Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 224 of 420 FirstFirst ... 124174214222223224225226234274324 ... LastLast
Results 16,726 to 16,800 of 31490
  1. #16726
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I never found Seinfeld funny. Simpsons was more my speed.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  2. #16727
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Fruitlessly searching for funny Simpson's clips reminded me to this

    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 02-20-2015 at 04:45 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  3. #16728
    Even that hasn't aged well, opening ATC isn't that rare HU and waiting for hands is a terrible strat to counter it.
  4. #16729
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I think you're missing the point if you judge the quality of that video on the poker advice therein.

    I don't know how it fares as comedy, but it's certainly amusing, entertaining and clever.
  5. #16730
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    I've been getting into the idea of systems (as opposed to goals) a lot recently. I was talking about it with a non-FTR poker guy, and he recommended me this: How to Overcome Self Improvement Problems. The basic idea is kind of similar, and I've done sort of similar stuff in the past myself.

    I got this iPhone (my first smartphone) a couple of months ago, and I've been really playing with the idea of using it as the "control panel" of my systems in general. Maybe this needs its own thread if I'm not the only person doing this sort of thing.
  6. #16731
    I think Seinfeld has aged better than any other comedy.

    On a different note, it was one of the most revolutionary shows in TV history. Nearly every element in the modern sitcom completely changed after Seinfeld and are still today replicating it. Larry David is the closest thing to Shakespeare we have
  7. #16732
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I've been getting into the idea of systems (as opposed to goals) a lot recently. I was talking about it with a non-FTR poker guy, and he recommended me this: How to Overcome Self Improvement Problems. The basic idea is kind of similar, and I've done sort of similar stuff in the past myself.

    I got this iPhone (my first smartphone) a couple of months ago, and I've been really playing with the idea of using it as the "control panel" of my systems in general. Maybe this needs its own thread if I'm not the only person doing this sort of thing.

    Yeah, I've been realizing this slowly over the last several years, but never had a good way to verbalize it. Then I heard CPGGrey talking about it on the podcast Hello Internet. I find that I get way more done, and I tend to enjoy a lot more of my time even though I'm spending far less of it as what I normally would have thought of as free time.
  8. #16733
    If you like Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara you might like this new Canadian comedy, Schitt's Creek. http://www.cbc.ca/schittscreek/episodes/
    Personally, I think Daniel Levy is revelation in this.
  9. #16734
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    This is best judged by the ROFLs scale.
    Surely you can't be serious. Why is a comedy best judged on the ROFLs scale? I don't really ROFL with Leslie Nielsen comedies but they are among the funniest ever. The same goes for Seinfeld. It's a clever comedy with jokes that'll live on for another 20 years. The ROFL scale sucks my ass.
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  10. #16735
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
  11. #16736
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    NC go hard

  12. #16737
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I must say I never really found this line particularly funny.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #16738
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I must say I never really found this line particularly funny.
    This line isn't too funny, I'll agree. However, it IS fun to use when others set you up for it. That said, it sums up the genius stupidity of Leslie Nielsen movies.
  14. #16739
    My problem is that I don't think surely and Shirley sound alike enough for the joke to work. It's stupid. When I see other people chirp this line, I tend to groan. It's even less funny when it's not Leslie Nielson saying it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #16740
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    My problem is that I don't think surely and Shirley sound alike enough for the joke to work. It's stupid. When I see other people chirp this line, I tend to groan. It's even less funny when it's not Leslie Nielson saying it.
    In American, the two sound quite similar.
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  16. #16741
    One rhymes with early, the other rhymes with poorly. Which one are you saying wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #16742
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Cr'eek' vrs Cr'ick'

    I say Shirley and Surely very similarly. And if you think that's wrong, the world will be a better place after you die.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  18. #16743
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  19. #16744
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Surely like poorly sounds like shore-ly. Shore, I'd love to go to the movies... give me a break.

    Or do you call them the walkie-talkies in England, too?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  20. #16745
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    What makes this scene funny to me is what makes every Leslie Nielson movie funny. It's that Leslie Nielson isn't funny. Most comedic actors: very funny people. Gene Wilder: very funny, John Cleese: very funny, Robin Williams: hysterical. Leslie Nielson... not very funny at all. In fact I imagine something like the Liam Neeson sketch in Life's too Short happening during Leslie Nielson's audition for Airplane! Incidentally very similar names.
    You take a serious dramatic actor and you give him the silliest lines possible and it will never fail to make me laugh. It's simply something unexpected, which is the absolute essence of comedy, or the least effort you can make in comedy, depending on your perspective.
    35 years and 10.000 reruns later it is no longer unexpected, so it can't be funny anymore, but I assure you it was very funny the first time around.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  21. #16746
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I like the "I am serious. And stop calling me Shirley." line for the above reasons (including the groan induction), and also one more:

    When someone says, "Surely, ..." and what follows is false, that's pure unadulterated irony, and I just can't help but revel in pointing it out.

    The added dimension of "Surely, you can't be serious." being a personal judgement makes it even more rich to me for a blatant misuse of the word "surely."

    The retort, "I am serious." is so enticing, and playing the pun afterward is plain, old, undying dad-humor.
    (I'm not a dad, but you know what I mean.)
  22. #16747
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    This conversation for some reason reminds me of the movie Dragnet, which I'm possibly alone in thinking was a great movie and kinda reminds me of the naked gun films.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  23. #16748
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Read it, Fuckmothers.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  24. #16749
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.


    Only takes about 15 seconds for the joke to land.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  25. #16750
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Read it, Fuckmothers.
    ... so I download Tor, right? I'll run that in a virtual machine first. The article is pretty bloated, but the hidden web thing is interesting.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  26. #16751
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    The article's not bloated. It's played up a bit by the author, but I like what he's on about.

    Plus, I had to google define like four words, so you know he's smart.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  27. #16752
    A Jewish person attacking herself and blaming racist people? Shirley not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #16753
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post


    Only takes about 15 seconds for the joke to land.
    Women do this crap a lot. They love being the alleged victim. Combined with no consequences for their actions if they're caught, this is why false rape accusations have gotten so ridiculously out of hand.
  29. #16754
    I tripped at the Museum of Natural History on Saturday and saw Bill De Blasio with his son there. There was a used pad on the bathroom floor and a middle-age man tried to hit on me by asking me if I was a warrior after giving me an unprompted explanation of neolithic weaponry. The lady at the coat check-in didn't know a) what an iPad was and b) if it qualified as an electronic (apparently you are not allowed to check them in).

    I'm a huge Seinfeld nerd. At one point in my life I could tell you who wrote any of the seasons 1-7 Seinfeld episodes just by hearing the dialogue.


    This and its related videos of Jason Alexander talking about various aspects of Seinfeld are super interesting.
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  30. #16755
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Read it, Fuckmothers.
    But Silk Road was never a libertarian experiment

    Black market != free market

    There is no better way to get a fiefdom run by pirate kings than to create black market space
  31. #16756
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    I tripped at the Museum of Natural History on Saturday and saw Bill De Blasio with his son there. There was a used pad on the bathroom floor and a middle-age man tried to hit on me by asking me if I was a warrior after giving me an unprompted explanation of neolithic weaponry. The lady at the coat check-in didn't know a) what an iPad was and b) if it qualified as an electronic (apparently you are not allowed to check them in).

    I'm a huge Seinfeld nerd. At one point in my life I could tell you who wrote any of the seasons 1-7 Seinfeld episodes just by hearing the dialogue.


    This and its related videos of Jason Alexander talking about various aspects of Seinfeld are super interesting.
    I'm not sure if the bold makes me like you more or less.
  32. #16757
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    I'm a huge Seinfeld nerd. At one point in my life I could tell you who wrote any of the seasons 1-7 Seinfeld episodes just by hearing the dialogue.


    This and its related videos of Jason Alexander talking about various aspects of Seinfeld are super interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I'm not sure if the bold makes me like you more or less.
    Definitely more. Seinfeld is life.
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  33. #16758
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    But Silk Road was never a libertarian experiment

    Black market != free market

    There is no better way to get a fiefdom run by pirate kings than to create black market space
    He seems to only barely recognize the crucial factor that all participation in silk road commerce was voluntary. Also, he seems to believe that governments are doing an awesome job keeping law and order and promoting honest commerce, lol.
  34. #16759
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    He seems to only barely recognize the crucial factor that all participation in silk road commerce was voluntary. Also, he seems to believe that governments are doing an awesome job keeping law and order and promoting honest commerce, lol.
    What does an excellent job look like?
  35. #16760
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    What does an excellent job look like?
    1) Not making laws against everything that is in poor taste or could be considered a personal vice by some (drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, fatty foods, incandescent light bulbs, hot water heaters, dildos, etc).
    2) Not putting people in rape cages for breaking the above laws.
    3) Not instituting soft bans on products through excessive taxation (cigarettes would be an example of this).
    4) Not having a justice system that is so bogged down in trying to enforce the above shit that it has single digit conviction rates for most violent crimes.
    5) Letting businesses fail or succeed by their own merits, profits, and losses.
    6) Not having a political system that allows big corporations to create barriers for competitor entry, nor letting them lobby for subsidies that they then directly cash in on.
    7) Not taking 40-50% of the money everyone in the economy makes to pay for the above shit.

    I could probably think of a few dozen more things but I'm afraid your question may have been rhetorical.
  36. #16761
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    What does an excellent job look like?
    An excellent job is producing wealth. Any serious economic historian would agree that basically all of the wealth created in the world has been through market forces, not government direction.

    It isn't that the government is doing a crappy job and only creating some wealth, but that it's doing the job that its design determines, which effects into inhibition of wealth creation. A government that does an excellent job is a government that does no job because excellence = enhancement of prosperity, which is something government doesn't do.

    Note that if the government did something that was good, it would mean that the incentive was already there for the market to do the same thing. This is because the inputs received by government are fundamentally no different than what the market receives. The reason government stymies, however, is that its outputs are different than market outputs. The foundation for why this difference exists is that entities within markets do not receive mandatory revenues; whereas, the only revenue source for government is mandatory.

    At the risk of going too long and repeating myself: make McDonald's the government, and you provide a sort of social science proof for why government does not create wealth. Nobody thinks the food industry would work better if McDonald's received revenues based on mandatory taxation and then distributed service and product based on bureaucratic judgment. Because the price system (the thing McDonald's uses to create wealth) has in it baked all other factors of society, a mandatory neglect of the price system provides zero value. This is true for all things, even threat from asteroids and war. I say this because the fear people have in reducing government is the idea that things like war become greater threats. That isn't true because the social and psychological factors that go into a bureaucracy arbitrating war/defense policy is no different than the inputs markets get. Maintenance of defense even after the deletion of the draft is all the evidence we need to demonstrate that government is not needed for defense, since all those who replace the draftees do so by choice.

    "Wealth creation" was not a thing until governments started inhibiting their own power. As far as all the data I've seen, every time a government has tried to create wealth, it has only detracted from it. We think of empires as a way to create wealth for the central command of those empires, but they never actually did. Private property with legal recourse against the legal monopoly -- and the cult of production -- is what gave rise to the concept of rising living standards
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-24-2015 at 08:20 PM.
  37. #16762
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    An excellent job is producing wealth. Any serious economic historian would agree that basically all of the wealth created in the world has been through market forces, not government direction.
    Oil.

    And before that Europe made its nut off precious metals from America. I remember reading about how Portugal (or Spain) was basically just making silver coins and they were holding the whole world's economy afloat (I'll dig for it later).

    And before that, let's go with slaves. edit And conquest.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    An excellent job is producing wealth. Any serious economic historian would agree that basically all of the wealth created in the world has been through market forces, not government direction.
    Rome had a pretty robust wealth through conquest by government direction scheme working.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 02-25-2015 at 05:12 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  38. #16763
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    The interesting aspect of that article was how people and a market place without one central thuggish enforcer eventually needs to invite thuggishness into the fold. That's an argument I stumbled into and I like it sourced from the Italian mob side of things.

    Here's where the kids on reddit take a crack at it.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/c...now_by/cotj2tz
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  39. #16764
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    1) Not making laws against everything that is in poor taste or could be considered a personal vice by some (drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, fatty foods, incandescent light bulbs, hot water heaters, dildos, etc).
    2) Not putting people in rape cages for breaking the above laws.
    3) Not instituting soft bans on products through excessive taxation (cigarettes would be an example of this).
    4) Not having a justice system that is so bogged down in trying to enforce the above shit that it has single digit conviction rates for most violent crimes.
    5) Letting businesses fail or succeed by their own merits, profits, and losses.
    6) Not having a political system that allows big corporations to create barriers for competitor entry, nor letting them lobby for subsidies that they then directly cash in on.
    7) Not taking 40-50% of the money everyone in the economy makes to pay for the above shit.

    I could probably think of a few dozen more things but I'm afraid your question may have been rhetorical.
    IMO:
    1,2&4 have more to do with the prison industrial complex and it's effect on the govnmnt.

    3 is about trying to keep the populace, well, not dead. Instead we'd have Indonesia. See john oliver's big tobacco.

    5 couldn't agree more. All this too big to fail nonsense is just that, nonsense.

    6 we should be looking into the bribing game. The recent battle for net neutrality was a good showcase of this.

    7 taxes are a necessary evil, but so is making sure the tax money collected doesn't get wasted on unnecessary shit, like tanks for police stations. The best societies all tax a ton, because money is needed to run things, the difference is that the resources a rallied where they have to be in order to ensure crime is minimal, education and health is maximal, etc. See the Nordic countries, also john oliver's piece on Ferguson mo, civil forfeiture .

    I could include all the relevant links to these things but I'm in a foreign country on my phone, internet is kind of limited. So I couldn't verify the videos.
    Last edited by Jack Sawyer; 02-25-2015 at 05:02 AM.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  40. #16765
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Further inspection of the silk road article has him just blatantly making shit up about Ross Ulbricht and other things that happened. Some of what he has to say about the problems of total anonymity make a lot of sense, but if a black market weren't necessary for the goods being sold, anonymity wouldn't be so necessary either. So yeah when you completely subvert the free market, don't expect the black market to work as well as it might have worked as a white one.

    The author just reeks of someone who is pro-establishment and will frame any story he can to support his pro-establishment views. Pointing at a black market run by a libertarian idealist and saying "a ha!" when it doesn't run absolutely pristinely was an easy way to do this. He provides no useful comparison to the real world regulated market and the entrenched problems there in. That would be too difficult!
    Last edited by Renton; 02-25-2015 at 05:54 AM.
  41. #16766
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Woo capitalism woo.

    Do I fit in yet?
  42. #16767
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    If you outlaw something, you will inevitably be creating a black market because demand for the product in question will not just cease. That is why the people most interested in having something not ve legal, and therefore not regulated, are the providers if such black markets. Case in point, many people made a killing during the prohibition era.many people are making a killing nowadays with coke and weed. These are the same which would never want these products to ever be legal nor regulated.
    And because of this,they must be regulated. Prostitution? Regulated. Give the pimps the middle finger . Marihuana? Regulated. No need to go to the shady dealer at the street's corner, and being hustled in the process.

    The only people who have a vested interest in keeping these, ahem, 'sanctions' in place are those who are nowadays making all the moolah. Drug kingpins, private prisons, phizer et al who sell their version of whichever drug, etc. And will use their money and influence to keep things exactly as they are
    Last edited by Jack Sawyer; 02-25-2015 at 08:58 AM.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  43. #16768
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
  44. #16769
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    If you outlaw something, you will inevitably be creating a black market because demand for the product in question will not just cease. That is why the people most interested in having something not ve legal, and therefore not regulated, are the providers if such black markets. Case in point, many people made a killing during the prohibition era.many people are making a killing nowadays with coke and weed. These are the same which would never want these products to ever be legal nor regulated.
    And because of this,they must be regulated. Prostitution? Regulated. Give the pimps the middle finger . Marihuana? Regulated. No need to go to the shady dealer at the street's corner, and being hustled in the process.

    The only people who have a vested interest in keeping these, ahem, 'sanctions' in place are those who are nowadays making all the moolah. Drug kingpins, private prisons, phizer et al who sell their version of whichever drug, etc. And will use their money and influence to keep things exactly as they are
    I basically agree with most of this. I just think the leftist answer of "but if only we fixed the system!" is inadequate when there is so much evidence and theory to support the fact that the system is inherently hurtful to people. Yeah I'm sure there are reforms to make the government less of a societal parasite and, believe me, I'm for those reforms, but the pro-regulation folks aren't willing to even admit what an uphill battle they have on their hands.
  45. #16770
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Oil.
    A resource with which governments have close to fuckall ability to create wealth. All their technology to do so comes out of the private sector. The only governments that have sustained profitability with oil for several decades are the ones where it's really, really cheap by default. All the other ones, where they need to innovate to compete, get crushed on the regular. Most notably, that which crushes them is private enterprise creating new sources through technology.

    Government is capable of taking credit for something that is easy, for something that others already did all the work. But every time it has gotten about more than that, government fails. There appear to be zero exceptions.

    And before that Europe made its nut off precious metals from America. I remember reading about how Portugal (or Spain) was basically just making silver coins and they were holding the whole world's economy afloat (I'll dig for it later).
    European governments made no nut on this. Colonialism and empires have always produced more costs than profits. This is ultimately why they keep collapsing. Important to note: resource extraction is not wealth creation. Production is, with its piggyback in productivity. Empires taking things from one region and bringing it to another doesn't create wealth. In fact, it deteriorates it since all it does is create a higher cost ratio. Additionally, mercantilism, a sort of proto-pseudo-capitalism, was only able to produce new product (create wealth) through merchant market behavior.

    And before that, let's go with slaves. edit And conquest.
    Slavery was profitable in a world where capitalism was next to nothing. Productivity of slaves is ridiculously low. Slavery dies whenever there is a semblance of competition. It doesn't take that much robustness in markets to totally kick slavery out of the frame based purely on supply and demand.

    Slavery is fundamentally like colonialism/imperialism in that it thieves that which already exists and doesn't innovate. By definition, this is not wealth creation.



    Rome had a pretty robust wealth through conquest by government direction scheme working.
    Redistribution is not creation. Production was not increased by Rome's actions. In fact, I would wager that it was dramatically decreased. Killing and enslaving people and ruining lands and homes decreases production by magnitudes. The US government is destroying wealth with its actions overseas in the procurement of oil

    Which brings me to what think I see is a foundational issue in this discussion. It's that the broken window fallacy is at the core of how people view economies work (even though it's not true). Most people think wealth is the same as spending, or in some way the same as demand. It's not. Wealth is production. Increases in wealth are increases in production, and in a roundabout way, productivity. Production is what creates new things, which is what creates new wealth. Productivity is what comes out of utility of those new things.

    Viewing economics like a zero sum game is deceiving. Doing so makes it look like state-level redistributions are prosperity creating when they're anything but. We need to get it out of our heads that the broken window fallacy is true. War is not good for the economy. It is a shame that Krugman and pals have perpetuated this myth. He should go take beginner macro classes again and then apologize for letting his political beliefs override his education on this matter.
  46. #16771
    The pro-state argument: the people with the least information about you or connection to you are those who are in the best position to make decisions regarding you.

    The anti-state argument: when did we all lose our damn minds?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-25-2015 at 04:30 PM.
  47. #16772
    Sorry for so long of posts. I wanted to address specific things. I hope there is sense to be made in them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    IMO:
    1,2&4 have more to do with the prison industrial complex and it's effect on the govnmnt.
    Causality is backwards. The demand for private imprisonment is created by the government. There is no profit in imprisonment whatsoever except that government, through its shitty laws, create a large supply of convicts that it is unable to house. This creates the demand for housing of convicts, for which the private sector vies for contracts.

    3 is about trying to keep the populace, well, not dead. Instead we'd have Indonesia. See john oliver's big tobacco.
    Sadly, it doesn't work. We'd have to get into rules of supply, demand, and moral hazards to see why "health and safety" policies make things worse for health and safety.

    5 couldn't agree more. All this too big to fail nonsense is just that, nonsense.
    This is caused by #3. The moral hazards created by things like the FDIC are exactly why "too big to fail" exists. On the surface, mandates like your #3 appear reasonable, benign, and beneficial, but they're truly anything but. What we want to do is avoid more #5s by not creating more #3s.

    6 we should be looking into the bribing game. The recent battle for net neutrality was a good showcase of this.
    While it is not a good thing that companies can lobby governments for special treatment in the broadband field, it is also not a good thing to have net neutrality -- where the government monopolizes policy areas of the internet. It should be noted that the primary culprits for special treatment in the broadband arena are not companies, but are instead unions and municipal residents. Comcast and Time Warner have not been able to get nearly as much special treatment as those two groups. This is why the only competition growth in the field we see is in areas where unions and municipalities have not created too many laws against laying new line.

    The last thing we want is net neutrality. The FCC fucked up radio and fucked up TV, and it will fuck up the internet in some form or another. The better option is deregulation in the vein that allows competitors to grow. Google Fiber is doing everything it can, but it is stymied exclusively by one thing: regulations. Apple would probably enter the field if regulations were lower too. There are several other broadband companies that would likely expand too.

    Exactly like how the food industry is amazing because regulations are extremely low, which promotes competition, broadband would also be if regulations were low.

    7 taxes are a necessary evil, but so is making sure the tax money collected doesn't get wasted on unnecessary shit, like tanks for police stations. The best societies all tax a ton, because money is needed to run things, the difference is that the resources a rallied where they have to be in order to ensure crime is minimal, education and health is maximal, etc. See the Nordic countries, also john oliver's piece on Ferguson mo, civil forfeiture .
    Nordic countries are heavily subsidized by capitalism in the West. If taxes were a necessary evil, it would be true that taxes and subsequent regulations on anything (yes anything) is also a necessary evil. But we know that's not the case, as we see that even in the most complex of fields, where the government doesn't do much, prosperity is incredible. Likewise, where we see lots of government involvement, no matter how simple the field is, it's an utter disaster

    It isn't that money is needed to run things therefore taxes must be collected, but that profits are needed in order to run things sustainably. Government doesn't create profits and everything it runs sucks. If we exit the pro-state lefty bubble, we see this. For example, Europe is a terrible, terrible analogy to use for why government works. But for some damn reason, we never ever hear about this. We never hear about the shitass high structural unemployment, we never hear about horrible business environment created by distorted incentives from regulatory and welfare policies. We never hear about them because the media is made up of a bunch of pro-statists who view Europe with rosy glasses.

    Most economists point to political policies for why unemployment is so much higher in Europe than US, yet journalists won't touch it, because, well, economics is hard and journalism is not



    I could include all the relevant links to these things but I'm in a foreign country on my phone, internet is kind of limited. So I couldn't verify the videos.
    John Oliver is a great guy, but he has a lot of things backwards. When we talk about physics, we ask physicists. But apparently when we talk economics, a comedy actor's voice is as good as anybody's.
  48. #16773
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    This is ridiculously funny: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heathe...b_6595428.html

    Cliffs:

    - Woman is a super shitty wife
    - Woman thinks her husband's flirty with a coworker and admits the logistics wouldn't have allowed an affair
    - Woman thinks that she can pull her husband back into the marriage with more sex
    - It doesn't work, so she's automatically a victim
  49. #16774
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Wealth is production. Increases in wealth are increases in production, and in a roundabout way, productivity. Production is what creates new things, which is what creates new wealth. Productivity is what comes out of utility of those new things.
    Which is why I said oil, and before that slaves in reply to you saying nothing makes wealth but markets.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  50. #16775
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    This is ridiculously funny: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heathe...b_6595428.html

    Cliffs:

    - Woman is a super shitty wife
    - Woman thinks her husband's flirty with a coworker and admits the logistics wouldn't have allowed an affair
    - Woman thinks that she can pull her husband back into the marriage with more sex
    - It doesn't work, so she's automatically a victim
    I want to change the subject, but I'm not clicking on a huffpo link.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  51. #16776
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Which is why I said oil, and before that slaves in reply to you saying nothing makes wealth but markets.
    If you're not looking for sustainability, then you can isolate like you have and make a claim that when prosperity levels are abysmal, it is possible for government to make it slightly less abysmal. Of course, we can't do that because sustainability is a necessary factor in wealth creation.

    In something as devoid of complexity as farming, we have all the evidence we need that government destroys wealth. Sure, if the USSR started with 0% farm production, central command could have brought that up to 5% or so. But what actually happened was that USSR production was really high before central command intervened. Then it plummeted. I forget the exact numbers, but one is something like 1% of USSR farms were not operated by central command, and those farms produced something like 50% of the total food. All the other farms were productive until they became collectivized.

    The current state of things is that the more the government involves itself in oil, the less wealth is created.
  52. #16777
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    This is ridiculously funny: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heathe...b_6595428.html

    Cliffs:

    - Woman is a super shitty wife
    - Woman thinks her husband's flirty with a coworker and admits the logistics wouldn't have allowed an affair
    - Woman thinks that she can pull her husband back into the marriage with more sex
    - It doesn't work, so she's automatically a victim
    Seems more like she's acknowledging that she went the wrong way about it out of a misguided assumption that it was all about sex. "I chastised myself -- a once smart, confident woman -- for being so ridiculous."

    The husband sounds deceitful as fuck too. He's def having some kind of intimate emotional affair, if not physical.

    I don't personally think anything is inherently wrong with having emotionally romantic connections with other people when you're with someone... or even physical for that matter. But I do think it's wrong to do it under wraps when your relationship clearly isn't defined in that way. He's definitely disloyal and deceitful.

    She's silly for thinking nonstop sex could in any realm be a viable option over just, I don't know, having a real, straightforward conversation with him about it? And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person. This is what happens when people let gender stereotypes (even if those stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth, which of course they sometimes are) guide the way they treat their partner. You're both humans, just fucking talk to each other.

    Also, when having nonstop sex with your partner is "completely unenjoyable," your life is 100% wrong, lol. That's definitely some kind of limbo.

    tl;dr they're both dumb. And I did find the story to be, on the whole, preposterous & hilarious.
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  53. #16778
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    My other point isn't gov't versus some theoretical optimal, it's looking back through time and seeing gov'ts everywhere and wondering why that is and settling on - probably because it's the end game of man's violent nature.

    Then you keep talking about how it'd be awesome if there were no states, and I just wonder what pulling away that artifice will unleash.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  54. #16779
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    Seems more like she's acknowledging that she went the wrong way about it out of a misguided assumption that it was all about sex. "I chastised myself -- a once smart, confident woman -- for being so ridiculous."

    The husband sounds deceitful as fuck too. He's def having some kind of intimate emotional affair, if not physical.

    I don't personally think anything is inherently wrong with having emotionally romantic connections with other people when you're with someone... or even physical for that matter. But I do think it's wrong to do it under wraps when your relationship clearly isn't defined in that way. He's definitely disloyal and deceitful.

    She's silly for thinking nonstop sex could in any realm be a viable option over just, I don't know, having a real, straightforward conversation with him about it? And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person. This is what happens when people let gender stereotypes (even if those stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth, which of course they sometimes are) guide the way they treat their partner. You're both humans, just fucking talk to each other.

    Also, when having nonstop sex with your partner is "completely unenjoyable," your life is 100% wrong, lol. That's definitely some kind of limbo.

    tl;dr they're both dumb. And I did find the story to be, on the whole, preposterous & hilarious.
    So he wasn't attracted to her, she figured she'd reignite his attraction, the only problem being he wasn't attracted to her?

    I laughed when I read the title.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  55. #16780
    "Every time I saw him, I pounced. He was confused at first, but went along with it like a child reluctant to turn away free ice cream" this is just the saddest goddamn thing I've ever read.
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  56. #16781
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    >And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person.

    Ok, but I'm pretty sure it worked for as long as she was working it.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  57. #16782
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Going through his texts had become a staple in our marriage, and there was no amount of guarding his phone or passwords that could keep me out for long.


    What a fun girl.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  58. #16783
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    >And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person.

    Ok, but I'm pretty sure it worked for as long as she was working it.
    it didn't though, he just aloofly banged her after deciding it wasn't worth being too perplexed over because hey, my wife is fucking me all the time, and she just ended up feeling like even more of an asshole and left anyway. and he kept connecting with the other girl the whole time anyway so it was a through and through fail.
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  59. #16784
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    it didn't though, he just aloofly banged her after deciding it wasn't worth being too perplexed over because hey, my wife is fucking me all the time, and she just ended up feeling like even more of an asshole and left anyway. and he kept connecting with the other girl the whole time anyway so it was a through and through fail.
    Remember, we're only getting her side of the story but she said he was hanging out with her more, lunches, sleeping at home nights and it wasn't until her feelings shifted from fighting the good fight to feeling defeated that she packed up and walked out.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  60. #16785
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,876
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Gross, who doesn't wipe the toothbrush when they're done?

    Edit: Even grosser, them asking her to bikini wax her ass and her being so surprised that was an option likely means she had unchecked hair growing out of her ass.
    Last edited by Galapogos; 02-25-2015 at 06:01 PM.


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  61. #16786
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    My other point isn't gov't versus some theoretical optimal, it's looking back through time and seeing gov'ts everywhere and wondering why that is and settling on - probably because it's the end game of man's violent nature.
    I don't think it's the endgame but the beginning. States exist for the purposes we see with why there are alpha gorillas and alpha chimpanzees. Those societies are very primitive. Primitive human societies proved to be no different, and the state rose out of the threat of violence.

    But that's not where we're at anymore. Capitalism (and civil liberties) changed everything because it introduced a brand new element. That element is mostly the capacity for risk assessment. In a world with shitty technology, states were important because the ability to assess risk was minimal. Secure societies were ones that assumed high risk of invasion and subsequently supported states that assumed it as well. The only real job of the state for the longest time was to just assume threats exist and prepare for them

    But now we can actually assess threats instead of assume them. Technology and the law of supply and demand provide this capacity. We are at the point now where even the state uses these tools. This necessarily means that non-state uses them as well (or would if the state didn't monopolize).

    You think that without a government that assumes invasion threats, we'd all be at the mercy of an invader. I think that without the government, the amount of money put into foreign relations and international security would actually be higher than it currently is, because the problem solving mechanism would be fully engaged. If your position that we need government for security was true, it would also be true that we need the draft, because it would necessarily mean that nobody would choose to defend themselves. But we don't have a draft and everybody in the military is there by choice


    I appreciate your hesitation and thoughtfulness on the subject. It's a necessary facet. To find the solution, you need people on the brakes as well as the gas.

    Then you keep talking about how it'd be awesome if there were no states, and I just wonder what pulling away that artifice will unleash.
    Putin would have nothing on Google, Amazon, and Walmart. Putin's self-preservation is weak in comparison. Imperialism is a money sink. Market entities exist only by creating profits. Being invaded is the money sink of the market. I'll take a modern market over Putin every day of the week. I'll do it because I know he's losing money from his conquest and those fighting against him are doing so because it saves them money. Invasion was "profitable" only when it amounted to control of farmland. We don't have this dynamic today.

    But it wouldn't even come to fighting. Putin would get assassinated because market entities would cut incredibly profitable deals with market entities close enough to him to stop him.

    It should also be noted that war is a state vs state thing. There are not that many examples of thriving economies getting invaded, and when one did (US in WW2), it was because the economy was so gangbuster that it could out-produce its enemies. Even in that situation, I don't support an absence of the state. It is likely that the mere assumption of war that the state exists upon is why an atom bomb was created. That US did it first meant good things for the world. Killing the state is something that should only happen when the threat of war is minimized enough. I think if we got on a long-term plan to minimize the state, we'd be well beyond what is needed to create a secure, stateless society.

    Long story short: Carthage doesn't get invaded in today's society because the most powerful incentive for powerful actors is profit, as well as the ability for entities in Carthage to assess the risk of invasion is very high.
  62. #16787
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    Why cant y'all talk about fun shit so I can numb my brain while I'm in class?
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  63. #16788
    I guess what I'm saying is that fundamentally it didn't change anything, which seems clear regardless of it only being her side because a) they aren't together and b) her checking his messages to see that he was still engaging in that kind of connection seems pretty cut and dry.

    Seriously, the phone thing gives me the chills. The relationship behaviors I've witnessed in adult people is downright disturbing.
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  64. #16789
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I remember you introduced me to Robert Sapolsky. I think he's where I was pretty much sold on the fact that we're naked apes.

    Naked, story-telling apes. With clothes.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  65. #16790
    btw I'm enjoying our sleuth-like speculation on this pointless story.

    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  66. #16791
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    I remember you introduced me to Robert Sapolsky. I think he's where I was pretty much sold on the fact that we're naked apes.

    Naked, story-telling apes. With clothes.
    Yep. Myth and storytelling is one of the most fundamental and intrinsic aspects of humanity.
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  67. #16792
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is that fundamentally it didn't change anything, which seems clear regardless of it only being her side because a) they aren't together and b) her checking his messages to see that he was still engaging in that kind of connection seems pretty cut and dry.

    Seriously, the phone thing gives me the chills. The relationship behaviors I've witnessed in adult people is downright disturbing.
    a) Staying a couple requires agreement between the pair. She left. That says nothing about him.

    b) He kept an ego-booster in his pocket. And you don't know that he was connecting with her or aloofly keeping her at arms length for the sort of free energy a young smitten woman might give you.

    I'm betting he was trying to angle for the best of both worlds where his wife is insatiable because of her dirty 30s or who knows and get some on the sly, but I could be wrong.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  68. #16793
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    Yep. Myth and storytelling is one of the most fundamental and intrinsic aspects of humanity.
    Imagine when we discover whales communicate in the same way, the sort of cthulu-driven Game of Thrones stories they tell across the oceans.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  69. #16794
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    I remember you introduced me to Robert Sapolsky. I think he's where I was pretty much sold on the fact that we're naked apes.

    Naked, story-telling apes. With clothes.
    The man is legit.

    We are apes, and like with all other apes, incentives are our ultimate destiny. The incentive for an alpha defender is very real, until it's not. I've been trying to provide reasons to believe it is no longer real for modern civilization. Like when I see that private enterprise has successfully applied a value to the risk of car crashes (something that to primitive humans is basically magic), I wonder why the same can't be done for other risks. But even if not, doesn't the fact that people in government care about security mean that people outside of government do as well (since those people are no different)?

    Hell I could be wrong saying the state ever needed to exist. For example, proto-Russia is one of the best examples of a strong state coming into existence for the purpose of defense, and subsequently defending itself. However, it was through technology created by non-state actors that the proto-Russians were able to repel the Khanates in the first place

    Gulyay-gorod.




    Could it be that proto-Russians rallying around a strong state was their apelike miscalculations? Could it be that it was innovation of its citizenry that stopped the invasions afterall? I guess it does make perfect sense that, because humans really are those Sapolsky bigger-brained chimps, that we would solve a problem yet then then create a new problem by poorly assessing how we actually solved the problem in the first place
  70. #16795
    This thread reminds me of that wikipedia game where you pick two things and see how many clicks it takes to go from A to B but here it's always from A to free markets in 1 click.
  71. #16796
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    From the first wiki link of the google search of your user name + wiki to free market
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  72. #16797
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    800 pound gorilla > American English > British colonization of the Americas > British Empire > Slavery > Labour economics (via wage slavery) > Market (economics) > Free market

    booya!
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  73. #16798
    Nothing shows up for imsavy so using imsavvy

    The watch fund (is a link with imsavvy in it)
    Singapore
    Market Economy
    Free Market
  74. #16799
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    Seems more like she's acknowledging that she went the wrong way about it out of a misguided assumption that it was all about sex. "I chastised myself -- a once smart, confident woman -- for being so ridiculous."

    The husband sounds deceitful as fuck too. He's def having some kind of intimate emotional affair, if not physical.

    I don't personally think anything is inherently wrong with having emotionally romantic connections with other people when you're with someone... or even physical for that matter. But I do think it's wrong to do it under wraps when your relationship clearly isn't defined in that way. He's definitely disloyal and deceitful.

    She's silly for thinking nonstop sex could in any realm be a viable option over just, I don't know, having a real, straightforward conversation with him about it? And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person. This is what happens when people let gender stereotypes (even if those stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth, which of course they sometimes are) guide the way they treat their partner. You're both humans, just fucking talk to each other.

    Also, when having nonstop sex with your partner is "completely unenjoyable," your life is 100% wrong, lol. That's definitely some kind of limbo.

    tl;dr they're both dumb. And I did find the story to be, on the whole, preposterous & hilarious.
    He should have been seeking out other relationships with other women considering his wife was a fatass who didn't keep a house and didn't keep him sexually satisfied. She tried to manipulate him with sex, he played it perfectly, and now it's wah wah look at me being an attention whore.
  75. #16800
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    1) Not making laws against everything that is in poor taste or could be considered a personal vice by some (drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, fatty foods, incandescent light bulbs, hot water heaters, dildos, etc).
    2) Not putting people in rape cages for breaking the above laws.
    3) Not instituting soft bans on products through excessive taxation (cigarettes would be an example of this).
    4) Not having a justice system that is so bogged down in trying to enforce the above shit that it has single digit conviction rates for most violent crimes.
    5) Letting businesses fail or succeed by their own merits, profits, and losses.
    6) Not having a political system that allows big corporations to create barriers for competitor entry, nor letting them lobby for subsidies that they then directly cash in on.
    7) Not taking 40-50% of the money everyone in the economy makes to pay for the above shit.

    I could probably think of a few dozen more things but I'm afraid your question may have been rhetorical.
    This is a negated list of what you think a poor job looks like. This is not the list I asked for.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •