Ah yes <.<

I'll get through to your dirty commie brain soon enough >.>

Is that a shot? Calling me an asshole? Fucked up bro.

No, I actually quite like you and don't think you're an arsehole at all. I was thinking of somebody else.

I think the thing with you is that you sometimes present your opinions in an overly-casual manner, which can be mistaken for facetiousness. I actually agree with you on a couple of things.

So I can't laugh at something serious?

Of course you can.

Just do it after you've set up the discussion.

How do you feel about the blatant Mod Bias on this website?

Considering my opposition to a lot of mods' opinions (you could name any mod, and I'd come up with some quite large discrepancies), I have to say there simply isn't one. If you present your opinions in a respectable way, then you're likely to be treated well enough by the moderation team.

Taking that, however, there's also the capacity for those who act like arseholes to be treated with suspicion when they're actually serious, which, in truth, is only their own fault.

Mostly because I'm bored. Also because I hold some - at least here - potentially controversial opinions, and it seems like throwing it out to the crowd is a good way to get some discussion going.

This thread is deliberately broad. Ask me anything about politics, economics, society, philosophy, foreign policy, whatever strikes your fancy.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 20, 2014, 12:39:26 PM

This thread is fine, the one in the flood isn't.

The difference is between 'AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH' as the post content and 'Why do you think the major networks opted out of a presidential address? This almost never happens' is why this one is alright and the other was not.

oh but when Max replies to every post I make about my opinion and says "Of course you feel this way".

That has discussion value right? But my shit doesnt? LOL

There's a difference between a reply and an OP.

Surely you can recognise that.

Where's the discussion value, here?

Should be in Flood.

And how do you expect Congress to do anything when Obama keeps passing E.Os and not playing ball with them?

It's because Congress is so fucking shitty that Obama is essentially backed into a corner.

It's the fucking Republicans, man.

Quote from: Kinder on November 20, 2014, 07:32:25 AM

I fucking hate this shit

I have an uncle who owns a good 4 or 5 acres out in Mississipi that he lives and hunts on. One day he was out sighting in his rifles for hunting season or just outing hunting (can't remember), either way he fired his gun and the bullet entered inside a shack he has and injured a guy that was illegally on the land and poaching. So what does the scumbag do? Sue my uncle

Inquistorial > Adversarial bro. Just like how Statutory/Civil > Common.

Just out of interest.

Is common law necessary adversarial? I haven't seen anything to suggest that'd be the case, but you'd know more of the minutiae than I.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 20, 2014, 09:53:07 AM

Yes, but it would probably be better provided through a much more decentralised and privatised system.

How so?

eople tend to confuse rights with "the government must provide this".

As long as a system exists to ensure most people can access a service like health care or education, then that's enough, whether or not the government supplies it.

It's more an expression of my political scepticism than a disagreement with you.

If it's anything that takes jobs from us it's having a shit load of things being made in China. That right there is talking far more jobs away from us than those illegals that are most likely also doing jobs you, I and anybody else doesn't want to do. The other things about illegals is that a decent amount of their money most likely stays in the country. With China on the other hand it's being spent on their workers making our things.

Outsourcing is a good thing. Having good produced as cheaply as possible makes everybody wealthier. Switching to protectionism and hiking tariffs only depresses consumer surplus.

That guy's a fucking hero.

You would have to hire people to build the wall. You would also have to hire people to maintain the wall, patrol, etc. So you're actually creating jobs with such a plan that won't be a temporary thing

I'm happy to inform you that the broken window fallacy is one thing economists are pretty much unanimous on. You should definitely read and realise how you're assertion isn't correct.

Your plan wouldn't be as bad, though, if we hired immigrants to build the wall and allowed them to boost AD. Oh, but wait, that would imply that spending increase by anyone could increase nominal income. . . Could that be?!!!111??

I put that because like philosophy, economics is a subjective and differing topic.

AHA.

No.

Economics is pretty clear cut on some very important issues. I'm not going to deny there's contention, but we pretty much no some incredibly important things that only the maddest of "economists" would deny. I'm not going to claim immigration is one of those incredibly clear-cut things, but there's something almost resembling a consensus view.

Besides, you can't deny that simplifying the immigration system isn't beneficial because it is, by definition, economical to make it more efficient. It's certainly more fucking efficient than building a big fuck-off wall.

And yet, Paul has greatly studied Austrian Economics and has read the writings of Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand. Not only that, but to be a politician and involved with politics, you need to know what the hell you're doing.

Rand Paul is intelligent and knows his shit. Just because a person has a medical degree, doesn't mean they never took courses involving economics or philosophy. Although, I haven't seen any evidence that he did take such courses.

I didn't disagree with any of that, in any form. I'm just saying I, also, have studied politics and economics and my life-defining qualification will also be in that area.

Also, just out of interest, does that mean Obama knows what the hell he's doing?