@tomsdesk said:

Started to post this in the "election laughs" thread...but seems, according to my sensibilites anyway, to really belong here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27488353/

One way to kick this thing off would be to get Google to use their considerable marketing efforts to announce our willingness to help deserving causes.

This fits right into Google's world view and would be wonderful advertising for them. Using their SketchUp product to better the world. How perfect!

The problem would be to sift through what would be thousands of requests. This would be daunting task and I haven't thought through that process yet. As mentioned earlier, I think, we could have a few forums established for this process. It just occurred to me that this could significantly burden Coen's life. Maybe this special requester forum would be on Google Groups....I never visit there though.

Sometimes the best way to tackle a new problem is to dive right in.

@rickw said:

A new study from UCLA shows that FDR's policies, rather than ending the Great Depression, actually prolonged it by 7 years.

As the US slides towards a depression that ultimately has some of its roots in Dem social policies, do we really want the House, Senate, and White House going to Dems who intend to implement FDR-type government programs?

Tighten your belts, everyone.

And related to the CRA, I laughed through the tears to hear Barney Frank spew about "reform" and more regulation - this coming from the idiot who for the last 5 years blocked reform of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, while claiming there were no problems with them. The only thing he could do to help the situation is resign.

Even Bill Clinton blamed Frank and other Congressional Dems for the problem. The Democratic Congress has an approval rating half that of President Bush, and we want to elect more Dems? Insanity.

I actually heard this yesterday from my client; a reasoned and intelligent CEO. This is not unlike my "Bar Stool Economics" thread which shows the dangers of governmental interference into basic free market forces. I swear, some left wingnuts actually think they can alter the supply-demand axiom. This is sheer lunacy. Apparently, it's Rooseveltian.

I worry about the current liberal Congress being caressed by what would be the most liberal president we will have ever had. The financial markets will not like this and the worsened economic malaise will trickle down to those 95% getting the big give away. And when that happens, the shit will hit the fan. You think things are bad now? Who the hell would they blame then? Surely not themselves...
EDIT: I did a little rewording of the second paragraph for clarity.

"For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

EDIT: You did understand this was an allegory about paying taxes, didn't you? From your response, I wonder.

@solo said:

When I first posted it I never realised it was a fake, and when you directed me to a site that showed it to be a fake I decided to leave it up as removing it would have left a void in the discussion. I know you removed your racist image, but not by choice, I left mine by choice.

OK, understood.

@solo said:

Bellwells wrote:

@unknownuser said:

Or Pete's lie about Palin's report card?

Stop being such a righteous F*@K, it does not become you ... see your very partisan postings (while denying being partisan) you come off as a poster-boy for the extreme right republicans, at least I admit my bias.

Now on to you. I have NEVER posted a lie like your report card, nor have I ever hidden my conservative bent. You two are starting to come off as arrogant liberals. Tom more so.

@tomsdesk said:

@bellwells said:

...I, got pissed at Tom for posting the video which flat out lied about McCain at the Senate hearing?...

Ron, I apologized for making that post once I realized it was a fake (though you never apologized for calling me a liar...among so many other inaccurate/insulting characterizations). Continuing to bring it up says volumes about the kind of person you are and about your real intentions in these discussions. I am quite disappointed I ever gave your comments the credence worthy my replies.

EDIT: (Maybe you could post a new pic of yourself to stave off future confusion...you know, one taken after you shaved your head :`)

Why the hell would I apologize to you for being a liar? I gave you credit for apologizing about that post. The fact remains you were eager to post that crap and if I hadn't pointed the lie out, you would not have apologized. Now THAT speaks volumes. I could care less about receiving any credence from you. In fact, I specifically don't want it.

@unknownuser said:

Touchy? No, Ron. I merely consider it a moral duty to tell anyone who spreads crypto fascist propaganda to go "bleep" themselves. Without asterisks, too.

Got that?

Like when I, and ONLY I, got pissed at Tom for posting the video which flat out lied about McCain at the Senate hearing? Or Pete's lie about Palin's report card?

EDIT: If we're both on course for seeking truth, that's fine.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, good design is like pornography, I know it when I see it.

Pretty simple explanation of our tax system and what happens when one tinkers with it:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest)
would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all
such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer
by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about
the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20
divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his
beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the
tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got
only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at
all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, no explanation is possible.

@unknownuser said:

Could you possibly fuck off regardless?

Ouch. Aren't we a little touchy? Don't like what you read and you go off the deep end, huh? Now that's not cricket.

I always wondered what these vehicles looked like.

@linea said:

Pbacot everybody will have to put their ego aside (nobody in this community is egotistical or arrogant anyway). I think the idea of one designer is a pretty outdated idea these days. Are we striving for iconic architectural masterpieces? Function and budget will be more important.

I agree. I'm confident we can all cooperate on this.

LOL..."I'm worried John McCain will bomb my goats" This IS a hoot.

Gotcha. I agree completely.

@alan fraser said:

@unknownuser said:

Did you came to the defense of Christians on the other threads which denigrated Christianity?

No, because no one was suggesting that Christianity was tantamount to being a terrorist.....and before you start making out that I'm some kind of atheistic pinko, Ron, I might add that I was in Church last Sunday morning, as usual. Which is more than can be said for most ignorant right wingers that spread that kind of racist crap. Just get off your high horse and stop being so bloody confrontational.

I will be as confrontational as I see fit and necessary. EDIT: How, on earth, you came to the conclusion I was making you out to be some kind of atheistic pinko is beyond me. Am I to assume you think I'm an ignorant racist right winger? EDIT AGAIN: To clarify, my initial post was not meant to be confrontational, just inquisitive.

Ergo, Obama sides with terrorists? Is this what upset you so?

@unknownuser said:

@bellwells said:

@unknownuser said:

EDIT: Barack Hussein Obama does in fact support giving drivers licenses to illegals: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/28/MNH1UL57Q.DTL

Ron, for crying out loud! A child could see that wasn't my point. Why don't you interrupt your one-man rhetorical circle jerk for a bit and read the f*cking quote again, eh?

Touched a nerve, huh? Well why don't you tell me WTF your point was, because it's not obvious.

@unknownuser said:

Very nice link, Baker. If it were up to me, your *ass would be banned this instant.

Why, because you don't agree with him? Free speech is all find a dandy as long you're hearing what you agree with, but as soon as someone disagrees or puts forth a controversial statement......

Why didn't you chastise Tom when he posted that lie of a video showing McCain at a Senate hearing? Or Pete (solo), when he posted that lie of Palin's report card?

EDIT: Barack Hussein Obama does in fact support giving drivers licenses to illegals: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/28/MNH1UL57Q.DTL