God I enjoy shredding. Anyone else? What do you shred?

Right here, right now, I'm nearly at 4 hours, maybe it's purifying and sanctifying my house. I hope so :trophy:

I live on a ghost-prone sacred site.



I didn't know that much recording was possible unless it was radio :nod:

The essential political difference between what is often referred to as the right and the left lies in a differing vision of what man is capable of through the use of reason alone.

Let us examine the various events of our time in view of this difference.

1. Stimulus spending reflects a faith in centralised planning as a means of increasing economic growth over and above what it would otherwise be if resources were allocated through the market place. And yet the American economy remains largely as it was before in terms of its overall health. What about other nations?

http://ricardianambivalence.com/2012...imulus-update/
The conclusion to be drawn is that government-based central planning does not actually do altogether much other than give rise to large incentives for pork barreling and headlines about "projects" that lead to no particular conclusion. Short-term, rushed and with no coherent objective other than to spend, stimulus ends in waste.

This should not be surprising, as central planning in the Soviet Union was equally an utter failure. Central planning attempted on a smaller scale is no different even if it is referred to nicely as "Keynesian economics".

Edit: Foreign policy is another aspect of human affairs in which it is often believed that reason alone can induce others to change. If only we are nice to our enemies, they shall be nice to us. Cultural factors, beliefs and traditions, however, are a far more powerful force than reason. Let us examine how the attempt to use reason to create allies of enemies has worked out for the West so far.
2. In Libya, the Western fervour for humanitarianism and the belief in our strength as the place of the mighty, the good and the moral overcame any need for a sober analysis of what we were doing and why. The Libyan rebels, of whom we knew little except that they openly cooperated with Al Qaeda, told us civilians were being massacred. Turns out the West was being played for fools. The massacres were not only unconfirmed by independent reports; they were also non-existent.

Now a Libyan client state is established but can do nothing to protect its own borders as a swathe of Al Qaeda affiliates contest other groups for power.

Benghazi remains in Ansar Al Sharia's hands and the United States has done nothing before or since the attacks to stop them, other than to hire some of them for consular security before the attacks.

To make matters worse, an obscure youtube video no one in the Middle East had ever heard of was blamed for the attacks. An outright lie was confected and no one in the US Administration had either the sense or the courage to call it for what it was for weeks on end. The President referred to the attacks as an act of terror, in that it inspired fear, on one occasion early in the piece but refused to acknowledge that it was an act of terrorism. Nor did the rest of administration do so for weeks.

3. In Egypt, an ally is replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whom even Obama now acknowledges in "not an ally" of the United States, but whom he has not yet deemed an enemy. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood terms the United States worthless, attacks Jews as global dominators, and calls for "resistance" against Zionist-American oppression.

4. Similarly, the United States continues to regard Turkey as an ally notwithstanding that its Islamist government has broken from the Western tradition and now regularly makes anti-Western and anti-semitic comments. Its ambassador to Chad has even described Al Qaeda as not being a terrorist group, without any repercussion.

5. In Syria, the Administration funded and armed the "moderate" groups without realising that those weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Then they fell into the wrong hands: the hands of Al Qaeda affiliates. Another foreign policy success.

6. In Gaza, the Administration successfully pressured Israel to weaken sanctions on Gaza. Success! Hamas' hand is stronger as a result.

7. In Iran, the Administration, via Secretary Kerry, who for years paid visits to Assad and termed him a moderate, now calls for sanctions not to be strengthened lest radicals like the ones that physically slaughtered the moderates in the last election win again. That Kerry seriously believes that Iranian elections mean something, anything, and is premising its policies on that assumption, is about as foolish as his beliefs vis-a-vis Syria.

8. Did I mention the Administration seriously termed Assad a reformer and held out hope for months that he would back away from mass slaughter? It's like asking Stalin to play nice. What planet are they on?

9. Did I mention the Administration seriously expects us to believe it's opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons while it (a) appoints officials who support that outcome; (b) believes Iranian elections are legitimate enough to be affected by American sanction policies?

10. The Boston attackers were let go and no longer watched because they did not express violent views towards the United States in interviews with the FBI, even as they expressed Islamist beliefs and were warned by Russian intelligence about the danger posed by those very attackers. Meanwhile, American training manuals warned not to go too hard on Islamists who did not turn violent. The FBI followed protocol and those mean old Islamists decided to go violent anyway. Well, it wasn't in the manual so how can we blame them for disregarding everything they should know about Islamist terror?

But as Hillary is wont to say, what difference does it make? Well, I suppose the people of the Middle East, and the people of Boston, are finding out exactly what difference it makes when an Administration neither knows nor understands its foreign policy priorities, let alone the world around them.

We could start a pool on it. I'll take 3 months, August 19th.

I'll be going to NYC on Saturday to see someone and will be returning on Monday. I'll be spending Saturday and Sunday nights at her place. Any tips so I don't mess things up?

I really don't understand why some people -- particularly people within certain racial/social/religious groups -- choose to economize past their reproductive means to support other races with their hard work? I mean, it isn't a hard concept. If you make $350,000 per year, you really can afford to provide for 4 children. So why not have them? It's a completely ludicrous concept.

And the example I made applies to the Western world, where $350,000 per year is basically not that much. What about the Third World? Why is it that we see average birth rates of, for example, 5.54/woman in Afghanistan? What in the world makes our wealthy think they couldn't support that?

We don't have a white natality crisis -- we have a moron crisis. Until these idiots who choose to economize past their means learn that they shouldn't, then they will continue to die in droves (in the 1st World) or be desperately assimilated by wetbacks. And quite frankly, any religion or religious leader who tries to convince it's followers otherwise is both self serving and criminal.

Happy Birthday!!!


:dance: :woohoo: :band: :woohoo: :dance:


:cheers:

this is the opposition



I am concerned... because Obama can pretty much do whatever he wants up to being an actual nazi

and even then, republican ****tards couldn't be trusted to fight him

all those scumbags would join him

I know a collaborator when I see one

and republicans would be the ones marching us into the ovens, not saving us

We seem to spend so much time lately either talking to Ben or about him we might as well just name the whole thing after him. He practically lives here.

I know this will be controversial and there are other contenders so I will post a poll.

I really don't understand why some people -- particularly people within certain racial/social/religious groups -- choose to reproduce past their economic means to support themselves and their families? I mean, it isn't a hard concept. If you make $35,000 per year, you really can't afford to provide for 4 children. So why have them? It's a completely ludicrous concept.

And the example I made applies to the Western world, where $35,000 per year is basically nothing. What about the Third World? Why is it that we see average birth rates of, for example, 5.54/woman in Afghanistan? What in the world makes them think they can support that?

We don't have a poverty crisis, or a food crisis, or a potable water crisis -- we have a moron crisis. Until these idiots who choose to reproduce past their means learn that they shouldn't, then they will continue to die in droves (in the 3rd World) or be desperately poor/dependent on the government (in the US/Europe). And quite frankly, any religion or religious leader who tries to convince it's followers otherwise is both self serving and criminal.

So, currently I'm playing online poker and day drinking. It's an outstanding day in Austin.

So far I've won 38 hands out of 133 dealt, and 38 out of 61 flops I've seen, on a 6 handed table. I'll take that stat, especially while drinking! Bought in $25, up to around $85 thus far...

Anyone care to join me for some online poker? Playing cheap $.25/$.50 blinds at PlayersOnly.com....