sees_all1

On day, sees_all1 decided to make a new thread. Then ezee, verzon_dash et al posted. The end. The next post will made be more than 3 hours after this post.

HTML5 is pissing me off right now. What I want to do is draw a semi-transparent box over a black and white image, so that only the white part gets darker. Can't do it easily.

5

2. DOUBLE WIN

If you're referring to the policy of positive non-internention, it's important to remember that he government was still important in creating and maintaining physical and regulatory infrastructure in order to strengthen healthy decision-making, which is absent in the truly lassiez-fairre future that I imagine you're dreaming of. And once again, that's a city-state less than half the size of Rhode Island and the population of Virginia with little to no military concerns, these two examples where "small" government works is unsurprisingly in small countries. And you know what's one of the first things we could cut from the government to become more like the countries you listed? The military. The Department of Education. The Department of Energy. The Department of Health and Human Services. Merge the Department of Defense with the Department of Homeland Security. Merge the Department of the Interior with the Department of Agriculture. Also cut the number of rules and regulations (loopholes, really) in half, from around 80,000 pages to about 40,000. Some laws just don't make sense in every state, so leave those laws to the states.

The other example to look at is Hong Kong.

That's fine. Except you're ignoring how an area with a GNP of $170/person, with no natural resources to speak of, grew into a country with a GNP of about $37,000/person in about 50 years. Socialism didn't get them there, free markets did.

Ok. The next post will include a youtube video that they liked 4+ years ago.

What I don't understand is why you're trying to debate the qualities of a candidate from a party you're diametrically opposed to anyway.

3

Furthermore, if you see a post that does it, please ignore it and do the previous one instead. Old screenie, but still my 2nd favorite outfit. The next post will have a total of four "e" 's in it, no more and no less.

Croce's point was that big government couldn't effectively deal with failing banks. What he didn't mention is that big government caused the problem in the first place, which is why I brought it up. I could bring up dozens of more examples of big government failing in a spectacular way, but that isn't the point of this thread. If you still need an example of why small government is better than big government (which there are very few examples of), look at Taiwan. Are you disagreeing with his positions or his experience? He was a US Representative for 6 years, and was a US Senator from Pennsylvania for 12 years. That makes him more qualified than Barack Obama was in 2008. In my mind, Santorum has been much more consistent with his positions than Romney. When asked about bad legislation (or endorsement), he apologizes for it. When Romney is asked about Romneycare, he makes a small distinction. Santorum was also able to pull his campaign from obscurity 6 months ago into the national spotlight, while to date spending about a sixth of what Romney spent. The Republican Presidential candidate needs to be able to stand next to Obama and describe everything wrong with his policies, without worrying about Obama saying "his legislation inspired me."

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her. Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Big government caused the problem. They were allowed to offload those mortgages because there were no regulations preventing it - not big government... They offloaded the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were Government Sponsored Enterprises. I think its something like 90% of all housing loans are owned or backed by the U.S. government. Anyhow, if banks couldn't sell their mortgages to the government (big government's fault), and didn't have incentives to loan to people who couldn't pay them back (again, big government's fault), we wouldn't have had to bail them out. Like I said before, I don't like his foreign policy.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her. Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Big government caused the problem.

Wow. I've two questions here, really: 1. Why Santorum? To me, he seems like a backwards, slightly stupid and absurdly Christian political charicature, with no legitimacy as a President. 2. Why is Romney-care so awful? I've yet to see a good argument for why adopting a system that Europe has successfully had in place since, in the UK at least, the 1940s is a bad idea. Santorum isn't progressive, and doesn't have Romney-care Big government is always a bad idea. I've never understood why people think that if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would launch it at Israel. Wouldn't they be ensuring their own destruction, then? the only would way that i see it happening is if mad men got a hold of one and everything (but we know the chances of that happening from historical precedent and simple analysis - next to nothing). From a region of suicide bombers, do you think they care about their own destruction? That is an incredibly crass and ill-informed generalisation. Remember that 'suicide bombers' are almost without exception fundamentalist Sunni groups. Iran, on the other hand, is a well organised Shia state that uses proxies such as Hezbollah - which has enough rockets (c. 15,000) not to need suicide bombers for the most part - and has in fact waged a calculated proxy war against the USA et al. In short, Iran is not going to blow it. More likely, it seeks nuclear weapons in order that it may have them as a deterrent against Israel - let us not forget that the Netanyahu wants rocket strikes against Iran, not the other way around - and so that it can continue to assert itself as a regional power. I don't understand your point... "Iran won't nuke Israel because it already has Hezbollah to send rockets for them." That's reassuring.

High five for picking the most hyper-partisan source you could find.

I've never understood why people think that if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would launch it at Israel. Wouldn't they be ensuring their own destruction, then? the only would way that i see it happening is if mad men got a hold of one and everything (but we know the chances of that happening from historical precedent and simple analysis - next to nothing). From a region of suicide bombers, do you think they care about their own destruction?

Well don't worry. Dead people and Disney characters only vote for Democrats.

If the primaries had lasted through May, I would have voted for Rick Santorum. The reason being is that Romney has a millstone around his neck from Romney-care. On domestic issues, I'd probably line up with the highest with Ron Paul, but on foreign issues, next to nil. In this day and age, it is impossible to safely be an isolationist, and one of the primary roles for the President is Commander in Chief (which is why I could never vote for Ron Paul). If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel will probably be a bit of scorched earth. I don't see Ron Paul trying to stop that from happening. As far as the general election, Obama's hypocrisy on spending is astounding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84 4T in 8 years, versus 6T in <4 years. In order to win election, Mitt Romney has one job to do. Talk about the economy. Two graphs I'd like to share, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. First is the Unemployment rate from 1992 to 2012. While the number appears to be getting lower (good for Obama), what's really happening is far worse. Instead of people getting jobs, they're dropping out of the labor force (still unemployed, but not counted). This second graph is the labor force participation rate, from 1992 to 2012. The other important elections are for the Senate. Of the 33 seats in play, 23 are held by Democrats. If the GOP picks up 4, they'll have a majority in the Senate. Expect this race to be interesting as well. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-control-senate-top-races-watch/story?id=14374992#.T4oJP8VHNXI

Shooop da whooooooooooooop The next post must include... a [picture of a] shrubbery!

2

[hide] :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: [/hide] TNPW include a sonnet.

[hide=requests] [/hide] Doesn't bother me at all, kinda the point of this thread. :shades: TNPW use exactly 7 words.

Can some of our efficiency nuts (jk ily) confirm this?

This doesn't change anything for me... I usually merchant over days, not hours.