What the frick?!

This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:57 pm

explain to me what the difference is so that i might not misinterpret you.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:53 pm

When you say something along the lines of "The rich should be taxed more because suchandsuch, yadda yadda, and blah," it follows a particular train of logic, and while I might not agree with you, I can at least understand why you think that way.

When you say something like "If you refuse to answer me, I will take it to mean you forfeit your position," it seems like something a child would come up with, and I don't call something that childish logical.

Now admit that you are childish and I am very mature, or I'm telling.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:45 am

Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Grey » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:59 am

i'm dyin out here in this fuckin country-ass fucked up town
shit flyin in my mouth
Image
I'm NORML and I VOTE
Soul Silver Friend Code: 0260-2900-0828
Suave Brit

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11143
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:08 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:37 am

Maybe you should stop holding your mouth open in hopes someone will cum in it.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Riz » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:59 pm

hey, don't try to own Grey. you will not succeed.
Image
with a heart colder than a welldiggers nutsack
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 15647
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: no.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:19 pm

Ruffdraft seems to have a bad case of gravel-in-vagina, because those kind of reactions just ain't produced by sand.
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:10 pm

The Mirak wrote:Ruffdraft seems to have a bad case of gravel-in-vagina, because those kind of reactions just ain't produced by sand.


heh
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:39 pm

Image
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:40 pm

wow it's almost like the things the rich consider trivial impact the lives of many of people very basically!!!

hey ruffdraft, if you respond to that post, you're gay!!! i bet you'll show me up by not responding, right???? lol
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:39 pm

RuffDraft wrote:[Begins organizing a plan of attack against Valhallen's brilliant assaults.]
Please concentrate your efforts on where you think that I'm wrong.

Whatis6times9 wrote:
Lily wrote:what civil person would fuck on hay? you could get hay in very uncomfortable places.
It's fun.
Image

Johnny Bravo approves this message!

Q.U. wrote:Putting a cop on every corner was a clear metaphor. It's a phrase, I don't mean I want you to calculate the expense it would take to achieve that literally.
Valhallen wrote:or other increases in service.


Q.U. wrote:And a single world government would need intelligence, but not foreign intelligence.
The Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would be watched by the FBI instead of the CIA. Is that supposed to be a major cost-saver?

Q.U. wrote:As for the rest of "domestic needs" or civil unrest, it all depends on how unified world society are we talking. Should we end up with one faith, one ethnicity, and one living standard, then I guess a lot more expenses could be cut.
Q.U. wrote:The primary benefit of merging countries together throughout time is that in the end there is next to no need for military and war equipment.
So politically unified, with religions, ethnicities, and living standards as they have been "throughout time". How many insurrections do you think the US has had to deal with? Because governments in the real world have to guard against such things even in the absence of foreign concerns, cutting that "lot more" is not a practical possibility. Hence my contention that unifying the world may reduce military costs, but the remainder would still be significant.

Q.U. wrote:I will not argue how much we could save that way, I will only say that we'd be able to save up quite a bit more than we do now.
That's a conclusion that ought to come after a quantitative analysis. Care to do one to justify your claim?

Q.U. wrote:
Actually, the Germans mostly went around, as did the Allies on their way through the area.
They took both ways. Which still means Maginot Line got eventually overrun.
Did you read the link I gave before? The Germans went around the Maginot Line, and started serious attacks on it after taking Paris. Even after cutting the Line off from the rest of France and attacking from both sides with air superiority, it didn't go easily. Most of the fortifications were intact and manned when France surrendered. Keep in mind that this was before precision weapons made fixed fortifications completely obsolete in repelling major attacks. Artillery, mortars, and machine guns in armored turrets supported by a network of bunkers, all behind tank and infantry obstacles, was a significant impediment for an attacker with WWII technology. And Switzerland had a network of such things running through the country.

Q.U. wrote:
Belgium and the Netherlands were neutral and did not pose a threat, but were invaded because they provided a convenient path to France (and Hitler wanted a unified Europe anyway, but that was incidental at the time).
Please note the difference of context, they were neutral in the war, not neutral politically and militarily. Switzerland's neutrality was recognised by the Congress of Vienna and the country had been neutral since 1515, and not self-imposed like in Netherlands. Belgium tried to regain neutrality after WWI, but clearly it didn't work in the eyes of Germany.
You keep using that word. Belgium declared itself neutral according to the standards of the Hague Convention of 1907 (Belgium decides whether or not it is neutral, not Germany). Germany didn't care and invaded anyway because Belgium provided an expedient route to Western Europe around the Maginot Line. Belgium was neutral and did not pose a threat, but it was invaded anyway. So that's clearly not the reason why Switzerland was not, contrary to what you said earlier.

Q.U. wrote:
Switzerland is a rather wealthy nation though. That's still a decent military expenditure per capita - more than Russia, about as much as Germany, but with considerably less spent on sea and air assets despite that. if a single world government spent per capita for its military what Switzerland did in 2009, global military expenditure would be about $3.6 trillion per year, more than twice what was actually spent globally in 2009.
It's silly to compare that. A global government would have a global GDP per capita. You can't tell me that an argument saying "if Switzerland and Nigeria fused into one country they'd still have the same GDP per capita as Nigeria/Switzerland" has any meaning here.
Switzerland has a population and GDP (PPP) of about 7.8M and $315B, for a little over $40K per capita. Nigeria has about 152M and $374B, for about $2460 per capita. Fusing Switzerland and Nigeria would produce a country with a population of about 160M and GDP (PPP) of about $689B, for about $4300 per capita. If Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526), military spending would be about 12% GDP, compared to Nigeria's actual military expenditure of about 1.5% GDP. In absolute terms, Switzerland really is more militarized than most places in the world, despite its neutrality and your use of it as an example of a place with the "huge weight" of maintaining a military off its shoulders.

Q.U. wrote:
Two generations ago, the structure of DNA was discovered. One generation ago, the polymerase chain reaction was invented. Ten years ago, the Human Genome Project released its first draft, after 10 years of work costing $3 billion. The cost of sequencing a genome has been dropping nearly an order of magnitude annually since then. Genetic engineering is routinely done in labs, and genetics is becoming more closely tied to information technology, and thus taking advantage of the accelerating returns of Moore's Law there. Human genetic engineering of the sort required should be possible within a decade. Give it a decade or two more to become cheap, reliable, and widespread, if it's legal.
You forgot to mention, "assuming liberal social status". Well it's not. It's controversial, and human genetic engineering is generally illegal or off-limits. You can only make progress that fast in fields that aren't supported world-wide by neither the public nor the governments.
...I didn't forget to mention it. It's at the end of what you quoted there.

Anyway, human genetic engineering is generally NOT illegal (care to cite any laws to the contrary?) Certain kinds of genetic modification will probably be made illegal in some places when they get closer to practicality (non-therapeutic embryo modification, say). Keep in mind that we're talking about dealing with the negative consequences of genetic drift caused by the removal of selection pressures, meaning therapeutic changes like susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. I don't see that becoming illegal.

Q.U. wrote:
Better achievement, perhaps, but just pumping money into things runs into diminishing returns and decreased efficiency, at least in terms of cost effectiveness.
That's what happens at the saturation value. When the money cannot benefit much more anyway. In the current state more money would easily and quickly increase the efficiency of schools, provided that they are ran by competent individuals.
The point of peak marginal benefit is also the point of diminishing returns. The point at which further spending produces no marginal benefit is the futility limit. The peak overall efficiency lies somewhere between the two. Why are you confident that the peak efficiency has not been passed? Quantifying the efficiency of education is somewhat nebulous, but do you think that increasing school funding by 10% would increase standardized test scores by more or less than 10%? Cuts of X% don't appear in practice to have resulted in X+% lower test scores. I agree that increasing school funding would increase the efficacy (which is the more important consideration at this point), but that's not the same as efficiency.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:49 am

@DaCrum: What exactly are you hoping to gain by using a chart like that? That'd be like me comparing the number of deaths caused by drunk driving and the number of deaths caused by animal-related incidents. What does one have to do with the other, and why does comparing them mean anything?

Personally, I think you don't care how much is being spent; you just want an excuse to hate Republicans and billionaires. If you were really concerned at all with the way the budget is balanced, you would be equally outraged about the ridiculous things that are currently being funded by our tax dollars, many of which the Democrats want to keep. [Note: I realize that he's talking about the National Endowment for the Arts here; I'm specifically talking about the subsidy for the Cowboy Poetry Festival. Who writes poetry on horseback?! Come on Tex, it's called OpenOffice!]
Edit: In case it's not clear, that last bit was a joke.

The programs are out there. Cutting them may be difficult. But it can be done.

BeeAre wrote:hey ruffdraft, if you respond to that post, you're gay!!!
I apologize for nothing.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:08 pm

RuffDraft wrote:@DaCrum: What exactly are you hoping to gain by using a chart like that? That'd be like me comparing the number of deaths caused by drunk driving and the number of deaths caused by animal-related incidents. What does one have to do with the other, and why does comparing them mean anything?
That chart comes from here, which I linked in an earlier post. The link explains how House Republicans seem more interested in cutting social programs than in closing the deficit per se.



Edit: Found this, and I think participants here should keep its point in mind.

Image
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:07 pm

Ah. I haven't gone though every link on your post yet. Even so, the Republicans are providing suggestions where money can be cut, rather than where programs can be entirely eliminated. That said, yes, sometimes that does include cutting the entire project. But not all of these projects are at risk of being eliminated, just of having their funding reduced.

It should be said that there is usually a specific reason for a project to exist. And there is usually also a reason for a tax cut--usually that reason is temporary or sustained growth in a certain area or to save a company that would otherwise fail for reasons beyond their control (although sometimes the reason they get a tax break is just because they ask the right person. I'm not saying that tax breaks are always good, here). But tax breaks aren't really a Dem/Rep issue. Some Democrats might favor tax breaks given a certain scenario (such as if they have a vested interest in that company succeeding) and some Republicans might oppose them given another (like when a Democrat has a vested interest in that company succeeding, lol) or vice versa.

Also note that your source is the Center for American Progress--and oddly enough, the logo on the original graph is missing from the one above--who would also lose government funding if the Republicans have their way. So it is in their best interest to see the Republicans get shot down.

I had more that I had wanted to talk about but I got a phone call from a telemarketer and all I can see right now is white. I don't even know how I managed to type all that. >_<
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:33 pm

I love that I got attacked and all I posted...

Was an image. With no explanation.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:04 pm

Yeah that happens to me when all I do is say a single word. Of course, that word is    nigger   , but still.

I remembered what I was going to say. I was going to add up the numbers on the both sides of that column. Cuz even cutting that wouldn't save the deficit that we have for this year alone.

Beginning with Tax Breaks For The Wealthy, I'm going to ignore the fact that they switch between FY11 and FY12. Those are projections. With that in mind, we have a sum total of $394.23 billion for this first year if we add up just those. Next for Programs At Risk, let's just assume for the sake of argument that the Republicans wanted to cut spending on all of those projects. The sum total of all the projects in the left column--and assuming those numbers are JUST for this year (if it turns out that's for more than just this year, that would be bending the truth, and a "nonpartisan" organization can't do that, can they?! I know, right?)--is $43.4 billion (see at the bottom where it says $44 billion? They rounded wrong, how sad is that?). Now, added to that number the legal services (which are constitutional and therefore the least at risk of being cut), and the Family Planning thing (which admittedly does some good, although with education being what it is today, more people are aware of STDs and the need for contraception, so probably could be skimmed a bit), we come to a total of $780.4 billion. Now, DaCrum, to quote you again, in order to cut spending, "we need to do things nobody likes." The total combined of the above is $1,174.63 billion, or $1.175 trillion. Which still leaves a $475.37 deficit for this year alone.

So!! Even if we were to cut the measly $43 billion and eliminate tax loopholes and make everyone pay what they are due, to the penny, and then eliminate every one of these programs (which, I'll admit that eliminating all of them would be very bad), we still wouldn't match the budget that President Obama has set forth for this country for THIS. YEAR. ALONE.

Why do you insist on talking about how much we tax when basic math can tell you the difference in how much we spend? Please, PLEASE consider my way of thinking, if only for a minute.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:08 pm

Well, I think we need to tax more BECAUSE...

Honestly, education. Look at it. We've cut to the bone. We're cutting arts. We're cutting teachers. Closing schools. Packing kids like sardines into classrooms. You'll probably blame it on the unions. I don't care. When my dad was fucked over with a sadistic, psychotic bitch for a boss, the unions, not the board of education, was the one who came and defended the workers. If you think otherwise, well, fuck you chap.

And I'll say nigger all I want, thank you very much.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:25 pm

nigger nigger niggity nigger
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:41 pm

Actually, over the last decade, spending on education has increased quite a bit. According to this, here are the education spending (pre-primary through secondary) in billions of dollars for the years 2001 thru 2010: 22.9; 25.9; 31.5; 34.4; 38.3; 39.7; 38.4; 38.9; 53.2; 73.3.
EDIT: keep in mind, this is JUST the spending on pre-primary Thru secondary education.

So much for cutting to the bone. Looks like we've gotten more flesh, not less.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:07 am

RuffDraft, frankly, I think you're lying. I think your source is lying. Then again, since education is federalized, you can easily cite one state while another is absolutely dry.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby EagleMan » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:15 am

Educational spending has increased a lot. I'm not really sure where the money is going though. I've certainly felt it get tighter over the years. So that merely makes it really general what "education" is - even if it is getting more money, that doesn't change the fact that many classes are being cut, and that teachers have to watch how often they print things now lest they run out, and many are even being forced to pay out of pocket for classroom expenses (like buying more whiteboard markers).
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13867
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Whatis6times9 » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:24 am

The federal spending for education is probably filling the gap of the lower property taxes cause by the devaluation of the housing market.
I AM THE GOSHDARN BATMAN
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:52 am

The Mirak wrote:nigger nigger niggity nigger

OH GOD. IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Senel: Stuff is the patron saint of getting shitfaced. You replaced your organs with an engine that runs solely on alcohol.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8613
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: Westeros.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby EagleMan » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:53 am

Whatis6times9 wrote:The federal spending for education is probably filling the gap of the lower property taxes cause by the devaluation of the housing market.

Eh from what I recall it was still inflating before that, though that's certainly a factor, especially where I live. California was heavily dependent on property taxes to fund education.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13867
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:56 am

The Mirak wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUS6nKpddec&feature=player_embedded
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

PreviousNext

Return to Wham, Spam, Thank you, Ma'am!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exodis, Fievel, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Hiroko, MSNbot Media, noxux, Senel, Sentios and 12 guests