• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think people over estimate how much fox really is, on a corporate level part of the conservative movement. I don't think they really care who is president. They just want republicans watching. I don't see them going easy on the Candidates.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think people over estimate how much fox really is, on a corporate level part of the conservative movement. I don't think they really care who is president. They just want republicans watching. I don't see them going easy on the Candidates.

They'll go easy on the establishment pick, everyone else is fair game.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
One important thing that becomes really apparent by studying its history is how the government's spending money is the precursor to its collecting money rather than vice versa.

Spot on. Although to me, 'government' implies a certain sense of modernity; this occurred with kings and warlords.

That said, it is important to consider that developments in the practice of money - promissory notes, bills of exchange etc. were partially due to the practice of private merchants engaged in overseas trade circa 16-18th c.
 
1186134_627184070648170_2108895505_n.jpg


Greatest pic, ever? Greatest pic ever.

Each time I look at it I discover something I hadn't notice before.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I am definitely liberal, but looking at that picture, I am not sure how the liberal town lives without ore mining and chemicals.

I don't think it's really meant to be comprehensive. Just offer up a lot of contrasts, as the buildings correspond on each side. My favorite touch are the library hours.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I am definitely liberal, but looking at that picture, I am not sure how the liberal town lives without ore mining and chemicals.

I think the point is that the liberal town would try and keep chemicals and mining and industry further away from residential and urban centers.

See: the Texas fertilizer fiasco
 
That's the entire point.

You said the soda machine exists because of money. I don't accept that. Money is the inevitability of modern society due to technological advancements.

I'm not arguing money didn't come first, only that it would have come no matter what. That's why the history of money is irrelevant in this context (and really, it was a non-sequitor to the discussion anyway).
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
As funny as the image is though, its also pretty unfair. I mean, its not like conservative voters actually believe in the creation of crime-riddled, poverty-stricken run down communities.

Well....okay, I'd like to think that most of them don't
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I should say compare to other big cities. Bloomberg and friends are much more to the right as compared to Boston and Chicago officials.

Well to be fair when it comes to Bloomberg we did try and vote him out. It would have worked too if the Dems hadn't nominated who they did. If they had put up anyone with a pulse Bloomberg would have been done. He basically drowned every election he ran in a sea of money, when you want an example of why money in politics is bad and why we need campaign finance reform I point you to Bloomberg.

Also keep in mind we have a lot of big businesses here, we've got Wall Street and tons of wealthy people. So we're torn between business interests and the average guy.

Other than that we had a really bad time in this city back in the 70's, drugs, crime, prostitution, all of it was pretty rampant. Times Square was all sex shops, prostitutes and drug dealers. If you've ever read Batman: Year One, the Gotham City in that book is based off of the NYC of the 70's. That should give you a pretty good idea of what it was like. Because of that you could say the city generally puts pragmatism and getting shit done above all else.
 
I should say compare to other big cities. Bloomberg and friends are much more to the right as compared to Boston and Chicago officials.

It's largely an accident of history. Rudy largely won the first time because the crime rate didn't start falling, thanks to the methods Dinkins and the Police Commissioner implemented, until after he took office and Guliani ran as pro-choice pro-gay rights tough on crime guy. Obviously, with the crime rate turnaround and gentrification of NYC, Rudy easily won reelection.

Then, in '01, Primary Day was on 9/11, so it was delayed two weeks, there was a bitter primary on the Democratic side, and Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat, so most people felt they weren't really voting for a Republican. Even then, Bloomberg only won by three points despite spending insane amounts of money.

Again, in '05, same thing happened - things were OK, Bloomberg hasn't done anything too wacky, so he easily got reelected. In '09, Bloomberg won again, but far narrower than you'd think over BIll Thompson. I would make the argument that Bloomberg likely would've lost in '01 if not for 9/11 and would've lost in '09 if he hadn't had tens of millions of dollars to spend.
 

delirium

Member
I think the point is that the liberal town would try and keep chemicals and mining and industry further away from residential and urban centers.

See: the Texas fertilizer fiasco

To be fair, even if you build a chemical factory away from as many people as possible, laziness would eventually happen and the employees would build houses and homes next to it.
 
Other than that we had a really bad time in this city back in the 70's, drugs, crime, prostitution, all of it was pretty rampant. Times Square was all sex shops, prostitutes and drug dealers. If you've ever read Batman: Year One, the Gotham City in that book is based off of the NYC of the 70's. That should give you a pretty good idea of what it was like. Because of that you could say the city generally puts pragmatism and getting shit done above all else.

What stopped this? Any real plan or just luck?
 
What stopped this? Any real plan or just luck?

Crime was stopped by a variety of factors. Lower birth rates, advances in policing, drop in lead among apartments/homes, 'broken windows' laws, and the realization that hey, there's lots of cheap real estate in the most famous city in the world.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
^^^With the exception of broken windows and real estate that could apply to almost any city in America.

The economy also got better. There was a time the city was considering asking for a bailout. The Daily News had a famous cover about Ford's reaction to said consideration.

5V6u8aZ.png


Another part of the problem was racial tension, which eased as time passed.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
You said the soda machine exists because of money. I don't accept that. Money is the inevitability of modern society due to technological advancements.

I'm not arguing money didn't come first, only that it would have come no matter what. That's why the history of money is irrelevant in this context (and really, it was a non-sequitor to the discussion anyway).

We're not really talking about the same thing, and you have not understood the point I've been making, but I don't know how to articulate it any better, so I'll just let it go at this point. :lol
 

Tamanon

Banned
I was a little suspicious of the clearly anti-government influence in my economics book for my class this semester. It went out of its way several times to point out the perils of any government intervention, even referencing the horrible inflation that is likely to occur(any day now!) from the Stimulus program in 2008.

Turns out, I've got a Mankiw textbook. That explains it.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I was a little suspicious of the clearly anti-government influence in my economics book for my class this semester. It went out of its way several times to point out the perils of any government intervention, even referencing the horrible inflation that is likely to occur(any day now!) from the Stimulus program in 2008.

Turns out, I've got a Mankiw textbook. That explains it.

One of my textbooks was written by that dipshit Glenn Hubbard.
 
I was a little suspicious of the clearly anti-government influence in my economics book for my class this semester. It went out of its way several times to point out the perils of any government intervention, even referencing the horrible inflation that is likely to occur(any day now!) from the Stimulus program in 2008.

Turns out, I've got a Mankiw textbook. That explains it.

Yeah, that's a shame. You'll be taught many myths in that class, like the money multiplier. Bill Mitchell is a huge critic of Mankiw and his text books. Check out his blog if you want some balance.

One of my textbooks was written by that dipshit Glenn Hubbard.

Ha. Mitchell just posted about him. Hubbard published a ridiculous opinion piece in the Times recently. I don't know why the Times publishes shit like that; there should be minimum standards even for opinions.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Dylan Matthews over a Wonkblog has an advice column. It's one of the best things ever.


Question: I have been dating a wonderful, handsome, caring man for almost three years. The first two years we enjoyed a wonderful life, but lived separately. About three months ago we decided to move in with each other, and two weeks after we moved in together, his son’s mother fell into a near coma due to drinking. My boyfriend’s son (who is 8) is now with us permanently and will probably be for a long time. My issue here is that I am now a mom and wife without the badge. My boyfriend has said he’s “just not there yet” when it comes to marriage and that he would only marry me at this point to make me happy. I feel kinda duped and stuck now that I am living with him and his child and he doesn’t see us getting married. Meanwhile, I am very successful professionally, still quite young (30), and a complete catch! How can he not want to marry me!? What should I do?

Answer: Emotions and crap aside, you should only get married if there are tax benefits from doing so, and, given that it sounds like you’re both working professionals, there probably aren’t. Check it:

*graphs*
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dylan Matthews over a Wonkblog has an advice column. It's one of the best things ever.

These are hilarious. I love it, especially the final advice to the question you posted.

Also, the mother of your boyfriend’s child, like, just went into a coma, and due to alcoholism, which I assume was not unrelated to why he left her. Maybe give the dude a break.

He goes through all the math stuff and then finally gives the person the advice she wanted to hear.

This is the greatest advice column ever.

Then there's this one:

Question: My 20-year-old son “Ted” has a 19-year-old girlfriend named “Dahlia.” Dahlia is very well-endowed and rarely wears a bra. However, she does wear low-cut clothing and often looks like she’s about to fall out. The dress she was wearing last night was so small on her that it she couldn’t zip it up all the way and she was very close to a nip slip. When she walked in the door she looked at me, shrugged her shoulders and said, “I know this is a low-cut dress,” as if she knew she was coming to my house, knew what my expectations are, but came looking like that anyway. Here’s my problem: She’s going on vacation with us in a week. I don’t want to seem prudish, but I do want to get through to her that this type of dress isn’t appropriate for the places we’ll be going and the people we’ll be seeing. I’ll be asking her before we leave if she’s got bras in her suitcase, and I am ready to leave her behind if she doesn’t or make her go out and buy a few or buy them for her. What do I do? How do I handle this without alienating her but helping her to understand that something that is fine when you’re out clubbing is not fine when you’re trying to make a good impression with your boyfriend’s family?

Answer: Literally everything about this situation is your fault. Allow me to demonstrate with a decision matrix. I assume that Dahlia, ceteris paribus, prefers both to be in your good graces / not be judged by you and to not wear a bra, and that the latter preference is lexically prior to the former, so any situation in which she wears a bra is worse than any situation where she doesn’t, regardless of what it means for her relationship with you. That seems to be born out by her willingness to not wear bras when she knows it makes you uncomfortable.

That first line of the answer murdered me, holy shit.

He then mathematically proves the whole thing is the mom's fault.

Greatest advice column ever. EVER.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom