richanddead

Registered bored user

richanddead wrote:
I agree, I'm conservative and I have never trusted Alex Jones and from my interactions with other conservatives, they don't seem to either. Alex Jones is an anti-government conspiracy theorist and his website and show are total fake news, but what is also fake news is this constant BS that Fancy has been forcing out to make conservatives appear more extreme. 
richanddead wrote:
It's racist to make a joke that Maxine Waters hair looks like James Brown's hair?

This is the woman who publicly criticized store owners for not allowing people to loot their stores during the LA riots and has been designated for four years as the most corrupt and most wasteful politician in the country by multiple nonprofit non-partisan U.S. government watchdog organizations. But she deserves more respect because she has been a long time career politician?



richanddead wrote:
Also, open challenge to any IAB starcraft player, my gamer tag is same as my poster name. See you in game.
richanddead wrote:
melcervini It's cool, I've had work too, we'll get it together sooner or later.

richanddead wrote:
kalron27 

I'd agree, I've played a bunch of games and I've definitely found starcraft to be one of the best RTS's out there. I play new games, but nothing gives that kind of rush as when you've invested an hour and a half into defeating someone, and the match is still hinging on every second and every key stroke. 

There are still legendary games out there... Elder Scrolls, Call of Duty, Warcraft, Tekken... but I've had yet to play a better RTS.

I think a lot of people are put off by the graphics and the huge learning curve. But let me put it this way, when lots of people in 2017 are getting giddy over the re-release of a 90's era game, when the game set multiple Guinness book world records, and when people have enjoyed playing it to such a point that they literally die from exhaustion playing it, the game definitely has something that most others don't.
richanddead wrote:
@m3dm3d:

Hey just found your post, but this is really good. I disagree that Trump was to the left of Trump, I think they just pandered to different parts of the Republican party. Trump was more protectionist, and Cruz was more devoted to conservative principlism. In the end though I think foreign policy topped national policy and people were more in favor of a populist outsider rather than a tea party insider.

I think what we are seeing, and this is only my opinion but, I think after the 2008 great recession the world populous lost a lot of trust for their respective governments and politicians. I think there is a lot of held over anger still about it and it pushes people to want to to just strike out any political leaders who were involved with it or may be seen to be similar to the old guard. 

I think the media stokes this fire, due to a need to create interesting stories and love of dirty laundry. They focus on every little anomaly, which they should, but neglect to report how things are getting better or were fixed. The media in general is also very polarized, leading to a loss in faith in the media.  

In the end I think people have started to fill in to niche media outlets that only tell them what they want to hear. They are kicking the old guard out of politics, erasing any expertise in the government, and  leaving the political field far more ruckus, reactionary, and less likely to succeed.
richanddead wrote:
waldo863 I agree, I've noticed that a few other comedians get this kind of rap, some people hate the material and tell other people to hate it too. To be totally honest, I didn't find John Belushi all that funny, but I don't care if someone else does. To each their own.
richanddead wrote:
fancylad Yes and no, yes in that he was one of the ones who ushered in rock and roll, no in that he wasn't the only one who did it. Other groups like the Coasters, Little Richard, and Johnnie Johnson were doing the same thing at the same time.
richanddead wrote:
whosaidwhat I believe you're thinking of a fetus in fetu.
richanddead wrote:
thezigrat

Damn, I know I can't see gifs on here when I use firefox but I can when I use chrome. It was just a gif of Descartes winking, but if you try using a different browser, you might be able to see a lot more images on here.

richanddead wrote:
jaysingrimm 

It's only logical if you take the definition of omnipotent to be of unlimited or infinite power and you take the view that God changes. Omnipotent can also mean of supreme or great power and this seems, generally speaking, to be what religious scholars mean when they use the term omnipotent. This definition of omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions. St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to clarify this when he said that God was limited by his own will. Basically, if you have a being that exists everywhere, at all times, and has a supreme power to bring whatever he wants into being, then that Gods power doesn't pass through successive stages before the effect of it's power is accomplished. Think of it this way, where as we perceive time and change like watching a movie, from beginning to end, this version of god experiences a sort of eternal present, he has every frame of the movie laid out in front of him all at once. Now he can choose to add a heavy rock in one frame, but then that rock is there because it's his will that it should be there. If he wills it to lift in the next frame, then it was always lifted at that frame in time and God was not contradicting his own will. If God created the rock in the puzzle, the weight is unimportant, the point of contention is that he willed something to go against his will while never changing his will. The answer to the puzzle is no, because it would require God to be simultaneously willing something against his own will, which would be absurd.

That being said the idea that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent is usually attributed to God by religious scholars and not the religious text. As far as I know the religious text often claims that God is simply unknowable. Job 36:26 states "Look, God is exalted and unknowable; the number of his years is beyond counting." Although Job 11:7 could be taken to hint that God may have limitations "Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?" Yet I think what it is saying is "can you fully understand god," rather than saying "God has limitations can you guess what they are."
richanddead wrote:
thezigrat 

We can via the Cogito.

richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2 They get trained in new jobs or move to the newly opened mines. Coal is getting out competed by other forms of energy, partially due to legislation and partially due to the public's view of it. As jobs are ending for coal miners, they are opening up for natural gas workers. 

The reason I think it's a bad barometer, because the process of automation isn't the only thing causing the people to become unemployed in the coal industry. It's also legislation and public outcry that are accelerating the decline. If it was just automation, the coal industry wouldn't be declining anywhere as fast as it is.

I also disagree with the notion that a low skilled person doesn't suddenly have the skills to do more complex tasks. From a purely literal standpoint it's technically true, but so called "low skill persons" usually have to build the skills to do more complex tasks in the new job. Warehouse workers learn to be forklift drivers, cashiers become managers, greenhorn construction workers become machinery operators, newbie railway workers become boxcar welders. Most jobs that take in low skilled persons for their workforce often have systems set up to teach new employees how to perform their functions and if they work out well, they'll teach them higher order positions or send them out for more training to do so.
richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2 That's not true at all, Democrats blocked Republicans "lock box" proposals in the 90's. Then ironically the very next year they applauded the very same proposals they were previously denouncing when Al Gore ran on them in the presidential election. 
Bush also tried to reform social security in 2005 and got slammed by the media for it. Then when Democrats took control of both houses a few months later they refused to even consider any proposal for reform.
When Paul Ryan proposed reforming medicare, Democrats put out the infamous "push granny over the cliff" ad.
Even when Obama tried reform with the Bowles-Simpson commission, he got bashed by the media and even fellow Democrats like Nacy Polosi who called it "simply unacceptable." Some other Democrats like Reps. John Larson and Emanuel Cleaver, told the president they would support the proposal, but then stabbed him in the back when it came time.

I'm not saying Republicans haven't blocked their own fair share reform proposals as well, even when they were drafted by fellow republicans. Both sides do it and that's pretty easy to show. The issue of entitlement reform is seen as political suicide to bring up and always has been. But I have to say, for someone who constantly denounces the "party over country" mindset, you seem to be looking through some pretty thick partisan sunglasses there, my friend.
richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2 

I'll take the jab in good humor, but I've been pretty clear and consistent on my views of Trump and on healthcare. I don't favor big huge omnibus bills that reshape entire departments of government and/or increase the debt. I think bills should be small, focused, and passed in parts when doing a reform of this level so that the public can react to each detail and we can cut the "freeriders" and "pork."

I'm basing that quote on the most recent CBO report and those figures have been repeatedly verified by outside sources. It's also not just current spending and the current social structure. This problem is caused by mandatory spending obligations that the federal government has been committed to since the 1940's. So when you're talking about pretty radical reforms you're talking about basically gutting social security and medicare. Even if you totally defunded all other sectors of government like the military, you'd still end up with the same problem, it's that bad.

You and I have talked about automation before and yes at some point truck drivers and other jobs may become automated. But it's not going to happen all at once and suddenly 1/4 of America's workforce will suddenly becomes unemployed. It will happen over time and that occupation will slowly be phased out in favor of others. For instance about a hundred years ago, according to the Bureau of labor Statistics, 31% of workers in 1910 worked in farm occupations and 52.4% of Americans were under the age of 25 years old. Now I could go back in time and say "hey guys, automation is going to cause most of your jobs to be taken by big farming equipment that will allow a single farmer to plant, irrigate, and harvest miles and miles of crops. People are also going to live longer meaning that jobs will take longer to free up new positions. So it's time we started thinking PROACTIVELY instead of REACTIVELY."  Now I wouldn't be wrong, in saying that, but it gives the impression that somehow 31% of the workforce will be wiped out overnight and that all these people will be jobless, creating economic chaos. When in reality those occupations were phased out naturally and replaced by other occupations that had never existed before.

I understand that it sounds responsible to say we need to be "thinking PROACTIVELY instead of REACTIVELY" but the markets regulate themselves on price indicators. For example companies will only lay fiber lines in places that have shown an interest in having high speed connections and is already ready to have the lines put in. They base their decision on the cost to install the lines vs. the revenue it generates. We could say "hey we need to think PROACTIVELY instead of REACTIVELY, computers are going to get faster and the information being passed more complex." But if you act on that, you end up with the dot com bubble, where you've invested billions and billions in new fiber lines that aren't needed right now. The reason markets need to follow the price indicators, is because they are the most accurate and up to date information on the health and direction of the market currently. When money and resources are invested on projections, hopes, or fears of the future it creates a mismanagement of resources that results in major waste and inefficiency.
richanddead wrote:
So the secret service is now one of "Trump's goons?" I guess Obama's secret service detail was "Obama's goons" right? 
richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2

Thanks for linking that article, yet I'm not so sure I agree with it. Although, I have to say, I liked the part where it said "Efficiency-minded libertarians like the idea of streamlining the bureaucracy of the welfare state." I thought that was both an artful and delicate way of stating it.

But back to the point, look at history, whenever the feds give money to everyone most states just raise their taxes to match. For example after the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, most states raised state taxes and housing prices began to increase as states and businesses tried to pull in the money from the larger than normal tax rebate checks people were getting.

From an economic standpoint essentially all you are doing is inflating your economy. Think of it like this, there is a finite amount of money in circulation and a finite amount of wealth that America possesses. Yet for universal income you'll need to print more money. Now as you do the value of every dollar decreases, along with interest rates, with each newly printed dollar.  You end up with higher prices, lower interest rates, more money in circulation, and a lower purchasing power of your currency...A.K.A inflation.

Now with higher inflation the poor may have more money, it just doesn't go as far anymore and could actually push them into a higher tax bracket if they were near the line. Another effect is that naturally occurring economic ressesions get worse and last longer. But here is the real kicker, even if I'm all wrong and it worked, it could only last for a decade because by 2026 all incoming government revenue will already be totally consumed by the mandatory spending obligations according to the CBO.
richanddead wrote:
theman01 

Most of the entitlements sold to the public were just false promises anyway. It really doesn't matter who's in power Democrats or Republicans, American's entitlements are going to be gutted one way or another. It's not a nice thought, but it's the truth. According to the CBO even before Trumps budget:

  1.  Social Security’s combined trust funds will be exhausted by 2030. 
  2. The federal deficit will rise to $601 billion by 2019
  3. After 2026, all incoming revenue will be consumed by mandatory spending obligations.
  4. After 2037, every single penny of incoming revenue will be consumed by just three things: Social Security, major health programs, and interest on the debt.
richanddead wrote:
...it will allow people to pursue their DREAMS and the things they want. 

Yea, or increase drug use and make everything more expensive to the point where it doesn't matter anymore.
richanddead wrote:
If a rap video like this really did inspire anyone to go commit a crime, then IMO that person was already a loose cannon and was going to commit a similar crime anyway.
richanddead wrote:
The Delorean?! The Delorean?! Bring back the VW bus and the VW dune buggy, not the Delorean. 

richanddead wrote:
fancylad Always keep it pointed down range, pointing the gun upwards in an indoor range is just false security, it can still make a ricochet go crazy or go through the roof and hit something or someone else. There could be a gas, electrical, or sewage pipe above him or another business. For instance the range I go to actually has a post office above it, which always makes me chuckle a little when I think about it.
richanddead wrote:
Saleen S7 is one of the best looking cars out there and has the ability to drive on the ceiling.


richanddead wrote:
Don't blow smoke up my ass, dude.