FMBI

I hate coffee. Blehdit.

Wasn't that link already posted like 3 times? Or was that my imagination? Anyway, Astro, from now on, don't bother giving links or proof, Veg never does. Once again, rereading the article, I'm surprised at how it manages to mention, but gloss over, the most critical point. But, oh well.

Boring.. I'm waiting for the Russian mafia bootleggers to come back into style. Gas thievery is only worth a few thousand bucks, but bootlegging runs into the millions.

The "average" figure completely ignores the reality, even if, as I said, you factor in the first few years after the end of the presidency. Clinton took it from near-record highs to one of the healthiest periods in US history, while Bush has witnessed a major recession, a short-term recovery, and yet another unemployment boom and recession (not technically a recession, but when you have a country where almost all the growth occurs at the top, and you still have virtually zero growth..) - obviously the average is ignoring some vital facts here. It's not a matter of "extrapolation," it's a matter of honesty. And again, you skipped the 2008 figures. I bet that the number of Russians killed in WW2 isn't quite so bad if you skip the first year, when they were dying in the millions. Sure, it's a few million compared to 20 total, but that's still one !@#$%^&* of a difference.

Aileron, you still haven't replied to the point about how money is not just being destroyed in the welfare states, it's being actively reinvested into the labor pool. Another thing that disturbs me is that no one here has gone into either the German or Japanese "capitalist" models. They're both far more successful than American capitalism, even though both nations have had some downturns in recent years (you never even hear about Japan on the news anymore, even though it's still the US's #1 debt holder). In Germany, active state intervention, major banks, corporations, and labor work together to create some of the most balanced incomes in the world, without utilising welfare state models (though, of course, the taxes are still very high). In Japan, the corporations and government are extremely close together, and long-term, anti-compe!@#$%^&*ive strategies are the norm - but lifetime employment and high worker incomes ensure that everyone gets a fair share. Those are the best examples of fairly equal countries that do not rely on welfare to equalize matters, but they still heavily focus on the responsibility of either government or corporations to educate workers. This is in direct contrast to the US, where the idea is that you're on your own, you can probably get into a community college for a basic degree, but if you want an advanced degree, you're screwed unless you're born into a good family. As I've tried to point out in the past, a lot of the concepts the US accepts as gospel just don't cut it anymore. American corporations can't compete with either super-cheap labor economies (3/4th of the world) or high-quality, high-investment nations like Japan, South Korea, or the Nordic countries. It apparently doesn't occur to too many people that there might be a reason the US is steadily losing its lead in almost all measurements (health, technological innovation, education, currency strength, export / import, happiness) besides "everyone here is lazy." There are lazy people in Europe, too, but the average person there is making more than the average person here. edit - Astro, you posted while I was typing. I don't necessarily agree with the last part totally. I've grown up in a small town on the NY-PA border, and people here don't demand things - if anything, they get angry when people expect them to have a lot. I remember that people used to talk about a friend's family that made $60,000 as being "rich" - the way I was raised is that you should always have enough to get by on, but not enough to waste. It's not a strictly immigrant mentality. It does, however, raise some interesting questions - such as why some people who grow up poor and achieve success want to make it easier for others, and some want to make it as hard as possible. Apparently it's not enough to accept that "some are born with the silver s!@#$%^&*," you have to limit the silver s!@#$%^&* as much as possible so everyone gets a chance to dig through the proverbial muck and "truly find out something about themselves"? And one more point, Veg.. a while back you mentioned that in the military, they don't "send you in to get killed if you're intelligent" or something along that line. I would beg to differ.. You must have missed the news stories about how they were recruiting navy corpsmen to be foot soldiers? And also note that, here again, America kicks the ladder out from under its "weak and downtrodden" - while they have all sorts of fascinating facts on the recruiting sites ("Start at higher wages than civilians!" "Free food and housing!"), when compared to international military benefits (in the non-conscript ones, of course), they actually look pretty !@#$%^&*ty. Britain, for example, pays far more up-front, has more generous duty tours, and is kinder to its soldiers.

I know that we've had several threads about zombie invasions and 2012, but I figured that, in light of the fact that some investors are predicting that Peak Oil will effectively hit quite soon, even though the actual conditions won't occur nearly as soon, we should start planning for a post-apocalyptic world. So, let's say that while there are no nearly-invincible zombies, there are: extremely limited mobility (due to reduced fuel), reduced energy for heating, manufacturing, and agriculture, swarms of angry starving people in most countries, regional wars (mostly between smaller countries - some may be proxy wars between former great powers), record-high gang violence and murder rates throughout most of the world, and - to top it all off - widespread environmental disaster and landscape poisoning (think the USSR - some parts still pristine, some totally fatal due to radiation, some just contaminated, etc). Under those conditions, how would you plan to survive? assume that you could see the crisis coming (again, distinguishing it from the zombie scenario) for at least several months, even if it would not be immediately evident how bad things would get. And since I've got such a big ego, I'll demand that you at least include the following things in your generalized survival plan: Food / water source Location Methods for surviving in your chosen climate Partner / no partner, save random people / don't save random people Technologies you'd use - generate electricity, or get back to basics? I'm anticipating that most of these guidelines will be ignored, so don't panic.. just think about it. After all, you might use the ideas someday.

So what's weirder, a middle-aged man making up stories about his fecal content, or a 20s-something guy telling stories about deranged mothers destroying dolls?

Web, unless the others are widely available in the northeast/mid-atlantic states of the US. I don't have the cash or time to buy, say, a Russian superhero comic for $10 a month.

Yeah, I know every forum in existence has about 500 of these threads, but I haven't gone through any of the major comics in a while, and I'm hoping to find some really funny ones I missed. And, of course, start thread #501 while I'm at it. So, to start it off: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6/pbf229miggsny4.jpg

Veg, perhaps you'd like to explain something to me that nobody else seems able to. Why are Republicans all for the people that "need to get on their feet," you claim to support the "Entrepreneurial Spirit," and yet you do everything possible to make it harder for the people at the bottom to get to the top? There is absolutely no logical reason for such behavior. Unless, of course, you really do believe that people like Andrew Carnegie somehow had a better chance of getting rich than the children of robber barons (if I recall, 96% of the rich from that period were born rich?) - in which case you really need to check up on your history. It's still possible to get ahead in America, yes, but it requires an incredible amount of effort - and the current state of affairs is not necessary. Europe and Japan (and even a few of the more socially stable third-world countries) take a completely different view of the world from what we do. High quality jobs, universal education, cheap healthcare (I'll get back to this another time) - those are all still realities in other countries, even though they don't exist here anymore. Essentially, the American Dream that we hear about every 2 seconds from politicians does not exist anymore, in the sense that anyone can get into the game with a little bit of effort and borrowed money. If you truly support that, then why do you also support a party that has deregulated and detaxed company after company, in an effort to drive startups and entrepreneurs into the ground? How can you support a party that happily claimed estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and gift taxes "hurt the poor" when in reality, their repeal / decrease has led only to a windfall for the rich? Unless you yourself plan to one day be a multimillionaire, it seems mildly absurd to believe that you are somehow gaining a benefit from such idiotic policies. But then, what's logic got to do with it? My father has never made more than $25,000 a year, he's always insisted those on welfare "get a free ride," and yet when he was laid off for less than 3 months, he suddenly found out that welfare covers an infinitesimal portion of the average family's needs. Maybe we need to go hunt down more of those "welfare queens" that Reagan lied about. Hmm?

Hoch, look at the chart. Clinton produced an endless drop (yes, some of that was due to bubbles, but then, Bush's bubbles helped him drop unemployment.. temporarily), while Bush saw a spike that could not be attributed entirely to either 9/11 or the web-bust. And the "2007" figures conveniently ignore the fact that unemployment is surging in 2008 and will probably do so for several more years (the housing crisis won't finish up until the end of the next presidential term, if then). Going by the logic that "the record doesn't end with the term," Clinton doesn't look quite as spectacular, because he was, after all, in office while the web-bubble was building, but I am personally of the opinion that Bush badly mishandled that and made it worse. In addition, even if you factor in a slight increase from that, when comparing the post-president records, I am sure that Bush's will be far worse than Clinton's. No matter who the next president is, they're going to be ranked with Hoover, who, by a happy coincidence, succeeded Silent Cal.

That's sort of interesting, considering that Exxon Mobil and others have been setting all-time profit records for companies. I'd say that profits of 9-12% - which are going to soar for at least the next decade - are quite enough. And, by the way.. Being a Republican is okay, as long as you don't swallow all the cliches they feed you. Banks have high profits from a wide variety of reasons, not least being the fact that they participated in the Bush-encouraged housing joke. And Harvard.. give me a break, conservatives have been crying about it for decades. Yes, it's hopelessly corrupt, yes, it's idiotic. Who gives a !@#$%^&*? Harvard is an emblem of the "Best higher education in the world" standard of the US (though that's questionable nowadays), and its actual income is far lower than that of companies raking in hundreds of billions. Oil companies, on the other hand, are making far more massive profits, they serve no useful "abroad" political purpose except to demonstrate American greed, and they're wasting huge resources (as opposed to Harvard, which at least still turns out very highly trained future professionals).

Silly Steiger shall surely !@#$%^&* soon since shame sadly stole said silly sasquatch's self-confidence. Why did I just write that? Oh, yeah.. it's after midnight. Silly me.

I'll just summarize arguments for and against. For : Oil prices have increased 600% in less than a decade, while oil companies have gotten a virtually free ride. Taxing the profits would make an example of the corporations and show that we're serious about "investing in our future." Renewable energy investment is a gift that keeps on giving, so after we make the initial transition, we can drop the taxes (although by that time reduced demand will have weakened the companies anyway). Taxing profits could help reduce the internal equivalent of a China/Japan trade surplus, rebalancing the economy. Against : Sure, oil companies have put billions of dollars into lobbying against renewable energy, sure, they're planning to destroy Alaska (BUT WE NEED THAT EXTRA 5% OF OUTPUT!), sure, they're run by greedy schmucks, but.. It isn't their fault that they're making billions in profits while the rest of the country flounders. Oil companies will sell oil to other countries (technically invalid, as the US is by far the largest energy market, and it uses unpopular varieties like sour crude and synthetic petroleum more than other countries). Taxing oil companies won't fix anything (again, invalid, as the massive income spike, if wisely invested [and it might be, for once], would help raise the corporate share of the tax burden that's been slipping for decades). Taxing oil companies will hurt investment in new drilling and exploration projects (yet again, invalid.. it defies the imagination that they've managed to experience a massive, unprecedented increase in profits and yet have barely increased investment, even in an age where resource finds are increasingly rare). I think you can tell which side I fall on, but as far as I've seen, that's the "neutral" analysis. Meaning, not the analysis where various Texas Republicans stand up and tell us again and again that they're working for "our future" and that the people who insist future growth depends on renewable energy are lying. Or where New England Democrats stand up there and promise us that they really can fix everything without giving the economy a figurative kick in the groin for a few years. And finally.. Sever, haven't you heard the news? Corporate welfare is all a big lie. In reality, it's those darn poor people who are always stealing the m(illions?)oney from the hard-working executives. At least that's what Veg tells me.

One of my hobbies (or, as I'm sure NBVegita would put it, one of my addictions ) is political "fact checking," as you can usually find some very humorous things. Tonight, though, I was googling about, and I found something unusual - a need to fact check a fact check site. Anyway.. From frankenlies.com (a site devoted to attacking Al Franken) : Sounds interesting, but as the saying goes, if it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, and spreads bubonic plague like a rat.. http://www.economagic.com/chartg/feddal/ru.gif You'll note that there was a steady drop during the Clinton years, bottoming out at ~4% - while during Bush's years, it sharply increased to nearly 6% (after the 01 recession), before dropping to slightly below 5%.. at which time it again began a sharp upward trend. Combine that with the best guesses by analysts of the recession "endgame," and we could be looking at a peak of up to 9%. Not bad if you're a *shriek* welfare country, but if you live in a country where low unemployment is a necessity.. well, you're !@#$%^&*ed. But, to summarize: under Clinton, net drop of 4% - under Bush, net gain of 3-5%. Cool, huh?

Oh, and.. Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me. Apparently the government isn't supposed to invest in infrastructure (decaying roads, bridges, buildings), education (fix the schools that Bush has virtually !@#$%^&*ed with No Child Left Behind), healthcare (the US is only 37th globally.. but then, that report was compiled by the UN, and we all know Europe is trying to make us look bad because they're jealous), or childcare (as if our infant mortality rate isn't high enough already?) I know exactly what you mean. Any government doing that would end up looking like Norway, Sweden, or Finland, and we all know how they turned out.. I mean, world leaders in education, modern infrastructures, high quality healthcare, high incomes even after the (supposedly murderous) taxes, and rapid technological innovation. I'm glad we don't have to live in a country like that. I much prefer my decaying inner cities, falling real income, incompetent government, and looting corporations. Darn, I ended up sounding pretty negative. :\

So are you looking at pulling back some of the old pop? I can't remember the last time I played with more than 2 or 3 people in DS.. It'd be sort of funny if you ended up recovering faster than "A new map a day keeps the players away" Halo.

Pff, not something I've done, but the most traumatic memory I've still got was from when I was 3 or 4 and my parents were visiting friends in Baltimore, and we went to a church where they left me alone for an hour with a bunch of kids I didn't know. I still remember a dream I had once where I was back in that room.. yellow, smelly, and cramped. If I ever get claustrophobia, I'll know where it came from.

D1s, that is a major problem (in fact, due to the way SS and Medicare are set up, we'll never be able to end debt through growth), but I find it highly unlikely that anyone will do it. Remember that Reagan, Republican Incarnate, actually sent a higher budget to the Democrats than they ended up passing? Basically, no matter who's the president, you're going to have ever-higher budgets. The only way to counter that is by having a principled and/or pissed off Congress, but due to the combination of powerlessness and corruption, I doubt we're going to see anything like that again. Also, we will need to raise taxes, even if we cut government spending in half tomorrow. We've got (I forget the exact numbers) something in the range of a $50 trillion shortfall in a few decades? That wouldn't be so bad if the US actually had a decent economy these days, but when you're racking up close to a trillion per year in debt, it starts to look like Sisyphus rolling that boulder up a hill.

Am I the only one who has figured out that this is a god!@#$%^&* hoax? Do you honestly think anyone would go for several days with bloody stool and not make a visit to the doctor?

Exactly, Astro.. I was going to make a post very similar to that one, but I wasn't sure I could bring myself to do it and hear more things like "It's pretty obvious the race was rigged before but it isn't now" or "Israel just wiped out Hezbollah".. Anyway, I have this quite amusing book you should all take a look at. It's called Myths of Rich and Poor, and all the cover endorsements are from a variety of Libertarian groups (Cato, Reason, etc).. Pretty interesting, really. It offers a convincing look at how everything has been getting better for everyone over the past few decades, and the poor are way better off than they used to be.. Well, actually, it's almost convincing, until you realize all the internal inconsistencies it's got going for it. Then it just starts to look like another piece of propaganda. Sort of sad, really, since I was hoping to prove myself wrong by reading it.

Redo the year IMO.

We have a lot of expats and people like me who don't play anymore, just sit in the zone using SS as a chat client. !@#$%^&*, I just remembered, I should uninstall Infantry.. They moved it back to the boring no-engies model. There goes my 1.2M mech exp :\

Uh. There's another thread on the MG Forums listing "top ten jugs" in general, and people still couldn't decide. So how did you expect us to decide on "top ten jugs that can beat me [you]" specifically? BTW YOU GOT YOUR TOPIC MOVED LOL !!!

( a ) General rule.--Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this !@#$%^&*le, except as to special provisions in this subchapter and except as to those provisions of this !@#$%^&*le which by their nature can have no application. Same thing for Pennsylvania. So I'll assume it's the same everywhere (except for in the deep south.. there, they probably run people over for not having a pickup.) And Root, your theoretical "1 mph" point is interesting, but I have never seen anyone in PA or [south-western] NY get pulled over for doing less than 10-15 above the limit on highways. Where I used to live, there was a !@#$%^&*y cop who would get anyone 5 mph above in town, but fortunately I never had a run-in with him. To repeat myself : Drive safe, save money, avoid a possible scam.. works for me.