must be.

A) Please note that I am being literal when I say "Maybe. I am not convinced there isn't a third option." In other words, I am not saying "there definitely is a third option."

B) Allowing the deleveraging to occur in a more organic method by a combination of defaults, credit writedowns and debt pay offs with an emphasis on the latter. That is, let crappy banks fail in a controlled method, let companies go bankrupt in the normal fashion and let households continue to delever either through paying off debt or by defaulting if they are insolvent (unable to make the loan payments).

What I am envisioning is more like setting a compound fracture versus amputating the limb.

so in other words, you wanna give capitalism a shot?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/ma...bert.html?_r=1

Colbert is trolling the political races. And it's awesome.

A) Sure. That's what I was asking what kind of third option might exist, not demanding that you give me a detailed defense of such a third option.

B) I'm not sure I understand -- is it "organic" or is it "controlled"? And if it's controlled, by whom? Regardless, isn't what you're describing a market correction in response to the overleverage? Won't it still be painful, no matter how slowly it happens? That's my point -- the overleverage has to be corrected, and it's going to be a bitter pill for those on the receiving end of it. The question is simply whether we take steps to minimize the pain (ie, allowing the market to clear the leverage, allowing real estate prices to drop instead of trying to inflate it yet again, etc.) or we try to delay or avoid the inevitable.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...-in-a-lobbyist

So, the best investment in the US is a Lobbyist.

Drive-by posting by me, be back later!

This is so friggin' funny. Statism at it's best. "You must become prostitute."

Hell, we can't even drug test our handout recipients here.

Although what you are trying to imply, even if taken at face value, isn't statist Six (See long threads on this...)....

Let's take it at the actual meaning.

Person A offers Person B a perfectly legal job but completely on Person A's terms. Person B declines it. Person B gets their unemployment benefits cut.

This sounds like the wet dream of anti-unemployment people. Typically that crowd doesn't go for what you term as "statism".

For someone who has zero political experience, how do I get to the point where I can make an effective run for president? I've got 8 more years before I'll legally be allowed to run, so there's still some time. I would make a badass president, and people would vote for me 'cuz I'm not scared.

10-4. I am trying to be more explicit with things like this as I tend to try and choose my words very specifically and am generally very literal as above. However, I have had a couple of recent reminders that not everyone takes things that way. :)

"More organic," I guess. Maybe not the best word choice. Certainly not "free market" which I am not sure exists in the USA or has in recent memory.

I would assert there is at least a third option, making the situation worse which could potentially lengthen the process more than I think people give it credit for. It's not like ripping a band-aid off. Again, abusing the medical metaphors, it's like teaching a person to walk after knee surgery by kicking their crutches out from under them. "It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it'll make you stronger for it."

Ron Paul and the Austrians = "cut the leg off"
Bernanke and the Monetarists = "apply more antibiotics" (to a compound fracture!)
Mosler and some MMTers = "set the leg until it's strong enough to support some weight, then undergo serious rehab"

I hope you guys are ready. The full on HERPA DERP just hit this election cycle.

http://www.americanindependent.com/2...aids-denialist

HIV does not cause AIDS now. Gay sex causes AIDS instead. All the people who have AIDS from heterosexual activity? Just gays in the closet who won't admit to their homosexual liaisons.

I only wish I was joking.

(Edit) Ah hell, this one is so insane I had to post it.

The DERP is being turned up to 11 this election season.

What does any of post #851 have to do with this election cycle?

i think it is pretty clear that most of these "religious" politicians aren't truly religious.
they only claim to be to get more votes.

What I am trying to say here is dont attack christianity and the bible for the actions of heritics. (i know u didn't explicitly say it)

case and point
Revelation 22:11 KJV
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Then there are church organizations that are made up of churches across the nation
Assemblies of God for example. While the churches are expected to be self-sustainable and they manage their own fund, they do not work for themselves. All pastors/employees of these churches are employees of the assemblies of god. john ashcroft was/is an AG (assemblies of god) guy. At these churches the pastors are not allowed to teach everything they believe if it does not line up with the AG authorities. It is disgusting the level of politics it takes to operate such an organization. And of course they do discuss politics and endorse politicians.

they teach intelligent design in public schools? could you elaborate with supporting links? i explicitly remember getting taught evolution in school

you my friend could be accused of being religious for believing in something that is still not proven on paper. I am not saying negate science. I encourage the the search for knowledge. And im surely not saying that i myself am a christian for I am not.

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

hangeth the earth upon nothing.....think about that for a second....perhaps an indication of floating in space?
kinda contradicts pre-americas science doesn't it?

In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin.

On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

the bible repeatedly says that god stretches out the heavens
we know today that the universe is expanding and everything is getting further apart


Ezekiel 4:9
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.

this is what god had instructed ezekiel to eat during a fast. this and only this
today it has proven to be the most complete source of protein derived from vegitation
the amino acids are a nearly complete protein comparable to milk or eggs


im not trying to tell you you are wrong
i am not trying to tell you the bible and creationism is right
i am trying to show you that there is some pretty impressive science in the bible

both creationism and evolution cant be proven on paper
you should learn to respect other peoples beliefs, else yours wont be respected
you should learn to identify the difference between a christian and a heritic
mainstream christianity is largely heritic, most of these heritics dont realize they are heritics whatsoever. they are regurgitating what their parent's church taught them.
It took me FOREVER to finally get my mother to realize that it is not a sin to drink alcohol. the bible clearly says not to get drunk. it never says not to drink. heck jesus drank and yet the AG teaches that any drinking whatsoever is a sin? this my friend is a fence law and this fence law in particular goes to the point of hericy and perhaps hyprocacy since saying it is a sin to drink alcohol is implying that jesus had sinned.

I have read much of the bible. I did it with the perspective of someone who has not learned the mainstream ideas of it. There is sooooooo much of what is taught in mainstream churches that i just don't understand where at in the bible they derive these sermons from. for example the bible only specifies three characters that will burn for an eternity, lucifer, the false prophet, and the antichrist.

....

Evolution can and has been proven. There is nothing "faith-based" about it. It's not a belief, it's not conjecture.

It's from the political group it is from. It's a political group that is backing either directly or indirectly at least 4 of the Republican candidates. IIRC, RP is the only one who has no affiliations with them whatsoever.

I.e. Rick Perry has extensive ties to that political group, Scrappy.

we have already been through this on this very same thread
natural adaption (which is evolution) can be proven
speciation (the part of evolution that creationists argue) can not be proven

am i wrong?

have we ever witnessed a species have two species come from it that are so different from each other that they are not capable of breeding with each other? you know like in the same manner that we are supposedly related to monkeys? are we even capable of observing such a thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

We have an enormous body of hard evidence of speciation taking place.

Incidentally, if you agree that the possibility of natural adaption can exist, you also agree that the possibility of speciation exists. Speciation is merely natural adaption over a longer period of time.

you have not linked me to anything which we have observed
ice age?
10,000 generations?
yeah i dont thing we have been closely following the sticklebacks since the ice age
aren't we just looking at fossils that we believe to be from that time? and theorizing based on that?
was this a controlled experiment? can we duplicate the results?

i never said it was an unreasonable thing to believe
it is merely un-observable therefore it can not be proven

edit: i totally respect that people believe in evolution. just saying it is not proven to the extent that many say it it. hell i never seen a scientist say it is proven as you do. they just present evidence and state what and why they believe it. that i respect

All right, you want observed instances? You got it buddy.

de Vries was studying the evening primrose in 1905, and found an unusual variant. It had a chromosome number of 2n = 28, while the normal primrose had a chromosome number of 2n = 14. This new species of primrose was unable to breed with the parent, and acquired a new taxonomical name O. gigas as opposed to it's parent, O. lamarckiana. Neither the child species nor the parent species can interbreed.

In 1964, several samples of the polychaete worm, species Nereis acuminat were collected in Long Beach Harbor California. They were allowed to grow and differentiate within a closed environment. Each species remained fertile within it's own population. In 1991, populations of the worm were again taken from Long Beach California. Not only were there substantial genetic and anatomical differences in all of the species compared to the original, they were unable to interbreed even though they were perfectly capable of breeding and being fertile within each species.

Want more?

lol
yes
idk pm me or something since evolution has little if anything to do with politics
maybe start another thread

i want to know more about these studies
how exactly they were conducted
how exactly they kept track of specific worms
was this a controlled experiment?
can these results be duplicated?
ect.

I propose an alternative then, Jared. A topic dedicated to this. Yay/nay?

/I'm not a subscriber, I have like...25 PMs worth of storage.