do partway" why does arbitrary have to be a bad word? i don't think 17yos should be allowed to drink. ~a
[2012-09-25 11:21:05] - a: And I don't think the main problem is that individuals/companies can influence politicans in their favor, I think the main problem is that the government has so much power over how individuals/companies go about their business, which attracts people who try to abuse that power. -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:19:48] - I think spending money is speech. Certainly the phrase "Putting your money where your mouth is" to be apt in this case. - mig
[2012-09-25 11:17:55] - a: I guess to me, I just don't know how you reasonably remove money from politics. It seems virtually impossible to do entirely, and then it seems completely arbitrary to do partway. Any attempts to do so also seem to be far worse than the "problem". -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:17:32] - a: Not sure if you are addressing that to me, but even though I don't necessarily think money is speech, I still think people (and companies) should be allowed to contribute money to politicians and I also think they should be allowed to speak out on issues. -Paul
[2012-09-25 11:16:47] - a: I'd argue, but you've taken all of my speech. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 11:11:45] - we all agree that i should be the dictator. also, i should have all of the money. ~a
[2012-09-25 11:10:34] - i'm not sure we even disagree. you think money isn't speech. what are we disagreeing on? ~a
[2012-09-25 10:58:30] - a: "i don't think that the warren buffets of the world should be controlling the laws" I never said they should. You were the one who wanted the law-makers to be solely determined by the amount of money they had ("the ones that should (in my mind) be controlling congress are the people with the least money"). -Paul
[2012-09-25 10:23:31] - a: I'm definitely amazingly lucky. I got born in the United States, for one, and the list goes on far too long. Wealth works like that sometimes too. And absolutely, some rich people believe some batshit insane stuff and lobby hard for it. How is that bad? The idea is still guano insane and everyone knows it, so no one would vote for it. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 10:08:16] - a: plutocracy is bad, but I think you are exagerrating the fears of corporate power should we move in the geniuine (and a big emphasis on the word geniuine) direction of less government. - mig
[2012-09-25 10:04:58] - plutocracy bad imo. ~a
[2012-09-25 10:00:22] - i have a feeling that the people with the most money, are the most biased about what direction the government should go. not the least biased. ~a
[2012-09-25 09:58:36] - "it's unpopular and no rich person doesn't back it" you're assuming a rich person isn't going to back something fucked up? remember some rich people are rich because they're just fucking lucky. i think 90% of us (us here on the message board) are where we are today because who we were born to. that's fucking luck. ~a
[2012-09-25 09:42:14] - Or should we just ban all political speech and only let government approved entities provide information 90 days before an election. - mig
[2012-09-25 09:41:41] - Say I post something about Gary Johnson because I support him, should I be compelled to post about Obama, Romney, and Stein as well? - mig
[2012-09-25 09:40:59] - I compelled to post about all the political candidates if I become invovled politically? - mig
[2012-09-25 09:40:14] - "The only way to stop this is to completely shut down all media-based issue speak for money." And that's where the problem comes in. Do we force all news stations to cover all candidates equally (whatever that means) during an election cycle, and for every single local race? Now, what do we define as media? If I'm famous and a lot of people pay attention to me, am
[2012-09-25 09:10:21] - xpovos: i think i got one to level 30. I believe at the time priests were considered one of the worst classes to level, and I agreed with that assessment. I'm also not a big fan of spell-casting classes. - mig
[2012-09-25 08:59:15] - a: So the "Hitler was a good guy" political position doesn't get much time or attention now because it's unpopular and no rich person doesn't back it. But if the CRS suddenly deems neo-nazism is on the rise, we'll start to debate it? -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 08:58:15] - a: Because money is the 'market' alternative. Popular ideas (or ideas that are popular to rich people) will be able to spend more money to advertise their position (and ultimately candidate) more. The only way to stop this is to completely shut down all media-based issue speak for money. If there's any loop hole, money flows through. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 08:47:45] - well using rules and procedures. the whole "time" system they have now is super wack, but it's probably the best. the CRS can tell them what's going on and they can debate the issues with arguments etc etc. i don't see how this has anything to do with money though. ~a
[2012-09-25 08:40:22] - a: How do we promote the arguments? All ideas are equal, and each should have an equal shot at attention, but how do you recommend we ensure equal promotional opportunity? -- Xpovos
[2012-09-25 05:56:10] - the people who make the decisions, our representatives, should be paid the same (and their reelection campaigns should be the same) regardless of which arguments they sided with. ~a
[2012-09-25 05:54:45] - ok, i'm back after a horrible night of sickness . . . warren buffet? successful. i don't think that the warren buffets of the world should be controlling the laws. just because they're "successful" doesn't even mean that they are going to be the ones that come up with the best arguments. which is why i think money should be out of the equation entirely. ~a
[2012-09-24 22:27:54] - mig: You never rolled a priest? I'll vote warrior then. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-24 18:54:51] - random poll: the wow expansion is releasing tomorrow and I'm trying to decide which of my characters will be the first one I start leveling. The choices are warrior, warlock, hunter, paladin, shaman, or death knight. No clear choice at the moment for me right now. - mig
[2012-09-24 15:04:01] - a: Steve Jobs? Successful. Bill Gates? Successful. Homeless guy panhandling at the metro station? Not quite. Are there outliers? Sure. Paris Hilton? Not as successful. Mother Teresa? Successful. But I still think the correlation is there. -Paul
[2012-09-24 15:03:32] - a: Aww.. sucky. Stay safe, I hope we can continue this soon. -- Xpovos
[2012-09-24 15:03:26] - that's all the time we have. we'll be right back after a word from the moon. ~a
[2012-09-24 15:03:01] - a: Democracy (one person one vote style) means the best argument wins if everyone hears all of the arguments for all sides and makes the best logical decision for themselves? -- Xpovos
[2012-09-24 15:02:32] - a: "because successful means rich and vice versa". Hence the qualifiers ("probably", "by most accounts"). I know "success" is a relative term, but I'm going to make the bold statement that there is probably a fairly strong correlation between what most people consider successful and wealth. -Paul
[2012-09-24 15:00:38] - ok, we're going to have to wrap this up . . . i just lost power (oh now it's back!). paul, you have the last word. then i go to the gym, take a shower and go to bed. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:55:26] - i think the biggest argument should win. not the biggest penis, not the biggest wallet. money in politics breaks that. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:53:37] - exactly. because successful means rich and vice versa. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:50:43] - a: So, um, you want to take the people who are probably (by most accounts) the least successful in life and put them in charge of deciding what to force other people to do? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:50:15] - and our future. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:49:46] - the RIAA should lose because they have too much money. and please-wont-somebody-think-of-the-children should win because they have no money. because children are expensive. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:48:16] - paul: the ones that should (in my mind) be controlling congress are the people with the least money, not the ones with the most money. make that happen somehow. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:48:15] - a: To me, that's like saying that education and money are wrong for each other. I guess it might sound kinda noble and cool, but I have no idea how that even works. -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:47:32] - a: How exactly are they wrong for each other? How do you take money out of politics? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:45:31] - a: "it's pretty clear that money and politics are wrong for eachother" Can you explain further? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:44:28] - the thing is, it's pretty clear that money and politics are wrong for eachother. i think we can probably do away with lobbyists if we depend on something like the CRS. and as for funding ads, i really think we all can figure out who to vote for without so many damn attack ads. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:44:04] - a: Ok, well, I'm not sure what it is. But I would be interested in learning at what point I lose the right to make a political film and have it shown on TV close to an election. If a friend helps me make it? If I go to legal zoom and incorporate? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:43:04] - mig: without knowing someones intent what's the difference between bribery and a PAC? ~a
[2012-09-24 14:42:28] - paul: should it be illegal to give money to a politician? that depends. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:42:18] - a: no because that's not speech, that's outright bribery. It's certainly not the same as producing an ad or a movie advocating a political position. - mig
[2012-09-24 14:41:35] - paul: i think the government already has a definition for what is a company. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:40:27] - a: Honestly, I don't know (if a company funded most of it). Does it matter? Are you saying it makes a difference if an individual made the film or a company? What defines a company? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:39:35] - a: I guess a secondary question would be: Should it be illegal to give money to somebody? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:38:43] - ok. so what if i just fucking buy off a politician. quid pro quo. that's arbitrary. and in your view a violation of the first amendment? ~a
[2012-09-24 14:37:29] - a: money by itself is not literally speech. However, being able to spend money does enable speech (like say, producing an ad). To prohibit the spending of money that ultimately produces speech for (in my mind) arbitrary reasons, is something I would consider a violation of the first amendment. - mig
[2012-09-24 14:37:24] - maybe. did a company funded most of it? ~a
[2012-09-24 14:35:12] - a: If I remember correctly, Citizens United started off because a non-profit group created a film which was critical of Hilary Clinton and wanted it aired on TV close to the election. Do you think any of that should be illegal? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:32:22] - a: Well, it answers a different question. Honestly, I don't know if I consider money to be speech either, but we've discussed how I have a relatively narrow view of the first amendment. -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:27:43] - paul: i'm not sure if this answers your question, but i think money isn't speech. if money were speech, that would have been written down somewher. anyways i'm allowed to talk about illegal things, i'm not allowed to purchase illegal things with money. ~a
[2012-09-24 14:20:03] - a: Maybe the best clarifying question I can ask is: Do you think there are things that individuals can do/say which is covered under the first amendment which companies can't? -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:19:13] - a: Right, but despite that, it still seems like you are comfortable with restricting... expressions (for lack of a better term) by businesses. -Paul
[2012-09-24 14:04:00] - "considering your stance on the Chick-Fil-A being banned in cities issue, I guess I can figure out some of where you draw the line" i believe i left that conversation off with something like " (a flip-flop from what i argued here earlier in the week) i'm against the mayor's moves to try to keep out a private company that hasn't broken any laws" ~a
prev <-> next