1,326 Reply by The Great Eye

(117 replies, posted in Politics)

The thing is, I try to separate macroeconomics and microeconomics.  As I mentioned previously, microeconomic effects are spurious and bidirectional (some people benefit where other people lose), so it's difficult by any means to say that we should stop one microeconomic effect unless you are outright advocating giving preference to one group of people over the other.

So either you're taking a completely ethical stance (even if some people benefit and other people lose, there is some ethical stance that is more important than the utilitarian effects), which just can't be argued with because ethics are often tautological, or you have to go back to the macroeconomic effects, which is the particularly important inflation/deflation argument.

And no, I'm not "quick" to give credence to a side.  In the background is years of debating and evaluating the models I described earlier.  So please don't dismiss my stances as just following a crowd, because unlike many people here, I took great care in posting detailed analysis of the issue previously.

Anyway... I'll defer on this re-hashing... *waits to see what you come up with* smile

Go to forum: Politics

1,327 Reply by The Great Eye

(117 replies, posted in Politics)

> V.Kemp wrote:

> ~Wornstrum~, he's a student of economics. He believes what his professors, who have a vested interest in the system as it is, tell him to believe. tongue


Okay... saying that my opinion is based solely on an appeal to authority... an ad hominem, but fine...


> I will mock you all when I finally get to Griffin's book on the fed. I can barely find the time to troll forums now. sad



WAIT A SEC!  *pushes the hypocrisy button on you*

What makes your appeal to authority any better than mine?  Especially when you literally say "I don't know what my justification is, but once I get to this book, I'm going to parrot what he says."  Seriously?  X(

It's one thing to hold an opinion until after you get to some research.  It's a whole different thing to say "I'm going to take a preconceived stance as of now, but once I read this book to reinforce my preconceived notion, I'm definitely sure."

Go to forum: Politics

1,328 Reply by The Great Eye

(83 replies, posted in Politics)

Humi, define "value."

Go to forum: Politics

1,329 Reply by The Great Eye

(83 replies, posted in Politics)

Okay... define "value."

Go to forum: Politics

1,330 Reply by The Great Eye

(83 replies, posted in Politics)

How is that not assigning a value?  "You are both equal, but the 20 year old is more equal than the 80 year old." tongue

Go to forum: Politics

1,331 Reply by The Great Eye

(5 replies, posted in Politics)

But did he inhale?

Go to forum: Politics

1,332 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

It's a mountain lion!  big_smile

Go to forum: General

1,333 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

It's a dog!

Go to forum: General

1,334 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

It's a white fish!  big_smile

Go to forum: General

1,335 Reply by The Great Eye

(30 replies, posted in Politics)

> Justinian I wrote:

> Yell,

I'm a slut, and proud of it. I want the government to make my lifestyle easier by eliminating the risks inherent in sexual activity by facilitating access to birth control and safe sex. And you should support it because crime and sexual frustration correlate with one another. Your choices are more police, which is more expensive, or access to sexual health, which is cheaper. The rational choice is obvious.



Did Justinian just threaten us?  Buy me condoms or I'll commit crimes?

Go to forum: Politics

1,336 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem

Go to forum: General

1,337 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

Dome of Rock

Go to forum: General

1,338 Reply by The Great Eye

(11 replies, posted in Politics)

@Undeath

This isn't a normal legislative activity.  I'd understand your argument if we were talking about a normal bill going through both houses of Congress and the President (unrelated fact: "I'm just a bill" is suddenly stuck in my head).  However, this particular action is simply a regulation change within the Justice Department.  These are instances in which the departments themselves have been given discretion, in this case about 20 years prior, to establish regulations within their sphere of governance, unless countermanded by the Executive or Legislative branches.

So yes... when it's internal department agency regulations, it's an "Obama administration" decision since the executive branch guides those departments, not Congress.

Go to forum: Politics

1,339 Reply by The Great Eye

(16 replies, posted in Politics)

Whoa... deja vu big_smile

Go to forum: Politics

1,340 Reply by The Great Eye

(7 replies, posted in Questions)

Forum looks are determined by the player.

At the top menu bar on the forum, click Profile, then Display.  The first option should show a list of possible looks for the forum.  ElBekko Entry is the yellow forum display.

Go to forum: Questions

1,341 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

It's a bug!

Go to forum: General

1,342 Reply by The Great Eye

(106 replies, posted in Politics)

"We need to make the wall higher, Bruce Willis!  People are still trying to escape to North Korea!"
-Barack Obama, "The Adventures of Kim Jong-Un"

smile

Go to forum: Politics

1,343 Reply by The Great Eye

(85 replies, posted in Politics)

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Yay!  Back to politics!  Haha.

-1 wornstrum



Let me clarify.  This isn't because Wornstrum was wrong.  Wornstrum was absolutely in his right to say your thread should probably be closed.  In fact, if I was strictly adhering to the rules, I would probably do exactly what Wornstrum said.  The only reason I'm keeping this around is for the sake of continuing discussion.  So you're out of line with rubbing it in that Wornstrum was in any way acting outside what should be done, and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else reviewing this thread closed it anyway.  hmm

Go to forum: Politics

1,344 Reply by The Great Eye

(85 replies, posted in Politics)

Hmmm....

Alright, I'm going to send this thread back to politics, but really only in the interests of getting a discussion.

That being said, consider this a reminder: Topics are defined by their OP.  A new person reading a thread shouldn't need to go to post #63 to find out the political discussion behind a thread.  In the future, please put the political topic of discussion in the original post, as doing otherwise makes it quite difficult for people following the thread to know whether a political discussion is actually occurring, what the discussion is, or where it is.  Such threads could easily be classified as having the exact same effect as any spam thread, and could be justifiably be dealt with accordingly.

Go to forum: Politics

1,345 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

Allosaurus

Go to forum: General

1,346 Reply by The Great Eye

(6 replies, posted in Politics)

I suspect that is 1.5 million acting school students sitting in cafes waiting to be discovered.  big_smile

Go to forum: Politics

1,347 Reply by The Great Eye

(11 replies, posted in Politics)

Hehe... the killer brought a knife to a gunfight.  big_smile

Go to forum: Politics

1,348 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

Sun-Runner's Fire, by Melanie Rawn

Go to forum: General

1,349 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

We stopped caring a while ago!

Go to forum: General

1,350 Reply by The Great Eye

(2,141 replies, posted in General)

Dallas Cowboys stadium?

Go to forum: General