private fed? really. I've never really delved further into this, at least after realizing Ron Paul was kind of looney.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
Really? I don't know what else to tell you. Just WOW! If you truly believe what you stated,all I can say is WOW! The guys from Wall St. love people like you. Do you want to know why? hehehehee
Well. I didn't really say the last paragraph, just copied it from the website.
If you want to elaborate, I'm all ears, but I think I get it. I just don't get the "topple the system" outlook that seems to be parading. And actually looking back on what gwharton says (conservatives and creatiionists are the same as progressives and evolution) he just sounds lost.
I don't care about religious issues. I'm an atheist. I'm just trying to be nice with other people when it come to religious issues.
Why would you want to keep holding on the useless monetary system? The system is rigged for a group of people. And yet people are content with that, because they are afraid of uncertainty. Kicking the can down the road as long as you can has been the modus operandi for this country. People just want rewards not the risks.
If I could I would abolish not only Fed but also FDIC. So people will start to care about what these bank mobsters are doing with their money. I wouldn't not mind to see a few bank runs either. Let them compete on their own merits. Finally, All these too big to fail will realize that they are not that immune.
will mitt or barak end the fed or fdic? my guess is probably not, am i crazy for trusting the outcome? life is pretty good over here, come to think of it, we are supported by the universe.
oe, you ARE aware that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution owned by private parties and private banks, right? It's not a public agency or in any way part of the government or any political process.
The Chairman and the Board of Governors are picked by the president and confirmed by the senate. They are the ones who set monetary policy. But you knew that of course.
So, if you do not believe that disparate impact is prima facie evidence of discrimination, do you support affirmative action programs and Department of Justice lawsuits like this one?...
Don't get me wrong, it's a screwy system. I just haven't heard of a better way yet. Conspiracy theories aside, Bernanke isn't some bond villain. He's a just a professor. Sometimes they fuck up, sometimes they don't, but it's a hell of a lot better than handing it over to hedge-funds, or worse perhaps, congress.
do you support affirmative action programs and Department of Justice lawsuits
I think you would have more support for ending affirmative action when you end discrimination in the workplace. I don't know the details of that case aside from a one page article you linked, but personally when I want to see reasonable enforcement of legislation I would not go to Florida or Texas. I think there is a fair chance that Police Department in Chorus Christie Texas are a little bit misogynist, but I wasn't there when these complaints happened.
Yes, I will continue to support affirmative action programs until there is more clear evidence that women are treated equal in the workplace. I understand that many of these laws are not ideal. If you want to get rid of them and maintain support from the other side of the aisle, I would advise coming up with better legislation that protects both the employer and employee. Generally what I've seen from the republican party is just a bunch of bitching without any solutions.
The core of my position is that it is not acceptable to treat women or other minorities as inferior based soley on the fact that they are women or whatever minority. If you want to fix affirmative action, you have to address that part. You can't just say 'it's a free country and I will treat women as inferior because they are' because then you will not gain enough support to remove the existing legislation from the books.
If it isn't obvious, this lawsuit was not filed because of "prima facie evidence" or whatever. The test under consideration in the lawsuit is not necessary for the job being filled and acts as a barrier for women being allowed into that position. The department of justice believes they have enough evidence to prove that. Just to clarify, running and sit-ups are not a qualification for the job they were applying for. If the Police Dept is able to prove that sit ups and running are required to perform the tasks they are hiring people for, this case will likely be dismissed. I'm not sure what you think cops actually do, but I've been pulled over many times and none of the police I've interacted with did any situps or any running. There are provisions in the law that allow the Police Department to use these test as a barrier to employment if the skills are required to perform the job.
I believe in this context sexual dimorphism is irrelevant. This case is not about men being stronger than women, it's about an unnecessary barrier to employment.
I want a central bank which is independent from central government, regional government and any private entities. Buba is one of the close ones. Both citizens and politicians will have to respect the mandate of central bank. The mandate for the central bank should focus in stabilizing currency, taming inflation, and formulating stable economic. Unless you cannot do these things, people won’t save money. People will make the same mistake like housing crisis. People bought houses in this country because purchasing power for dollar is shrinking faster than an old man balls. The rise of value in your house hugely influence by inflation and purchasing power of the currency. Here is one of the benefits
You’re going to pay 1000$ to rent a room in year 1 and you’ll be paying 1100$ in year 20. If you by a house in year 1, your monthly payment will be 1250$. It is a twenty years fixed mortgage. So at the end of your mortgage you will be paying 1250$. It doesn’t include cost to maintain the house and properties tax. Will you rent or will you buy a house? What is the benefit of buying a house when you can rent. People will think not twice but ten times before they buy a house. It won’t cause fucking mess we have here right now. To achieve that you need a central bank which can preserve the value of the currency. What Fed has been doing is polar-opposite of that. Fed will have to fulfill the every whim from private banks and the gov. It is not an independent organization. As far as I know Germany has been renter nation for long long time.
If you rent a house, you can move to different region to get a job. As we may all know that if you’re flexible you’re more likely to get a job in difficult times. But if you own a house, that option is off limit. Often times, people will commute as far as twenty miles a day just to get a job. You will end up paying huge transportation cost on the top of your monthly mortgage. People will borrow more and more. People end up digging bigger holes.
Well they are in a weird position now because they are part of the euro. I honestly get lost in understanding how the ECB makes decisions, maybe that's the problem. The Bundesbank's executive board is still chosen by the German government, so in that way it isn't much different from the Fed. What does make the Fed different is the way private banks are integrated at the lower level of individual reserve banks. I admit, I don't know exactly how the lower banks influence Bernanke and the Board of Governors' decision making, or if it's really that different from the influence bond holders have over Germany or France. The Fed has an enormously difficult job. The Euro is burning, China is fucking us with its undervalued currency. I know libertarians love to panic about the inflation rate, but there is nothing historically extraordinary about the inflation rate right now. Things were much worse in the early 80's. I know it's a concern for the future as the economy comes back, but even a few years ago deflation was the more immediate worry.
There were a huge number of things that caused the housing bubble, I couldn't pretend to understand them all, but my general understanding was that inflation was not the central cause. Banks went to congress and convinced them that there was a huge economic incentive for home ownership, that people who own homes take care of them better therefore their value increases. Congress on both sides thought that sounded great, (you may remember Republican's "ownership society" slogan back in the early 2000's). Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were more than happy to go along, thinking this was a great moment for bipartisanship, and then the banks basically fucked them and us by milking the resulting bubble into the stratosphere, using every dirty trick they could convince congress to deregulate for them, knowing full well that they'd just hold up the country at gunpoint when the whole thing came down. The real travesty was we couldn't even send them to jail, because under the worship of deregulation they had essentially legalized multi-trillion dollar theft.
I honestly don't know what you do about it. Since the 80's we've slowly given these guys everything and now they've got by the balls. We probably should have broken up the banks when we had the chance. Still, it's hard for me to understand how, if you feel this way, that you could be a libertarian. If anything more than ever we need more democratic, (ie, government) control more than ever. Just letting go and letting banks do whatever they want is the worst possible thing we could do.
I think the dot com bust was kind of tied into the housing bust in that money was too cheap. Greenspan wanted to flood the economy with money/investment and whatnot so he kept rates too low too long. He didn't want to regulate anything at all ever because he believed the free market would put itself wherever it wanted to be. Fractional reserve, which is how Bernanke gets to print money, got out of control. I suppose some older people might remember rates being too high under Carter and stagflation, so that gave him a lot of justification. This has been building up since right about 1982, but since money flowed as freely as it could there were times of great prosperity in there so we didn't want to slow that down. Now the unsustainable growth came back to bite us in the ass. I blame the baby boomers.
So, curtkram, in your mind, it is not relevant to the employment criteria for law enforcement that female police officers are slower and more easily overpowered by even small men because of physical differences inherent to human sexual dimorphism? We should just ignore those differences? Why?
gwh - I don't know what the criminals are like in your neck of the woods, but around here they're BIG, and FAST, and MEAN, and very WELL ARMED. I can't say that I've ever seen any of our police officers -- of either gender -- that match up well to the physical characteristics of our particular brand of bad guys.
I honestly get lost in understanding how the ECB makes decisions, maybe that's the problem.
Yup that is the exact reason of the bickering within ECB. When they created ECB , it was intended to be like Buba with clear mandate.
Before housing crisis, Fed has been flooding the finical system with dirt chip low interest rate loans. Part of the reason was to stall the consequences from dot com bubble. What would banks do with the excess? Try to find people who want to borrow. Fed’s loose cannon policy has been very damaging to U.S economy.
Libertarian, in general, does not love all these too big to fail. Libertarians are the ones who are telling the gov. to let them fail. It was liberal and conservative parties that can’t let them go. I’m ok with their existence, but don’t dip into tax payer pocket. Do your own thing. If you know how to make profit, know how to embrace downturn as well. In turn, I want gov do what it is supposed to do.
Otherwise, Turn Fed into organization like Hong Kong Monetary Authority which even delegates issuing bank notes to private banks. Call spade as spade. So, people won’t have any delusion about it.
So, curtkram, in your mind, it is not relevant to the employment criteria for law enforcement that female police officers are slower and more easily overpowered by even small men because of physical differences inherent to human sexual dimorphism? We should just ignore those differences? Why?
It's not up to me to make the decision as to what the requirements are for law enforcement in Corpus Christie Texas. It's my opinion that the whole state can go back to Mexico. It is illegal for the Police Department in Corpus Christie Texas to create employment requirements that discriminate against women. The Department of Justice is saying that the Police Department in Corpus Christie Texas has created a barrier to employment that discriminates against women. It is very possible that there are things going on in the Corpus Christie Police Department that we are not at this time aware of. This action was taken 9 days ago, so it's still fairly recent and the Justice Department specified this case refers to actions spanning several years.
The Justice Department is suing the Police Department in Corpus Christie Texas because they believe they have evidence that they are operating outside the limits of the law. The Corpus Christie Police Department will have a chance to explain their reasoning behind requiring these tests, they will have a chance to present evidence that an entry level position as a police office in Corpus Christie requires that level of physical fitness, and the courts will decided if they are or are not breaking the law. I'm pretty sure this is all fairly common.
In my personal experience, when I've broken the law and been confronted by Police Officers, those officers did not have to be exceptionally fit. Nobody ever tried overpowering those officers. Not once. A lot of Police Officers have pretty boring assignments. I think the Clint Eastwood type you may be thinking of is really not that common in many areas. Being slower is not detrimental if there isn't anyone trying to overpower them, and depending on what position the officer is placed in it's likely access to a radio is the greatest weapon they have.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. The daily tasks of an employee of Corpus Christie Texas is still irrelevant to affirmative action laws in the United States. It is not outside the realm of possibility that our current affirmative action laws can be improved upon, but discrimination in the workplace still exists and getting rid of affirmative action laws altogether is not something I would support.
Libertarian, in general, does not love all these too big to fail. Libertarians are the ones who are telling the gov. to let them fail. It was liberal and conservative parties that can’t let them go. I’m ok with their existence, but don’t dip into tax payer pocket. Do your own thing. If you know how to make profit, know how to embrace downturn as well. In turn, I want gov do what it is supposed to do.
I understand that position from a perspective of moral hazard, it's actually a very persuasive argument. The trouble with laissez faire economics has always been externalities. If we had let the entire banking sector fail we could have had 18% or 25% unemployment, a worldwide freeze in credit markets, and unbelievable suffering felt by people who were not in the slightest bit involved in the wrongdoing that caused the crisis. Is that just ok? Is that justified to teach a few bankers a lesson? My feeling is that when it's gotten to that point you've already fucked up. We never should have removed Glass Steagall. We never should have allowed for 40-1 leverage. We gave these guys every incentive to get themselves into trouble, and unsurprisingly, they did. Had we not done those things we could have let isolated banks fail, but because we allowed for the unregulated shuffling and concealment of risk containment became impossible.
And then there's the government spending question. The thing is I just cant take the idea that the market cures all ills and provides happily for all on faith. I just see no evidence whatsoever for that. Without public schools, without college grants, without free clinics and public fire departments and social security this would be a very brutal, miserable country. The natural state of american life is not a hard-working utopia, its a toxic, oligarchic wasteland. Older americans, unable to work, would starve in the streets. Children born to poor parents, unable to afford education, would live a life of hereditary poverty with no hope of escape. The American Dream is predicated not upon hands-off government, but upon equal opportunity, and if income disparity is rising, as it is currently, it is direct evidence that the government is not doing it's job of leveling the playing field.
I understand that the government does not do everything efficiently, but that is not an argument that it should do nothing, only that it must do what it must do better.
That's a cop-out, curtkram. The Justice Department has stated that its primary motivation for filing suit in cases like this is disparate impact. In other words, the simple fact that fewer women pass the same test than men do is prima facie evidence of actionable discrimination. The courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, have upheld disparate impact as prima facie evidence of discrimination in the past (in cases such as Lewis v. Chicago or Ricci v. DeStefano). This presumption, that statistical indications of disparate impact alone is prima facie evidence of discrimination (e.g. if women are 51% of the general population but only 10% of them are passing a test and being hired as police officer candidates it must be due to sexism and is therefore legally actionable), is strongly advocated by your "team," the ones you've said are big adherents of evolutionary science and opponents of faith-based politics.
So, I'm asking you directly, do you agree with and support that position or not? Don't give me a bunch of beating around the bush or wall-of-words prevarication. It's a simple yes-or-no question.
So, I'm asking you directly, do you agree with and support that position or not?
I think this questions applies to 2 different scenarios. In the case of "prima facie evidence" your suggesting that a difference in results on a test is enough evidence to say it's discrimination. I've already answered that: "If a certain group is over- or under-represented, I do not believe that is, on it's own, evidence of discrimination (unfair or otherwise)." -- that's a quote from me
The second question would be whether that position applies to the case in Corpus Christie. I do not think that is "prima facie" evidence alone. The Justice Department is not suing the Police Department simply because the test results favor men, they are suing because the "disparate impact" is an unnecessary barrier to employment for women. So if by "that position" you mean the position of the Department of Justice in the Corpus Christie case, then yes I support their position.
The "disparate impact" in that case implies there is a test designed to prevent women from getting that job, which is discrimination. That's wrong. The Justice Department will discover whether the abilities being tested are required for the position being applied for. If there was a test to see if a candidate were able to lift a 40lb box for a job that required lifting 40lb boxes, that would not be discrimination. Male candidates may be overall more capable of lifting a 40lb box, but since it's a clear requirement for the job, the "prima facie disparate impact" would not be discrimination.
I may not know what "prima facie" means, so I apologize if that's what is confusing this. I think it's wrong to deny women jobs based on their gender and I think it's wrong for an employer to create a test that causes women to be denied employment because of their gender. I think that's a clear position. If you really want me to disagree with "my team" then try Title IX instead of a case that could quite possibly have merit.
I would like to know if you have a source for this:
The Justice Department has stated that its primary motivation for filing suit in cases like this is disparate impact
I would think the primary motivation is to reduce discrimination in the workplace.
I'm a hermaphrodite, so in a way I could be a pretty good detective. Who says being a cop is only about running ability?
Jul 12, 12 8:00 pm ·
·
Ok, I'm back from a pleasant day of sailing so what have I missed? Are the majority of architects still liberal? Has Paul Ron revealed his alien love affair? Or are the dumb bitches and retards still ruling this roost?
Ok, I'm back from a pleasant day of sailing so what have I missed? Are the majority of architects still liberal? Has Paul Ron revealed his alien love affair? Or are the dumb bitches and retards still ruling this roost?
Yo?
You missed a lot of good stuffs. I was secretly hoping your drowning. I'm a little sad now. Ron Paul has been very busy with digging gold. So he could turn back to gold standard. hehehe. As far as I know Architects are liberal & hippy, bitches are sexy and blondes are dumb. Gotta love stereotypical assumptions.
I ask for a simple yes-or-no answer and get another wall of words. Nicely prevaricated, curtkram. You're for it except when you're against it, and against it except when you're for it. Your name isn't really John Kerrey or Mitt Romney, is it?
At any rate, you can dodge and dodge, but that doesn't get you out of it. I like simplicity, but I can write a bunch of words to show off my vocabulary and education and signal to everyone that I'm SMRT too. Since that seems to be how you like to communicate, let's try that, shall we? As it turns out, I happen to be rather erudite myself.
Prima facie, just so we're clear, means "on it's face," or in other words: plain and sufficient. Self-evident, like some of those other "truths" we so hold. The courts and the Justice Department have ruled and taken action on the doctrine that disparate impact evidenced by demographic statistical disproportion is all by itself evidence of discrimination. No mens rea or other evidence of discrimination is required, and the burden of proof is on the accused to refute the accusation. No doubt they are seeking to eliminate discrimination. They see that discrimination as plain at first sight when they run the numbers and see the percentages don't match up. And that, to their thinking, is sufficient in itself as proof that discrimination is taking place. Never mind that this is a complete perversion of statistics for the prosecution of what is essentially a conspiracy theory view of reality.
For those playing at home, that means that if the percentage of employees in your firm does not more or less match the demographic distribution of the general populace, then you are a heinous racist/sexist/etceteraist according our freedom-loving liberal leaders. Better start shopping around for a blind left-handed lesbian transgendered Parsi as a part-time CAD operator now, just to be safe.
You say you disagree with this, but it is the official policy and belief of your "team," curt. You know, those guys you want so much to win all the power in our political system? The same guys who seem to be completely ignorant of basic statistical reasoning and are using this belief to put people out of business and in jail. Those guys.
Now, you also say that in the case of Corpus Christi PD, DOJ is really just saying that it isn't the disparate impact that's at issue (even though they have said that it is), but rather that the test CC is using to vet prospective police officers is using criteria that discriminate against certain people and that's bad. The test is an "unnecessary barrier" to women.
Let's take a step back here. Tests are inherently discriminatory. That's why we use them, to discriminate among a pool of applicants who is best qualified and eliminate from consideration those who are not. Are we to say now that tests per se are bad because of this? Tests necessarily eliminate some people from consideration because they can't meet the threshold standard for what the test is testing. That's how they work.
Now, at this point, you're going to protest that what you really mean is that tests are okay as long as they are "fair." That's a tricky word, fair. It has all sorts of positive valences in modern universalist rhetoric, but what does it actually mean in this context? The dictionary says it means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." The testing at issue here was certainly honest, in that it clearly revealed the abilities (or lack thereof) of the participants. That's probably not the kind of honesty you're looking for, though. It's the kind of honesty that says, "there are substantive physical differences between men and women that differentially affect how they are able to perform, and those differences are inherently biological." Liberals don't like that kind of honesty one bit. They hate it with white-hot passion.
I will grant you that the tests were not "free from bias." No tests are. All tests are biased in favor of what they are testing for, and also biased against it. So the fact that there was a test at all means there was bias involved.
Or perhaps you mean that the test would be fair if everyone had an equal chance of passing or failing it? What kind of test is that? Might as well just flip a coin to see who gets in and who doesn't.
But I'm being obtuse. What you really are saying, in an attempt to rationalize the blatantly irrational behavior of people you ideologically support and want to win, even though you can't come right out and say it, is that you think the standards the test was testing for are irrelevant. Specifically, you think that gender is not ever a relevant basis for making hiring decisions. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. The government sure seems to believe it.
That's a fun little inversion that liberals are very fond of playing. Any hard truth or result which they don't like or which limits them in any way must be either evil or irrelevant or both. Women don't possess the upper body strength to pass a police academy test which requires push-ups? That would imply that gender is relevant. No! Clearly physical strength is irrelevant to police work and therefore the test itself must be sexist!
It is consistent with liberal philosophy, however, so we'll give you a star for not being a total hypocrite. How so? Liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of radical individual autonomy. Don't just take my word for that. As Professor John Kekes, prestigious theorist of liberal philosophy notes: "the true core of liberalism, the inner citadel for whose protection all the liberal battles are waged [is] autonomy … Autonomy is what the basic political principles of liberalism are intended to foster and protect."
(Note that this is why I say that there is no fundamental difference between Republicans, Democrats, of Libertarians. They're all just flavors of liberalism, in the philosophical sense. Your arguments over R vs. D are like declaring jihad over Rocky Road vs. Neapolitan ice cream, with the Libertardians chiming in occasionally to say that hand-crafted artisanal vanilla is the only true ice cream. I swear by my gelato and my love of it that I shall never churn ice cream for another man, nor ask another to churn mine.)
Under autonomy theory, the only things that can be considered legitimately of value (here I go with that v-word again) are those things that are individually chosen. For people ourselves, that means one thing in particular: self-authorship. In other words, the only attributes of your being and identity that could ever be of value are the things you have consciously chosen for yourself. All the givens, your biological nature, genetic makeup, family, or anything else you didn't get to choose, are value-less: completely irrelevant. By implication, anybody who asserts that these things might actually have some value or be legitimate components of human identity is immediately perceived as an enemy of your own personal autonomy. They're attacking you! Directly! Enslaving you! Hands off my uvula, you heinous bigot! We shall overcome!
The only thing that matters is the identity you have chosen for yourself. Not chosen == irrelevant. Paying attention to the unchosen == bad. That is liberal autonomy theory in a nutshell.
Notice that this doctrine is a complete rejection of the science of evolutionary biology. Biological evolution has driven sexual dimorphism among humans in ways that cause physical and behavioral differences? Sexism! Racism! Those differences are irrelevant! Anybody can chose to be whatever they want to be! We are all equal inside! Now, I may not be a specialist in evolutionary theory, but I do know with some certainty that one thing evolutionary processes are not is trivial or irrelevant to biomorphism or behavior. That's especially clear when looking at behavior related to reproduction, where evolutionary processes are most directly in play all the time, but it is just as true in all other dimensions of our behavior as well. We are physical products of eons-old evolutionary processes. Everything we are flows from that. And it's still going on right now.
Evolution has made us unequal. It has been a discriminatory force in human existence for as long as we've been human, setting bars by which winners and losers are determined. Some of us are smarter, better, faster, stronger than others. Liberal ideology is not comfortable with that. Rather than dealing with it and figuring out to accommodate it in a civilized way, rages at and rejects it in favor of the twin orthodoxies of equality and autonomy. Then we get odd things like the Federal Goverment suing a local police department for not hiring enough women as beat cops because they can't do push-ups. Or the comical notion that a pyramidal debt collapse can be remedied by printing money.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, though all philosophical rejections of reality are ultimately problematic. Reality will not be denied, after all. The Piper must be paid.
But it is exactly equivalent to the Biblical literalists you so dearly condescend to rejecting evolution because it conflicts with their faith. Your liberalism is just as much a religion as theirs is. You just use different words and rituals. You don't share their faith, and so you mock them for it. I don't don't share your faith either, so when you talk about liberalism hand-in-hand with favoring science and evolutionary theory, I'm going to mock you for that in equal measure.
Think of the length of that post as another sort of discriminatory test which is biased against the differently-literate, then you can rage at me for biblionormative bigotry and vocab privilege.
So the wall of text was just you being sarcastic since I typed so much earlier? I actually read your wall of text and much what you're attributing to my opinion, or the opinion of "liberals," is directly opposed to statements I've already made in this discussion. Did you just copy/paste from some right wing forum you're a member of?
I typed a lot so my opinion would be clear. I think I did make my opinion clear and I answered any question you asked. So is this your "Conservative" argument now? You don't really want to read what I typed, and don't really want to think through the problem you presented. Instead you're just going to make shit up, and pretend that I fall under whatever definition of "liberal" you were spoon fed by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or whoever your kind are listening to now?
What I mean, GW, is you must have thought, somewhere in constructing that mountain of bullshit, that maybe it was possible that being able to talk to people was a more important skill for police officers than doing pushups, right? It couldn't possibly have eluded you that things like our ability to cooperate and form complex social arrangements might actually be more important to modern human survival than muscle index.
I can't stand both Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman who worship Keynes. I despise Stiglitz for his ideology. I loathe Paul Krugman for his economic policy.
goshhh I don't know how did they become Noble Laureates.
Why are the vast majority of architects liberal?
@ since
saw this movie the other day.
private fed? really. I've never really delved further into this, at least after realizing Ron Paul was kind of looney.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
Really? I don't know what else to tell you. Just WOW! If you truly believe what you stated,all I can say is WOW! The guys from Wall St. love people like you. Do you want to know why? hehehehee
Well. I didn't really say the last paragraph, just copied it from the website.
If you want to elaborate, I'm all ears, but I think I get it. I just don't get the "topple the system" outlook that seems to be parading. And actually looking back on what gwharton says (conservatives and creatiionists are the same as progressives and evolution) he just sounds lost.
So, if you do not believe that disparate impact is prima facie evidence of discrimination, do you support affirmative action programs and Department of Justice lawsuits like this one? http://washingtonexaminer.com/doj-sues-corpus-christi-pd-for-sex-discrimination-over-physical-ability-test/article/2501267
I don't care about religious issues. I'm an atheist. I'm just trying to be nice with other people when it come to religious issues.
Why would you want to keep holding on the useless monetary system? The system is rigged for a group of people. And yet people are content with that, because they are afraid of uncertainty. Kicking the can down the road as long as you can has been the modus operandi for this country. People just want rewards not the risks.
If I could I would abolish not only Fed but also FDIC. So people will start to care about what these bank mobsters are doing with their money. I wouldn't not mind to see a few bank runs either. Let them compete on their own merits. Finally, All these too big to fail will realize that they are not that immune.
will mitt or barak end the fed or fdic? my guess is probably not, am i crazy for trusting the outcome? life is pretty good over here, come to think of it, we are supported by the universe.
oe, you ARE aware that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution owned by private parties and private banks, right? It's not a public agency or in any way part of the government or any political process.
The Chairman and the Board of Governors are picked by the president and confirmed by the senate. They are the ones who set monetary policy. But you knew that of course.
So, if you do not believe that disparate impact is prima facie evidence of discrimination, do you support affirmative action programs and Department of Justice lawsuits like this one?...
*Cringes as to where this is going*
@ oe
In Fed We Trust!
I didn't realized that brainwashing mechanism has been running at full throttle.
Don't stop believing....
Don't get me wrong, it's a screwy system. I just haven't heard of a better way yet. Conspiracy theories aside, Bernanke isn't some bond villain. He's a just a professor. Sometimes they fuck up, sometimes they don't, but it's a hell of a lot better than handing it over to hedge-funds, or worse perhaps, congress.
@oe
There is a better way called Deutsche Bundesbank.
What about it do you like better? I mean no snark, I'm genuinely interested.
do you support affirmative action programs and Department of Justice lawsuits
I think you would have more support for ending affirmative action when you end discrimination in the workplace. I don't know the details of that case aside from a one page article you linked, but personally when I want to see reasonable enforcement of legislation I would not go to Florida or Texas. I think there is a fair chance that Police Department in Chorus Christie Texas are a little bit misogynist, but I wasn't there when these complaints happened.
Yes, I will continue to support affirmative action programs until there is more clear evidence that women are treated equal in the workplace. I understand that many of these laws are not ideal. If you want to get rid of them and maintain support from the other side of the aisle, I would advise coming up with better legislation that protects both the employer and employee. Generally what I've seen from the republican party is just a bunch of bitching without any solutions.
The core of my position is that it is not acceptable to treat women or other minorities as inferior based soley on the fact that they are women or whatever minority. If you want to fix affirmative action, you have to address that part. You can't just say 'it's a free country and I will treat women as inferior because they are' because then you will not gain enough support to remove the existing legislation from the books.
So, Curtkram, you don't believe that evolutionary processes result in sexual dimorphism?
I'm going to add to my previous post because it isn't long enough. Here is the link to the Dept of Justice instead of some random newspaper columnist:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/July/12-crt-851.html
If it isn't obvious, this lawsuit was not filed because of "prima facie evidence" or whatever. The test under consideration in the lawsuit is not necessary for the job being filled and acts as a barrier for women being allowed into that position. The department of justice believes they have enough evidence to prove that. Just to clarify, running and sit-ups are not a qualification for the job they were applying for. If the Police Dept is able to prove that sit ups and running are required to perform the tasks they are hiring people for, this case will likely be dismissed. I'm not sure what you think cops actually do, but I've been pulled over many times and none of the police I've interacted with did any situps or any running. There are provisions in the law that allow the Police Department to use these test as a barrier to employment if the skills are required to perform the job.
I believe in this context sexual dimorphism is irrelevant. This case is not about men being stronger than women, it's about an unnecessary barrier to employment.
@oe
I want a central bank which is independent from central government, regional government and any private entities. Buba is one of the close ones. Both citizens and politicians will have to respect the mandate of central bank. The mandate for the central bank should focus in stabilizing currency, taming inflation, and formulating stable economic. Unless you cannot do these things, people won’t save money. People will make the same mistake like housing crisis. People bought houses in this country because purchasing power for dollar is shrinking faster than an old man balls. The rise of value in your house hugely influence by inflation and purchasing power of the currency. Here is one of the benefits
You’re going to pay 1000$ to rent a room in year 1 and you’ll be paying 1100$ in year 20. If you by a house in year 1, your monthly payment will be 1250$. It is a twenty years fixed mortgage. So at the end of your mortgage you will be paying 1250$. It doesn’t include cost to maintain the house and properties tax. Will you rent or will you buy a house? What is the benefit of buying a house when you can rent. People will think not twice but ten times before they buy a house. It won’t cause fucking mess we have here right now. To achieve that you need a central bank which can preserve the value of the currency. What Fed has been doing is polar-opposite of that. Fed will have to fulfill the every whim from private banks and the gov. It is not an independent organization. As far as I know Germany has been renter nation for long long time.
If you rent a house, you can move to different region to get a job. As we may all know that if you’re flexible you’re more likely to get a job in difficult times. But if you own a house, that option is off limit. Often times, people will commute as far as twenty miles a day just to get a job. You will end up paying huge transportation cost on the top of your monthly mortgage. People will borrow more and more. People end up digging bigger holes.
Well they are in a weird position now because they are part of the euro. I honestly get lost in understanding how the ECB makes decisions, maybe that's the problem. The Bundesbank's executive board is still chosen by the German government, so in that way it isn't much different from the Fed. What does make the Fed different is the way private banks are integrated at the lower level of individual reserve banks. I admit, I don't know exactly how the lower banks influence Bernanke and the Board of Governors' decision making, or if it's really that different from the influence bond holders have over Germany or France. The Fed has an enormously difficult job. The Euro is burning, China is fucking us with its undervalued currency. I know libertarians love to panic about the inflation rate, but there is nothing historically extraordinary about the inflation rate right now. Things were much worse in the early 80's. I know it's a concern for the future as the economy comes back, but even a few years ago deflation was the more immediate worry.
There were a huge number of things that caused the housing bubble, I couldn't pretend to understand them all, but my general understanding was that inflation was not the central cause. Banks went to congress and convinced them that there was a huge economic incentive for home ownership, that people who own homes take care of them better therefore their value increases. Congress on both sides thought that sounded great, (you may remember Republican's "ownership society" slogan back in the early 2000's). Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were more than happy to go along, thinking this was a great moment for bipartisanship, and then the banks basically fucked them and us by milking the resulting bubble into the stratosphere, using every dirty trick they could convince congress to deregulate for them, knowing full well that they'd just hold up the country at gunpoint when the whole thing came down. The real travesty was we couldn't even send them to jail, because under the worship of deregulation they had essentially legalized multi-trillion dollar theft.
I honestly don't know what you do about it. Since the 80's we've slowly given these guys everything and now they've got by the balls. We probably should have broken up the banks when we had the chance. Still, it's hard for me to understand how, if you feel this way, that you could be a libertarian. If anything more than ever we need more democratic, (ie, government) control more than ever. Just letting go and letting banks do whatever they want is the worst possible thing we could do.
I think the dot com bust was kind of tied into the housing bust in that money was too cheap. Greenspan wanted to flood the economy with money/investment and whatnot so he kept rates too low too long. He didn't want to regulate anything at all ever because he believed the free market would put itself wherever it wanted to be. Fractional reserve, which is how Bernanke gets to print money, got out of control. I suppose some older people might remember rates being too high under Carter and stagflation, so that gave him a lot of justification. This has been building up since right about 1982, but since money flowed as freely as it could there were times of great prosperity in there so we didn't want to slow that down. Now the unsustainable growth came back to bite us in the ass. I blame the baby boomers.
So, curtkram, in your mind, it is not relevant to the employment criteria for law enforcement that female police officers are slower and more easily overpowered by even small men because of physical differences inherent to human sexual dimorphism? We should just ignore those differences? Why?
gwh - I don't know what the criminals are like in your neck of the woods, but around here they're BIG, and FAST, and MEAN, and very WELL ARMED. I can't say that I've ever seen any of our police officers -- of either gender -- that match up well to the physical characteristics of our particular brand of bad guys.
I honestly get lost in understanding how the ECB makes decisions, maybe that's the problem.
Yup that is the exact reason of the bickering within ECB. When they created ECB , it was intended to be like Buba with clear mandate.
Before housing crisis, Fed has been flooding the finical system with dirt chip low interest rate loans. Part of the reason was to stall the consequences from dot com bubble. What would banks do with the excess? Try to find people who want to borrow. Fed’s loose cannon policy has been very damaging to U.S economy.
Libertarian, in general, does not love all these too big to fail. Libertarians are the ones who are telling the gov. to let them fail. It was liberal and conservative parties that can’t let them go. I’m ok with their existence, but don’t dip into tax payer pocket. Do your own thing. If you know how to make profit, know how to embrace downturn as well. In turn, I want gov do what it is supposed to do.
Otherwise, Turn Fed into organization like Hong Kong Monetary Authority which even delegates issuing bank notes to private banks. Call spade as spade. So, people won’t have any delusion about it.
i pretty much hate everyone here.
So, curtkram, in your mind, it is not relevant to the employment criteria for law enforcement that female police officers are slower and more easily overpowered by even small men because of physical differences inherent to human sexual dimorphism? We should just ignore those differences? Why?
It's not up to me to make the decision as to what the requirements are for law enforcement in Corpus Christie Texas. It's my opinion that the whole state can go back to Mexico. It is illegal for the Police Department in Corpus Christie Texas to create employment requirements that discriminate against women. The Department of Justice is saying that the Police Department in Corpus Christie Texas has created a barrier to employment that discriminates against women. It is very possible that there are things going on in the Corpus Christie Police Department that we are not at this time aware of. This action was taken 9 days ago, so it's still fairly recent and the Justice Department specified this case refers to actions spanning several years.
The Justice Department is suing the Police Department in Corpus Christie Texas because they believe they have evidence that they are operating outside the limits of the law. The Corpus Christie Police Department will have a chance to explain their reasoning behind requiring these tests, they will have a chance to present evidence that an entry level position as a police office in Corpus Christie requires that level of physical fitness, and the courts will decided if they are or are not breaking the law. I'm pretty sure this is all fairly common.
In my personal experience, when I've broken the law and been confronted by Police Officers, those officers did not have to be exceptionally fit. Nobody ever tried overpowering those officers. Not once. A lot of Police Officers have pretty boring assignments. I think the Clint Eastwood type you may be thinking of is really not that common in many areas. Being slower is not detrimental if there isn't anyone trying to overpower them, and depending on what position the officer is placed in it's likely access to a radio is the greatest weapon they have.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. The daily tasks of an employee of Corpus Christie Texas is still irrelevant to affirmative action laws in the United States. It is not outside the realm of possibility that our current affirmative action laws can be improved upon, but discrimination in the workplace still exists and getting rid of affirmative action laws altogether is not something I would support.
irgu - not to worry, we feel the same about you !
---
Come on. We can all be civil here.
Libertarian, in general, does not love all these too big to fail. Libertarians are the ones who are telling the gov. to let them fail. It was liberal and conservative parties that can’t let them go. I’m ok with their existence, but don’t dip into tax payer pocket. Do your own thing. If you know how to make profit, know how to embrace downturn as well. In turn, I want gov do what it is supposed to do.
I understand that position from a perspective of moral hazard, it's actually a very persuasive argument. The trouble with laissez faire economics has always been externalities. If we had let the entire banking sector fail we could have had 18% or 25% unemployment, a worldwide freeze in credit markets, and unbelievable suffering felt by people who were not in the slightest bit involved in the wrongdoing that caused the crisis. Is that just ok? Is that justified to teach a few bankers a lesson? My feeling is that when it's gotten to that point you've already fucked up. We never should have removed Glass Steagall. We never should have allowed for 40-1 leverage. We gave these guys every incentive to get themselves into trouble, and unsurprisingly, they did. Had we not done those things we could have let isolated banks fail, but because we allowed for the unregulated shuffling and concealment of risk containment became impossible.
And then there's the government spending question. The thing is I just cant take the idea that the market cures all ills and provides happily for all on faith. I just see no evidence whatsoever for that. Without public schools, without college grants, without free clinics and public fire departments and social security this would be a very brutal, miserable country. The natural state of american life is not a hard-working utopia, its a toxic, oligarchic wasteland. Older americans, unable to work, would starve in the streets. Children born to poor parents, unable to afford education, would live a life of hereditary poverty with no hope of escape. The American Dream is predicated not upon hands-off government, but upon equal opportunity, and if income disparity is rising, as it is currently, it is direct evidence that the government is not doing it's job of leveling the playing field.
I understand that the government does not do everything efficiently, but that is not an argument that it should do nothing, only that it must do what it must do better.
That's a cop-out, curtkram. The Justice Department has stated that its primary motivation for filing suit in cases like this is disparate impact. In other words, the simple fact that fewer women pass the same test than men do is prima facie evidence of actionable discrimination. The courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, have upheld disparate impact as prima facie evidence of discrimination in the past (in cases such as Lewis v. Chicago or Ricci v. DeStefano). This presumption, that statistical indications of disparate impact alone is prima facie evidence of discrimination (e.g. if women are 51% of the general population but only 10% of them are passing a test and being hired as police officer candidates it must be due to sexism and is therefore legally actionable), is strongly advocated by your "team," the ones you've said are big adherents of evolutionary science and opponents of faith-based politics.
So, I'm asking you directly, do you agree with and support that position or not? Don't give me a bunch of beating around the bush or wall-of-words prevarication. It's a simple yes-or-no question.
Dawkins welfare state regurgitation.
Biological determinism died with eugenics. get over it, gattaca ain't gonna happen bro,
No ones knows enough about epigenetic and genetic interactions to call those shots.
some people will look for any excuse to be assmunchers and that includes me.
Why dont you just cut the foreplay and tell us what's on your mind, gdubs. We know you're dying to.
So, I'm asking you directly, do you agree with and support that position or not?
I think this questions applies to 2 different scenarios. In the case of "prima facie evidence" your suggesting that a difference in results on a test is enough evidence to say it's discrimination. I've already answered that: "If a certain group is over- or under-represented, I do not believe that is, on it's own, evidence of discrimination (unfair or otherwise)." -- that's a quote from me
The second question would be whether that position applies to the case in Corpus Christie. I do not think that is "prima facie" evidence alone. The Justice Department is not suing the Police Department simply because the test results favor men, they are suing because the "disparate impact" is an unnecessary barrier to employment for women. So if by "that position" you mean the position of the Department of Justice in the Corpus Christie case, then yes I support their position.
The "disparate impact" in that case implies there is a test designed to prevent women from getting that job, which is discrimination. That's wrong. The Justice Department will discover whether the abilities being tested are required for the position being applied for. If there was a test to see if a candidate were able to lift a 40lb box for a job that required lifting 40lb boxes, that would not be discrimination. Male candidates may be overall more capable of lifting a 40lb box, but since it's a clear requirement for the job, the "prima facie disparate impact" would not be discrimination.
I may not know what "prima facie" means, so I apologize if that's what is confusing this. I think it's wrong to deny women jobs based on their gender and I think it's wrong for an employer to create a test that causes women to be denied employment because of their gender. I think that's a clear position. If you really want me to disagree with "my team" then try Title IX instead of a case that could quite possibly have merit.
I would like to know if you have a source for this:
The Justice Department has stated that its primary motivation for filing suit in cases like this is disparate impact
I would think the primary motivation is to reduce discrimination in the workplace.
I'm a hermaphrodite, so in a way I could be a pretty good detective. Who says being a cop is only about running ability?
Ok, I'm back from a pleasant day of sailing so what have I missed? Are the majority of architects still liberal? Has Paul Ron revealed his alien love affair? Or are the dumb bitches and retards still ruling this roost?
Yo?
since, your hermaphrodite comment made me LOL, seriously.
gwharton, were you formerly FreeRamosandCompean?
I'm enjoying this discussion, even with the occasional derogatory use of words like retard.
^haha no. That's Frac. (get it?) I actually love Frac.
everyone here is so dumb.
sooooo dumb. There, that's better.
Yoooooo!
Ok, I'm back from a pleasant day of sailing so what have I missed? Are the majority of architects still liberal? Has Paul Ron revealed his alien love affair? Or are the dumb bitches and retards still ruling this roost?
Yo?
You missed a lot of good stuffs. I was secretly hoping your drowning. I'm a little sad now. Ron Paul has been very busy with digging gold. So he could turn back to gold standard. hehehe. As far as I know Architects are liberal & hippy, bitches are sexy and blondes are dumb. Gotta love stereotypical assumptions.
Sailing? That is sooo republican.
Sailing? That is sooo republican.
Com' on Mitt love to ride watercraft. He is not a a big fan of sailing.
I ask for a simple yes-or-no answer and get another wall of words. Nicely prevaricated, curtkram. You're for it except when you're against it, and against it except when you're for it. Your name isn't really John Kerrey or Mitt Romney, is it?
At any rate, you can dodge and dodge, but that doesn't get you out of it. I like simplicity, but I can write a bunch of words to show off my vocabulary and education and signal to everyone that I'm SMRT too. Since that seems to be how you like to communicate, let's try that, shall we? As it turns out, I happen to be rather erudite myself.
Prima facie, just so we're clear, means "on it's face," or in other words: plain and sufficient. Self-evident, like some of those other "truths" we so hold. The courts and the Justice Department have ruled and taken action on the doctrine that disparate impact evidenced by demographic statistical disproportion is all by itself evidence of discrimination. No mens rea or other evidence of discrimination is required, and the burden of proof is on the accused to refute the accusation. No doubt they are seeking to eliminate discrimination. They see that discrimination as plain at first sight when they run the numbers and see the percentages don't match up. And that, to their thinking, is sufficient in itself as proof that discrimination is taking place. Never mind that this is a complete perversion of statistics for the prosecution of what is essentially a conspiracy theory view of reality.
For those playing at home, that means that if the percentage of employees in your firm does not more or less match the demographic distribution of the general populace, then you are a heinous racist/sexist/etceteraist according our freedom-loving liberal leaders. Better start shopping around for a blind left-handed lesbian transgendered Parsi as a part-time CAD operator now, just to be safe.
You say you disagree with this, but it is the official policy and belief of your "team," curt. You know, those guys you want so much to win all the power in our political system? The same guys who seem to be completely ignorant of basic statistical reasoning and are using this belief to put people out of business and in jail. Those guys.
Now, you also say that in the case of Corpus Christi PD, DOJ is really just saying that it isn't the disparate impact that's at issue (even though they have said that it is), but rather that the test CC is using to vet prospective police officers is using criteria that discriminate against certain people and that's bad. The test is an "unnecessary barrier" to women.
Let's take a step back here. Tests are inherently discriminatory. That's why we use them, to discriminate among a pool of applicants who is best qualified and eliminate from consideration those who are not. Are we to say now that tests per se are bad because of this? Tests necessarily eliminate some people from consideration because they can't meet the threshold standard for what the test is testing. That's how they work.
Now, at this point, you're going to protest that what you really mean is that tests are okay as long as they are "fair." That's a tricky word, fair. It has all sorts of positive valences in modern universalist rhetoric, but what does it actually mean in this context? The dictionary says it means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." The testing at issue here was certainly honest, in that it clearly revealed the abilities (or lack thereof) of the participants. That's probably not the kind of honesty you're looking for, though. It's the kind of honesty that says, "there are substantive physical differences between men and women that differentially affect how they are able to perform, and those differences are inherently biological." Liberals don't like that kind of honesty one bit. They hate it with white-hot passion.
I will grant you that the tests were not "free from bias." No tests are. All tests are biased in favor of what they are testing for, and also biased against it. So the fact that there was a test at all means there was bias involved.
Or perhaps you mean that the test would be fair if everyone had an equal chance of passing or failing it? What kind of test is that? Might as well just flip a coin to see who gets in and who doesn't.
But I'm being obtuse. What you really are saying, in an attempt to rationalize the blatantly irrational behavior of people you ideologically support and want to win, even though you can't come right out and say it, is that you think the standards the test was testing for are irrelevant. Specifically, you think that gender is not ever a relevant basis for making hiring decisions. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. The government sure seems to believe it.
That's a fun little inversion that liberals are very fond of playing. Any hard truth or result which they don't like or which limits them in any way must be either evil or irrelevant or both. Women don't possess the upper body strength to pass a police academy test which requires push-ups? That would imply that gender is relevant. No! Clearly physical strength is irrelevant to police work and therefore the test itself must be sexist!
It is consistent with liberal philosophy, however, so we'll give you a star for not being a total hypocrite. How so? Liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of radical individual autonomy. Don't just take my word for that. As Professor John Kekes, prestigious theorist of liberal philosophy notes: "the true core of liberalism, the inner citadel for whose protection all the liberal battles are waged [is] autonomy … Autonomy is what the basic political principles of liberalism are intended to foster and protect."
(Note that this is why I say that there is no fundamental difference between Republicans, Democrats, of Libertarians. They're all just flavors of liberalism, in the philosophical sense. Your arguments over R vs. D are like declaring jihad over Rocky Road vs. Neapolitan ice cream, with the Libertardians chiming in occasionally to say that hand-crafted artisanal vanilla is the only true ice cream. I swear by my gelato and my love of it that I shall never churn ice cream for another man, nor ask another to churn mine.)
Under autonomy theory, the only things that can be considered legitimately of value (here I go with that v-word again) are those things that are individually chosen. For people ourselves, that means one thing in particular: self-authorship. In other words, the only attributes of your being and identity that could ever be of value are the things you have consciously chosen for yourself. All the givens, your biological nature, genetic makeup, family, or anything else you didn't get to choose, are value-less: completely irrelevant. By implication, anybody who asserts that these things might actually have some value or be legitimate components of human identity is immediately perceived as an enemy of your own personal autonomy. They're attacking you! Directly! Enslaving you! Hands off my uvula, you heinous bigot! We shall overcome!
The only thing that matters is the identity you have chosen for yourself. Not chosen == irrelevant. Paying attention to the unchosen == bad. That is liberal autonomy theory in a nutshell.
Notice that this doctrine is a complete rejection of the science of evolutionary biology. Biological evolution has driven sexual dimorphism among humans in ways that cause physical and behavioral differences? Sexism! Racism! Those differences are irrelevant! Anybody can chose to be whatever they want to be! We are all equal inside! Now, I may not be a specialist in evolutionary theory, but I do know with some certainty that one thing evolutionary processes are not is trivial or irrelevant to biomorphism or behavior. That's especially clear when looking at behavior related to reproduction, where evolutionary processes are most directly in play all the time, but it is just as true in all other dimensions of our behavior as well. We are physical products of eons-old evolutionary processes. Everything we are flows from that. And it's still going on right now.
Evolution has made us unequal. It has been a discriminatory force in human existence for as long as we've been human, setting bars by which winners and losers are determined. Some of us are smarter, better, faster, stronger than others. Liberal ideology is not comfortable with that. Rather than dealing with it and figuring out to accommodate it in a civilized way, rages at and rejects it in favor of the twin orthodoxies of equality and autonomy. Then we get odd things like the Federal Goverment suing a local police department for not hiring enough women as beat cops because they can't do push-ups. Or the comical notion that a pyramidal debt collapse can be remedied by printing money.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, though all philosophical rejections of reality are ultimately problematic. Reality will not be denied, after all. The Piper must be paid.
But it is exactly equivalent to the Biblical literalists you so dearly condescend to rejecting evolution because it conflicts with their faith. Your liberalism is just as much a religion as theirs is. You just use different words and rituals. You don't share their faith, and so you mock them for it. I don't don't share your faith either, so when you talk about liberalism hand-in-hand with favoring science and evolutionary theory, I'm going to mock you for that in equal measure.
'Cause it just ain't so.
"I ask for a simple yes-or-no answer and get another wall of words. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"
It's ironic Friday everyone!
You really just wrote an essay on a forum in a debate about nothing...
LIke Rusty said, it was ironic. Nothing to see here. These are not the droids you're looking for.
Im curious, at which point do you stop being obtuse?
Think of the length of that post as another sort of discriminatory test which is biased against the differently-literate, then you can rage at me for biblionormative bigotry and vocab privilege.
Yawn ! This thread stopped being interesting miles back.
So the wall of text was just you being sarcastic since I typed so much earlier? I actually read your wall of text and much what you're attributing to my opinion, or the opinion of "liberals," is directly opposed to statements I've already made in this discussion. Did you just copy/paste from some right wing forum you're a member of?
I typed a lot so my opinion would be clear. I think I did make my opinion clear and I answered any question you asked. So is this your "Conservative" argument now? You don't really want to read what I typed, and don't really want to think through the problem you presented. Instead you're just going to make shit up, and pretend that I fall under whatever definition of "liberal" you were spoon fed by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or whoever your kind are listening to now?
What I mean, GW, is you must have thought, somewhere in constructing that mountain of bullshit, that maybe it was possible that being able to talk to people was a more important skill for police officers than doing pushups, right? It couldn't possibly have eluded you that things like our ability to cooperate and form complex social arrangements might actually be more important to modern human survival than muscle index.
Another pretty nice discussion..
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/stiglitz_on_ine.html
I can't stand both Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman who worship Keynes. I despise Stiglitz for his ideology. I loathe Paul Krugman for his economic policy.
goshhh I don't know how did they become Noble Laureates.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.