This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Turkey
Pages: 1 ... 238239240 241242 ... 270
7171
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:51:46 PM »
Cuba, at this point, just seems like a jumping point for Rubio. Other than that, does anybody have any legitimate criticisms to level?
I would've said inexperience, but then again we've got a two-term senator in the White House right now.
7172
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:36:25 PM »
Of course; I have no doubt people had the same discussion when ships were lost trying to reach new continents, and look where we've come through determination.
7173
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:43:10 PM »
Rubio's pretty great, but he'd be going up against some heavy-hitters in the primary, and I'm not sure he can contend. I think he'd do better starting off as a VP candidate.
7174
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:12:45 PM »
Anarchy is literally the worst idea I've seen implemented on any forum I've used.
7175
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:02:10 AM »
Both sides of what argument? That bullying kids for any reason is okay?
7176
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:04:32 AM »
My university required the MMR vaccine. I see no compelling reason why a public school should not require it either.
7177
« on: January 27, 2015, 02:52:45 PM »
They should release another Orange Box with L4D3, HL3, TF3, and Portal 3.
7178
« on: January 27, 2015, 02:47:07 PM »
I'm not saying it's more important, just different.
One person was killed for his phone, the other for the color of his skin. One is a hate crime, one is fueled by greed.
I have no problem with that kind of distinction.
Do hate crimes actually get charged more severely than other crimes?
7179
« on: January 27, 2015, 02:46:07 PM »
Sure, drunkenness doesn't mean she can't consent. That's a common misconception. Consent can't be implied or given ahead of time*, but it can be given while intoxicated, and initiating sex is, in my humble opinion, a very obvious form of consent. Spoiler Except my wife has said it's okay anytime, anywhere, and we've banged when we're absolutely shitfaced and incomprehensible. Drunk sex is great.
Sorry if you didn't care to know those details about my life.
7180
« on: January 27, 2015, 02:26:33 PM »
when we're talking about loose or tight monetary policy we're literally talking about the artificial rates the Fed is imposing.
The point being that's a bad way of judging monetary policy, especially when we have metrics like inflation and aggregate nominal income. Using interest rates only ever work if you can isolate the short-term liquidity effect from a monetary injection or reduction (as we could in, say, 1984), but when rates move for other reasons it can give dangerous impressions about what the Fed is doing or what it can or can't do. Fundamentally, viewing interest rates as the prime indicator leads to a credit- and debt-driven view of the economy which, at least to me, doesn't seem terribly justified.
Also, thanks for engaging in this conversation by the way. Probably the first serious discussion about economics I've had here.
I suppose there's more to monetary policy than just interest rates, but when I learned it it was described by the interest rates; high is generally tight, low is generally easy. I'd still say money was loose prior to the 20's, though money was expanding in the 20's, and even though rates were increasing they were still being kept low artificially. I've been out of the econ game for about a year. I used to read the WSJ daily, followed stocks, watched a few financial analysis shows, but senior year of college was a disaster for my understanding of world affairs. And so far, I felt like I haven't caught up to give a respectable response to any of your econ threads.
7181
« on: January 27, 2015, 02:01:43 PM »
Loose money in the 20's that allowed for a bubble and subsequent stock market crash, followed by an overcorrection of tight money that strangled banks and individuals struggling to recover. Similar situation in the 2000's.
I don't see how money was loose during the Roaring Twenties when deflation was a constant worry for the economy; and I don't see how money was loose in the 2000s when the bubble (which I'd argue was irrelevant and probably not even a bubble to begin with) had begun developing in 1997.
Interest rates were higher than inflation but the the Fed was expanding the money supply and keeping rates down. Sounds pretty loose to me.
Interest rates are an exceedingly poor way of looking at the stance of monetary policy; the central bank only has limited control over them and they're effected by economic phenomena from long-term inflation expectations to the Fisher Effect.
In the same way, the rates were lowered during the 2002-2004 period, sure, but like I said the bubble began in 1997--largely due to nonmonetary factors--probably wasn't even that much of a bubble and aggregate demand was 2pc below trend by 2002 due to prior monetary tightness.
Sorry if this is a bit jumbled; eating dinner.
I'm talking about the 1900s, not the 2000s; I just said our recent debacle was similar. Interest rates aren't necessarily a good metric, but when we're talking about loose or tight monetary policy we're literally talking about the artificial rates the Fed is imposing.
7182
« on: January 27, 2015, 01:50:57 PM »
Loose money in the 20's that allowed for a bubble and subsequent stock market crash, followed by an overcorrection of tight money that strangled banks and individuals struggling to recover. Similar situation in the 2000's.
I don't see how money was loose during the Roaring Twenties when deflation was a constant worry for the economy; and I don't see how money was loose in the 2000s when the bubble (which I'd argue was irrelevant and probably not even a bubble to begin with) had begun developing in 1997.
Interest rates were higher than inflation but the the Fed was expanding the money supply and keeping rates down. Sounds pretty loose to me.
7183
« on: January 27, 2015, 01:23:00 PM »
Loose money in the 20's that allowed for a bubble and subsequent stock market crash, followed by an overcorrection of tight money that strangled banks and individuals struggling to recover. Similar situation in the 2000's.
7184
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:08:43 AM »
This would be an actual example of rape by deception:
In California, on February 20, 2009, Julio Morales snuck into a sleeping 18-year-old woman’s darkened bedroom after he saw her boyfriend leave. The woman said she awoke to the sensation of someone having sex with her and assumed it was her boyfriend. When a ray of light hit Morales’s face, and the woman saw he was not her boyfriend, she fought back and Morales fled. The woman called her boyfriend, who then called the police. Julio Morales was convicted of rape under two concepts. He was guilty of rape because he began having sex with the woman while she was still asleep and, therefore, unable to consent. He was also guilty of rape-by-fraud because he had impersonated the woman’s boyfriend in order to gain her consent I feel a little weird about this. Maybe something along the lines of "violent deception", but two counts of rape for one act of rape?
7185
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:06:45 AM »
So they're talking bailouts and banking on their debt being skimmed off? Mkay.
My liberal friends are incredibly happy with the decision, however.
7186
« on: January 25, 2015, 09:34:13 PM »
I'd prefer an essay to a YouTube video, but I understand how easy that medium is.
7187
« on: January 25, 2015, 09:26:08 PM »
I was watching Dateline because I'm a fucking loser, and there was a report about a man who pretended to be a British spy and generally lied about his entire life, including the multiple past wives he had as well as 11 children, all to his current wife (who aborted her pregnancy when she found out about his life).
Long story short she brought him up on several charges, including 'rape by deception, because she consented to a persona that was essentially a complete fabrication. The court did not convict him of anything but theft by deception with 3 years in prison and $4,000 in damages to the wife.
What are your thoughts on this? Should rape by deception a crime? Should it be a sex offense but not rape? Should it even warrant itself as a crime at all?
7188
« on: January 25, 2015, 09:00:29 AM »
Budget? Specs? Brand preference?
I'd go for the R290, personally.
7189
« on: January 24, 2015, 12:59:52 PM »
I buy vinyls in-store, or CDs when I like the album and the band doesn't release it on a record.
7190
« on: January 24, 2015, 12:50:04 PM »
When do they come out with the horse armor amiibo?
7191
« on: January 23, 2015, 07:21:37 PM »
Look, you said it doesn't resemble a human which is what I respnded to. I haven't even brought up abortion with you, I'm just telling you the reality of what a fetus is. You seriously need to clarify which stage a fetus begins to resemble a human. I'd argue that the 24th week would be a sign of resemblance, which is already the legal cut off date for the majority of developed nations, not to mention that resemblance is subjective anyway.
Your definition of resemblance is arbitrary, so I'm not sure how you want me to clarify. And the argument that abortion has always been around is what folks were saying about slavery a couple hundred years, and look how far we've come in addressing human rights since then. Holy fuck you did not just draw the comparison between abortion and slavery.
I hope you also realise that slavery is just as prevalent, if not more, than it was 300 years ago.
Last I checked, slavery is no longer legal in the first world. Of course it's still a problem, just as abortion will be, but should we legalize the sex trafficking industry and modern slavery to add a bit of regulation to it? Slavery and abortion are both human rights violations. I'm not in the mood to get into this because you've already acknowledged that you fundamentally disagree with giving fetuses human rights, despite being humans.
7192
« on: January 23, 2015, 05:12:18 PM »
A fetus before the third trimester doesn't even resemble a human.
This is pretty subjective. From a genetic standpoint, a fetus looks perfectly human. From a biological standpoint, it still resembles a human because it's in one of the stages of development of humans. It's just not a compelling argument.
Not really. I mean, this is just a semantics based argument your championing here. Whether it slightly looks like a human is irrelevant (which it certainly doesn't during the first few weeks of pregnancy, and even into the first month). What matters is whether or not it holds the same thoughts, feelings and values as an actual human does, which it does not.
Like really, what do you anti abortionists hope to accomplish here? Abortion is going to be around, and always has been around regardless of legality, all your really doing exacerbating the issue by outlawing it (which I hear the same argument being proposed by Camnator in regards to Marijuana and just about every other facet he's argued). The moral argument I can somewhat get since it's a huge gray area, but the legal argument is just pants on head retarded, I'm sorry.
Look, you said it doesn't resemble a human which is what I respnded to. I haven't even brought up abortion with you, I'm just telling you the reality of what a fetus is. And the argument that abortion has always been around is what folks were saying about slavery a couple hundred years, and look how far we've come in addressing human rights since then.
7193
« on: January 23, 2015, 03:28:39 PM »
A fetus before the third trimester doesn't even resemble a human.
This is pretty subjective. From a genetic standpoint, a fetus looks perfectly human. From a biological standpoint, it still resembles a human because it's in one of the stages of development of humans. It's just not a compelling argument.
7195
« on: January 23, 2015, 03:23:13 PM »
deserve the same rights -- they can't get married, work
Bad, Turkey! Bad!
What'd I do?
Those are not rights you silly.
Not in the bill of rights, no, but I certainly have the right to provide services for money and I have a right to hold a marriage ceremony with whomever I want; they were just examples tacit rights an adult has.
That's more of a freedom than a right, but that's why I just use the broader term of liberty more often now.
You're right, I should have used 'voting', or something similar, as an example.
7196
« on: January 23, 2015, 03:22:24 PM »
I think sentience entails a degree of dignity and mercy. We should strive to never willingly torture, maim, or otherwise physically or psychologically traumatize a sentient animal, and when it is necessary or agreed upon to cause them harm (i.e., cattle or hunting) that it be done in a regulated and humane manner.
7197
« on: January 23, 2015, 03:18:20 PM »
deserve the same rights -- they can't get married, work
Bad, Turkey! Bad!
What'd I do?
Those are not rights you silly.
Not in the bill of rights, no, but I certainly have the right to provide services for money and I have a right to hold a marriage ceremony with whomever I want; they were just examples tacit rights an adult has.
7198
« on: January 23, 2015, 02:06:57 PM »
deserve the same rights -- they can't get married, work
Bad, Turkey! Bad!
What'd I do?
7199
« on: January 23, 2015, 11:46:19 AM »
apecunt.
7200
« on: January 23, 2015, 11:22:29 AM »
Pages: 1 ... 238239240 241242 ... 270
|
Show Posts