News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:09 am

PA wrote:I thought Gold had an inherent worth (well, sorta, like anything else, it's worth whatever the buyer will give)

Gold kicks ass now because it's extremely useful for electronics but the reason why it was picked as the medium of exchange was because it didn't have any secondary uses back when my ancestors were herding goats in Palestine. Imagine the amount of trouble you would have if you used something useful for your currency like iron or wood. It'd be a friggin' mess.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:16 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:Prak Anima, our money was always completely worthless.

The reason why our economy was based off of gold and silver so long ago was precisely because gold and silver was worthless to them back them.
I thought Gold had an inherent worth (well, sorta, like anything else, it's worth whatever the buyer will give)

Gold's inherent worth is based on what you can do with it. It currently has worth because it can be used in electronics. Before the advent of things that could actually be done with gold, it was worthless as anything other than jewelry. Crazies will claim that gold is inherently valuable as currency and will magically save us from all our problems, but these people are talking out of their asses.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:31 am

so why exactly have people gone fucking nuts over gold in history? I'm thinking gold rushes, here, specifically. Was it because it could swapped directly for cash because of the gold standard?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:38 am

so why exactly have people gone fucking nuts over gold in history? I'm thinking gold rushes, here, specifically. Was it because it could swapped directly for cash because of the gold standard?

Because the way the economy works, when you have a gold standard it's almost assured that you will not have as much actual productivity as potential productivity.

Adjusting the price of the gold standard takes years, minimum. The problem is that economies grow over time. So since the amount of gold in the economy never actually matches the size of the economy, any amount of gold that people find grows the economy. Which is why the U.S. economy exploded in size during the gold rush and why paying off trade deficits in gold pre-fiat money age hurt the economy of the lender.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:51 am

In other words you have more people locked out of the economy because there just isn't enough money for everyone. If you set your money according to something stupid like shiny rocks then there's nothing people in the economy can really do to participate in it if there aren't enough shiny rocks. Make the shiny rocks rare enough and you have people forgoing essential but not immediately valuable services like lawyering or doctoring in an attempt to produce a product or service that will get a shiny rock.

If you have a village and the only unit of money is a solid gold statue then you shouldn't be surprised if everyoneu takes up jobs of hunter-gatherers in an attempt to get said gold statue; after all, Thog could go his whole life without owning a single wood carving or tanned hide but he NEEDS food and water; you have a better chance parting Thog from his gold statue with roasted rabbit than paintings if he doesn't own anything.

But if the village used fifty gold statues for money then you could have jobs like blacksmiths; once Thog has loaded up on food, water, and clothes he'll search for the next most-useful service and go down the line until he's out of gold statues.

Now apply this logic to a country that has an inherent shortage of gold because of the economy growing faster than the gold supply and you can see why people went crazy over gold. They weren't just adding shiny rocks to the economy, which were worthless, they were putting dollars in the hands of people who made all kinds of weirdass products that we take for granted today. That's why European military power exploded with the exploitation discovery of the New World and they brought back the gold in their Santa sacks.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:19 am

tzor wrote:Debates don’t count in part because he was playing by different rules. Yes you can always sound great when you know that you aren’t going to be fact checked.

1) If debates "don't count", then why are they so important in democratic elections in America and throughout the world? Why televise them at all?

2) How was Obama playing by "different rules" in his debate? Did he enter the Konami Code beforehand? Did he turn items on, or perhaps choose Flat Zone 2 instead of Final Destination?

3) Everything you say in a debate is going to be fact checked - especially by your opponents!

tzor wrote:You can sound great when you “weren’t there” (that in a nutshell was his argument about the Iraq war and why he kicked the crap out of all the others on the debate floor; not being in the senate at the time he didn’t have to vote for it; they did)

Barack Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

tzor wrote:And when your own voting record is either not on the table (his state senate record) or was simply a constant stream of “present” votes.

From Snopes.com:

A legislative "present" vote (which essentially counts as a "No" vote but does not go on record as such) is, as the New York Times observed, "not unusual in Illinois," a tactic often used in concert with other party members and leaders. An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy. In other cases, Mr. Obama's present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills. In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

Over the course of his political career in Illinois, Obama cast approximately 4000 votes. He only voted "present" in 130 of those votes. That's what, 3% of all of the votes that he cast? That's hardly a "stream of present votes".

tzor wrote:That’s why practically every fucking thing he said in the campaign he has broken in the first few months of his administration. This is the most controlled, the most secret administration of all time.

Obama's been in the White House for what, six months now? Do you really think that six months is enough to clean up the disasters that the Crusader In Chief left behind after his eight year reign? And would you care to elaborate how this administration is so "controlled and secretive"?

tzor wrote:He has kept all of the “horrors” of the Bush administration in place; raising the bar in some cases by calling any who don’t bobble head nod in agreement with him, mobs or terrorists. Bills are rushed through without reading; we still have Gitmo; we still have Iraq.

While I don't disagree with your assertions that we still are involved in the Iraq War and that Guantanamo Bay is still open (because resolving these issues takes time, and you can't just wave a magic fucking wand), can you provide some evidence regarding your other assertions? And no, the E-Mails you get from the people that adamantly believe that Obama was really born in Kenya do not count as evidence.

tzor wrote:Even the great sainted reporter Helen Thomas has called him worse than Nixon!

Yeah. Trying to run an orderly press conference is WAY worse then drawing up an Enemies List and illegally using the power of the office of the President to find things to blackmail or defame journalists. My bad!

tzor wrote:If he had a real debate with a real person who he could not play the “race” card as an excuse to get out of the tough questions, he would have been toast.

Oh! This must be the Konami Code we were talking about earlier! Please, tell me - how exactly would he have "played the race card" in his debates with John McCain?

tzor wrote:JC Watts would have mopped the floor with him.

Oh, I doubt that very seriously. But I do think J.C. would have been a better opponent then John McCain, who was so filled with contempt and fury for his opponent that he often simply referred to Barack Obama as "that one" during the debates.

tzor wrote:Heck, Joe the Plummer managed to scratch through the veneer of that slick Chicago Snake Oil Salesman and get him to really fubar himself.

Yeah. Joe The Plumber. Where to start with him?

1) Joe The Plumber isn't actually a plumber.

2) Joe only makes about $40,000 a year. The chances of his taxes going up under Obama? Virtually nil.

3) The plumbing business Joe worked for doesn't make over $250,000 year in profits, and would almost certainly qualify for a tax cut under the Obama plan.

3) Joe The Plumber doesn't even bother to pay the taxes that he currently owes anyway, so the idea of having his taxes raised is a moot point for him.

Sounds a lot more like Joe The Liar to me.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:02 am

Here's an article about crazy people. Enjoy!

Sock Puppet · Post by **Sock Puppet** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:05 am

You forgot to mention that Joe the Plumber's name isn't even really Joe. So "Joe the Plumber" is actually "not-Joe the not-Plumber". Obfuscation and misdirection - he's a real American hero!

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:37 am

Adding on GG's comments: It is actually really hard for a president to pass laws or effect administration. The president surely can effect these things and help bills to pass but it is actually congress that actually has to do the lion's share of the work. I didn't/don't particularly hate GW because I don't believe that in all his 8 years that he actually DID anything. He was just a tool. Skip back to this administration I didn't vote for Obama because his party is ineffective/competent. Its like a role reversal between to dynamics. An incompetent president and an effective party vs a competent president and an incompetent party. Because the Dems don't have the unity and solidarity the Reps have (what with parts like the Blue Dogs about) even the best intentioned Democrats can't get anything done and what little does pass is ass raped and humiliated before being shoved out the door as a shell of its former self. Anyone notice how fast the stimulus bill got passed? How fast the republicans allowed big companies to get money?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:43 am

MGuy wrote:Anyone notice how fast the stimulus bill got passed? How fast the republicans allowed big companies to get money?

Wait wait wait. Wait.

Wait.

So you're saying you'd rather vote Republican, because at least they're really good at fucking you in the arse? Seriously, given the choice between "If you invite me into your home, I'll try to clean the house but I'll probably just do a few dishes before I have to leave" and "If you invite me into your home, I will violate you with a garden rake, and I will do it easily and well, I guarantee it!", you will choose the second?

Then you sir are clearly quite mad.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:48 am

I didn't vote at all.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:06 am

I can actually see calling Obama secretive. Aside from supporting the telco immunity for spying crap theres "Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a ‘National Security’ Secret". Thats bullshit. I also haven't heard anything about him disagreeing with the ruling that the Office of Administration isn't technically an agency so isn't subject to FOI requests.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:14 am

...At the same time, Obama's administration is more open than any other in the last sixty years.

-Crissa

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:07 am

I'm a bit shaky on making comparisons of different administrations based on appearances. Politics is much like advertising to me and the goal always seems to be to make things look good. I'm sure Obama has a good head on his shoulders just as I was sure Clinton had a good head on his shoulders and both have charisma to boot, But when I think politics I think in terms of corporations and I sure as hell don't trust corporations.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:07 am

I'm a bit shaky on making comparisons of different administrations based on appearances. Politics is much like advertising to me and the goal always seems to be to make things look good. I'm sure Obama has a good head on his shoulders just as I was sure Clinton had a good head on his shoulders and both have charisma to boot, But when I think politics I think in terms of corporations and I sure as hell don't trust corporations.

angelfromanotherpin · Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:57 am

Much as I support most of what the president has done, his civil liberties and open government positions are... disappointing. Very disappointing.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:57 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote:
tzor wrote:Debates don’t count in part because he was playing by different rules. Yes you can always sound great when you know that you aren’t going to be fact checked.

1) If debates "don't count", then why are they so important in democratic elections in America and throughout the world? Why televise them at all?

2) How was Obama playing by "different rules" in his debate? Did he enter the Konami Code beforehand? Did he turn items on, or perhaps choose Flat Zone 2 instead of Final Destination?

3) Everything you say in a debate is going to be fact checked - especially by your opponents!

The importance of debates in modern political discourse is a fascinating topic filled with controlled spin, tinged with a nostalgic look at the glory days or real debate and the glory days of TV debate.

Real debate, as was known in the 19th century, simply doesn’t happen anymore. We no longer have debates like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 anymore, especially not on a national stage and not on network / cable broadcast media. There is no central subject where one person takes one side and the other person takes the other. Instead there are a series of “questions” typically addressed to specific candidates along with a chance for a response. In some cases there is limited chance for others to rebut, but this is exceptionally constrained when there are more than two candidates for a debate (according to classic debate, this is literally impossible as there is one proposition and one can only be for or against it; thus two sides at most to a debate). What we call “debate” is at best a concurrent interview session, occasionally disguised with a town hall meeting veneer.

In terms of TV debates, form has always trumped substance. The first famous debate, Nixon and Kennedy was basically decided by, of all things, makeup or the lack thereof.

The key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. Nixon insisted on campaigning until just a few hours before the first debate started; he had not completely recovered from his hospital stay and thus looked pale, sickly, underweight, and tired. He also refused makeup for the first debate, and as a result his beard stubble showed prominently on the era's black-and-white TV screens. Nixon's poor appearance on television in the first debate is reflected by the fact that his mother called him immediately following the debate to ask if he was sick. Kennedy, by contrast, rested before the first debate and appeared tanned, confident, and relaxed during the debate. An estimated 80 million viewers watched the first debate. Most people who watched the debate on TV believed Kennedy had won while radio listeners (a smaller audience) believed Nixon had won. After it had ended polls showed Kennedy moving from a slight deficit into a slight lead over Nixon. For the remaining three debates Nixon regained his lost weight, wore television makeup, and appeared more forceful than his initial appearance. However, up to 20 million fewer viewers watched the three remaining debates than the first debate.

Today, the basic function of TV debates is to give the candidates a chance to publically avoid “foot in mouth” disease. Other than that, there is not much to modern debates; they are sort of like NASCAR races where people go to watch the cars crash.

Obama was clearly playing by different rules. Rules are determined by the media at large and by and by the general coverage and promotion of The One even throughout the primary season was sickening at best. It says a lot when people who compile the data after the fact state that the media that gave Clinton the most balanced (in terms of favorable / unfavorable) was FOX news. Everyone’s history was open to analysis (except Obama’s). Everyone’s background was open to analysis (except Obama’s). Everyone’s voting record was open to analysis (except Obama’s). The amount of sexist attacks, first directed at Clinton and then later at Palin, were massively significant during the course of the campaign. The amount of attacks against disabled people (McCain’s inability to raise his arms as a result of his POW wounds) were also significant.

There are two things that are difficult to “fact check.” The first is the future. Opponents were constantly saying that Obama could not do what he was promising and still keep a promise not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans or not raise taxes on anyone who was making less than $250K per year. Political Promises are in fact the hardest to fact check, at the time. The other is a campaign of criticism.

Returning to the Iraq war, Obama was not a senator in Washington. He did not receive the CIA briefings about the weapons or all the other intelligence. He was not forced to make a real Yea or Nay decision on the issue of the war. Instead he could just sit back, arm chair quarterback and complain; as the old joke about management ends “praise and honors for the non participants.” Even when he became a senator, he was too busy running for president. His committees never met, his votes were always the generic “present” and the number of bills he sponsored (compared to Clinton for example) was practically non existant.

This is why I stated that the debates don’t count. Everything was pretty much scripted, something that one could expect and prepare for well in advance. It is not a good indication of his ability to “ad lib” a conversation or to hold a real debate. The nasty questions were not thrown at him, unlike the other candidates, and the chances to put foot in mouth were strongly controlled.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:05 pm

Crissa wrote:...At the same time, Obama's administration is more open than any other in the last sixty years.

No it has not. The amount of policies of un-openness that was a major problem of the Bush administration that were retained by the Obama administration is staggering. Considering that the president campaigned on how wrong these were it is frightening.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:14 pm

And yet, it is.

-Crissa

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:19 pm

tzor wrote:No it has not. The amount of policies of un-openness that was a major problem of the Bush administration that were retained by the Obama administration is staggering. Considering that the president campaigned on how wrong these were it is frightening.

What I wonder is if, after having assumed the Presidency, Obama learned a few more things of which he was unaware during the campaign. Perhaps it was like a critical Monday-morning quarterback at the watercooler finding himself shuffled onto the field the next weekend in pads and a helmet with a call of "Good luck, you got your wish" call from the sidelines.

The world is a very dangerous place. Lives are at stake and it is likely that every day either someone on your side or the other is going to die. When it is *you* that has to make the call, I am certain the problem looks differently than it does when the only thing at stake is ratings in a poll.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:49 pm

The cynic in me has a very simple answer; he deliberately lied. He did whatever it took and what ever needed to be said in order to get elected, even if deep down inside he knew it to be a total lie and a piece of manure. He sold his snake oil and the people bought it. That is, after all, how you go up the ranks of Chicago politics, straight up to the Presidency, apparently.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:56 pm

Tzor were you complaining about the illegal wirestaps and surveillance on civillians when the Bush administration was starting their precedent and expanding their use? If not then let the non-hypocrites complain about it, please.

I suspect LichLoved is right that Obama was scared/urged into continuing their use and expansion by seeing things we are not privy to... however I wish he had weighed that benefit against the damage to our country that policy could create in the hands of a tyrant.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:43 pm

damn connection.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:44 pm

Koumei wrote:
MGuy wrote:Anyone notice how fast the stimulus bill got passed? How fast the republicans allowed big companies to get money?
Wait wait wait. Wait.

Wait.

So you're saying you'd rather vote Republican, because at least they're really good at fucking you in the arse? Seriously, given the choice between "If you invite me into your home, I'll try to clean the house but I'll probably just do a few dishes before I have to leave" and "If you invite me into your home, I will violate you with a garden rake, and I will do it easily and well, I guarantee it!", you will choose the second?

Then you sir are clearly quite mad.

I chose "If you invite me to your house, I will likely make sure you are safe while I'm there, but otherwise stay out of your way, other than occasionally talking about Ayn Rand. Oh, and I will regale you with tales of my Dr. Quest/Venture style adventures."

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:23 pm

So you're choosing something that isn't an option? Because while Libertarians claim to want that, none of them actually do. They have actual laws they want to impose, most of them bad.