Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Irongrip400 on October 14, 2013, 06:33:03 AM
-
And I'm convinced that syntaxmachine is her gimmick. I haven't heard a person speak that intelligently in a while. I hate her politics, but a super well spoken person.
-
Syntax is a pretty interesting guy and a true erudite. I'd like to think if he and I met in person we would have a lot in common.
-
Yes SM is an underrated poster around these parts.
-
Syntax is a pretty interesting guy and a true erudite. I'd like to think if he and I met in person we would have a lot in common.
x2.
-
Syntax is a pretty interesting guy and a true erudite. I'd like to think if he and I met in person we would have a lot in common.
Now now! There is no reason to impugn the man's sexuality!
-
Not only is she well spoken, she is out there doing some freaking awesome things for this world.
-
She will be President one day. Zero doubt about it.
-
Only two years until she can run!
-
Only two years until she can run!
seriously... she looks like Bill & Hilary, so already she'll have over 50% approval on the visuals alone.
She's rich, young, fairly attractive, highly educated, worldly, handsome couple, all the $ and connections that comes with being a Clinton.
The only reason she doesn't run... is if she is just loving life too much as a wealthy private citizen and just wants to relax.
-
Not only is she well spoken, she is out there doing some freaking awesome things for elephants .
Fixed.
-
seriously... she looks like Bill & Hilary, so already she'll have over 50% approval on the visuals alone.
She's rich, young, fairly attractive, highly educated, worldly, handsome couple, all the $ and connections that comes with being a Clinton.
The only reason she doesn't run... is if she is just loving life too much as a wealthy private citizen and just wants to relax.
Ummm........no.
Born with a silver spoon in her mouth, will end up with a black dick in her mouth.
-
seriously... she looks like Bill & Hilary, so already she'll have over 50% approval on the visuals alone.
She's rich, young, fairly attractive,highly educated, worldly, handsome couple, all the $ and connections that comes with being a Clinton.
The only reason she doesn't run... is if she is just loving life too much as a wealthy private citizen and just wants to relax.
well, think about that for a sec...there were quite a few that had bashed her for her looks...
-
Syntax is a pretty interesting guy and a true erudite. I'd like to think if he and I met in person we would have a lot in common.
True erudite... On Getbig. Best oxymoron ever. Or just moron not sure which one.
-
because we need another Clinton in power.... maybe she can team up with a Bush offspring to run. ::)
-
true, she was awkward as a kid, but she grew up. she's much easier on the eyes than most women that enter politics. Hilary was no hottie, and was 1 state away from winning the nomination. I think looks would help her. Plus she looks like a Clinton, that's unbeatable for 50+% of the population.
-
True erudite... On Getbig. Best oxymoron ever. Or just moron not sure which one.
lol
-
because we need another Clinton in power.... maybe she can team up with a Bush offspring to run. ::)
Do you disagree that Bill Clinton was a good president?
I'm not even a liberal (I lean towards the center-right) but I find it hard to argue against him not being probably the best president of my generation (I am 33).
-
Fixed.
She spoke about that a bit. I don't see why anyone would want to hunt and kill an elephant, much less for a piece of a tusk. Fucking Chinese and their weird habits.
-
true, she was awkward as a kid, but she grew up. she's much easier on the eyes than most women that enter politics. Hilary was no hottie, and was 1 state away from winning the nomination. I think looks would help her. Plus she looks like a Clinton, that's unbeatable for 50+% of the population.
Now she needs to marry a bea.n.er or nignog to more represent the america of tomorrow.
-
Will she be doing porn soon?
-
Will she be doing porn soon?
Can she twerk?
-
:D ;D
-
She's been trained well. But she doesn't know what it's like to be a regular citizen.
-
She's been trained well. But she doesn't know what it's like to be a regular citizen.
She should become a community activist for a few yrs.
-
Do you disagree that Bill Clinton was a good president?
I'm not even a liberal (I lean towards the center-right) but I find it hard to argue against him not being probably the best president of my generation (I am 33).
Bill was a piece of shit, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Obama...he was just a better salesman that fell into the spot during one of the largest money printing debt bubbles in history. Bill got to ride it and the tech boom for 5 years. Bush Jr caught the tail end of that tech/debt bubble crash but used the next housing bubble, 9/11, and wars to keep collapse at bay for eight years. Obama gets the housing bubble collapse, deleveraging of the Lehman, and no good wars to start to keep kicking the can.
-
She spoke about that a bit. I don't see why anyone would want to hunt and kill an elephant, much less for a piece of a tusk. Fucking Chinese and their weird habits.
Grind up the tusks or the horns of an rhino to help with the male libido...
Sad...Bill was a piece of shit, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Obama...he was just a better salesman that fell into the spot during one of the largest money printing debt bubbles in history. Bill got to ride it and the tech boom for 5 years. Bush Jr caught the tail end of that tech/debt bubble crash but used the next housing bubble, 9/11, and wars to keep collapse at bay for eight years. Obama gets the housing bubble collapse, deleveraging of the Lehman, and no good wars to start to keep kicking the can.
yep, don't why people don't see this.
-
I am going to Harvard, Getting my doctorate in Political Science, just so that bitch will suck me off and marry me...Life will be awesome after that, no need of steroids, bodybuilding...
-
BIll made people feel good. He was smooth and confident. He also started the practice of changing how the CPI was calculated. Every president since has followed suit. This change allows how inflation is calculated. Instead of tracking the cost of steak over 60 years they found it was getting too expensive and substituted chicken, etc. Hiding the true inflation numbers as become an art ever since. American's purchasing power declines and they become debt slaves just to survive.
He also signed Nafta and GATT into law with the promise it would create massive job growth for middle class and poor Americans. He started the practice of shifting unemployed and welfare numbers into the Disability pool. This pool is almost impossible to get off of and isn't counted in the official unemployment/welfare statistics. So those numbers went down and he looked like a winner. Bill is absolutely a one world government player. He took international position against US sovereignty several times during his presidency and when he got out became a money raiser and mouth piece for the IMF. The IMF is a Western owned banking syndicate that buys off dictators in poor countries who take on huge sums of debt in the people names. When these countries default the IMF takes their natural resources as collateral and sells them off to western companies to profit from.
But hey...he was a good speaker... ::)
-
She is pretty fucking hideous and she's not going to age well ( see parents) and if she takes after her mother the pussy is probably horrible. If I'm going to marry a bitch I want to make sure I can fuck her and enjoy it , the turn around and fuck her again before I go for ice cream and a cigarette.
-
She's been trained well. But she doesn't know what it's like to be a regular citizen.
???
-
???
Hey!
-
ADONIS
-
???
Don't play dumb.
-
She's just your average citizen. You know, the type that requires bulletproof glass and security cameras for her college dorm room with SS agents watching over her.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/09/22/time/chelsea.stanford.html
She's lived a perfectly normal life. She could totally relate to the average citizen in this country. She knows whats good for you through her exhaustive experience.
-
She's been trained well. But she doesn't know what it's like to be a regular citizen.
neither did her hipster parents.
-
Classic!
True erudite... On Getbig. Best oxymoron ever. Or just moron not sure which one.
-
syntaxmachine is swell. As far as getbig's intellectual elite goes though, I prefer the more libertarian minded Kahn.N.Singh and George Whorewell.
:D
-
syntaxmachine is swell. As far as getbig's intellectual elite goes though, I prefer the more libertarian minded Kahn.N.Singh and George Whorewell.
:D
I like george a lot, but I dont think hes up there with syntax or KHAN!!!!!! In terms of sheer IQ or education.
-
syntaxmachine is swell. As far as getbig's intellectual elite goes though, I prefer the more libertarian minded Kahn.N.Singh and George Whorewell.
:D
I suspect we agree on many things (a constitutional provision limiting the growth in federal spending, reformulating welfare programs so that payments are conditional on economically productive behaviors, ending the war on drugs and thus enhancing individual freedom, devolving many issues to the states to produce their own policy outputs (e.g., whether to recognize gay marriage), reducing corporate tax rates, pivoting away from a world police-style foreign policy, etc.).
I limit my criticism solely to the neckbeardian (sometimes called 'Paulian') offshoot of libertarianism, a perverse disease which tends to be coextensive with the following: never having taken an economics course; advocating Austrian economics; pretending market systems can exist without government regulation; advocating for a return to the gold standard; repeating everything Peter Schiff says about "imminent hyperinflation" (any day now! ::)); and a few other deviant behaviors.
-
I suspect we agree on many things (a constitutional provision limiting the growth in federal spending, reformulating welfare programs so that payments are conditional on economically productive behaviors, ending the war on drugs and thus enhancing individual freedom, devolving many issues to the states to produce their own policy outputs (e.g., whether to recognize gay marriage), reducing corporate tax rates, pivoting away from a world police-style foreign policy, etc.).
I limit my criticism solely to the neckbeardian (sometimes called 'Paulian') offshoot of libertarianism, a perverse disease which tends to be coextensive with the following: never having taken an economics course; advocating Austrian economics; pretending market systems can exist without government regulation; advocating for a return to the gold standard; repeating everything Peter Schiff says about "imminent hyperinflation" (any day now! ::)) among other things.
Okay, looks like I judged you wrong. The neckbeards can be annoying.
-
She is pretty fucking hideous and she's not going to age well ( see parents) and if she takes after her mother the pussy is probably horrible. If I'm going to marry a bitch I want to make sure I can fuck her and enjoy it , the turn around and fuck her again before I go for ice cream and a cigarette.
You'll never enjoy the stedman graham good life than.
(http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2013/03/14/159722316.jpg)
Husband is hideous but he'll have a lucrative career in any field now and the Ronaldinho Good Life.
-
I suspect we agree on many things (a constitutional provision limiting the growth in federal spending, reformulating welfare programs so that payments are conditional on economically productive behaviors, ending the war on drugs and thus enhancing individual freedom, devolving many issues to the states to produce their own policy outputs (e.g., whether to recognize gay marriage), reducing corporate tax rates, pivoting away from a world police-style foreign policy, etc.).
I limit my criticism solely to the neckbeardian (sometimes called 'Paulian') offshoot of libertarianism, a perverse disease which tends to be coextensive with the following: never having taken an economics course; advocating Austrian economics; pretending market systems can exist without government regulation; advocating for a return to the gold standard; repeating everything Peter Schiff says about "imminent hyperinflation" (any day now! ::)); and a few other deviant behaviors.
Ahahaha.
Pretty sure I've been guilty of at least one of those neckbeardian instances.... Actually not, although I've come close.
-
You'll never enjoy the stedman graham good life than.
(http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2013/03/14/159722316.jpg)
Husband is hideous but he'll have a lucrative career in any field now and the Ronaldinho Good Life.
In that pic she looks like a Bill/Hillary morph....
-
weird fucking face, would not hit... but she could become president of the US... fuck it.... would hit
-
I suspect we agree on many things (a constitutional provision limiting the growth in federal spending, reformulating welfare programs so that payments are conditional on economically productive behaviors, ending the war on drugs and thus enhancing individual freedom, devolving many issues to the states to produce their own policy outputs (e.g., whether to recognize gay marriage), reducing corporate tax rates, pivoting away from a world police-style foreign policy, etc.).
I limit my criticism solely to the neckbeardian (sometimes called 'Paulian') offshoot of libertarianism, a perverse disease which tends to be coextensive with the following: never having taken an economics course; advocating Austrian economics; pretending market systems can exist without government regulation; advocating for a return to the gold standard; repeating everything Peter Schiff says about "imminent hyperinflation" (any day now! ::)); and a few other deviant behaviors.
I believe we call that the black market. Altho one could argue its existence is highly dependent upon government regulation. ;)
-
In that pic she looks like a Bill/Hillary morph....
Billary.
-
Billary.
(http://hillaryugly.com/Chelsea%20Ugly%20Its%20in%20the%20genes.jpg)
-
PTPS.
-
(http://www.fashiontick.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/magazine-chelsea-clinton-10_112332933176.jpg)
-
(http://www.fashiontick.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/magazine-chelsea-clinton-10_112332933176.jpg)
No doubt shes William Clinton's child. :D
-
No doubt shes William Clinton's child. :D
talented photographer IMO PIPer
-
(http://www.fashiontick.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/magazine-chelsea-clinton-10_112332933176.jpg)
Would enjoy pissing in that mouth....
-
Would enjoy pissing in that mouth....
I'm not sure female enjoy opening their mouths so men can urinate in them.
-
I'm not sure female enjoy opening their mouths so men can urinate in them.
More knee-padding for the Democrats... ::)
-
Would enjoy pissing in that mouth....
(http://blog.666bukkake.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/slut-catches-piss-in-mouth.jpg)
-
More knee-padding for the Democrats... ::)
Actually I support the Bush Doctrine policy of urinating on people BEFORE they tell me they're not into watersports.
Pre-emptive action is required in this day and age.
-
PTPS.
.|.
-
Actually I support the Bush Doctrine policy of urinating on people BEFORE they tell me they're not into watersports.
Pre-emptive action is required in this day and age.
ROFL!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
I suspect we agree on many things (a constitutional provision limiting the growth in federal spending, reformulating welfare programs so that payments are conditional on economically productive behaviors, ending the war on drugs and thus enhancing individual freedom, devolving many issues to the states to produce their own policy outputs (e.g., whether to recognize gay marriage), reducing corporate tax rates, pivoting away from a world police-style foreign policy, etc.).
I limit my criticism solely to the neckbeardian (sometimes called 'Paulian') offshoot of libertarianism, a perverse disease which tends to be coextensive with the following: never having taken an economics course; advocating Austrian economics; pretending market systems can exist without government regulation; advocating for a return to the gold standard; repeating everything Peter Schiff says about "imminent hyperinflation" (any day now! ::)); and a few other deviant behaviors.
I agree with just about everything you wrote and I think we are, generally, on the same page although I think I am slightly more libertarian and advocate laissez-faire capitalism.
Why do you think that government regulation is required for market systems? I am not fundamentally opposed to some regulation but I don't see it as critical. Bartering for goods is largely unregulated and has served us well but is largely impractical in this day and age.
-
Bump for getbigs heavyweights of intellectualism to weigh in further on global and domestic monetary policies. Or, more shots of hoes having piss shot in their mouths :D
-
I'm not sure female enjoy opening their mouths so men can urinate in them.
Your Mother and sisters did.......
;D
-
I agree with just about everything you wrote and I think we are, generally, on the same page although I think I am slightly more libertarian and advocate laissez-faire capitalism.
Why do you think that government regulation is required for market systems? I am not fundamentally opposed to some regulation but I don't see it as critical. Bartering for goods is largely unregulated and has served us well but is largely impractical in this day and age.
clash of getbig titans
-
clash of getbig titans
I love this shit.
Feel like I'm sitting in on a lunch meeting with Patrick Bateman 8)
-
I love this shit.
Feel like I'm sitting in on a lunch meeting with Patrick Bateman 8)
Dorsia for drinks later? I got a table. (No homo)
-
I love this shit.
Feel like I'm sitting in on a lunch meeting with Patrick Bateman 8)
I've seen syntaxmachine's businesses cards, they're insane.
-
LOL
-
And I'm convinced that syntaxmachine is her gimmick. I haven't heard a person speak that intelligently in a while. I hate her politics, but a super well spoken person.
Please do not insult Syntax like that. Chelsea isn't a dummy by any means, but she's said plenty of stupid things over the years, just like mom (and to a much lesser extent, pop, even though he ultimately endorsed that piece of shit Obama). I particularly recall how Chelz freaked out when someone asked her about her father's infidelity ... she nearly shit herself trying to get security to escort that person out.
Syntax doesn't make such mistakes, in part because he's a man. As Don Corlene said, "Women and children can make mistakes. Men cannot make mistakes."
-
Please do not insult Syntax like that. Chelsea isn't a dummy by any means, but she's said plenty of stupid things over the years, just like mom (and to a much lesser extent, pop, even though he ultimately endorsed that piece of shit Obama). I particularly recall how Chelz freaked out when someone asked her about her father's infidelity ... she nearly shit herself trying to get security to escort that person out.
Syntax doesn't make such mistakes, in part because he's a man. As Don Corlene said, "Women and children can make mistakes. Men cannot make mistakes."
Many words of wisdom were spoken by Don Corleone.......
-
Bill was a piece of shit, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Obama...he was just a better salesman that fell into the spot during one of the largest money printing debt bubbles in history. Bill got to ride it and the tech boom for 5 years. Bush Jr caught the tail end of that tech/debt bubble crash but used the next housing bubble, 9/11, and wars to keep collapse at bay for eight years. Obama gets the housing bubble collapse, deleveraging of the Lehman, and no good wars to start to keep kicking the can.
everyone who gets close to Bill Clinton dies strangely.
-
Why do you think that government regulation is required for market systems? I am not fundamentally opposed to some regulation but I don't see it as critical. Bartering for goods is largely unregulated and has served us well but is largely impractical in this day and age.
By 'market system', I mean a set of markets linked together such that the majority of society's activity is organized/initiated within the set.
I'm simply not aware of any plausible scenario where purely free market forces maintain such a system, and historically there are no cases. So, on a provisional basis I think that the state is a necessary component: providing public goods utilized by market participants, issuing and maintaining the currency in which all transactions take place, enshrining and enforcing property rights, correcting for fundamental negative externalities that crop up, enforcing private contracts, occasionally smashing anti-competitive monopolies, and a few other things.
This isn't remotely the same thing as saying that the state must be heavily involved in specific markets (e.g., housing); rather, it's simply saying there is a minimum threshold of involvement ("regulation") entailed by the above functions.
I don't think what I've said here is controversial, or even particularly interesting, but it apparently needs to be said since neckbeardianism seems to construe state and market as inextricably opposed forces locked in a zero-sum game.
-
By 'market system', I mean a set of markets linked together such that the majority of society's activity is organized/initiated within the set.
I'm simply not aware of any plausible scenario where purely free market forces maintain such a system, and historically there are no cases. So, on a provisional basis I think that the state is a necessary component: providing public goods utilized by market participants, issuing and maintaining the currency in which all transactions take place, enshrining and enforcing property rights, correcting for fundamental negative externalities that crop up, enforcing private contracts, occasionally smashing anti-competitive monopolies, and a few other things.
OK, this makes a lot more sense, even if I don't necessarily agree across the board. Clearly a state actor is needed for things like enforcement of property rights and private contracts and you'll get no argument from me there.
I'm not sure what "public goods" refers to in this case, but let's say it's things like roads. In that case, then yes, the state plays a role. But that's a well defined role, that doesn't see the state as "involved" in the market as such (upto things like purchasing construction materials and equipment, etc.).
On the issue of currency, I'm indifferent: I see no reason why it's required or why business couldn't be transacted in private currencies, provided both parties to the transaction consent. Of course, you could easily argue that a state issued currency helps even then by acting as a bridge currency and functioning as not only a currency per se but as a lubricant between currency X and currency Y by allowing market makers to inject liquidity.
What "negative externalities" did you have in mind? Can you provide some examples?
As for the smashing of anti-competitives monopolies, I have yet to see a single monopoly that isn't sustained by government grant or fiat. A company can grow to dominate its particular market, but my answer would, generally, be so what? Look at Microsoft: it dominated the software market almost completely; and yet, Linux managed to stage a revolt, and Apple managed to establish its own nation state - albeit still relatively small.
Of course, I can see some cases where a monopoly is so large and so ensconced and the investment required by a startup to even setup shop so large that this sort of thing is impossible. But is it a power we wish to give to the government to decide when intervention is needed and to break such monopolies up? I'm skeptical.
This isn't remotely the same thing as saying that the state must be heavily involved in specific markets (e.g., housing); rather, it's simply saying there is a minimum threshold of involvement ("regulation") entailed by the above functions.
That's fair. But let's hope that "minimum" continues to mean what we both think it means.
I don't think what I've said here is controversial, or even particularly interesting, but it apparently needs to be said since neckbeardianism seems to construe state and market as inextricably opposed forces locked in a zero-sum game.
I don't see them that way. I just see them as occupying two different domains.
How's this for neckbeardianism?
-
Now she needs to marry a bea.n.er or nignog to more represent the america of tomorrow.
This^^^ Although marrying a GGewish banker can get her to the top as well ;)
Pasted from JewishJournal
Chelsea Clinton engaged to Marc Mezvinsky, a Jew
Posted by Danielle Berrin
Chelsea Clinton with Marc Mezvinsky in 1996
Over Thanksgiving weekend, Chelsea Clinton announced through an email that she plans to marry her nice Jewish boy, Marc Mezvinsky, a Goldman Sachs banker.
(And on July 31, 2010, the couple wed in a Jew-ish ceremony)
According to the New York Times Caucus Blog:
Ms. Clinton and Mr. Mezvinsky were good friends during high school and became romantically involved years later. Ms. Clinton, who formerly worked at McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm, returned to school after last year’s presidential campaign to study public health at Columbia University.
Mr. Mezvinsky, 31, works at Goldman Sachs and is the son of two former Democratic members of Congress, Edward Mezvinsky of Iowa, who served from 1973 to 1977 but was later convicted of defrauding investors and sentenced to seven years in prison, and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of Pennsylvania, who served from 1993 to 1995 and lost re-election after voting for President Clinton’s budget program.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency adds:
Mezvinksy and Clinton met in Washington in 1993, and both attended Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. Clinton, a Methodist, was seen attending Yom Kippur services in September with Mezvinsky at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, where they both now live.
No word on whether Clinton will convert before the marriage—or at all—but as political royalty, her close affiliation with Judaism is certain to delight America’s pro-Israel supporters.
-
Bill was a piece of shit, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Obama...he was just a better salesman that fell into the spot during one of the largest money printing debt bubbles in history. Bill got to ride it and the tech boom for 5 years. Bush Jr caught the tail end of that tech/debt bubble crash but used the next housing bubble, 9/11, and wars to keep collapse at bay for eight years. Obama gets the housing bubble collapse, deleveraging of the Lehman, and no good wars to start to keep kicking the can.
Good post
-
1996 Picture of Chelsea and her Hierarchy boyfriend
(http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/bloggers_auto/1_Chelsea_Clinton_Engagementsff_300.jpg)
-
A little info on Edward Mezvinsky(Chelsea Clinton's father-n-law)lol
Mezvinsky was involved in a series of business transactions that ultimately led to his downfall.
In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.[10] Nearly $10 million was involved in the crimes. Shortly after his indictment, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but the judge at his trial disallowed a mental illness defense.[5] He served his time at Federal Prison Camp, Eglin.[11] Mezvinsky, Federal Bureau of Prisons # 55040-066, he was released in April 2008.[12] He remained on federal probation until 2011, and owes substantial restitution to his victims.[13]
-
true, she was awkward as a kid, but she grew up. she's much easier on the eyes than most women that enter politics. Hilary was no hottie, and was 1 state away from winning the nomination. I think looks would help her. Plus she looks like a Clinton, that's unbeatable for 50+% of the population.
Woahhh, hold on a minute. Have you ever heard that women turn into their mothers when they get older? Would you ever want to wake up to that cankle laden hag named Hilary I'd rather shove razor blades up my urethra than touch that monster. Oofaa
-
Looks like a Hoe.
-
Bill was a piece of shit, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Obama...he was just a better salesman that fell into the spot during one of the largest money printing debt bubbles in history. Bill got to ride it and the tech boom for 5 years. Bush Jr caught the tail end of that tech/debt bubble crash but used the next housing bubble, 9/11, and wars to keep collapse at bay for eight years. Obama gets the housing bubble collapse, deleveraging of the Lehman, and no good wars to start to keep kicking the can.
Don't forget slashing defense spending, which directly led to the attacks on the Kenyan embassy, USS Cole, and ohh what was that one event...oh yeah 9/11! I just read a book about the Clinton administration's policy during that time for security on naval vessels. It was about the attack on the USS Cole. Get this: The ships would have 1 guard "armed" with an M-14 he was not ever trained to use and WAS NOT EVEN LOADED!!!!!! An untrained twink sailor with an unloaded rifle "guarding" a vessel that cost 1 billion dollars of OUR TAX MONEY!!! That was a sliver of the incompetency of the Clinton admin. Although, when you are focused on getting your cock sucked by fat broads and setting up all your future business endeavors for when you get out of office (Bill and his hag wife "earned" upwards of 100 million soon after getting out of office) guess you don't have much time for little things like ohhh you know NATIONAL DEFENSE. Bill was an utter disgrace as a human being let alone a President. He and his hag are truly sociopaths. And you know the apple does not fall far from the tree. I despise that whole disgusting lot. Other than Obummer and Carter, Clinton did more damage to this country than anyone.
-
Don't forget slashing defense spending, which directly led to the attacks on the Kenyan embassy, USS Cole, and ohh what was that one event...oh yeah 9/11! I just read a book about the Clinton administration's policy during that time for security on naval vessels. It was about the attack on the USS Cole. Get this: The ships would have 1 guard "armed" with an M-14 he was not ever trained to use and WAS NOT EVEN LOADED!!!!!! An untrained twink sailor with an unloaded rifle "guarding" a vessel that cost 1 billion dollars of OUR TAX MONEY!!! That was a sliver of the incompetency of the Clinton admin. Although, when you are focused on getting your cock sucked by fat broads and setting up all your future business endeavors for when you get out of office (Bill and his hag wife "earned" upwards of 100 million soon after getting out of office) guess you don't have much time for little things like ohhh you know NATIONAL DEFENSE. Bill was an utter disgrace as a human being let alone a President. He and his hag are truly sociopaths. And you know the apple does not fall far from the tree. I despise that whole disgusting lot. Other than Obummer and Carter, Clinton did more damage to this country than anyone.
Unloaded firearms in the US Navy was a very common occurrence in the US Navy prior to 9-11. All the gate guards had unloaded weapons. It was unbelievable now that we look back on it.
-
Unloaded firearms in the US Navy was a very common occurrence in the US Navy prior to 9-11. All the gate guards had unloaded weapons. It was unbelievable now that we look back on it.
Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting... Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.
-
Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting... Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.
Vast majority of military personnel on base are not armed on any stateside facility.
-
Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting... Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.
I remember reading awhile back that the military didn't like giving minorities bullets in their guns unless it was a war scenario. Always thought it was just a bad joke but maybe there was some truth to it... :-\
-
I remember reading awhile back that the military didn't like giving minorities bullets in their guns unless it was a war scenario. Always thought it was just a bad joke but maybe there was some truth to it... :-\
It is 100% true. I asked my buddy who was a Marine from 98-02 and he told me it was standard procedure. WTF!? No bullets in the weapons of the guards!!! The Cole attack was a fucking travesty. Two ragheads in a fucking rickety piece of shit boat cruise right up to a billion dollar ship and blow it the fuck up and killed dozens of sailors because the fucking guard couldn't even shoot them if he wanted to! I know 911 was an epically bad moment but the Cole was attacked almost a year before and we should have gotten the message then. Like I said good ol' Jefferson Clinton was too busy worrying about his impeachment for getting his cock sucked by a pig than defending this nation.
-
Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting... Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.
weapons are held in armories bro.... not everyone is rolling around with their SAW on their hip.
id say youd be better off pulling that shit in a military base rather than a police station.
of course it depends on whay base and what unit is stationed there, you wouldnt want to try that shit around an infantry unit...
-
weapons are held in armories bro.... not everyone is rolling around with their SAW on their hip.
id say youd be better off pulling that shit in a military base rather than a police station.
of course it depends on whay base and what unit is stationed there, you wouldnt want to try that shit around an infantry unit...
I get that, but it seems like at least a few people could have a pistol on them?
I just don't get it? In my grandpas day they would have blown that chumps head off within the first five minutes? ???
-
I get that, but it seems like at least a few people could have a pistol on them?
I just don't get it? In my grandpas day they would have blown that chumps head off within the first five minutes? ???
the naval yard is mostly just administration shit and civilians now days.... i was there in 09 and it was a bunch of Officers and civilians walking around. I think there was an armed guard at the gate but that was all I can remember.
-
Like mom and dad, she has been groomed since birth for a public role. Mind controlled to the nth degree, she is like a human computer with the best software for public speaking etc.. of course she will sound intelligent! These people are human robots with a fractured mind and no sense of self. They just do as they are programmed to do.
-
She should become a communist activist for a few yrs.
Fixed it for you.
She's a fucking ugly bitch. If she get elected President I'm moving.
-
Like mom and dad, she has been groomed since birth for a public role. Mind controlled to the nth degree, she is like a human computer with the best software for public speaking etc.. of course she will sound intelligent! These people are human robots with a fractured mind and no sense of self. They just do as they are programmed to do.
well put.
totally uncultured drone with no personality but high IQ. hardly even a sentient being.
-
well put.
totally uncultured drone with no personality but high IQ. hardly even a sentient being.
most highly programmed people are very intelligent
-
most highly programmed people are very intelligent
read about that too. Highly intelligent = higher capacity for self-rationalization.
-
no self rationalisation .. quite the opposite. Their minds are fractured through trauma and each compartment or personality is programmed for a specific purpose.
-
I can't find one thing her mother did as Senator or Secretary. Well...she did recognise Myanmar/Burma whatever. Her father (I know a lot of folks say Wes Hubbell is her real father...she does look like him and his daughters) was an OK President working well with GOP Congress. Together they grew the economy and got a few things done. Chelsea is well spoken and has as much acumen for politics as a Kardashian girl.
-
Sorry, I missed your remarks. Responses below.
I'm not sure what "public goods" refers to in this case, but let's say it's things like roads. In that case, then yes, the state plays a role. But that's a well defined role, that doesn't see the state as "involved" in the market as such (upto things like purchasing construction materials and equipment, etc.).
Yes, most of the functions I'm assigning to the state don't entail it being "involved" in a given market in the sense of participating as a buyer/seller; it seems that markets perform remarkably well without this.
Rather, the state performs certain minimal functions -- certain of which pertain to all markets, e.g., enforcing property rights, others of which pertain to specific markets -- that allow free markets to operate as they do. (The point of all this being that the state isn't an inherent enemy of markets, as neckbeardianism seems to construe it.)
One example of a minimal function of the state in a specific market is the establishment and enforcement of informational disclosure requirements in financial markets.
A commonly accepted (albeit increasingly maligned) precept of financial theory -- the efficient market hypothesis -- states that markets are remarkably adept at synthesizing information into prices; so adept, in fact, that they are more or less completely efficient (in the sense that an investor can't acquire above average returns without incurring above average risk). But such efficiency can only be achieved when the relevant information is publicly available -- something that tends not to occur in the absence of basic regulations pertaining to accounting standards, regular publication of company (for a stock) data and news, and the disclosure of fees and full product descriptions.
-
On the issue of currency, I'm indifferent: I see no reason why it's required or why business couldn't be transacted in private currencies, provided both parties to the transaction consent. Of course, you could easily argue that a state issued currency helps even then by acting as a bridge currency and functioning as not only a currency per se but as a lubricant between currency X and currency Y by allowing market makers to inject liquidity.
Well, one may be indifferent to, orgasmic about, resigned toward, or in any motivational state whatever toward the proposition that the state must be the arbiter of currency (call the claim "S"), but it seems fair to say that: (i) we ought to subject theoretical claims about economic arrangements to empirical testing whenever possible (even if backward-looking); (ii) the "Free Banking Era" of American banking from 1838-1860 provides an excellent natural experiment to do as such for the claim that currencies can be privately managed (call the claim "P"); (iii) the empirical evidence contained in said experiment indicates that such an arrangement tends to fail miserably.
I think that the above points necessitate that we assign a higher probability to P than S, especially in light of state successes in managing currency (e.g., the current monetary regime's success in taming inflation). I don't foresee this state of affairs changing until some definite examples of P's viability emerge, but that doesn't seem likely (anytime remotely soon, anyway).
-
What "negative externalities" did you have in mind? Can you provide some examples?
The notion of the negative externality can be used to justify all manner of government intervention, but I shall try to restrict myself to an example where the state involvement genuinely is necessary: the case of SIFI's -- systemically important financial institutions, or, banks whose failure would cause either an outright market failure, severe economic damage, or both.
The negative externality here is the tremendous amount of risk offloaded onto the public's back. I think that the government has a legitimate claim to either limiting the size of such entities or otherwise instituting policies that limit the damage when they fail, thereby reducing or eliminating the negative externality. Many such measures were incorporated into Dodd-Frank, including higher capital requirements, caps on leverage, more oversight, and a bit more regulation regarding derivatives (like putting them on exchanges).
I'm not aware of any purely free market method for providing essential banking services while maintaining or avoiding SIFI status without the aforementioned negative externality, nor any historical examples of such. Can you point to one?
That's fair. But let's hope that "minimum" continues to mean what we both think it means.
Our uses of the word are probably rather close, given that we are probably both of the opinion that the government ought to be less involved in just about every market, across the board.
I don't see them that way. I just see them as occupying two different domains.
How's this for neckbeardianism?
You appear to be well-shaven!
-
X2, what syntax said.
-
Well, one may be indifferent to, orgasmic about, resigned toward, or in any motivational state whatever toward the proposition that the state must be the arbiter of currency (call the claim "S"), but it seems fair to say that: (i) we ought to subject theoretical claims about economic arrangements to empirical testing whenever possible (even if backward-looking); (ii) the "Free Banking Era" of American banking from 1838-1860 provides an excellent natural experiment to do as such for the claim that currencies can be privately managed (call the claim "P"); (iii) the empirical evidence contained in said experiment indicates that such an arrangement tends to fail miserably.
I think that the above points necessitate that we assign a higher probability to P than S, especially in light of state successes in managing currency (e.g., the current monetary regime's success in taming inflation). I don't foresee this state of affairs changing until some definite examples of P's viability emerge, but that doesn't seem likely (anytime remotely soon, anyway).
I think that basing things on events that took place 150 years ago, during the wildcat banking years isn't a good idea. Does it give us a data point? Sure. Did the experiment fail? Sure, but I would add it many mistakes were made. In addition, I would submit that a lot of other issues arose that could not be effectively addressed back then that could be now. I think that the rise of private currencies (whether they are against specie is largely irrelevant) is inevitable.
The notion of the negative externality can be used to justify all manner of government intervention, but I shall try to restrict myself to an example where the state involvement genuinely is necessary: the case of SIFI's -- systemically important financial institutions, or, banks whose failure would cause either an outright market failure, severe economic damage, or both.
The negative externality here is the tremendous amount of risk offloaded onto the public's back. I think that the government has a legitimate claim to either limiting the size of such entities or otherwise instituting policies that limit the damage when they fail, thereby reducing or eliminating the negative externality. Many such measures were incorporated into Dodd-Frank, including higher capital requirements, caps on leverage, more oversight, and a bit more regulation regarding derivatives (like putting them on exchanges).
I am not convinced that such a bank or institution would arise in the absence of the existing framework and the regulations currently in place, which make it practically impossible to start a new bank and compete with the established ones.
Moreover, I think that the public would want to prevent such an institution from forming out of rational self-interest, and if it did, it could (and would) to swiftly reduce its size and importance (without resorting to legislative means) again out of rational self-interest.
I'm not aware of any purely free market method for providing essential banking services while maintaining or avoiding SIFI status without the aforementioned negative externality, nor any historical examples of such. Can you point to one?
I guess it would depend on what we define as "essential banking services" but I don't see any inherent "unworkable" issues in a system where currency is privately issued by all member banks as a consortium and each member bank accepts the note at face value is workable. Since banks have an interest in providing a stable and widely circulating currency (especially if the currency is issued against specie), so it's rational that they would try to ensure those properties.
I even think a multi-currency system could work (especially in this day and age - it was impractical back in the Free Banking Era) but it would be a bit trickier to coordinate and perhaps even slightly confusing. So the single currency system issued by a consortium of banks seems like a more practical setup to me.
-
X2, what avxo said.
-
Look at Microsoft: it dominated the software market almost completely; and yet, Linux managed to stage a revolt, and Apple managed to establish its own nation state - albeit still relatively small.
Uh, what?
???
-
Uh, what?
???
You read what I said. Microsoft used to completely own many segments of the markets. We're talking 99% market penetration. Nobody thought they could be beaten, and everybody believed that even if they ever felt threatened, they'd either buy the competitor out or out-develop them by throwing a thousand developers at the problem.
But despite their dominance, they're being challenged and pushed back basically across the board:
On the O/S front while they are still fairly the big man Linux has made tremendous inroads and now dominates the server operating system market, Apple has an increasing share of the O/S market (and, some would argue, a technically superior O/S).
On the office suit front they are facing competition from OpenOffice on Windows, LibreOffice on Linux (where they don't compete) and Apple's suite on OSX. Even Google Docs is giving them a run for their money on the desktop, and it's a web-based cloud-hosted suite. Of course, Google Docs completely demolishes Office 365 when it comes to cloud-based offerings.
On the database front, they are facing a ridiculous amount of competition by Oracle (as Oracle and as mySQL), and a host of open-source databases, including upstart MariaDB.
On the browser market, IE, which used to utterly dominate the market, is being destroyed by Chrome, Firefox and Safari, and to a lesser extent Opera.
On the cloud services front - both storage and compute - they are vastly outmatched by Amazon and Linux. The Azure offerings don't even compete.
On the virtualization front they are playing catchup to VMWare (aka EMC) and their Hyper-V offerings still don't compete favorably.
On the mobile O/S front they are being completely destroyed by Apple and Google and despite pouring billions of dollars of money to develop and market Windows Mobile and to lure developers, they are getting no traction (except the traction they bought in Nokia Oyj).
That's not to say that they're done for. Far from it. They're fighting and fighting back hard. But the aura of invincibility they had is gone and everyone is smelling blood.
-
Interesting choice of words, I guess...
"Linux staged a revolt". Unix-like systems long predate MS, and have always been widely used on servers and in development environments.
"Apple ... still relatively small" maybe if you're talking exclusively about OS marketshare (and even then, probably not?). Apple is a "bigger" company than MS in almost every way, though.
-
Interesting choice of words, I guess...
There was a reason... let me explain.
"Linux staged a revolt". Unix-like systems long predate MS, and have always been widely used on servers and in development environments.
It did. Nobody expected Linux to gain any market share against things like HP/UX, OSF/1, IRIX, Solaris and the BSDs. It was the poor man's Unix. And yet, it came to dominate, and it did so at a time when Microsoft was making huge inroads in the server market with the first version of Windows for server workloads: Windows NT 4.
Add to this the fact that Linux now runs on more devices that Microsoft if you consider phones and tablets, alongside PCs... I'd say that qualifies as a revolt.
"Apple ... still relatively small" maybe if you're talking exclusively about OS marketshare (and even then, probably not?). Apple is a "bigger" company than MS in almost every way, though.
Of course I was, and I think it was pretty clear.
-
Just seemed a bit of a non-sequitur, I guess... MS' bread-and-butter is a personal PC OS. In this field, Linux poses practically no competition, and Apple is far more well-known for their hardware and mobile OS, these days.
-
Just seemed a bit of a non-sequitur, I guess... MS' bread-and-butter is a personal PC OS. In this field, Linux poses practically no competition, and Apple is far more well-known for their hardware and mobile OS, these days.
Actually, their bread and butter is Office; that's their cash-cow. Windows is just an incidental, these days.
-
She will be President one day. Zero doubt about it.
First Hillary!
-
X2, what avxo said.
I'll punch you square in the jaw.
-
I think that basing things on events that took place 150 years ago, during the wildcat banking years isn't a good idea. Does it give us a data point? Sure. Did the experiment fail? Sure, but I would add it many mistakes were made. In addition, I would submit that a lot of other issues arose that could not be effectively addressed back then that could be now. I think that the rise of private currencies (whether they are against specie is largely irrelevant) is inevitable.
These are all reasonable claims about the Free Banking Era, probably correct ones.
Still, if we don't put theory to data by basing our claims on empirical events, just what methodology should we use? Pure theory? Even on that front, I cannot find (http://ideas.repec.org/cgi-bin/htsearch?q=%22private+money%22&cmd=Search%21&ul=) any of the sorts of complicated models developed by economists that even tentatively suggest that it's possible to obviate the need for state managed currencies -- at best, I see models indicating that private money can coexist. What then is left?
All that remains, as best as I can tell, are two methodologies: (i) believing claims that meet certain aesthetic considerations (nobody decides things on a purely rational basis), and/or (ii) neckbeardianism's favorite move, which is to say that 'Our Lord and Savior Ron Paul/von Mises/etc. says so, and so it is so.' And neither of these is acceptable, of course.
I am not convinced that such a bank or institution would arise in the absence of the existing framework and the regulations currently in place, which make it practically impossible to start a new bank and compete with the established ones.
Moreover, I think that the public would want to prevent such an institution from forming out of rational self-interest, and if it did, it could (and would) to swiftly reduce its size and importance (without resorting to legislative means) again out of rational self-interest.
Our stances on this issue may boil down to our opinions on behavioral finance, which tends to incorporate well-known cognitive distortions that make humans vastly less than fully rational agents into models of market behavior.
I am of the opinion that if it's really true that markets are simply aggregates of individuals' behavior, and said individuals are sub-optimally rational, then said markets will also exhibit sub-optimal rationality. And from that I would say it isn't reasonable to infer policy prescriptions on the basis of what fully rational agents/markets would do.
I guess it would depend on what we define as "essential banking services" but I don't see any inherent "unworkable" issues in a system where currency is privately issued by all member banks as a consortium and each member bank accepts the note at face value is workable. Since banks have an interest in providing a stable and widely circulating currency (especially if the currency is issued against specie), so it's rational that they would try to ensure those properties.
I even think a multi-currency system could work (especially in this day and age - it was impractical back in the Free Banking Era) but it would be a bit trickier to coordinate and perhaps even slightly confusing. So the single currency system issued by a consortium of banks seems like a more practical setup to me.
This is all very interesting, and we should encourage countries (I'd say others, so that they can be the experiment rather than us) to adopt such models and encourage economists to work harder to produce meaningful theoretical work that might guide policy. That said, I don't think the current state of knowledge supports the adoption of such systems, as I indicate above.