T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '40,000 new laws to take effect in 2014, only 60 from house and senate'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Paul Krugmann is on record saying he doesn't like BitCoin because it threatens the domination of the free markets by central banks'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the same debate it was also pointed out that fiat currencies such as the dollar are only backed up by men with guns'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'How many tv channels did you have as a child?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: '5'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'me too, and my niece said 5 channels... that's lame.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we had 6, but 2 were local religious stations'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '3 here til i was 5 yrs old, then 4'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'meanwhile, plumes of radioactive steam are pouring out of fukishima'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'guns used in a mexican tourist resort shootout came from the "Fast and Furious" scheme ok'd by the Eric Holder'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so the Obama regime is directly responsible for increased gun deaths in Mexico. '
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Thanks, Obama'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'well color me shocked!'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'they probably could have gotten the guns somewhere else anyway.  there isn't exactly a shortage of guns in Mexico'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no, the serial numbers were recorded'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they were from batches deliberately let across the border by the ATF'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'i don't think anyone was debating that factoid'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so it's ok for the government to give weapons to criminals in other countries, but it's not ok for law abiding people who have a consitutional right to own guns in america to have them. I see'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'just needed to make sure i got that right :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'sounds about right. not like it's seriously impacting gun ownership stateside, anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'other than criminalising people against the constitution, such as in california and connecticut and new york'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'such as deliberately sabotaging the ammo industry by banning lead bullets'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'criminalising people?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'aren't you a brit? why does this bother you?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yes, loony, they're passing gun legislation across the states'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and scars, because if you go down, we all go down'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'you already went down as far as this argument goes.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so the question is what can be done to stop more illegal gun laws, and what can be done to turn back the ones you already have?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'restricting ownership of weaponry goes against the constitutions literal definition of "right to bear arms"'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i was assuming that was a given and obvious, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'a tank is a weapon - should those be available for private sale?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'they aren't actually criminalising people though, just restricting their rights.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a tank is not an arm'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'a warhead is weaponry... should that?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it certainly is'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'actually, loony, yes, they are - in new york they already had gun registration, they're now sending letters to registered people saying "hand them in or face criminal action"'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: '"small" arms are things like guns'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's the bearing arms part, scars, bearing arms means carrying them, carrying them means they must be man portable'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i disagree, but regardless... should we allow machine guns? like the SAW?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i agree that there is wiggle room there, you could consider tanks, but the tightest interpretation would limit it to man portable'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm not a weaponary expert, i don't know what the SAW is'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'like rpg's?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'a SAW is a squad automatic weapon, a type of machine gun carried by marine corps fireteams (4 man units)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'technically, you have a right to own one'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i bring this up not as a "gotcha" excersize but as a litmus test as to how far is acceptable to you'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you truly didn't want people having it, restrict it's sale'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'restricting it's sale is already against the constitution, its preventing ownership'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'what i'm getting at is that nearly everyone is okay with having some level of restriction on firearms (guns), but where that line is drawn varies'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there are like more guns than people in the US already don't think stopping new sales would actually reduce gun ownership for sometime'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's not actually true at all'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'restricting sale is within the scope of the constitution under the guise of regulating trade'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'preventing ownership is not'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'interstate commerce, not all trade'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yup, interstate commerce'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if the gun is manufactured in state A, sold in state A... thats intrastate commerce'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'feds can't directly step in on that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and the constitution clearly allows some restrictions since it limits it to "arms" which does not include things like cannons and artillary.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'states can regulate that though'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i don't know why that's the prevailing thought right now'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but we're not really talking about artillary, we're talking about basic rifles'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: '"arms" unqualified includes heavy arms and small arms... heavy arms, at the time, was cannon... small arms was muskets'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but whatever, it's not the point, lets just talk about small arms or firearms since that's the current topic'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'actually according to some really idiotic scotus cases even intrastate sales can affect interstate commerce and be regulated by the fed'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'fantastic :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'my issue is that they're not regulating the sale, they're infringing the right to own/bear'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and that isn't allowed'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the federal government tried to institude background checks during private sales and people lost their minds'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'one case even held that growing wheat on your own farm and using it for your own purposes affects interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'basically it all depends on what you can convince 9 people appointed for life.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'what type of firearm is acceptable.. pistol? rifle? shotguns? should they be single shot? semi-autoamtic? fully automatic?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'are scopes okay?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so we have an oligarchy'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't have an answer for you other than checks being done locally by local sheriffs'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'all of the above, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'arms is actually a pretty well defined term'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'what about high explosive rounds?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yup'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'munitions are not protected by the second tecnically'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'weapon = arm'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sorry emm, but that's absurd'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'unless the sale of ammo is so restricted as to impact the right to keep and bear the arms'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no it isn't tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you ban ammo then you're doing just that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the amendment was designed to prevent the government from requiring the civilians be disarmed while the government remain armed...'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'banning lead bullets is doing just that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if you ban all ammo of course you are'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if you ban depleted uranium ammo, or lead ammo for that matter you are not'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think there's a significant difference between depleted uranium and lead'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as long as there is a reasonable ammo stil available'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'who defiens reasonable?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'one that can be found in the second amendment?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'judges do all the time'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'is there a quota on allowable usage?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it is actually one of their primary functions in common law'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'is it about developing a floor or a ceiling of available munition?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there are actually some fairly early cases that concluded that cannons were not protected by the second'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well cannons are not being threatened, ordinary rifles and ordinary bullets are'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'cases <> constitution, agreed?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'although this was still back when we thought that the federal government needed a specific authorization in the constitution to do something so the laws were struck down on other grounds'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sadly not really scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'those were better days'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the constitution means what 5 justices say it does.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so what you're saying is that the US system of government has been corrupted because the justices are political appointees'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'semantics... the point is that rulings can, and have been, overturned and precedence can, and has been, changed'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'appointees whose pledges to uphold the constitution are a farce'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if the goal is to "properly" legislate small arms, then "gaming" the system and developing laws that simply get around the intent of the amendment should be disallowed'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they should, but they're being allowed all over the place, especially in blue states'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so developing restrictive laws about munitions for small arms is simply gaming the system'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes so restricting ammo to the point that it impacts the ability to keep and bear arms should be disallowed, but that doesn't mean that there can't be legitimate state interest in banning some types of ammo'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'as i see it, the only things they could be doing is regulating the person, not the guns/ammo. Thus some sort of unified gun training/licensing would seem appropriate'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'banning some types of ammo is the same slippery slope as banning some types of small arms'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if fully automatic is unacceptable, why is semi-automatic magazine fed weapons?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i never said fully automatic was unacceptable'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i didn't either'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'was just an example'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I wouldn't have a problem with a mandatory gun safety class for public (and publically accredited) schools'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'honestly I think the children of non gun owners need gun safety as much or more than children of gun owners'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you used my plan, you would have a gun license much like you have a car license, where there are different categories (handguns/shotguns/ss-rifles), s-automatic rifles, heavy weapons, concealed carry'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you could require training for each, license should be required to purchase, but not tracked'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'one might argue that that sort of liscensing would itself infringe the right to keep and bare'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'liscensing a protected right feels strange'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '"well-regulated militia"'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and how likely is anything not to be tracked these days TN?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'ensuring that they are sufficiently trained is well-regulated militia'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'although, you could argue that since men could be drafted (and women, too?) they should be trained in basic firearms and it's in the best interest of shortening training time by doing it.. dunno'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that doesn't track with either the history of the amendment or the precidents since tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'militay has training, states have national guard...'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but that's just it, if there is no compulsion to have a database then they needn't be tracked. Have a open system whereby a shops' look up consists of scanning a barcode on the license, gives them a photo and allowed catggories'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they really are essentially two seperate clauses'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the well regulated militia clause does not modify the keep and bare arms clause'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't need to, Emm, it's my idea of what would be a more appropriate way to go about gun control without fucking up the ammendment which i what they are doing right now'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a linked statement, Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'read the history of how the amendment came to be tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it doesn't mean what you think it means'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and noone ever thought it did until very recently'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i've read the text, i'm not interested in what other people think'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'personally I don't have a strong opinion on the existence of the second, but I know what it means'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and you think that your interpretation of the text is all that matters?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not what it meant at the time it was adopted?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'is the original meaning somehow different to how it's being interpreted by me?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so if we redifine the word arms to only include steak-knives you would be okay with that?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'YES'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that is what I have been saying'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'source'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'hence reading the legislative history surrounding its proposal, the langage changes that were made to it during the ratification processes'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and the writings of the people who voted to adopt it'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not to mention (if you somehow don't like them) the early court interpretations of it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as I said, the idea that the well regulated milita part had any effect at all on the "shall not be infringed" part is a very recent idea'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'of course again when it was adopted noone thought it applied to states at all'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'unchanged since 1791'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it was only the adoption of the 14th and subsequent "incorporation" by SCOTUS that made any of the bill of rights really apply to state governments at all.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'since regulating the militias was a state function originally the second never really meant to speak to it at all'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it lends context'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it meant that the federal government will not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, period. full stop.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, the interpretation i took is entirely in keeping with the case law since'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as has been pointed out, if the first amendment said, "A well educated electorate being essential to the republic, the right to speak shall not be infringed, noone would think it meant that only registred voters had protected speach rights.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'from 1822 Bliss vs Commonwealth, 1856 Scott vs Sandford,  through to DC vs Heller'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'anyone eligible to vote'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'bliss v commonwealth is a state case not a federal case so not really useful'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the question of what constitutes an arm for the purposes of the 2nd has not been finalised'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'weapons in common use of the time'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but bliss v commonwealth is interpretting a STATE constitution provision not the second'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so it has no bearing on the question of what the federal constition protects'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'one was modelled on the other'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as I have mentioned until after the adoption of the 14th (i.e. after the civil war) noone thought that the second or any of the others that didn't specifically mention affecting the states did so.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'be that as it may, they are worded differently and since you are trying to argue about what the wording of the one means, cases about the other really don't come into it'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '1856 dred scott vs sandford was prior to the civil war'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'upholds individual rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I would hardly call dred scott a victory for individual rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it is widely considered to be the worst SCOTUS opinion in history'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and it preciptated the civil war'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that Slaves should have the right to bear arms?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'seemed ahead of it's time'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that isn't what dred scott stands for'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you have seriously misread the case, or you are just quoting from some internet source that is spouting nonesense'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'dred scott stood for the right of slave owners to move into territories that had been declared by congress to be "free states"'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and of course DC v Heller is a very recent case whether it should be used to interpret the original meaning of the second is a subject of much debate, and one I thought you were on the other side of.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'll have to dig into the dred scott case more. It's clearly a slavery case, the write-up on it is a statement of implication, i'll have to track down how that came about'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'keller is pretty cut and dry, and D.C are still in violation of that ruling as D.C vs Kokesh has shown'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'do that, I don't see it as having any impact on the second though'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's why they planted narcotics in his house because they knew the gun charge would be thrown out on appeal'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I am confused what exactly are you trying to get DC v Heller to stand for?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I thought you wanted a case to say that the states could regulate the militia'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I don't see it doing that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'especialyl since it doesn't even involve a state at all'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment extends gun ownership rights to individuals. The decision affirmed an earlier decision by a lower appeals court and struck down handgun bans in Washington D.C. as unconstitutional.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you can regulate the militia, you cannot regulate the guns'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'uhm'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'how does this help you in arguing for mandatory liscensing for gun owners?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it seems to me it would argue exactly the opposite'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the license is for the person, not the gun'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'just like a driving license is for the driver, not the car'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and again it is about the district, not a state, which is a whole different ball of wax for a variety of reasons'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, understand that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'registration is for the car.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '1) driving is not protected by an explicit amendment'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not talking about registration'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '2) drivers liscenses were found to be premissible because you were using the public roads'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not talking about driving, just trying to get you out of thinking gun licenses have anything to do with owning a gun'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'huh?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'd like there to be such a system, i'd love all people to be offered the course age 16 and pass it'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if you have to have a liscense to buy/own a gun how does that not have something to do with owning a gun?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as I said earlier, I think making it a mandatory class in public schools would be completely within the authority of the state (or federal if you believe they have any right to regulate education at all) government'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'making it required for gun ownership though would be a violation of the 2nd'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as far as I can see'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what would be the more unconstitutional, insisting people are trained, or banning them from owning/buying?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or the second through the 14th if it is a state doing it and you accept incorporation'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'its not a sliding scale'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'insisting they're trained can be argued as constitutional'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'its a on or off state'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'of course it can be argued, but not successfully'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'has it been tried?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then you're fucked and need to repeal all these gun bans'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'at that point you have no right to restrict guns to felons or mental patients'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'felons you do'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'felons do not have the rights of citizenship'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'this is well established'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'felons can even have their right to vote removed'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'heh, in the EU that's being removed'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and that was true at the time of the constitution being passed, it is part of the common law.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'which might be a good thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but that doesn't mean it is unconstitional'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so this leaves everything where it was: Gun bans are unconstitutional'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as for mentally ill, it depends on whether their competency has been legally revoked I would think'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im not positive, but I think legal competency revokations predate the constitution as well.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the trouble is, such revokations are not being done via due process, they're being done arbitararily'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and I am not arguing that many of the gun laws that have been passed are unconstitional'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'all I was saying is that restricting certain kinds of ammo is not necessarily a violation of the 2nd'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you could potentially ban certain types of ammo that were not common'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'banning lead ammo is not covered under this proviso'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'how would the second prohibit banning lead ammo'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'assuming that there is a practical alternative'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it doesn't. there is effort being pushed in the EPA to do so without a law, by placing unreasonable restrictions on lead smelters to force them out of US soil, and also pushing all brass shells from the army out of the country for recycling'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sp'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'whether the epa is authorized by law to regulate lead smelters is a seperate question'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no doubt that they are'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and whether that law is constitutional is also a seperate question'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's like the feds using purchasing power to disrupt the ammo supply chain'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's legalised mischief'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'my opinion is that lead bullets need to go, so long as there is a viable alternative (and I think there is).'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'whether that will take a law or can be accomplished within existing law I don't know, or care really.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then you've got the push to make schools enforce the most ridiculous rules on kids to "brainwash" (in the words of Eric Holder) kids into associating guns with evil, such as expelling kids for playing cowboys and indians, for pointing their fingers and going bang, for playing with nerf guns in their own gardens, for eating pop tarts in the shape of a gun, etc etc'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I don't really like public schools at all, so I really don't care what the states or the feds do with them'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you must not have children'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they do a decent job of what they were designed to do (producing easily influenced menial workers)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well you'd best like them, the regime doesn't like homeschool, some states are banning homeschooling'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I do, and she will never attend a public school'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'unless both her parents are dead.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'other countries have already outlawed homeschooling, such as Germany'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but we know they're Nazi's and expect that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i don't think that is fair tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they are progressive socialists, not really reactionary facists'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Vost: 'he is trolling, Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'although for many purposes its hard to tell any difference between the two'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they're corporatists disguised as socialists'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'okay thats fine too'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that still doesn't make them nazi'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they're attemping via commerce what they couldn't do via war'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I have seen no evidence that germany is attempting to commit genocide with commerce'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there plan was to conquer europe, not genocide everyone'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in fact my understanding is germany and isreal are close allies now'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good, they're both 'the bad guys''
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'their plan was to conquer the world and create a society where race defined social class'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'now they just want the ruling corporate elite to have total control and everyone else be subjogated'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yeah so still not nazis maybe rothchildren?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's not just germany or israel, that's the corporate elite worldwide'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, but they essentially steer Germany and the EU along with the USA'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'saw some woman on Max Keiser's show today talking about a "Social Dividend", essentially the "pay every adult a basic allowance"'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i love the idea, it's a shame it's totally impractical in the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i worry about BLS distorting labor markets worse than they already are'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im not sure they would, but I would want it tried in a very small isolated economy before we tried applying it on larger scales'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's a good argument for a very basic level here in the UK because it would replace a very large and complicated raft of various welfare payments'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but it wouldn't be even remotely enough to live on, it'd be like $75 a week'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you might be able to squeak by on that plus a 16hr a week job'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'at $75 a week it would cost as much as the entire UK welfare budget (which includes state pensions)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think BLS is far better than targetted welfare'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'okay UK has a 2.4 trillion GDP right?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'dunno, tax take of 630mil'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'since we live in the real world, have to start from the real numbers'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'According to Google, 2.435t'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: '(USD)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well the internet says 2.4 trillion USD'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and 63 million people'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, for ease of maths, 50mil adults'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so if you could use 10% of your GDP on BLS you could have ~3800 a year BLS'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that would be per person not per adult'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'slightly more if it was per adult'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '3800 wouldn't be enough to live on'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's near enough $75 a week like i said earlier'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'acording to wikipedia UK has roughly 39% of GDP in tax revenues'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'eww no that is heritage foundation info, so use the eurostat instead 34%'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'total tax take including local taxes, i could just about imagine 39%, 34% sounds more reasonable'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'er 36%'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'was about $1tn last year, roughly'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'oecd says 34%'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you can wrench reeds (i think) while raider flagged...'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'mis'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so you COULD afford more than 75 per adult'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if you were willing to spend the money that way'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they wouldn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'roughly 1/3rd is welfare, 1/3rd healthcare, 1/3 for everything else'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'maybe cut back on military spending :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'our military spending is tiny'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '$70bn a year'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well 70 billion a year would still be 1k per person'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'right?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you can't not have defence, primary role of government'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sure'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so there are other things that would need to be cut'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we don't have the huge overspends that the USA have'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yeah'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we're already overspending to the tune of some $250bn a year'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'according to wikipedia according to OECD US only has 24% (for all levels combined)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'which I think is somewhat low'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i could believe that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you don't have the overhead of national health'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'basically my earliest assumption was that the total welfare budget couldn't be more (initially) than it is now. that's how i came to that rough $75 a week figure'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but still with 16 trillion in GDP 24% of that would still be a huge chunk of change'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'only thing you could do here is cut the NHS, and you know what happens when you try that'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the sheep start bleating'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think overall there are other things that could be done first that would make stuff better'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I think there are other things you could cut'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'such as?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'education?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'pensions, social security'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the assumption was that all of those things would be replaced by LHS, so no net change there'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'BHS, whatver you call it'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'frankly i think pensions for elected officials should be illegal worldwide'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'again according to internet those are the majority of the UK government spending'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'personally i'd ditch the property taxes, the overrun of duties and remove the tax-free allowances on all taxes, and fix corporation tax first'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that and NHS of course'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, i already told you that :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well that would account for a crapton more than 75$ per adult then'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'since every single one of those categories is more than defence'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and we already agreed rerouting defense would give a 1k per person stipend roughly'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you can't reroute defence'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the best you can do is simplify taxation and increase it, sort out the debt so you aren't burning 50bn a year in debt interest'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'NHS pensions and EU contributions could be cut, would save a little more (still a pittance really though)'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and international development'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I wasn't saying reroute debt'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8dY-3hzSftCMng5TFBkaFdSb3M/edit?pli=1'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I was saying you already spend more than twice what you sepnd on defense on social security, and again on pensions, and 1.5 times on education'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so clearly if cutting defense would give a 1k per person stipend, then cutting education would give more?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'etc'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'cutting education really doesn't sound like a great idea'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I don't know'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I honestly think we all seriously overspend on education'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'As a society or as individuals?'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'take a look at the chart, it's a year out of date, but will give you an idea'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in this day and age most education could be accomplished for a tiny fraction of what we currently spend'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'both'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'Because really, I think it is very hard to overspend on education as a society.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'notice that you have to play "hunt the welfare" as some welfare isn't under the welfare category'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'bedtime for me'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no jhav it is incredibly easy'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'Education and research build the foundations for a healthy economy.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'efficent education not the craptons of waste on outdated models that don't work'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'I think the probablem is less about over spending and more about spending in the wrong plaeces'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'seriously primary and secondary education (at least in the US) is nothing but an overpriced daycare system'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and college spending is way out of hand'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'lol emm way to overheralize'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'here's the thing... some teachers are far more able to motivate and hold the attention of their students.  Yet, they receive the same pay as teachers who have poor teaching skills.  So you have a system with some good outcomes and some bad outcomes and no way to emphasize that the good outcomes should be a greater proportion than bad outcomes'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the entire student teacher model is part of the problem'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'and why not?  because teachers are in unions and they don't want a system that rewards great teachers and cuts bad teachers.  they want a system that rewards everyone and cuts nobody, b/c that's how they fulfill the mission of representing current teachers'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'students aren't going to learn by themselves'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'hm. i've been teacher in music school for 7 years.. first 4 was good, very good students. last 3 years so many kids have attitude problems. thats internet's fault im sure.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'thats a misconception taught by teachers kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'children love to learn'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'I haven't heard that from any teacher's, but that comes from a simple understanding of human nature.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'teachers **'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we need systems that reward that and not try to beat it out of them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'they love to be entertained, they don't love to learn'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Raident: 'nods kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Raident: 'nod kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'learning is about practice and memorization and being stumped at a problem and conquering frustration.  this is not an intrinsically 'fun' process.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'thats just outdated thinking based on stuff you learned from the broken system'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'the idea that memorization is learning is part of the model of schools as preparation for factory jobs.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'no, it's about science.  I suggest you take some classes about how the human works and retains information and learns and remembers.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'mind**'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'memorization is part of learning.  not the only part, but an important part.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'memorization is mostly a part of early learning, and kids at that age are well built to do it'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and they love doing it'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as long as you don't turn it into punishments'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there are so many tools available to make learning fun and letting students take charge of their own learning and when you do this it works'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as opposed to the current system which at best provides menial clerks and laborers who are easily controlled by the media'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: '"let students take charge of their own learning"?  I suggest you look at the % of people who sign up for a MOOC and then don't complete it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'here you have a group of self-selected interested learners and yet 80%+ do not finish the class.  Why?  Because learning is work.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the system doesn't provide anything.  people are free to pursue whatever interests them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-01.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sco'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'feds order 14 million units of potassium iodide, hrm'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'don't notice any public health announcements suggesting people stock up....'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'The auto industry is forecasting that the number of vehicles equipped with stop-start technology will grow from 8.8 million to 55.4 million worldwide by 2022.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'the federally mandated AVG mpg of vehicles in the US is going up to 35.5 in 2016.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'hmm, the 2015 Ford F-150 series truck will have an aluminum option that is 750 lbs lighter than the steel f150, and it will get 6 mpg more.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'great!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'add the new ford stop start to the f150, and variable valves that provide power as needed, and the new f150 series could easily get 10 mpg more than the 2014 version.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'I would love a gas ford 150 that managed to get 30 mpg or more.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the down side is the more mpg you get, the less maintainable they are, the more reliant on computerisation they are'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'which means they cost more to keep going, easier to fuck up, more sensitive to fuel mixture'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and terrible news: Deadly swine flu sweeps US - bacon prices set to soar'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'news story points out that 98% of media coverage of the ice-bound ship stuck in antartica neglected to mention it was on a global warming science mission'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Winnipeg, meantime, is in the grip of a global-warming heatwave, hitting -18F yesterday'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'it's unusually warm in scandinavia though'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'strange weather this winter'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not really'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'bit windier here than most, knock on effects of the big freeze in the USA'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hardly exceptional though'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'it's unusual'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we had a cold spring, mild autumn, bumper apple harvest'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'normally it's 10 degrees colder here than now'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'probably within 2SD of the mean tho'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you're probably getting the same weather patterns as rattled through here, which means they have the same root cause'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'milder, windier'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'no doubt'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'but normally at this time of the year the weather systems that come this way come from north or north east. During spring/summer it's from your direction'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in good news, A US District Couurt judge ruled that Florida's welfare drug tests are unconstitutional, and i totally agree'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hopefully SOuth Dakota will scrap theirs and stop giving conservatives a bad name'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(heh, fat chance)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'Men in the marines are expected to do twenty pullups.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: '(Women don't belong in combat roles if they can't keep up with a man.) '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i agree, nighthaven, that it's a mockery of sexual equality, though to be fair, marines are totally pointless in the future'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'We aren't in the future, though. It's annoying that people keep pushing for women in combat roles. There are exceptions, but the majority of women couldn't haul a 200 pound male marine to safety.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Hm, you've struck a chord with me. I ask this in genuine curiosity, not rhetoric: Why isn't the induction and recruitment language for the military services gender neutral? For instance: All potential recruits must be able to complete 20 pullups, run a 7 minute mile, etc.?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: '7 mins with gear on I assume?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'That was just an example, I have no idea how fast they run. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'But I mean instead of arguing about how much of a given exercise each sex must do, why not just have the requirements be a static number--and any men or women who can do it can join, and those who can't, can't?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'have you ever read the Terry Goodking Wizard's First Rule series?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Terry Goodkind, even'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Nope, not familiar with it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'Men are expected to complete three miles in thirty minutes, while women are expected to complete a mile and a half. It's the idiots who believe in total gender equality that are pushing for women in combat roles, thus setting lower standards so they can be put in. But even with these standards, they're incapable. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'shame, there's a land in it called Anderin where they dumb down the army to the point of incapability for the political purposes. US sounds the same in a way'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Twitter Roninleader: 'Speaking of Gender Equality, anyone hear about the gender nuetral bathrooms they are trying to putting in schools now?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Twitter Roninleader: 'put*'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'That's silly, but also makes me wish I was still in school.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Twitter Roninleader: 'I see a new level of horror stories on the horizon'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I think you're missing my question, Nighthaven. And Tigernuts (love the name), I get that. Why can't we assess the average necessary physical strength requirements, and base the criteria on that? So if in an average day a solider needs to be able to do X, Y, Z, have recruits demonstrate exactly that. I'm not seeing where the complication comes in (removing political correctness).'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'are not the requirements for firefighters gender neutral for instance?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I'm not sure, but if they are, then that's exactly my point.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'over here, Sweden, they are.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Assess what the job requires, extrapolate a set of criteria, apply criteria to candidates--where does sex even come into the equation?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'for firefighters. Not sure about the rest.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford rapidly nods twice at ElFeneri, in complete agreement.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if gender equality was being interpretted correctly, Rusty, then there would be no input in the equation, but in the western world the regime are not interested in equality, they are interested in polarisation and seperation, it's to enforce an agenda and drive a wedge in as opposed to anything useful'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'They should for instance be capable of lifting and carrying a standar weight person that in unconscious'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'that is*'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's for exactly the same reason that the Duck Dynasty folks came under fire for giving his opinion on homosexuality in a magazine article'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'selective enforcement'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we used to call it "political correctness", but it's far more pervasive and nefarious than that now'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'They're already incapable of this, it's just we have dumbshits in Washington pushing for the feminist vote, and so they lower the bar for women so they can get into combat roles. I understand what you're saying, and even then, women can't meet the minimum requirements. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well it's needless, there are plenty of useful roles for women in the armed forces that won't require them being combat-fit'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'You think there's a conscious impetus behind such polarization, TG? Who, might I ask, do you suspect is responsible?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Please don't say Bilderberg.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the political establishment'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a method of divide/conquer'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'would seem simple enough to have a common set of requirements for everyone. And those requirements are minimal for what is needed to fill your role. Whether they are physical, psycological or intellectual doesn't matter.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if people are arguing among themselves about things that don't matter, gay/straight, black/white, man/woman, then they aren't realising that the people voted in to govern them are actually bending them over and fucking them up the arse repeatedly'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a distraction'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Hm. Interesting. While I agree with you that insidious power grabs driven by large political (and I would add corporate) entities are constantly going on behind the scenes, I don't see how the women in combat dynamic fits in. Not that I disagree, I've just never heard that and haven't given it any real consideration'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'ok, well put it this way: what happens if you put a totally unfit person into a combat role? does that improve the effectiveness of this unit, does it stay the same, or does it threaten it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: 'The average male marine ranges from 170 to 200 pounds, sometimes heavier. There are already drills in place in which a marine must carry his fellow marine a mile through harsh terrain. If you're going to put both genders in the same units, women should be able to complete the same task. But my point is, it's shocking that people keep lowering the standards so women can get into these roles. They're even allowing an arm hang in the test - which is not allowed in the male test.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I understand that logic, but that seems too targetted and specific--especially when you consider that the people controlling that unit are the ones allegedly trying to reduce it's efficacy.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's unlikely that anyone in the combat theatre pushed for these changes'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it'll be beurocrats back home'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nighthaven: '^'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Now if you were saying it's just another issue to distract us (like Miley Cyrus' tits or Clinton getting a Bj or any of a million other examples) I'd buy it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Who pays the commanders? '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the government, sorry, the "regime"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Beaurocrats back home. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the establishment convinced miley to show her tits?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'talk about power'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if it's not part of the whole "make a big issue out of gender equality" plan, then what purpose does it serve?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: '^^Lol. No. But the flurry of media attention it got.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a lot of these acts boils down to two possibilities: incompetence, or deliberate'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'http://screen.yahoo.com/tv-funhouse-divertor-000000415.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I can easily see it being incompetence. Inability for a beaurocracy tod design a horse. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'now look at all the things that we can point ask that question about, rusty, is it even possible that there exists that much incompetence?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you claim there is, then the human race is fucked'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I agree we're fucked. But I think it's a mix of the two, flagrant incompetence as well as malice aforethought'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, and many in the media and government don't realise which is incompentence and which is nefarious'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Especially when a little incompetence on the part of the responsible can go so far in aiding the efforts of the irresponsible.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford rapidly nods twice at Tigernuts, in complete agreement.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Ah damn I gotta run. Been fun!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the grand scheme of things, unfit women in the army isn't a big deal'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'aren't PETA nice? They sent undressed women activists wearing only iceberg lettuces to promote veganism on days where the highest temperature was single digits of fahrenheit'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'alternative media is now twigging that NSA building a quantum computer may render all encryption redundant'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'pushes forward the need for electronic communication to be moved off regime controlled infrastructure'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'twigging?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Kansas court has allowed universities to adopt a policy that "improper use of social media" is grounds for discipline up to and including termination'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the Quantum-computer is science-fiction'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a bit late, Zade, they exist'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'no, quantum computers are science fact'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Loony Lachdanan is agreeing with that Tigernuts person again...
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they have very restricted uses, but the key one is solving complicated multivariate problems, such as cracking encrpytion'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the Kansas court is a government order by an abomination violating the First Ammendment'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'abomination, maybe not, but certainly bad news'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it confers them jurisdiction over every online appearance'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the easiest way to avoid falling foul of such laws is to ensure all online interactions are done via a non-existant avatar, and avoid facebook entirely'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the Kansas court judge is an abomination since the interpretation of "improper" was not rigorously specified '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im not sure universities are really state actors to whom the first amendment applies.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the vile corruptness is indicated by: "improper" may be anything some bigoted republican (libertarian, etc) (or religious nutter) "says" to be improper'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'for private universities especially I don't see that as being any business of the court to begin with'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm not convinced them being universities is relevent'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if a private university wants to kick out anyone who even has a social media account they can'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'could probably apply to any employer'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/01/02/essay-criticizes-new-kansas-policy-use-social-media-university-employees'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you're the lawyer type, you read it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yeah so it is a kansas state public universities (kansas board of regents).'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'this is a government employeer free speech issue which is very complicated'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'is that similar then to the case of a government health worker being fired for bitching about Obamacare in the office?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'somewhat similar'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'although then it is workplace and a bit more clear cut than twitter'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so, depending on the college:  "supporting gayness (sexperversion) is improper", or, "criticising gayness is improper", or "supporting out-of-favor politicians is improper" or "criticising president Obama is improper", "criticising the british monarchy is improper", or "disagreeing with Zade" is improper, ...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'as i understand it, it depends on whether the comments are made in a professional capacity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would certainly hope that comments made from home, in a home context, with no relation to the university, should be protected'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"using the word niggardly in public forums is improper" -- somebody in media was fired for that'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well that is the precident case discussed in the article, but I would want to read the case at hand to see how the ruling went'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wouldn't last 5 minutes in politics, i'd be dropping all kinds of word bombs'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'media isn't government, so long as it isn't a breach of contract or discrimination against a protected status media can fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps that Kansas court judge deserves to be impeached and beggared'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'ABC CANNOT violate anyone's first amendment rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and neither can A&E'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what is a protected status media'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'protected status is for any employer'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'race, ethnicity, religion, gender'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'age (to a certain extent)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in other words you can't fire someone for being a woman, but you can fire them for publicly expressing feminist doctrine'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good, why don't they?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"unreasonable termination" is grounds for a legal suit against a corporate plaintive  (preferably with heavy punitive damages against that corprate abomination)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'huh?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'zade, the plaintiff is the person pressing the suit, the defendant is the person (or entity) alleged to have done something wrong.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and your statement doesn't make clear whether you are asserting something is true, or should be true.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why is racist, sexist, feminist, pro-gay propoganda protected, but pro-liberty, pro-gun, anti-gay propoganda tantamount to cooking babies?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'what if Walmart decided to pick a name randomly from a phone book and ban them for life -- that be a vile crime by Walmart'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what do you mean tigernuts?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'because liberals are not logical and dont like to be shown when they contridict themselves'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'a private employer can absolutely fire someone (in absence of a contract stating otherwise) for espousing racist, feminist, or really pretty much any other opinion.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's what you see from the Obama government, Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they just can't fire someone for being black, or a woman, or muslim.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'yeah i get it... to say, gay people should be able to marry... is fine but to say... gay people should never be allowed to marry, is hate speach'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'ah, reversed the legal terms, as though the original plaintive was the corporate-terminator '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'again a private employer could fire someone for expressing either of those assertions yiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'except it isn't, yiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'whether a public employer can or not is a complicated question'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'yeah emm, but we're not talking about private employers.... i work for the gov. and they'll fire you for 1 and not the other'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and both of those would be protected speech that the government couldn't arrest or fine you for.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'wrong'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'government should have no say in who can marry'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'one is considerded "hate speach"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'show me a case where someone was arrested or fined for espousing one of those beliefs yiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I won't believe it till I see a citation to a federal court case.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'jesus christ emm.... quit adding shit to the convo that wasn't there.... not talking about arrested or fined, we're talking about fired from a federal job'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the question of whether the government, or a government actor rather, can fire a government employee for espousing those beliefs is a very complicated question.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'the goal of game balance is to not have a best class. We aren't there perfectly, but it is close enough to make that a tough question.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'oop miss'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"unreasonable termination" is grounds for a legal suit against a (large) corporate-business  (preferably with heavy punitive damages against that unreasonable corporate business abomination)  [but then, "unreasonable" is debatable or perhaps "whimsical"]'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well if the question is whether something is a violation of your first amendment rights it is important to point out what really is a clear cut violation of your first amendment rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'it's not complicated. in a goverment contract there is a clause that states that you wont do that. by violating it you're in breech of contract'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't it depend upon how you are espousing your belief and why?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'whether such a contract violates your first amendment rights is the complicated question yiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'you have to agree not to say such things before y ou're given employment, so in order to work, you wave your right to free speach'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'exactly tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'surely if it's a comment made as part of an internal discussion on your personal opinons, that one thing, whereas if you're communicating with a client in your capacity as that federal worker'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'once again, with civilians that work for the governmnt, it does not matter what kind of conversation the comment was a part of.... they complain to a supervisor about "it made me feel" and your career is over'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you mean at work discussions yiji?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'i've worked for the government for 15 years now, and i've seen many careers ended over those exact same types of issues, the gov always will win because you signed a waiver'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, yiji, that's the impression i got, which goes along with the whole incompetence/deliberate/promotion of division agenda brought up earlier'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'where i work it does not matter if the conversation was at work or not..... it could be at wal-mart, and your co=worker mentions it at work the next day, you're screwed'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that sounds like a law suit waiting to happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or are you asserting that if you are say in a mcdonalds eating with a friend and you say marriage should be between one man and one woman, and a coworker who happens to be there overhears it you can get fired for that?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and a good justification for chopping down government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'people have sued'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's how i read it, Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i would like to see a case yiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'then again i currently hate where i work so maybe i'm venting.... i went from 10 years active duty military to working for the VA health care system... the last 5 years have been shit'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'where a private conversation not at work, and not directly involving coworkers got someone fired'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'the people who sued usally win.... but they win a settelment, wich means they take 50,000 dollars to shut up'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and that 50k comes from taxpayers'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'yup'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well that is a completely different issue yiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so there's absolutely no impotess to sort it out'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in theory they should be able to sue for thier job back'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no motivation'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'impetus?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: '^ ?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'was asking TN if that was the word he was looking for.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'oh'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'i guess my point in getting involved is this: the gov has way too much say in everything'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'my vocab was poor, then i started getting old and smoking too much'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts is a foreigner-mole posing as though in the UK -- the "impotess" is likely a corruption of a foreigner word'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts pats Zade on his head.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'lol'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade cuts Tigernuts balls off
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'don't be a patronising dick'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Twitter Roninleader: 'Zade is an imposter, posing as a human. :D'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I am not really sure how much room a government employee has to complain about the overarching nature of government.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they can, though'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and they will'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I mean I am glad you think so, but clearly not enough to chose not to work for them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'so question please...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wouldn't sell out to the government for less than enough to retire on'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I am actually seeking a government job so I also probably don't have enough room to talk.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'you and I have different definitions of goverment jobs it would seem'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'primarily I am seeking a government job to take advantage of the program to pay off my government loans'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I find it difficult to believe that it is the only job you can get, but easy to believe it is the best job you can get'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'not sure what that is suppose to mean'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(if seeking a job with corporate or government, speaking on any public forum is likely endangering to a career -- especially with those defective attitudes expressed on prior days by ...)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i was arguing without someone today about low paid jobs and immigration, and pointed out globalisation has killed wages at home and has resulted in the working classes preferring welfare to work'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade 'd never hire ... -- too mindlessly parroted callous  (but that may be due to parroting the callous college education)
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(some colleges seems to be producing "children of hell" twofold worse than the corporate-pandering teachers) -- loosely paraphrased from a biblical scripture'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'colleges with curriculums that deceive the students into believing that "socialism" is "communism" -- that is a defective and despicable college course'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'don't they instead teach that socialism and communism are both excellent and superior to liberty and free markets?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the college teachers may attempt to say that they "never stated" that exactly as such, but the college course was presented in a form that associated "socialism" with "marxism" and then let the immqture students draw wrong conclusions.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(world-inexperienced immature students)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'any form of government that denies property rights of it's citizens and forces people to obey an authoritarian social contract including stealing the majority of their earnings is worthy of ridicule and should be avoided at all costs'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'property rights stem from the government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the corporate-funded colleges and media (pandering to the extremely rich) likely prefer to discredit "socialism" is the USA by deceiving the students (and the populace) into (wrongly) equating "socialism" as a synonym of "communism"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they do not, they are supposedly protected by government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that said we can still judge governments based on how good of a job they do at establishing them'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'by any useful meaning of the term property rights they absolutely stem from the government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nope, they do not stem from government, it's a government's job to protect them'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in the absence of an agreement among literally every person on earth property rights can only exist as they are defined and protected by an entity with a monopoly on force.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i.e. a government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Yiji: 'red is better than purple'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in other words without a government you have absolutely no property rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you still have those rights, just nothing enforcing them'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you may have things that you claim to be your property, but they only remain so as long as you can defend them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the college teachers may attempt to say that they "never" stated exactly that "socialism is communism", but the college course was presented in a form that associated "socialism" with "marxism" and then let the (world-inexperienced immature students) students draw wrong conclusions.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so when a government doesn't enforce your property rights, they are not a proper government?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the "right" implies some sort of legal consequences for others violating your "right"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and that implies a government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you have a government, that's a legal consequence, if you do not, it could be a dictat consequence, or it could be a physical consequence'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and then, later on debate, ... ?affects? a career by stating that "socialism is communism"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'physical consequences sans government cannot protect a "right"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it may be able to protect the property itself'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think they can. you steal my stuff, i shoot you. my right has been protected'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but only so long as your ability to cause physical consequences is stronger than others ability to cause you physical consequences and take your property away'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you have no recourse if someone shoots you and takes your stuff'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'your ability might be provided by your community'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and THAT is a form of government'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'ill grant it is a very limited form, but it is still a form.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it may not have a power monopoly, it might just be a group of families with no official structure'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'in order for it to protect a right it must have some monopoly of power in at least some circumstances'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so it might be better off saying that your property rights are provided by governance, not government, even if that governance is yourself and your family'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'otherwise it is just might makes right'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'people only "obey" the law only as a matter of convenience'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'philosophically, there is no moral requirement to obey laws'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the difference between a right and a law is that a law can be changed'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"morals" are a matter of convenience'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"what is right" is an opinion'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"what is right" is an opinion, and opinions are able to change whimsically'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we were talking about rights, zade, not what is right'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'philosophically, there may or may not be "no moral requirement to obey laws"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'such talk is too arbitary to be of practical use'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"rights" change according to circumstances  -- (philosophically, (except for ?God?), there are no "rights"))'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'whether there are any actual "rights" is debatable'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'isn't a more important question "should there be rights"?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'because "are there" is easily answered: No'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"coulda shoulda woulda"  -- nyah'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'is there: No, should there be: Yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"are there rights" - maybe - debatable - state the axioms - no axoioms yet - tsk, neophyte'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what rights do you believe exist?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'very few in this day and age honestly'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts nods at Emm.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"seek ye first the kingdom of God and its justice, and maybe then perhaps ye perceive whether there be rights or what be rights or not" <-- religious ?nonsense? babbling, since whether or not there is a "God" is a conjecture'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'given it was the bible, you might reasonably expect that the writer takes the existence of a God as a given'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'but there does seems to be a similarity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'to determine whether or not there are "rights" and in what form is on the strait and narrow path to determining whether or not there be or is a 'God" or not'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's not reasonable or rational'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(extremely rational and irrational)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'God is not relevent to rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"strait and narrow path is the path and few there be that find it"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"strait and narrow is the path and few there be that find it" <-- another biblical scripture'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'zade has gone into quoting random scripture mode time to ignore him for the rest of the night'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not sure if Zade likes scripture or not'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps a decent philosophical department may attempt to determine whether there are any "axiomatic rights"  -- (but there is the corruption of pandering to those that pay the salaries and bonuses and pay for the speaking tours) ("those that pay the piper select the tune")'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"analysing whether or not there are rights or not" is relevant to "analysing whether or not there is a God or not"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why? and is the reverse true? i would say no'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the reverse does not follow'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's what i said earlier'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the concepts are similar though'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'actually, the reverse may be indirectly relevant (but not when the analysis and conclusions are flawed)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"whether or not there are rights or not" indirectly taints or affects some of the forms of "the analysis of whether or not there is a God or not"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'the rights are there, on paper. Whether god exists or not is up to you to decide.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'for yourself'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i don't believe in divine rights personally'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I have never seen god enforce any rights on earth'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'whether there is enforcement after you die is a metaphysical question that is rather uninteresting to me.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'whether it will still be uninteresting to me when I am dead might be another question, or it might be a category error.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'those that did (years ?decades? of) philosophical analysis of "whether there is a God or not" are more likely to see the connection -- they are already "grasping at straws"  -- perhaps the "analysis of rights"k is a straw'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well as a philosphy major I had to suffer through a certain amount of analysis of "whether there is a god or not"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'God given rights can be practically read as "innate rights" if you're an atheist'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes but then they really have very little meaning'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'unless you simply mean these are rights that society "should" grant people.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's pretty much what they mean'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'commonly held rights over time, maybe'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there is a huge difference between the debate about what rights "should" be granted, and what rights actually are granted'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'a few days or weeks of "whether there is a God or not" is not as long as decades'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not really, what ARE granted? none'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'all sorts of rights are granted'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'believe me, a debate of "whether there is a God or not" will feel like decades even if it lasts for minutes.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'rights are not granted'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'how well they are established varies from society to society'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and no, you have no rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'then you are defining right in a non useful way tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a right is something that cannot be taken away by law'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'something that always applies'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"god given rights" is likely already a presumptire step too far, (since "god" is not rigorously defined)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes that is a nonuseful definition'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'my definition of a right is something that violating cause consequences for the violator'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that is also true'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'except by the president if he declares us an enemy combatant or whatever'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nope, the president cannot undo rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there doesn't need to be perfect enforcement in order for the right to exist'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not even now can he, legally'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there just has to be consequences.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im not sure of that TN'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so when minutes turn into hours turn into days turn into weeks turn into months turn into years turn into ... a Zade nutter appears'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I mean he shouldn't be able to legally'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"rights are undone by violating rights" aka malfeasance'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so you're saying that the POTUS is a malfeasant?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"consequences for malfeasance?!, what consequences!"  (an overlong title of a comedy program were officials laugh and snicker at you as rights are violated) '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's the truth'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's why we have such shitty governments'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'here is debate channel'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'If I may ask, Wario, where did you read any of the facts you're presenting? Where do you get your information?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'European is still Western, Wario.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'yes, Aqualad, there are several "ignorance channels":  curse, debate, echo, gtell (when not grouped)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'yes and I have them all on'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'here's the thing about economic systems'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the economic rise of the US is incredible, and it's not an accident'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'capitalism attracts the most motivated people in the world and unleashes the potential of the individual to pursue their passion and innovate, and the markets creates icentives to reward this'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Bunnyy: 'what about China? '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you know how many brilliant people would emigrate to a communist society?  none.  they would get the fuck out ASAP'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Bunnyy: 'China's brand of communism seems to be bringing in quite a lot of economic success. plus people from capitalist countries are moving to China. to make money! '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'china is an interesting case b/c it's a hybrid system.  They have grown ultra fast from a low base.  I think it's fair to say the capitalist part of that society has greatly improved the avg quality of life, but jury is out on the long run.  a lot of economic misallocation is happening that will takes years if not decades to come back and haunt them.  stuff that would not happen in a freer market'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I dont know... it looks to me like China is communist only in name. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'In name, and in human rights violations.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'That's often a distinct marker of communism. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: '...That happened in Baathist iraq, which was capitalist.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'China is acting very capitalist and or feudalist (most of the China populace as the serfs and slaves)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Many countries have issues with it, but the tendency to commit such atrocities against one's own citizens seems to be more communist than capitalist. But I'm open to counterpoints, this is just my observation.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Human rights abuses are pretty bad in Bangladesh, and theyre ultra capitalist.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'shackleford, i think that has more to do with the rule of law and govt than the economic system'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Again, I'm not saying that capitalism DOESN'T experience it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the US had slavery too, even while we were capitalist'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'But the pattern is there nonetheless. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I think its an even split. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"free enterprise" and "capitalist" are different (separate) concepts'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it's more a symptom of democracy vs. anything else'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Remember though that the slaves were not American citizens. Capitalism has a heinous track record of imperialism, each has its own evils.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'The position of a states political system on the spectrum tends to be that the more centrist it is, the less violations there are.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Important distinction, Zade. Good point. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'not just slaves... women.. civil rights... markets are easy it's the social stuff that takes longer to change'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Fair enough. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Democracy isnt so much a political system as a political aim. To say it exists in the extent it should, anywhere in the world, is honestly a lie.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it's more of a technical distinction for the most part'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Yes. But not a system.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'yes, the US has an electoral college'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'but the principles are there, whether the technical form is pure or not.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'The principles are a farce. A front for the technicality, which allows an elite class to control everythig.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'as long as politicians answer to the people through peaceful and honest votes, that's all you really need.  whether it's bicameral, 1 house, coalition govt or 2-party, electoral college or general election'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Not really.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'heh, thta's funny.  it's really the MOB that you have to fear in a democracy, not the "elite conspiracy"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'altho the electoral college might be changing so to speak'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'mobs are weak, i take em out in 5 seconds'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'It depends... How free is peoples thought? Free thought isnt necessarily when nobody is beating you down for disagreeing with them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'so says the t9'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'The mob and the elite are both threats.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Each produces the other. Its the state of nature.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'sure it is.  you can choose what media to read, you can think critically and decide your own value system and what's important in what order.  and nobody is forcing you or threatening you no matter what you think.  that's pretty damn free thought.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'not exactly kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'a strong Democracy (decently and fairly regulated) also requires a strong education-enabled middleclass'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'some people are gonna be winners because they are smarter, luckier, more passionate, and deserve it more.  that's tough shit'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'You realise that the governments of major countries unashamedly spend billions on social engineering?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'alot of the information people are exposed to is forced upon them at an early age'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'and some are gonna be losers becuase they decide that mudding or playing call of duty for 10,000 hours is how they want to spend their time.  and they have the right to enjoy their time while others work hard to develop skills that will earn financial rewards in the real world.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Kojiro, thats naive.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'and than plays a part in though later on in life'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Peoples thoughts are produced mainly by their environments. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Not all unsuccessful people are idiots who want to waste their time.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'of course not, and not all elite successful people worked hard or deserve it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'And even for the idiots - Why are they idiots?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if we are going to talk about systems, you are going to speak in generalities'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i never said idiot, you did.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'genetics and nurture'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'I'm not making value judgments - you are'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'is there actually an argument here i'm missing out on'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if people want to live their life playing video games, go for it.  just realize that those who spent time working and getting paid deserve the fruits of their labor, which is highly likely to be far more than the gamer would realize given his choice'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"the extremely-rich do not deserve to grab anywhere-near 99% of the world's riches" (there may be exceptions, like what if an actual "God" grabbed everything - irrelevant, since "God" seems to be elsewhere currently)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'yes, playing videogames is poor choice, it's far better to spend the time playing football'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'you make a lot more money'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Unfortunately I think that generally, unsuccessful people were more likely to be unsuccessful from the beginning than people who end out successfully. and yes, Im judgemental. In britain we have a massive problem with people exploiting the dole. And those people dont deserve my taxes. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if you are good enough to, sure.  otherwise it's just recreation, similar to a video game'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I absolutely hate trying to be politically correct. If I think something, I will think it. That includes making judgements.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'yea aza, the kid born to well-off, educated, loving parents is far better situated than a kid born to a poor single mom.  but the key is does the system all everyone to succeeed if they work hard enough?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"the rich do not really deserve what they earned" -- [unless they "earned" being condemned to hell for (say) crimes against fairness and decency] '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if you could design the world you were born into, but not know what parent(s), how would you design it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'az, if someone is doomed to be unsuccessful as you say, do you think they should be euthanised to avoid straining the system?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'i dont know about that kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'No. Because the system is not a state system. Countries are but a social construct.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'there are plenty of people who were raised by a poor single mother'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'You got me wrong, Red. They arent doomed. The odds are just against them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Idom: 'like obama? oh wait, that was high grandma'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'ok, so if the odds are against them and they did what they were expected to do and were unsuccessful'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'should they be euthanized?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford shakes Idom's hand.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'That made, zero sense.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'On the global stage, the circumstances of your birth define your success rate higher than they ever have before.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'correct'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'really has to do with how the parents treat the kid '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'so people who were born in shitty conditions'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'what should we do with them?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'you seem to suggest they deserve no help'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Azraael: Really? Even more so than being into a caste system? I'm not sure I agree with you completely. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'try being born in zimbabwe and see if you ever get to aard shackle'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'anybody that becomes rich likely became rich from the efforts of all of society  (there may be exceptions, though crime fraud and exploitation yet parasite on what wasa provided by all of society)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I agree that circumstances affect outcome, but disagree that it's more true now than ever before.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'cant really do anything redryn if a kid has shitty parents they have shitty parents ... as long as the parents arent breaking laws the kids stay with the shitty parents'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Shackle, globally. The caste system was primarily something practiced in hindu regions of Bharot.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'castes have just gotten bigger'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'look at country protectionism'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Yes, and less defined, and more numerous.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'oh.. you're from some poor thirdworld country? no we don't want you as a citizen or taking our jobs!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'My point is that in the age of information, with internet access more prevalent and accessible than ever before, an individual has more opportunity than in the overhwleming majority of historical times, to break through a birth-defined glass ceiling.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'haha bullshit'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford shrugs helplessly.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'so many people don't even have access to the internet'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Idom: 'i'd agree with shack, not to say it is whre it needs to be'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'what you say holds true if you're in a developed nation maybe'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Red... Thats fair though... Tok many immigrants who have no skilled labour or profession to offer are of no benefot to any state Dx'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'But in the past, there was ZERO chance. Now, though it's slim, there is some.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Shackle,'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the internet is not how the poor uneducated lift themselves up, it's how they entertain themselves'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Idom: 'mostly because it was zero chance, ah you beat me to it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'there is 0 chance a poor african kid is getting a computer and internet'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'What percentage of humankind has access to the internet?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the caste system ruined the Hindus'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'yea forget africa, they are so backward, let's focus on figuring out the system then we can impress it on the tribes'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: '60% do not use the internet'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'right from wikipedia, very reliable resource'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Also guys... Please dont say 'Africa' Like its a country.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Redryn, that's not true at all. Google around, or I can provide you some links, to little poor African (or wherever) kids that have been able to do exactly what we're talking about because of opportunities only recently afforded.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'we're about a decade or two away from worldwide internet access shackle'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'The majority of humankind can only afford less than a hundred grains of rice to eat a day. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'meanwhile the rich poor divide has worsened things considerably'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'because the ruling elite of poor countries like to do business with richer countries'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I'm not saying everyone has it, you're waaayy overextending my argument. I'm simply saying that before the internet, there was absolutely zero chance of breaking out of your mold. Now, though it is limited, there have been many, many, many documented cases of it happening. The doors have opened, if only a crack.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'and they like material goods'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'ok'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i can accept that'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'but i do not think that in general life is better'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'That's all I was ever saying.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I don't either, never claimed it was.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'and the crack is also limited to very few'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Redryn nods.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I can accept that too.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'a few poor children with access to the internet is perhaps an insignificant statistic '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'But that access isnt available to people in most birth circumstances.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Funny how our elites put most of the other elites in place, hub...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'huh*'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'in a capitalist society, capital is king'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'if you have money and are not stupid, you can continue making money'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'hell, if you are stupid you can pay someone else to make money for you'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'it's pretty ridiculous'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade THWAPS Redryn for being a moron.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'have you ever seen one of those super rich bosses who listen to everything their secretary tells them?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'If God is real, then I want true theocracy. Because if God is real, it knows us best, and therefore its system is the best for us. human nature prevents human beings from protecting society from its own dark sides. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'there are business men out there whose businesses depend entirely on the intelligence of their subordinates'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Red noooooo'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'What about an intelligent person caught in hyoperinflation?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'huh?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'My bad... hyperinflation'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i'm saying the rich get richer'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Not if they disobey the elite.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Disobey and you fall.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the rich generally are the elite'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'and are good buddies with em'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'an intellegent person caught in hyper-inflation should attempt to be self sufficient/barter'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Red, there are always people above you.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Redryn, were you supplying that defective advice to the various governments ruined by the financial meltdown: "You governments .. plenty of money .. smart .. not stupid .. hire somebody to manage the money" '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Yes, Emm.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'failing that leave the country'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Lol. No need to go ad hominem pls'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i'm not sure i understand your point az'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'who went ad hominem?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'are you saying the rich don't get richer because there's someone richer?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Yeah, what are you talking about?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Nationalisation is the way... And government for the people but... not necessarily by them >.>'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'no. Not at all.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'ok'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'how about this, we have all lawmakers have fixed term limits and at the end of their terms their place in the social order for the next 10 years is determined randomly'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Im saying that the rich fall when they go too hard against the system. There are always people higher who can push you back down. Squash you under their boot, so to speak.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'maybe they will be super rich, maybe they will be on foodstamps'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'so accepting my premise, that means that in a capitalist world there is a growing rich-poor divide'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'there's always someone at the top az'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'there are not infinite richer people'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'hard to say redryn since we have never had a capitalist country much less a capitalist world'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'what country are you in emm?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'US, but I mean that literally there has never been a true capitalism anywhere in the world anywhere in history'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Yes, Red. But a group of two people the same wealth as you are, together, richer.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'And therefore more powerful.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'ok, i'm not going into various definitions of true capitalist, social capitalist, whatnot capitalist'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i'm talking generally the system where it's capital oriented'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well there is no avoiding that really'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'history has proven that the alternatives simply do not work.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'ok, at the top there is a network of rich people who all know each other and are buddies'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I am not sure it works like that'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the koch brothers and the gates probably aren't buddies'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Not necessarily buddies. But the top are so few that you can bet your ass they know who each other are.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the fact is that their interests are often aligned'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the rich will not do anything to disrupt a system where the rich are in power'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Yes. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'with the exception of the banking families (who tend to keep pretty private) mostly everyone knows who the richest people are.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'My point exactly.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'it's basically self perpetuating'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'and it permeates the entire system, from the private to public sector'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Emm is obviously not "cogis mentis" with "and at the end of their terms their place in the social order for the next 10 years is determined randomly" '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Except. What is money? A representative of energy. But its not real. Money was only real when it was resource backed.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'a representation of energy?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'therefore the whole social system is based on belief.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Well yeah. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it is a commitment'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'no it's not a commitment'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'It is.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Emm, put that on your resume -- you likely won't get hired in any important position'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it is.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'a commitment to what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Bank notes in the uk read 'Promise to pay''
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'you could say money is "backed" by things'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'promise to pay exactly what the money is?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im sure anyone who knows my true political views would not let me anywhere near any position of importances'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'technically notes are a promise to pay in coin.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'that's a commitment to nothing as you have just said money has no worth :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Exactly Red!!!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'money has worth since it can buy hard assets'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well presumably you don't keep a lot of it in liquid'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'yea... so money is not a commitment :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'except a technical one maybe'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'as long as people keep accepting it it is'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'It was. Its a commitment of zero value.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'as long as people agree something has worth... it kind of does'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the real commitment is that the fed won't let it get out of control'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Banks survive by perpetuating a belief in a value of pieces of actually worthless paper.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'won't allow hyperinflation to happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'and if you are willing to work for money obviously certain unit of money is worth a unit of your time'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'We need a gold backed currency again :/'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so that people keep accepting it as a medium for exchange'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and That is what money essentially is'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'a medium of exchange'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Except it isnt fixed. The premise is that money corresponds to time, corresponds to energy. But when it isnt resource backed...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'yep emm like a middle man in a barter transaction'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Azraael nodnods
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'ok what's the gold worth.  It's just useless metal.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you can have money that isn't backed by resource and still have a stable medium of exchange'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'makes nice looking watches'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no gold has many intrsincly valuable properties'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Gold is certainly not useless.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'used in electronics, and jewelery'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'unused in electronics'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I assure you it is used in electronics'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'umm used'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Of course it isnt... which is why a gold backed currency would be great...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'more valueable than aluminum?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'much'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'because it is rarer'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'used in nano tech too i belive'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'scarcity is a huge factor in value.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'the ulitity value of gold is something like 1/100 it's going price'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the utility value of gold is why it has such a high going price'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'you can't tell me that the value of gold is based on what people will pay to put it in electronics.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'realize that utility includes people wanting it because it is shiny'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'going to have to completely disagree on that point Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Nah, thats scarcity.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'actually the price affects the scarcity too'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Why are gems so pricey? Scarcity.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the value of gold is because of scarcity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if the price goes high enough more extraction operations become valuable'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes teh value of EVERYTHING is b ecause of its scarcity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the problem with fiat currencies is that they are not scarce'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'they can be printed'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'That implies that the amount of gold in the earth tends towards infinity but is hard to get at.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'cryto currenty'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"currency" is also backed by "real estate" and by "natural resources" and by "the people"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'like bit coin'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'is that what destroyed my binder full of Ken Griffey Jr rookie cards? that was supposed to be my retirement'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not towards infinity, just higher than we will ever achieve'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the amount of gold in the universe tends towards infinity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'just like any scarce resource that has varied degrees of dificult to obtain'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'you could go fly to another planet and extract it there!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Relative to our access, though.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Reeedd.... *facepalms*'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im not sure that has been proven redryn, but it is a reasonable assumption i guess.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'bitcoin is not securely regulated yet -- what is the *collateral* behind bitcoin'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if gold were worth a billion man hours of labor per ounce people would fly to asteroids to find it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'per ounce?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Of course we can do that but it will never be worth it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'new products are constantly being created and their creation implies a new demand for money'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i would assume you would ship back a few hundred kg'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Emm is clueless'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'You know what the world needs?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'just showing the argument at it's extreme'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Emm: That's called reductio ad absurdem, and it's a logical fallacy.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i'm not making an argument really :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"clueless" to use a ludicrous example'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the point about money is understood'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'you guys are just repeating essentially what everyone agrees with'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'mathematicians use reductio all the time to prove statements true'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'A highly contagious virus that targets the human genome specifically that shuts down reproduction and guarantees death in the near future'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'it's certainly not a logical fallacy'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'hence my argument redryn ... you work for money you agree it has worth :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'its worth is that collectively everyone agrees it has worth'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'social contract maybe'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Endtime: I'll let you and google sort that out, reminding you first that mathematics and formal logic are different fields. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the reason behind why people agree it has worth is linked to scarcity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'mathematics is a subset of formal logic with an extra premise or two thrown in'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Then what about quantitative easing?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'usually the premise of zero'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'what he said'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Just do some research, beyond what you already think you know. Formal logic, reductio ad absurdem. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I'll wait.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '<==specialized in logic as an undergrad in philosopy'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Then you should really know this.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Want a few links?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"pride goes before a fail"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the other day there was someone with a masters in statistics telling us that deal or no deal worked like the monty hall problem'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I am familiar with reductio ad absurdem'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Currency is based upon information opacity.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what does that have to do with the relationship between math and logic?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what does that mean azraael?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'other than buzzwords I mean'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'saying you have an undergrad degree is an appeal to authority and is not logically sound :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Someone else brought up math, I was saying that the argument that we would use technology that we don't currently possess to obtain something, as a way to show it's value, falls under the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdem. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I mean that its all based upon the people who make and manage it at the highest level keep information from the masses. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Someone say reductio ad absurdem was not a logical fallacy, I was saying it was. If you think it isn't, you don't know a damn thing about logic. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'reductio ad absurdem is not a fallacy shackleford'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford sighs.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(state when does "reductio ad absurdem" fail to prove something, or rather upon what assumption does "reductio ad absurdem" depend)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'QE3 will destroy the worth of currency.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'are you speaking of intuitionist philosophy? because what I'm reading suggests that reductio is valid argument in formal logic but not in philosophies that deny the law of the excluded middle'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'it depends on the statement you seek to refute with a reducto ad absurdem'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'in mathematical terms, usually statements are absolute'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Aaaand now I lose my bearings'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'so any contradiction means they are wrong'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'a false reductio ad absurdum (like a strawman argument) is a fallacy'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Dayuuum. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'in normal arguments usually you don't make absolute statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"reductio ad absurdem" usually depends on the assumption of a valid "excluded middle" -- when the assumption is invalid, "reductio ad absurdem" is likely to fail'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate logical method'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Correct, Emm. That's exactly what the Asteroid argument was. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I never brought up mathematics, that was Endtime I believe.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'okay wtf'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Are you guys arguing semantics?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'welcome to the internet az'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'keep up'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Az, no.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no we are arguing logic'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'semantics is entirely different'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'we are arguing whatever we think someone is wrong about'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Azraael facedesks.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'try facecar'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'and by saying a person who does not know of one part of logic, does not know anything about logic is not a valid or sound argument since logic has more than one premise and conclusion'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'quick quick someone on the internet is wrong!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'flawed premise that the technology exist to mind gold off an asteroid (in an economical enough way to profit off gold).'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'FIX IT!
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i have no idea what the original statement/rebuttal was actually'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that is not the problem'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'because as I said in my argument if gold were worth a billion man hours of labor per oz we would do it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'The argument is nonsense.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'can someone find it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the technology either exists, or could be easily made to exist'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'We don't have the technology, you have nothing to base that on. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Werent we talking about social justice? I feel like the argument now has fallen to the maintenance of egos.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'why don't we have the technology'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford buries his face in his hand and sighs, shaking his head.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we can build ships that can go to the asteroid belt'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we can launch stuff to orbit'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'yea if gold was worth enough we would go mine asteroids'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Emm...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'what's wrong with that statement?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if it were worth enough we could launch enough stuff to orbit to build a big enough ship to go get it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'I took discrete math and a phi logic class'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'You cant just... Fly into space magically...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'who said we could?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we have launch vehicles'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Not you.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'who is talking about ME?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'i'm confused'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Im making a point <<'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and I can absolutely fly into space if I have the money to spend'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no you are not'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'what's the argument against mining asteroids'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Erm'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i don't know what you are doing but you aren't making a point'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I mean to say that whether we have the tech or not'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'robotic, or even manned mining of asteroids does not require any new technology'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'we can talk about you if you like emm :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it does require economics being different than they are currently'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Modification of current tech is still new tech, it comes with a whole assortment of new, unforseen problems, it takes unquantifiable amounts of time, this is all hypothetical.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but trust me if they were valuable enough we would go get them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'It will never be feasible to go and fly into space and go mine. We can do it now. We dont. Why? If it was lucrative business, it would be.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Way too hypothetical to base a logical argument on. I've grown tired of this, it's just going in circles.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'the point is that currently it's not lucrative enough'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'would make more sense to Terra form deserts than mine asteroids me thinks'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'IF it was lucrative then you would'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'that's all'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'it will never be worth it. Aye, its too hypothetical.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'you don't know that heh'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'spaceflight is getting cheaper'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'http://www.planetaryresources.com/asteroids/composition/'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'you would also mine all sorts of other minerals'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'like rich earths'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'those are getting more valuable'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Even when its cheaper, it will be better to planet mine.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Hey! A link! First semi-credible thing I've seen on this channel all evening.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'I don't know how you can assert it will NEVER be lucrative. what if the cost of launching a pound of materiel into space was cut by a factor of 100?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not that credible'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Redryn: 'there will come a point in time where earth has almost everything mined out'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i think it is pretty pie in the sky at this point'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Hence, "semi."'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but only because of economics not tech'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Okay, my bad. It could be lucrative someday.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'there will never be a point where earth is "mined out"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that is also true elchanan'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: ''mining out' earth means blowing it uo.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'thats true for oil and natural gas as well'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'But Emm, surely you see how those two things are interrelated?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Economics and tech, I mean.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes, economics drive technology advances'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and technology advances can potentially dramatically alter economic situations'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Technology isnt limitless.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'inexorable, even, when talking about cost projections of imaginary tech.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what does that mean in real terms az?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it sounds like a meaningless platitutde'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'I mean that not everything can be done as fast or as much as we want it to.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'debate degenerated into trite hackneyed cliches'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there are things that cannot be accomplished by technology, (probably but we probably don't know much about them)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that I will grant'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but I don't think it is tech that drives that nearly as much as economics'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and of course legal and political structures'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'But the tech industry has been one of the biggest boons to the economy in decades.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'all these are human constructs. Reality is what would remain even if no human was alive to see it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'trite hackneyed cliches  or  near-meaningless unsubstantiated defective platitudes'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Yeah this has gotten old. Have fun sucking on the bones, guys.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that is a metaphysical assertion az, and one that means nothing in this argument'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I find myself agreeing with zade, which is always a dangerous thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'What if we hit a limit with how fast we can travel in space?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Oh boy.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there certainly is a limit to that'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'C, at very best. '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'probably more like .2c'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford nods.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Still, unlikely.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but that has very little bearing on the question of how quickly we can mine asteroids'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Rusty Shackleford laughs out loud.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'since they aren't really that far away (in fact some of them are quite close)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and we can always build MORE things to go get them'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and much of the materials to build more could be gotten from more asteroids'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'But why would you need to do that when theres a whole planet of resources here? o.o'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and we might start mining planets, or even blowing up planets so we can mine the asteroids created'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you wouldn't unless the resources here were more expensive to get to than the resources there'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Thanks for this btw, somehow I feel like I understand things I didnt before x.x'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '(which could easily happen especially with government regulations making things more expensive)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'That seems ridiculous to me. Less expensive to go get more thsn to recycle what we already used?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but eventually the resources here will be more expensive than getting them from space, at least for some resources'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'presumably the stuff we already have would be already being used in more efficient ways'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'the reason for mining asteroids is that shipping raw materials into space is very, very expensive. we will need the materials if we ever start doing large-scale construction in space. it is not a replacement for terrestrial mining.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'some recycling would come long before some mining and certainly before extraplanetary mining'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'That, Lachdanan, I can accept'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it can be lach'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not initially'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but eventually'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'Thats like... increasing the mass of earth'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the case for space based solar power satellites depends on that very fact'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Azraael: 'in a way.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we can build them now easily with existeing tech'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but its too expensive it would work out to several dollars per kilowatt hour'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps google the number of *tons* of space debris being added to the planet earth each day from space duat and micrometeorites and other space debris'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but eventually we could make most of the structures from materials from Near Earth Asteroids, and from Lunar Regolith (both of which could concievably be cheaper to get to orbit than materials from earth)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and in theory this could drive the price of electricity from sbsp even with losses for microwave relay below that of traditional sources'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/nasa-wants-flower-inspired-satellite-array-beaming-solar-power-down-earth'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the amount of energy to spacetravel to a space-mining-asteroid may be comparable to using that energy to extract those minerals from (say) seawater'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it might be'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but what does that matter?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'of course the more you extract from seawater the more expensive it becomes in the future'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'since the concentrations will decrease'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'btw, each spacerocket into space wreaks havoc with the upper atmosphere and deposits more debris spinning around the planet'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that is a pretty vague statement zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'my understanding is that it is entirely possible to have space launch vehicles that do not contribute to orbital clutter (afiak space-x is doing exactly that)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and as far as "wreaking havoc" with the upper atmosphere it is no more than stratospheric jets, and we certainly do a lot more of that than we do launches'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and neither of these are significant contributors to the real issues in the upper atmosphere (excessive chlrorine being the biggest of these)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'although I got a b- in my atmospheric chemistry class i just finished so maybe im not the best source for information on the upper atmosphere.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'also I was not trying to somehow prove that we will go into space for gold eventually'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I was only explaining how value can affect scarcity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'even though it is primarily determined by scarcity'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade 's understanding was that scientists are not supposed to use the Antarctica as a garbage dumping ground, that scientists remove from Antarctica all the garbage they produced   (dream on - maybe when the iceshelf melts, the garbage shall drift off and or sink)
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that was a heck of a non-sequitar zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or at least it seemed so to me'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I know very little about the practices of scientists in antarctica visavi garbage'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(there was sarcasm there, not a non sequitur)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what did it have to do with what we were discussing?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '(non-sequitur means not sequential, or not following from the earlier discussion).'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'less space debris from launched rockets .. less garbage from Scientists in the Antarctica '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'yes, those points both have the word "less" in them'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'uhm okay still not seeing the connection'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Emm nods at Endtime.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(likely not going to happen, unless ...)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'unless you start making sense?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'i read about someone working on satellites to help clear atmospheric clutter. it might take a bit of convincing to be allowed though, considering the potential military applications of such a device.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Emm is feigning obtuse'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes china has one in development but there has been a big whoha about it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'how do you spell who ha?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'huha?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'a big international ruckus?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'hoo-ha?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'anyway you get the idea'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Denise Richards on a tvseries used the word "hoo-ha" to describe her "hoo-ha"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that wasn't really what I was going for zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'also i don't know who that is'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Denise Richards, costar of "Space Troopers" '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'never saw it'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Denise Richards, former wife of Charlie Sheen'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i know who he is, he had some sort of drug problem right?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'starship troopers...'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and his father is the best president we have never had'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'OOH starship troopers I have seen'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'she's the pilot'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'gotcha'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"West Wing" - Martin Sheen'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes zade that is what I was refering to'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'Aaron Sorkin is a god among men.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Emm, you out of the closet, you seem to be using homosexual-talk with  "(some nocount) is a *** among men" '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Loony Lachdanan: 'er, what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Endtime shakes his head.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'uhm you know I am a girl right?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or were you too drunk the other night when you realized that?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'with the usual Internet air quotes, of course :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sure if you want them'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'its no skin off of my nose either way'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'five year old, right - using your parent's computer,'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'for that matter its no skin off my nose if you want to think i am homo or hetero sexual'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'actually I have a 2 year old daughter'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'First thing I've agreed with you about all night, I think!'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well 2 years 4 months actually (tomorrow)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'some phrases heterosexuals never use, unless they want to go undercover as homosexuals and or annoy the religious community'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'but use that phrase on your job interview'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'uhm which phrase god among men?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'must be an age thing when I was young all the girls said that about guys they liked'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'latent lesbians ?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'don't you wish'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I've heard plenty of straight guys use that expression. Where are you from, Zade?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'can i swear on this channel? cuz i really want to right now'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Elchanan is slapping Endtime with his cock! You see mushroom-shaped bruises forming!
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'does that answer you question'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Not mine though.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'yes :) thanks'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'now who needs to come out of the closet?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'if anybody uses that expression, the auto-assumpion is that they are homosexual (even if they profess to be heterosexual)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I'm not sure it counts as coming out when it's on an anonymous online videogame.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Based on what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'zade's own twisted mind'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'males wearing an earring -- does not matter what ear - likely homosexual '
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'hmm when I was young men wearing earrings in one ear was ridiculously common'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'you have it all figured out huh?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Ohh, I'm starting to see it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'absolutely! It is a well known fact that pirates were all homosexual.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'personally I don't like piercings of any sort on men or women.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'you ever see women on pirate ships?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Watch, he's going to say it's okay if they've sailed the seven seas or something.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'and do all yall really give a fuck if someone is gay or something'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what endtime that zade is drunk and trolling again?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'Zade, can we get a ruling on boxerbriefs? gay or not gay?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'so until recently you didn't see women on modern warships. Are you claiming that because of that navy men are all homosexual?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Endtime rapidly nods twice at Emm, in complete agreement.
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'all those months at sea -- perhaps those pirates that dress with earrings are the designated "prostitutes"'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i think statistics indicate that homosexuality is less prevelant in the US Navy than in any other branch of the US Armed Forces.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'you are a sick puppy, Zade.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'That one wasn't very good :-/'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'yes, Emm, that is the Navy cover story'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'as the Samurai proved, homosexuality is has little effect one's ability to be a fierce warrior.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and the roman centurions too'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'and the Greek :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Janissaries'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'my understanding is that roman centurions were almost exclusively homosexual'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Kabuki girls'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Zade.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there needs to be a ranking for most people with you on their ignore list.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I think zade might win it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'There have been many, far, far worse.'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but have they lasted as long as zade?'
T3/r7/2014-01-02.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Though to be fair, I just had the pleasure of meeting Zade tonight.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'he has his good moments and his bad'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I think he is drunk tonight tbh'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'I'll take your word on the former.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'I'm struggling for the name, but there was this screaming idiot who used to terrorize GC--seemingly nonstop, at least 20 hours per day--but I think he's gone.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'will you really jhav?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'somehow I don't think you believe me'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'thats amazing'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rusty Shackleford: 'Hm?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Bank of America actively employ people to troll social networking sites'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's long been assumed that the government does, a little surprised banks do it too, though perhaps I shouldn't be'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"troll" as in "seek to ruin" or "troll" as in "provide comedy"'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would assume to push an agenda, by promoting it, or by ridiculing opposition '
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Wink: 'probably means astroturfing'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Like what Yuna does :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'did or does Yuna do anything'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not much these days'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'she came out screaming like a banshee when abortion was being talked about to push a murdering, authoritarian agenda, but that's all i've seen of her of late'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so, Tigernuts, did you apply to Bank Of America for a job (say) to pa-troll the Aardwolf Debate channel'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no. There is no money backing up the agenda that I push, that is quite obvious'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'was Yuna for or against abortions  (unsure what Tigernuts meant by a "murdering agenda")'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'essentially she was for abortions at any cost and suggested taxpayers should fund it all'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the standard vacant fake-liberal position'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so Yuna is on track at lowering the excess overpopulation of planet earth :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's not her justification, and neither would it have that effect'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'aborted babies are cheaper than born babies to maintain'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that might be so, but free legal abortion doesn't reduce overall birth rates or population'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so taxpayers are wise to fund contraceptives and abortions'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would prefer the solution of having charities provide free contraceptives and abortions, then you're not forcing people to pay for them who are ideologically opposed'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'every abortion assists in reducing the birth-rate -- so abortions do lower the overall birth-rates'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not really proven'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'aborted babies are usually unwanted babies'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in terms of this country, controlling immigration would reduce population. Worldwide, alleviating poverty while liberating women and providing them education reduces birthrates far more than any kind of abortion'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'arithmetically: proven! '
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'arithmetically true, statistically insignificant'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'no! no! no.  alleviating poverty does not reduce the birth rate.  More food, more babies. classic proof: the overpopulation of India'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'india is the proof that it does'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Indiu is an example that increasing the food supply encouraged a massive population explosion in Indaa'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'food + healthcare, yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'increased food+healthacre --> alleviating poverty --> massive population explosion'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's the teaching and liberation that's important, but those won't work without the other'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'your alternative is to starve india, china, and africa into population reduction?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'India is an educated country nation -- so bollocks to that crap theory that "teaching and liberation" reduces overpopulation'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'india is not'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in provinces of india where investment has been made into educating girls and pulling them out of poverty, birth rates have halves'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'halved*'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'human civilisation likely started in India  (but for some reason the Hindus were ruined)'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'from 4.something to 2.4'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a birth rate of 2-2.2 is what you want in order to reduce population long term'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts, you are likely pulling statistics from where the sun don't shine'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no, zade, just having to recall them off the cuff'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'did you know that when the Roman Catholic Church educates girls to become nuns, the birthrate decreases among those girls - amazing fact'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'may be almost similar to what is happening in India in an "untouchable" version -- (educate India girls to become ostracised)'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'reinforces a well known effect that when you pull girls out of poverty, teach them, and give them empowerment, they choose not to have loads of kids'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not ostracised so much as not being forced into having loads of kids by odious men'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so explain the overpopulation of the educated jewish and irish rabbits'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'rabbits?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i didn't know rabbits could be jewish'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'explain the overpopulation of the educated jewish and irish "rabbits" '
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'israel's birthrate is only slightly above world average'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(and is falling)'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'ah, slightly above -- likely because they were not able to steal enough land from the arabs for extra housing'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would certainly agree that Israel is a hypocritical, if not terrorist state'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'also, the handouts from the USA only go so far'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'israel is 2.65 according to the cia world factbook'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, Majic, down from 2.79 4 years previous'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's lower than it's neighbours'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'UK's has been rising thanks to immigrants'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and is at about the right level'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'but what is the deathrate of the Israeli neighbours'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'and nuts is correct, btw. Educating women and giving them something to do other than pop out babies, along with improved child welfare (oddly, at first), and improving care of the elderly, decreases birth rate in the long term'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'USA's birth rate is about spot on, unfortunately it is not equally spread amongst it's racial demographics - hispanics are fast outbreeding the whites and blacks'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'which leads to it's own set of issues'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'in general, when people have a fair idea that their first 2-3 kids are going to live, they tend not to have 11. There are, of course, exceptions'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Wink: 'its because when ppl know welfare is good enough that their only 2 kids will survive to see them through old age, they dont need to have more babies, because they are expensive. It's not odd.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'hispanics are waging a war of genocide by seeking to overbreed out nonhispanics'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then if you can use your welfare/tax system to discourage the 11, then those who have >2 are balanced by those who have 0 or 1'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'that's why I said 'odd, at first', wink'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Wink nods.
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'when you have a welfare system such as the UK, then the poor use having children as a means of getting an income, so you find the good of education undermined'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'well, furthermore, when people don't feel they can get ahead by working hard and getting a decent job'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and what are demographics of these career welfare mothers'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's the wider problem, majic'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there is also an "ethnic" impetus'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and a "religion" impetus'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0809.pdf'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'study showed positive fertility effect for women with increased welfare'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'alleviate poverty --> more babies'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'depends on how you alleviate it'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'if you alleviate it by handing out food, it does tend to result in that'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and back full circle to [03 Jan 07:00:27] (Debate) Tigernuts: 'in terms of this country, controlling immigration would reduce population. Worldwide, alleviating poverty while liberating women and providing them education reduces birthrates far more than any kind of abortion''
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'providing the education is the key component of that '
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'yes, that's why it matters HOW you do it'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'UK welfare is not about stopping people starving like Africa, and they have an education'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'if you do JUST the 'here's food', it doesn't do a damn thing other than make the food problem worse'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'if you do it by helping people get educated and set up their own businesses, especially women, it does reduce the rate.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'plenty of education in the UK -- (do not pass go, do not collect $200) '
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs. Zade, don't compare welfare for India with welfare for UK. Single mother with 3 kids will have a welfare income equivalent to a single employed man earning $40,000'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"education" is not going to decrease birthrates in India'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'alone? no'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"education" is not going to decrease birthrates in the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'no, but the link between education and lower birth rates is fairly well esablished'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'has already happened, india is dropping towards 2.1'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'unlike my typing skills'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yes, razkin, zade ignores that we've made that clear time and again'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'already down to 2.55'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'no no no -- the link is likely a coincidence'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'ohh, I didn't realize we were combating willful ignorance'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'It is assuredly not a coincidence. This is an active topic of research.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I'll stay out of it, then'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts pats Zade on his head.
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what causes the drop, then?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'guess I couldn't stay out of it >.<'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade plays baseball with Tigernut's head
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'https://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'even initially, staying in school longer tends to postpone the age of first birth, which in and of itself is going to reduce the fertility rate.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'there's a whole bunch of others, but still, the evidence is pretty abundant.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'not just education, either, but business/employment opportunities other than 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen''
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'in some controversial topics, "research" don't mean frig-all -- look at the "research" on global warming'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'true, but you can't dismiss all research based on that line of thought'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'that's also why there's a peer review process'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'right, an armchair enthusiast who has already made up his mind is going to be able to figure out things far better than trained scientists'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the next big issue you need to tackle alongside this is the raping of these developing countries by the developed, from the slave labour of China to the buying up of resources in Africa'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Dispel Majic rolls her eyes, disgusted.
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I would never take something as a fact based on one study'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't remember seeing evidence or alternative explanations for the population thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nor do i see people claiming, with any kind of sense, that an ever-increasing population isn't a problem'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I'd also say that the global warming debate is vastly different from this one'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i agree, raz'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there is a lot of fooling around with statistics -- the fact remains that the world population is explosding, and "education" is not going to halt the explosion'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'except it is doing so in countries around the world'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well it's already slowing it, zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'the rate in many countries has been dropping precipitously'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'statistics can be misused, but they can also be powerful tools for identifying trends'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'current trends showing world population peaking by about 2050'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'too little, too late'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'gain, that's why you use peer reviewed, credible resources to make your decisions'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'again, that is'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why is it too late? what will be the impact?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'also hose countries that slow their birthrae but then permit immigration, likely find that the immigrants overbreed'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'o.O'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I've never read that'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'those illegal hispanics in the USA'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'though in countries like the U.S., the major contributor to population grow is immigration'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well that happened in the USA and the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'well, immigrants to western countries do tend to have more children than the native population.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it is argued that it's a benefit'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'but I've never read anything that implied that it was because of the amount of births, but simply the amount if movement'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it prevents a demographic schism'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'razkin, hispanic birth rate in the us is indeed higher although again dropping'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there are plenty of issues with population density - UK is vastly overpopulated for instance'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'look at the genocide that the UK foisted on the aboriginals of Fiji ny letting the population of India into Fiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no doubt, wasn't me though'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the original Fijians do Not view the overbreeding immigrants as a "benefit"'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'sorry, was looking stuff up'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I'm sure it is, I'm just not sure that it's greater than the influx of immigrants'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying I've never read anything that claimed that it was'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and those from immigrants from India  were likely "educated" yet they overbred and therby threaten the original Fijians wih genocide'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'plus, I've never read any studies about if second and third generations (who have access to education) change that trend, which would add support to the argument'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'since the Indians appear to have arrived in Fiji as indentured servants, I would consider that highly unlikely'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if population continues to rise unsustainably, there will be wars over resources. Fortunately this is irrelevent because of the greedy corporatists/world governmentists who are collapsing economies to get control, they'll be starting wars over resources for financial gain and control of power long before it breaks out on grounds of necessity'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'wait, are you comparing things from almost a hundred years ago to today?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'apparently so'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I mean, I'm all for looking to history for answers, but you also have to adjust for the realities of today'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'increased immigration is never a benefit'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you're starting to see wara drums in Asia because China will need some diversion to remain in control of their people who are now becoming more affluent'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would say increased immigration RARELY is a benefit'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'yeah, I'm sure we could come up with some situations'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'in fact, Japan may be one of those upcoming situations where immigration might benifit them'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'furthermore, the percentage of fijians has been rising and the percentage of indians dropping since the 1960s'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'man, can't type or spell today, yeash'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'according to fijian census data, indians peaked at 50.5% in 1966 and have been gradually dropping as a percentage to 37.5% in 2007'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'the indigenous population comprised 42.4% in 1966 and has risen to 56.8% in 2007'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so the Fijians retaliated with increased breeding - but Fiji islands are only so big -- and eventually the overpopulation difficulties of India may strike Fiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'in absolute numbers, the fijian population has increased from 200k in 1966 to 475k in 2007, whereas the indian population has increased from 240k to 314k'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'so as usual, zade is rather ludicrously incorrect. I've never figured out if he actually believes what he's saying.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and somewhere later than the 1960s, i read a different story, that the Fijians were complaining that the India immigrants were overbreeding to half the population of the Fiji Islands - so the genocide damage by the Indian immigrants is extensive in Fiji'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in terms of economic development, how do we go about preventing the looting of these developing countries, or the abuse of their labour such as happened in China during the 90s and 00s?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'I don't care what "story", you read, the actual census data shows differently'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i've always argued that the careful and proportionate use of protectionist policies on imports can help prevent such abuse while assisting our own industry'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i guess it's a race to the bottom condition'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Majic, your census figures are likely corrupted statistics'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'o.O'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'although it doesn't surprise me that you'd rather believe an op-ed piece than the census. Most people are too blinded by their own prejudice to read anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions. If it disagrees with them, it must be a lie.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'See?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'it's easy to win arguments when you can simply dismiss all evidence'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'what, you have facts!? No, those are just misinformation by the government!!!'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'You sound like a young-earth creationist attempting to argue evolution is a lie by simply dismissing all evidence from science.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'what , you have statistics!?  Bah, 98% of statistics are lies!!!'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Seltsimees Dagnir: 'i'm still not sure if zade is an excellent troll who's always in character or just plain retarded'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'heh, mind you, evolution is an incomplete theory, still the best we have'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Dispel Majic nods at Tigernuts.
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'yeah that's a great one'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'we don't know everything yet, we never will :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'show me a transitional fossil!!!'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'for example, with native AmerIndians, what percentage is original Amerindian -- some say far less than 50% -- namely there are no Amerindians any more, merely immigrants posing as Amerindians (but 1/16 Amerindians are permitted to open Casinos)'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i never understood the laws preventing casinos'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'None is pretty ridiculous, but it's low.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'me either, although I have no problem preventing children from going in.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, should be up to state/local level to decide whether they want casinos'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'it kinda is, varies by state'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm all for regulating them to ensure they're not frauds'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'nods, that too'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they are frauds anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'in general, with most of these things that are illegal I'd rather have them legal, regulated, and taxed'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'gambling, prostitution, and pot :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they arbitrarily ban people from casinos who have the ability to card count'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they see someone winning, they get rid of them'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'nods :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they shouldn't be able to do that, though if they want to set winning ceilings they should be able to do that'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'have no problem with winning ceilings although, were I to write the law, there would also be losing floors set to the same level :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not only do they kick out card counters, but they collaborate with other casinos'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so the immigrants stole their lands, then stole their burial grounds (to liberate the gold), murdered off their buffalo, then stole their reservations, and lo, Tigernuts wants the immigrants to steal their Casinos'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm not giving a pass to the actions of the invaders, zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'no, he wants there to be rules'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"immigrant" rules'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'meh, we're all immigrants if you want to play that game'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'we are all aliens and you cant prove me wrong.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Razkin D
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'whoops, but yeah, there was suppose to be some eyes in that emoticon!'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no, hwuai, just you'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'nope nope nope, that term "iimigrans" likely does not apply to longterm aboriginals'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'the poor Clovis culture was pushed out by the Indians :('
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'though, to be fair, that's somewhat debated'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'nope nope nope, that term "immigrants" likely does not apply to longterm aboriginals'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'so if we stay here long enough, we can not be immigrants?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'while we're talking about aliens, if you didn't see this, yuo probably should: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b0w36GAyZIA'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'while we're talking about aliens, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfPWpEKhgfk'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-intercepts-laptop-deliveries-install-spyware-143011341.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'brings new meaning to the phrase, 'I see what you did there!''
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, razkin'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'http://news.yahoo.com/yikes-nsa-turn-iphone-camera-mic-without-knowing-124525611.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yep, it's all in the video i posted link to'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I had to type that, because they're listening'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'ahh, yeah, iw as going to watch that, it looks interesting, but it's an hour long'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'everything tin foil hat wearers have been castigated for for the last 15 years, turns out it was all true'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'yeah, but they're doing it for our protection, and only against the bad guys!'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'looking our for our protection by making us open to attack from ANYONE'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'gee thanks'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'well, if you did do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.  So need to get worked up.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'err, didn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but while the NSA does it to clam down on their political opponents, if we do the same it's illegal'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'you know, on a serious note, there's always a give and take between protection and freedom, but I think we've finally crossed over to the side where the payoff isn't worth it'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'I agree.'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, the point at which they sabotaged equipment, and recorded everything everyone was doing and started farming it for law enforcement and political gain was the overstep'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and why on earth did the media castigate them for bugging Angela Merkel's phone? That's IS in the scope of their job'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'it's the scary thing when it comes to our laws and all the new technology out there.  We know they can't just waltz into our homes and start searching, however, our technology doesn't seem to have that limitation'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'because they got caught'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i would think assassinating political activists was more of an overstep'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'yet, we like to assume that it does, because we're use to our property being , well, our property'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'used to the illusion we have property rights, right?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'if that makes any sense, maybe it doesn't, it is kind of early here for me'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'yeah , we think we have rights that they think we don't'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'not that it's the NSA, but I was reading a bit ago that stores are starting to track how cellphones move through their buildings, to get an idea on traffic patterns'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I bet if you asked most people, they would think that they have a right to not have their cell phones tracked'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'but since it's out in public, etc., there's nothing illegal going on'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'of course, maybe I'm wrong, maybe most people don't care about things like that'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'do tracked cellphones provide alibis -- likely not'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I don't know, but I'd agree, probably not'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'tracked cellphones may be used as probable evidence that a specific somebody was "there", but not as credible evidence that a specific somebody was "not there"'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'tracked cellphones may be used as probable evidence that a specific somebody was "there", but not as credible evidence that a specific somebody was "somewhere else" to there'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'well furthermore, someone else could easily be carrying a cellphone so I doubt it'd be very useful, a security camera would be a lot more useful for alibis'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'a slip of tongue while under extreme interrogation pressure is usable as evidence of guilt, but protestations of innocence are disregarded'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'well, that's like the lie detector tests'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'failing a lie-detector test is indication of guilt, passing a lie-detector test is not evidence of innocence'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'they measure stress, which is just assumed to mean that you're stressed about lying'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'did you know that you can fail a lie detector test simply by knowing how they work, and indicating as such'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'or at least that's what I've read, though maybe that's a bit out dated'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'yep, and it's not uncommon to fail the lie detector test just due to nervousness -- a friend of mine wanted to work for the government, but he's a nervous guy and just couldn't pass'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'except some humans are always exhibit stress -- those that Obsessive-Compulsive look for worst case scenarios'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'well, my understaning is that most jurisdictions don't allow those tests, but the questions and answers are allowed as evidence'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'heh, on a side note, I saw someone the other day talking about how the couldn't leave their house without photographing their stove so they could be sure it wasn't on'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'i've heard of people doing that with their garage doors, but never a stove'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i always go around doing a door check'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think of it less of OCD and more just common sense'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'one door check is normal'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'five is not'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what if you have five doors, checking each?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Andurien: 'there are arguments that aprons, by offering people a backup form of both control, increase sexual activity, and thereby increase pregnancies'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Andurien: 'abortions rather'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'you know that I meant checking each door five times :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yes, andurien, i don't know whether it's a strong effect, but certainly promoting promiscuity will increase pregnancies'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'as well as all of the other societal issues that go with it, parentless kids, disease, moral degredation'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Mayor de Blasio begins his kingship by trying to ban horse carriages in new york city'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'well, he had to think of something to top banning "Big Gulp" cups...'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'heh'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i notice places about the US are banning the use of e-cigarettes in public, UK was thinking of something similar'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Edward Snowden, hero or villain?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'yep'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'by edward snowden do you mean our very own fiendish?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'I don't know enough to say, what did he do, exactly?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's telling that members of the establishment on both sides of the fake political spectrum attack him. When someone does that, you're probably right over the target. There was never any chance of him being able to whistleblow through channels'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the only whistleblowing option left to him was the one he took'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'what did he whistleblow?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'illegal NSA mass surveillance, NSA lying to congress about mass surveillance, complicity of NSA with foreign governments in illegal mass surveillance'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the extent to which your modern gadgets are compromised, Apple IPhone being the worst'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'what did the NSA do that was illegal?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the extent to which your data is collected and stored and passed on to law enforcement for reasons outside the scope of national security'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'probably quicker to ask what haven't they done'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'well the details matter for whether he was a villain or a hero, b/c that's really what it comes down to'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'basically the NSA claimed, and said under oath in front of congress that they were not doing mass collection of phone records and internet communications, turns out they were'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they were also actively hacking communications infrastructure from transport level right the way down to individual devices'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'major software and hardware companies were complicit'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'technology companies in the US have already lost an estimated $15bn in revenue from the outfall'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i guess what he did is a good thing then'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this link has some info about their hacking capability: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfPWpEKhgfk'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the government is so fucked up, them collecting data isn't really high on my worry list.  they don't even know what to do with it'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'absolutely, if nothing else it proves to the naysayers how unsecure their communications are, not only to the US government, but to everyone else as well'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they pass it on to law enforcement and the political hitteams'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i'm far more concerned about the irs as a poltiical tool than the nsa'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'or the NLRB'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'are we still arguing about the nsa?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'all part of the same toolkit'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'heh, was that link supposed to be ID4?'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '"government departments using their power to target political opponents"'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'something out of east germany or the USSR'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'toe the line, or we'll sick the IRS on you'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'now the IRS have access to all your health info. What could possibly go wrong!'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I'd need to go searching a bit, but some of the things the IRS can do is almost worse than the NSA'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'I remember reading a whole article on it a few months ago, but i forget the specifics of it'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm sure the IRS haven't shot anyone yet, but they have all been armed now'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-31/the-irs-just-won-tuition-deduction-case-against-an-mba-dot-are-you-next'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'you can deduct tuition, unless the irs doesn't think you can'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'unless you are poor, or a corporate special interest, the government is only there to fuck you in the ass'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'amen to that, Kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'thats why it needs to go'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'sorry, was searching.  I'd have to re-read it, but I think this is the article I was talking about'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/17/two-obamacare-mandates-that-dramatically-expand-the-internal-revenue-services-power/'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'razkin: no, the point of that article is that tuition is normally not deductable at all, and the guy was stretching the one situation it's allowed to be deductable'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I mean the first one, haven't read that new one'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'oh, I'm sure he was streatching his arguement, but I wonder how many people try and follow the rules but open themselves up to trouble'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'what I took from it was that with the wins in court, the irs has more reason now to start persueing some of the less obvious cases'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'the second article might not be the one I was remembering reading,  I'm still kind of looking it over again'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'reduce tax rates, remove all deductions, can pretty much gut the IRS at that point, problem solved'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'so much easier said than done'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'no pressure on govt to shrink, only to expand'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'why would you reduce our largest employer? :D'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Razkin: 'there's something messed up about that statement'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'with no external pressure, government will always grow, if for no other reason but to protect it's own monopoly on power'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Iran is accusing Saudi Arabia for ordering embassy bombing in Lebanon. Meantime, 'Affordable Care' signees aren't able to get care because of trouble with the doctors getting paid'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hands up who is surprised'
T3/r7/2014-01-03.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/legal-rights/'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Elchanan: 'who was talking about Reductio ad absurdum '
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'Fallujah has fallen to ISIS'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'emm its one of those minority religious groups that has mostly minority members and usually gets overcrowded and sometimes frowned upon by majority religious groups like oh, shi'ite islamists have in the surrounding areas'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im sorry how can a group have mostly minority members?'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'minority relative to what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'emm the region'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or do you just mean it is a religion without a homeland, like kurdish'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'take for example, saudi arabia, most of the people there are officially muslims.'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'but there are other minority religious groups as well'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sure, and several different sects too'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so is it a sect of one of the big 3? or is it something else entirely?'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '(or big 6 if you include the non-abrahimics)'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'its not one of the big 3, but it has some shared elements'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'i'd say it's more comparable to gnostic christians and sufi practicioners than it is to the big 3 themself'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so like zorastrianism?'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I actually don't know any chauvanstic zorasterians'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'im sure they exist though'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): 2/3 Flying VampireDude points excitedly!
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'VD is attempting to lure AL into a debate on religion'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i see'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Salamander Samalander: 'I refuse to believe that'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'VD likes Jesus, and munching on his allmighty altar'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'maybe he's just playing with his twanger'
T3/r7/2014-01-04.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'Retier?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the US, African Americans make up 13% of the population, have 52% of all abortions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Colorado citizens should be miffed. The magazine ban did not garner one Republican vote in the House or Senate, and now as a result of this one-sided, Democrat-sponsored law, more than 200 people will lose their jobs and their ability to provide for their families, said Ms. Saine in a statement. [T]his move will cost the state of Colorado over $80 million a year in revenue.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'hm. a perfect pool table without pockets. no friction, no air resistance or any other annoying influences. once you set one ball in motion, will the movements of all those balls become a loop sometime?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'possibly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a bit of a false question to remove all external influences, and ignoring the laws of physics. Having said that, there exist many starting conditions that would lead to repeatable patterns. One would then postulate that for a repeatable loop, the original conditions would be at some point revisited. Assuming that reactions are identical this would imply that there will always be a loop, even if the time required to the original conditions tended to infinity'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there would also be situations in which a loop is reached that would make it impossible to return to the original conditiojns'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'heh, my bank just tried to trick me into going to paperless billing'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'they should offer to pay customers some fraction of the money they save on postage/account statements etc and more people might do it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wouldn't, and i resent them trying to trick people into doing it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'it's true though, they get away with a lot more of their BS extra fees and charges when people never get a paper statement. Is that your issue with paperless billing?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'without paper billing you have no proof of transactions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'd never want a bank account only accessable online, either'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I haven't walked inside a back (other than to support them for work) in probably 5 years'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i walk into the bank when there is an issue'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i will likewise walk into a bank to get a mortgage'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'online and paperless is fine with me...I have all my statements in PDF'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what about when online isn't available?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or there's aproblem?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I use online when there is a problem, and online isn't not available...ever'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wel the first thing online banks here do if there's a problem is prompt you to phone'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'phone's still better than hauling my ass to a branch, but I haven't ever had to use the phone for an issue rather than using the online contacts'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: '(and I could walk to a branch from my house)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well there's the difference, there are no online contacts for online banking here'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'and as far as offering to pay customers some of what they save on paper, many banks do waive fees on accounts which would otherwise have monthly fees when you go paperless'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'do you find yourself able to pay as close attention to your accounts and any fees with the electronic statements? just curious'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'it's the exact same statement...except I don't have to wait for it, so yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I can look at transactions basically in realtime, or look at the PDF statement which if I wasn't paperless they'd just send to a printer and mail off'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't have fees, so it isn't an issue'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'probably keeps a lot of people more protected from identity theft I imagine. for those who would throw a paper statement in the garbage without even shredding it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's your fault'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'nod, not that they don't keep sending offers and stuff, but at least there's no account info in those'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's no financial benefit to me for having paperless billing, so they can continue to send me paper'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'heh, there is financial benefit, you just don't see down the road far enough'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what is the benefit down the road?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you think that businesses such as banks don't shift burdens of cost on to customers?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that takes many forms, fees only being one of them'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'of course they do, and there's no financial incentive for me having no paper bills'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if they were gonna give me a couple of bucks a month for not having paper billings, that would be a different matter, that at least would pay for me printing my statement out monthly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that ain't going to happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no reason to pring out the statement monthly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'print*'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'of course there is, i want a printed record'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'which then is kept for the required 5 years'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that's just stupid :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'required for tax purposes'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'is not'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so if you're called up for a review and you have no bank statements, how are you going to prove what transactions take place? You either have access to your bank statements, or you have to pay the bank to reprint them'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'keeping records for 5 years is required...keeping it in hardcopy form is not'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'IF you're called up for review, THEN you print only the records being requested'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'printing just as matter of course is silly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's no difference, you're still holding a backup of it somewhere'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'there is a difference'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's no difference at all'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'one takes time and has associated cost, the other does not'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the cost of the media, cost of replacing the media, cost of time putting it onto the media vs printing a copy'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'isn't a great deal'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'media?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): You fall to the floor laughing at Tigernuts's remark.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'unless you plan on saving this pdf in thin air'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you're cute..and I thought you were a computer guy'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'because keeping it on your hard drive is safe, those things never fail'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'suppose you're using floppy disks?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'wow, you've never heard of backups'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you really suck at your job'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'backup is via a hard disk'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i suppose you have a free supply of hard disks, flash drives or otherwise?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then the backup is not free'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'it is for the statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then what are you storing them on for the backup?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you aren't purchasing hard drives for the statements, you aren't increasing the size of your hard drives or backups via those statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'at some point one must be purchased, even if you argue that you use online backup, that has cost'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no, one mustn't be purchased'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there is no financial incentive'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's the same thing, you're making a backup of your statement, whether digital or on paper, you have access to that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no, it's not the same thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's having a copy of your bank statement versus not having a copy of your bank statement'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you will purchase hard drives as a matter of doing business, not as part of storing your statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and i will have a printer as a matter of doing business, not as a part of printing bank statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'but that printer's cost changes because of the statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the hard drive's cost does not'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sure it does'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that's the difference'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no it doesn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hard drive requires replacing'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'paper does not'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'paper certainly does, you replace it with each printout'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'and again, the hard drive isn't replaced for the statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'consumable cost vs hardware cost'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'hardware cost isn't changed, consumable cost is'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the costs involved are a + nb where a is the hardware cost, b is the cost per statement and n is the number of statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'so the paper has a cost while the hard drive does not'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a and b are non-zero in both cases'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'incorrect'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then your hard drive lasts forever'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it takes zero time to download and backup your pdf?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'less time than to open the statement envelope'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nonsense'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why not just say you prefer digital statements to paper ones because you find them more convenient?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'boy, I knew your Internet sucked, I didn't know it was a 300 baud modem'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I do find them more convenient, but that's not the discussion'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'storage of bank statements is trivial, really'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'takes finite time to get the hard drive out, plug it in, log on to the bank website through the three million security steps, etc etc etc'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'get the hard drive out? you don't have one in the computer?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this is a backup we're talking about'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you don't do backups?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I don't do backups on my bank statements...I do backups of my computer'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the bank statement isn't backed up separately, and has zero impact on the time it takes to perform the backup'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'zero?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'zero'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'how does adding files to the required backup add zero time?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't take any capacity either'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'perhaps its a trivial amount of time, but zero?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'that extra half a meg will add lots of time'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the backup is performed asynchronously and invisibly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no, it doesn't take capacity'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'opening a bank statement letter take ages, apparently'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'not ages, just longer than electronically'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'd debate that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'you are ;-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'purely on the length of time needed to log into any online banking system'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i don't see how you could claim it adds zero time when it still has to actually perform the backup of the files that, in tigernuts case, wouldn't exist otherwise'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'perhaps its a trivial minute amount of time... but zero?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I spend absolutely zero time backing up my bank statements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so do i'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'fully and completely zero'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you back up your computer, which backs up your bank statements assuming you store them in the first place'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i also spend zero time downloading them, which is considerably less than i would otherwise have to'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i spend zero time checking my mail for bank statements because i'm paperless'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I take it you never log into your bank's site, tiger?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'on occasions, abe'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'more or less than once a month?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i spend a trivial amount of time following the link sent to me via email telling me my statement is ready and then i download it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'less, usually'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i don't understand why it even matters which way is better...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they don't do that here, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'so when there's a problem, you're a month behind in noticing, or do you check balances at ATMs?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'exactly, scars, so why should be people be forced down one route because people lying about the benefits of the alternative?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'they have no email notifications in the UK?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you get a balance check every time i use an ATM, nogs'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you might get a mail notification that a statement is ready, but no direct download link'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the creation of paper bank statements and mailing them out is not a trivial cost to the bank'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or at least if there is, you still go through the extended log-in/security system'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'who gives a fuck about the bank's costs?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they rip off joe public anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'tiger is of the belief that thae bank doesn't transfder that cost to its customers'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they're more than welcome to. If they do, i'll change banks :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'oh, well, then clearly increasing their costs has an equal effect... where they won't pass that on to you'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'if he doesn't have a monthly fee today, it doesn't (and won't in the future) impact him'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't have a monthly fee. Monthly fees for consumer accounts are not tolerated in the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they have to "sell" accounts with a fee by offering some kind of arbitrary benefits package'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'since i've gone paperless, i'm actually more organized and find things faster'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i actually find myself scanning/storing paperbills that i can't get sent to me electronicly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nothing wrong with my organisation either, i'm entirely happy with the paper billing situation'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but you're willing to ignore the benefits of not printing statements and the postage required to deliver them?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no benefit to me'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if postage goes up, price of paper goes up... there's still no impact to you?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Dear Scars, I'm your bank, I'm here to offer you a package that is inferior to your current one for NO ADDITIONAL COST!'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if the expenses for the bank go up, because they're conducting business the way you want them to... that doesn't matter to you?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'inferior?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'like i said, consumer banking in the UK, banks earn money from deposits, and from penalty fees'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'statements are not charged for, monthly fees are not charged for'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'who said anything about a fee?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it'd be implicit'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm not paying for posted statements now, so i will neither save money by going paperless, nor will i be paying more if paper and postage go up'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I'm sure it also doesn't impact mortgage rates, etc.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it'd be part of the spread between what they give in interest on your deposits and what the mortgage / auto rates are'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wouldn't take out a mortgage with my bank'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and they pay such little interest that it wouldn't affect that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but others would, correct?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'under the earnings model, they'd probably increase penalty fees, because lowering interest rates on savings products or raising loan fees would make them vulnerable to the competition'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'look, you can take the stance that the reprecussions of your preferred method of banking are irrelevant to you regardless of how real they are... but don't try and play it off like they aren't real'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a free market. If they want me to give up a facility that i'm happy with, they have to make it worth my while'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it's a heavily regulated market, but you're free to enter and leave it as you please'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'exactly, so if they force the issue or impose penalties, i will'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and work in cash only?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'that would reduce your issues with banks'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or move to a bank that still offers that facility'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'which there will inevitably be because despite being of cost to the bank, it's a facility that makes them attractive to some'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'simply a matter of time before that road ends'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no doubt, that's why i'm continuing to use it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'hehe, milk it for all it's worth'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'again, do whatever you're comfortable with... but recognize that banks that offer it have higher expenses, which means they have to make up for it somewhere... and you choose to deposit at a bank having to deal with it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's precisely why they're not forcing people to go to paperless,and instead trying to trick them via these stupid online popups. If people agree to it, they can remove the facility by saying "people didn't want this"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this is the same argument they're trying to use for getting rid of cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: '"trick" ?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that was the "new free inferior service" note'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'carefully worded notices/buttons that are the opposite to what people would expect, much like the "tick here if you do not want your details used in this manner"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i go months without carrying any cash *shrug*'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i use cash wherever possible'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'heh, pretty much the only reason I grab cash is that we go out on Friday nights with a buddy, I pay our portion in cash and he puts the remainder on his card'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'then again, I *DO* get financial incentives to not use cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i have plenty of incentives to not use card'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i just fail to see how you could claim the electronic approach is *inferior* - you could claim it's different, and maybe you personally don't like it... but to claim it's inferior isn't accurate'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'all of our credit cards are "bonus" cards'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'inferior is a point of personal preference, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'd like to think of inferior as an objective measure, but okay, do it your way'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'so for the same $60 in gas, I get cash back for using the card and nothing back for paying in cash (plus convenience of not having to walk into the booth/store)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but you open yourself up to identify theft every time you use the card, amirite tigernuts?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I'll happily let them track my drives between Philly and Buffalo for that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'I don't really get incentives, but not going into the store is a huge bonus for me :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it is an objective measure, but in this case the identifiable measurable things are things that are important to me and the way i make use of it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'speaking from someone living in the credit card fraud capital of the world, yes'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'though that isn't my primary reason'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'meh, I'm comfortable that all my cards are protected...if they have a skimmer, they get access to the card info and I could deny the charges'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'in rural missouri, where my in laws are from, up until 2 or 3 years ago they sold gas at a "Credit/Debit" price and a "Cash" price... Cash was maybe 0.20 cheaper/gal'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well here if you get attacked, you might get informed by the credit card fraud brigade and ultimately refunded, but in the meantime you're without access to your money'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I do log into the online site and look at recent transactions regularly enough to notice early'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'nod, I remember when they outlawed that in Erie County (Buffalo's county), it was a great thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I didn't realize it wasn't universally outlawed until I started travelling'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'not sure if it was a law or competition, but they quit doing it at some point'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'people are allowed to charge processing fees for cards/cheques here, but it must be in keeping with the actual cost'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'which i'm sure they have figured out down to the transaction :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yes, it's pretty easy but not necessarily the same for all vendors'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I studied up on the rules for visa/MC (not laws but their requirements for being a vendor)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'typically, for a debit card trasaction 15c, for a mastercard/visa 3%, for amex, 12%'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'those "minimum $5 purchase" aren't allowed'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you know what i like about credit cards? i keep one piece of plastic in my wallet and i suddenly have to travel to fewer places (no atms, no banks, never need to go get cash "just in case")'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i never have that issue, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'and visa/MC/Amex don't allow vendors to charge different rates for different cards'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if that's the case, abe, visa/mc/amex shouldn't charge different rates to each other'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i use my credit card to buy gum sometimes'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that's part of their rules as well...you CAN charge a card fee, but it must be universal and we must be equal to others'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'why not? they offer different services'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'so while they may not be allowed to have those arrangements in the UK due to regulatory issues, in the US merchants must have the same fees regardless of the card'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well you can see now why Amex is not popular here'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'heh, amex is my only card that uses points rather than cash for its bonuses'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i use mastercard, cash back'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i have a mastercard that sits in my safe and is used as an emergency overdraft'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'my dad's got some pretty pimped out rewards cards...his work used to send him all over the world, and he'd book on his card and get reimbursed...racked up so many free hotels'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I pay nearly everything by credit card, and pay full balance monthly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no cost, but big rewards'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'same abe, i haven't paid a dime of interest on a credit card in my life'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'find it odd that i'm to be castigated for taking advantage of a free paper statement service, yet you happily pay over the odds by using plastic'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'credit card companies make money at the transaction, so simply by me using the credit card they're making some money - by paying off the balance in full, they don't incur any additional costs only lose out on potential revenue'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but i don't know the mix of revenue between interest payments and transaction fees, so i don't know how much it matters'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'given some typical transaction charges'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'now for vendors, while they incur cost for the transaction, they also have less cash-based costs...dealing with cash, tendering change, etc is costly from a retail standpoint'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'depends on the scale of vendor'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'let me ask you this... if working in cash was truly optimal, why are there so many food vendors (like a hot dog vendor) using card readers for purchases?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the big local gas station chain recently started using autodispensers for coin change'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'because of demand, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'when i go to the local taco stand, they don't even accept cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'nod, because of people like us ;-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'oh wow, I don't think I've run across places that don't accept cash yet'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if i came across a place that didn't use cash, i'd pick somewhere else :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'missing out bro, them are some awesome tacos'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sounds like some trendy fake liberal bullshit to me'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'heh'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you're a dinasour'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'own it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I'd imagine the reason for that is actually security'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'damn right'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): <pretitle> Scars nods at you in agreement. 
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no cash transactions means robbers should know that they've got jack to steal'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, when you live in third world country you have to worry about that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'yeah, no robberies in the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i didn't realize the UK was void of crime?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'thats impressive'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'must be that gun ban, eh?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we have crime, but most criminals here don't hold up taco stands'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'I could easily abolish crime anywhere in the world.  Just remove all those pesky laws!'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Jhav ducks defensively.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'if it ain't illegal, it ain't a crime, amirite?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Jhav flails his head up and down... you can see the blonde roots.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'most criminals you *hear about* perhaps'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you let your taco vendors be armed, chances are muggers will leave them alone'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's a story for a different dinosaur'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'm sure the muggers are unarmed, and don't have the element of surprise'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so we're back down to personal preference, again'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'wait, what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'sure - the personal preference of choosing to care about certain indisputable facts that really matter'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, the argument for paperless billing is it costs the banks less (whether or not that benefit is passed on) yet you use cards which costs the vendors more'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so either you're a hypocrite, or it that isn't really a valid reason'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I disagree that they cost the vendors more'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'paying by credit card costs more than a debit card or cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for all transactions over about $4'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'not necessarily'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'credit card and debit card transation consts are not meaningfully different'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and the cost to handle cash is not trivial'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'umm yes they are'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they are entirely different, one is fixed fee, one is a percentage'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'maybe in the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'pan-europe, i believe'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'even in the US'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if you use your debit card AS a credit card, which many do, it's a different fee than as a debit card'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'most debit cards have credit card network logos on them'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'otherwise they'd just be ATM cards :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'no, you can use a debit card w/o a mastercard or visa logo as a debit card'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'I do, b/c it rquires PIN entry in case someone stole my card it would be worthless'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'then it's essentially an ATM transaction'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'as worthless as your pin is difficult to guess anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'believe is has to be networked in here, but that's here'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Robotface Fugmug: 'however for a debit transaction you usually have no buyer protection against fraudulent or erroneous charges'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'no, an ATM transaction is withdrawing cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'just for the record, if there was a move away from cash, i'd go to anonymous cash-cards as an alternative'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Robotface Fugmug: 'credit type transactions you can always chargeback'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'entirely different than buying something without cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you have statuatory protection here, Fugmug'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no it isn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i can't find a source to agree with your meaningful difference in fees - can you show me a link please?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'm curious what the fees are'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'because: http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-transaction-fees/'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'unsure on reliability of source'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you can find it on wikipedia'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'For example, a premium credit card that offers rewards generally will have a higher interchange rate than do standard cards. Transactions made with credit cards generally have higher rates than those with signature debit cards, whose rates are in turn typically higher than PIN debit card transactions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but that doesn't support your flat fee claim'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'whose flat fee claim?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the charge to the vendor is based on his merchant agreement, not on the card'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'I didn't make a flat fee claim'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'tiger did'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'and the merchant agreement varies based on the card... so you are just playing semantics, same with your "debit card is the same as an ATM card" silly comment'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'no it doesn't kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it is based on the merchant agreement. I have never seen or heard of a UK merchant agreement that charges %age for debit card transactions. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-2363930/Why-pay-use-credit-debit-card.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'gives a basic primer, though their figures are based on multinational shops with paid merchants services'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'my internet is awful today, and i can't quickly find a comparison in the charges related'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'for US'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the fee schedules are defintely somewhere accessible'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i believe it, i just can't quickly search right now...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then take it on trust :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'would just like to verify'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'ATM's here used to be tied to a certain bank network and you used to be charged a fee to use it if not part of that network'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'same principle, i guess. They don't do that here anymore'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'basically there is a minimum charge for low $$$ transactions which fuck the merchant, and then it scales.  But the level depends on the type of card, as I quoted from wikipedia'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i already knew that... i was hoping to see an example of, i dunno, mastercard credit v debit'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '3% vs 15c'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'it doesn't depend on the level of card, the merchant agreement is based on accepting cards'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'for UK, that's super, i don't really care about UK though'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i ask because for Visa: Retail Debit ($15 or more): 0.80% plus $0.15'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'for mastercard: Merit III Debit ($15 or more): 1.05% plus $0.15'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'do you know what merit III means vs. Merit II?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'never come across the term'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'Merit III is generally a retail card-present transaction and has a low Discount Rate'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'merit iii means it was a swiped card, not that it was a premium card or anything else'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'PIN debit is somewhere 0.8 to 0.9% plus $0.18'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'depends on cost'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'erm'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'depends on type of transaction'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'which i didn't bother to fully look into because it's fairly flat across them'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it might be fairly flat, but it's not the same.  different level of reward cards have different fee levels, so don't listen to Abe'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'the cards don't charge the merchant...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well either way, cards cost transaction fees. Cash has cost in terms of security/change, but also has the capacity to save money by using cash to directly pay people, bills etc, so is situation/context dependant'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: '[on-the-board] businesses generally don't want to pay people, bills, etc in cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and the point remains, you choose to use cards because they are convenient to you, regardless of any cost implication to the businesses. I use paper billing for the same'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'they want their expenses on the books with a paper trail'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'for whoever was saking, here's visa's schedule'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/Interchange_Rate_Sheets.pdf'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'many SME's will happily use cash to save banking fees'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'again, the benefit reduces the larger the business'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and is context/situation dependent'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): <pretitle> Scars shrugs helplessly.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if you would simply agree that different <> inferior/superior that'd be great'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'inferior/superior are dependant on personal circumstances and values'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'kojiro: read the second paragraph in that PDF...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'thanks Mill'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'what about it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'it's stating that the PDF is not what merchants pay'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'so?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'so, that was my entire point to you'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you didn't have a point'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts points excitedly at Not Guilty Kojiro!
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'think this particular subject has reached it's end. Long live paper bank statements, and woe betide my bank if they try and sneak my permission to remove them again'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i also insist on being sent paper statements and my latest envelope said this on the front:  "I used to be a tree :("'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you should send a letter back saying "Banks didn't used to employ criminals"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it was from the utility'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'btw, US debt went up $600bn in the last 3 months, happy new year'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'is that seasonal or something?  sounds too high to annualize'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'probably just a timing thing, and probably as a result of the budget shouting'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i wonder what happens to corporate profits when we stop running large fiscal deficits'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Daloran: 'LOUD NOISES'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'everyone talks about QE this and that, but the fiscal deficit to me seems like the elephant in the room'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if I borrow my annual income and then spend it, the local economy is going to be better off by that amount, but it's not sustainable'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i think the sum fisscal deficit since '08 is like 20k for every man woman and child in the US'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there'll be an almighty correction, which is why they now can't'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'reasonably close, if you use the official gov't pretend numbers'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'rather more if you use gaap accounting for future obligations (social security, medi-whatever)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'social security is a bit of a seperate issue than the general fund problems, but okay'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'isn't social security a multi-trillion dollar black hole?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and using gaap accounting you would need to show that social security is fully funded, which its not, but it doesn't need to be since the government will exist and be able to pay for the benefits'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it's a hot mess, that's for sure'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'ours works a bit differently, current pensioners are paid out of current tax receipts'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'tsy people do calculate 'real gaap' type deficits, which have mostly been in the 2t-4t range during the past half a dozen years'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'due to those vexing future obligations'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'just the NHS and police pension liability is a $20bn yearly cost'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that is how ours works too TN'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but using gaap accounting on government books is just misleading since the essence of gaap accounting (or ifrs for that matter) is not about sovereigns'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'we just have a special tax that is used for SS'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it's hard to quantify.  inevitably, the retirement age will go up and that lowers the unfunded obligation.  the program will change once we are closer to a crisis.  govt doesn't react except to crisis.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there are no guarantees of a future pension here, people just assume there's a "pot" they've been paying into, but it's all a fraud like most regime things'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'tsy guys usually count the change in unfunded liabilities, where the current taxation level is included in funding'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'I do not particularly agree with the accounting school that says gov't gaap is all fine and well'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: '..I disagree with it even more now that I have a gov't accounting job and see the idiocy spawned by gov't accounting standards :('
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'one thing all the crap the government did after the whole banking meltdown showed me though.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the entire "social security is going to go broke" thing is just a scare tactic'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'government accounting standards are there to hide government profligacy and allow maximum growth of government'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'agree tiger'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's no such thing as social security, Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'obviously if the fed and the government can create 3 trillion dolars out of thin air to solve the banking "crisis" they can do the same thing to solve the social security one, (if they actually wanted to).'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what would they be bailing out?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'look at nationalizing the GSE... any lender would have taken all the equity but the govt stopped at 79.9% to avoid the pure accounting consolidation of fannie/freddie balance sheet.  just to avoid making govt numbers optically worse'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the SSA of course'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but there's nothing to bail out'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what do you mean?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's like saying you're going to bail out the IRS'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you doubt the existence of the administration?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the administration exists, but they don't have assets'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they absolutely do'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not here they don't'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and they are probably worth as much as the tainted assets that TAR was bailing out'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '(i.e. next to nothing).'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'here they mostly own treasury products.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'do the SSA in the US have assets equal to all the money the citizens have put in compounded by the base rate of interest?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(or higher)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if the answer is "no", then the US public have been lied to, or at the very best, misled'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no but they do have (at least in theory) an amount equal to everything paid in, minus everything paid out (with interest earned on the treasury notes while they own them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'social security is pay-as-you-go, not a fully funded pension... it's functioning as intended'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Emm nods at <pretitle> Scars.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if you view it as the government holding on to your money so they can give it back to you later with interest, you don't understand how the program works'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it's not an investment account, its a tax and a benefit'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'its got some funding issues coming up though, but nothing insurmountable'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's why it can never work unless the working population contributions increase over time'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'or benefits reduced'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'now that employment is reducing and population tapering, it becomes unfundable at anything remotely like the current benefits'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'baby boomer retirement will test the resolve of our politicians to either secure elderly votes with higher taxes or secure younger votes with reduced benefits'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the UK, the tories are going after the grey vote'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the young skew liberal, so that's an easy one.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they're relying on the fact that young people are fuckwits and don't ever vote anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'which is also foolish because you're kicking the can down the road where it'll be even harder to fix'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'since we've yet to run into a situation where the pay-as-you-go approach was unable to cut all of the checks, and we're not due to have that happen for a few decades, this isn't something just around the corner'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'but will that guy still be there when it catches up?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'nobody really teaches young people how the world works, they are clueluess and emotional and pay no taxes anyway.  they will vote for whoever is tallest or most charismatic'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no but like most things scars the sooner we deal with the looming problem the less painful it will be'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'actually kojiro most young people are net tax payers'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it's political suicide to address it currently, since it's a transfer of wealth from working to nonworking people'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so it'll be addressed only when it must be'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I think he means even younger'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'they might be "net" tax payers, but their gross payments are tiny'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'at least once they enter the marketplace'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'our politicians aren't exactly altruistic'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'sure, but since there are so many of them its not something to ignore'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'remmeber payroll taxes are generally regressive'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'ther are fewer young people as % of our population than in a long, long time'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and how'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'maybe ever'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'd ditch payroll taxes'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you know I would too TN :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but at least here that is what funds SSI, SSD, Medicare, etc'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'payroll taxes are largely flat, but they're not regressive except for SSA which caps out at some 100K figure that i'm sure one of you has handy'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no scars they cut off'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'all but medicare cuts off'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'not "all" the income tax that's part of the general fund is limitless'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'ssi, ssd, and federal unemployment insurance taxes all cut off, as do state unemployement taxes in most states'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'that's waht he said, but i'm not sure how he can claim payroll taxes are not regressive'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and even medicare payroll tax is regressive because it only covers earned income'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and the percentage of your income that is earned income declines as your income rises in general'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'because i'm not doing great with words atm... i was just trying to point out that non-odshi taxes don't regress'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'wait, doesn't it hit investment income now too?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'except for stupid athletes who don't invest thier millions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and afaik there are very few of those left'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'emm I'm pretty sure that cap gains, interest etc. all get hit w/ medicare tax starting in 2013'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'anyway, the point is that social security is not an investment where you get your money "back" at the end... it's a tax and a benefit, so it doesn't need to be fully funded like a coporations pension'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well there was a 3.8% increase on netgains taxes, but that still puts them below earned income'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'heh, I'm getting letters every year about the funding situation for my vested pension...we'll see if that exists for much longer :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): <pretitle> Scars rapidly nods twice to you, in complete agreement.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'personally, i think the creation of the 401k and the IRA helped create this mentality of SSA as an investment and the tax money was somehow "yours"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but thats just me...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the money isn't yours scars, but there is a legal obligation for them to pay the amount you have "earned" as calculated by law.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I have a 403b from the library job that I'm just gonna let sit there, and about to start a simple IRA with current employer'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'but it's simply recalculated whenever they want/need...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not that congress and the president (or 3/4ths of congress without the president) can't change that law.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i am just running on the assumption that by the time i get old, i'll die before i can claim a state pension, so will therefore have to save for my own retirement'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'why not consolidate into the IRA abe?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I am just working on the premise that I don't want to live if I am not working anymore so I don't really care about my own social security.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I'm not paying any fees for the 403b, might as well leave it for diversification and the different rules for the two'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i am working on the premise that social security isn't enough for my retirement anyway, and have been preparing for my retirement under the assumption that i didn't *need* the money in the first place'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but you can invest however you want, right? it's a self-directed fund? whatever you're invested in at the 403b you could invest in with the IRA, or something similar?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'no harm in doing what you're doing, just means you have to be mindful of its existance :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you can invest hwoever you want, and if you are successful enough you will probably be confiscated like the old days of govt taxing 401k money if your income was a certain level (true)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I can invest how I want within the couple dozen options it has'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'e.g. when i left my last employer, i rolled the 401k into my already existing IRA, no penalties, nothing special... and invested in a very similar fund'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'yea scars, it's a delicious way to skirt IRA contribution limits'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'meh, IRA and 401(k) aren't meaningfully different if you're taking the tax deduction on the IRA'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'not realy skirting them, they were contributed in previous years under limits...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there is plenty of economic commentary going that will result in people's 401k's, pensions, and bank accounts being taxed or "haircut" as happened in Cyprus'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'your savings are definitely not safe'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'if you know what you are doing, an IRA >>>>>>> 401k'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you're consolidating funds that were invested under identical environments'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'unless you're referring to the match'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'abelinc, it's a total skirt.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: '5k ira contribution limit vs. 15k 401k, PLUS you can roll all the profit sharing, employer matching, etc.  which gets you to about 60k per year vs. 5k IRA limit'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'it would be a skirt if it let you contribute new money in excess'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'a rollover isn't exactly newly squirreled funds'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it makes no rational sense that either the IRA limits are that low relative to 401k, or that you can roll 401k into an IRA'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'ontuct - I agree not new funds, yet the govt puts a limit on the individually controlled account and a much higher limit on the administered plan'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'realize that both ira and 401k tax deductability is phased out for higher income earners'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if i was prevented from rolling the 401k into the IRA i would have rolled it into my existing 401k with my current employer'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'for some folks, individually controlling that money is worth far, far, far more than indexing it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so those who can actually take advantage of the 20k+ contribution per year at tax deductible rates is a pretty small range'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'unless you are a low/middle income earner who is just exceptionally frugal.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'whats that breakpoint?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'do you know offhand?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I don't remmber offhand and wouldn't want to quote badly, but i could find it in my big tax book'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'even to higher incomes, the tax deduction doesn't matter.  it's still more efficient to compound tax-deferred even if can't deduct the contribution'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'how do you think mitt romney got a 9 figure IRA?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it wasn't by making 5k / yr contributions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'although I think even after the income limit the employer matching is still not taxed (up to the contribution limit)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so i guess there is that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Jhav blinks innocently.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'through a self-directed fund that made huge returns'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'that's half of it, but the other half is that it wasn't really a 9 figure IRA until he left bain'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it was an employer / profit matching retirement vehicle like a 401k that co-invested in certain equity classes of levered deals, and when he left he converted it to an IRA.  Now he has a big fat pile of tax-deferred, or non-taxable (if roth) piles of money that he can direct.  clearly w/ the govt's 5k / yr IRA limits, that was not intended to be possible'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the government should have better incentives to invest for retirement'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'let's not even get to the next step, which is that a Roth IRA is inherited tax-free by the heirs, so you kill another bird w/ the IRA stone'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'creates stock/bond bubbles that help float the economy'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'for professionals, the IRA is just massively powerful.  and it's big fat loophole that when you leave your job you can roll 100% of whatever reitrement plan balance into an IRA'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'do you have a suggested alternative that doesn't involve taxing it because you're transfering it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there used to be a $100,000 limit on Roth IRAS but that ended in 2010'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'There is a yearly contribution limit.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that's what kojiro's discussing, jhav'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no i mean if you made more than $100,000 you couldn't contribute at all Jhav'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'EMM - that's to make contributions.  Now you can convert your entire IRA to a Roth at any time, regardless of income.  you just owe taxes.  another powerful option for the IRA'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'scars - xfer away, worst case you just index same as the 401k and keep much more fleixiblity over it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'from govt persepctive, either raise the IRA contribution limits to match 401k/profitshare/etc.  or don't let people roll huge amounts into self-directed vehicles'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'peter thiel another 9 figure IRA... b/c he put it into FB at the VC stage'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Jhav shrugs helplessly.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): <pretitle> Scars nods at Jhav and says, "I concur." Why didn't you?!
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'the dichotomy favors the rich and the true investment professional'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'should it not reward those who move equity?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'who move equity?  what does that mean'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'for people covered by 401s the deductability of IRA deductions starts to phase out at $58,000 according to pub 590'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it means giving money to companies so that they can make money is a good thing, and the rich and investment professionals do that (and perhaps do it well)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and are completely phased out at $112,000'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'm already in the phasing out range? wow... maybe i should stop using turbotax?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'emm - just so you know even if not deductible, it's better to contribute to an IRA on non-deductible basis than leave it in a regular account (checking, ameritrade, etc.)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i had no idea'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'for those not covered by an employer plan there is no longer a phaseout for IRAs'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'apparently'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'If you put in the max contribution and just make as much as the average gain of the S&P 500, you'd have a 9 figure IRA as well in about 45 years of contributions - and that's assuming they stay at 17.5k for the whole time, which they certainly will not.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'Err, 401k'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'I forget the contribution limits on an IRA< would have to look it up.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I'd be curious to see average return rates for fully self-directed vs managed plans over time'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '5500 or your taxable income whichever is greater'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'IRA max contribution isn't 17.5k, it's 5k or 6k i forget'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'it's easy to say that a good investor will do better with IRA, but will most normal people?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'er less I mean'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'Which is why I corrected and said 401k :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'index funds out-perform managed funds 80% of the time... (vanguard study)... i can't imagine individuals doing better somehow'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '$5500 or your taxable income whichever is less'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'abelinc, I don't know.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'also if your spouse is covered by an employer plan there is an income phase out as well'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but it is higher'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'by "managed", I'd actually include indexed funds, but maybe my experience is too small'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if you are between 50 and 70.5 you might be able to make catchup payments also'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you might get 8 figures, but I don't think you're getting to 9, jhav'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so if you make 150K gross, put 10% into 401k and 5.5k into your IRA, what are you able to deduct? none of it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'I believe you can do both though, so the practical limit is hig'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'her*'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'scars that sounds like tax advice, which I cannot actually give you'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: '45 years of 15k compounded at 10% (high!) is only 1.1 mil, and that's the best year'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'Nah, just run the math man.  15.8% return, 17.5k a year.  In 46 years you'd have 109,187,619.98.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but I would guess the answer is none of it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'of course its AGI not GI'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: '16% return?  that isn't CLOSE to a long-run equity return'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'of course :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'It is literally the mean return on the s&P 500 :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so the 15K you contribute to the 401k reduces your AGI, so do a lot of other things'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'any "above the line" deductions.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'arithmetic mean not the same as geometric mean'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'so it is a much more complicated question than it might seem at first blush'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I would say consult a tax professional :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'right, so it's one of those "if your AGI > X, you cannot deduce your 401(k) or IRA until AGI = X" ?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'no 401k is different'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'The point being, you can absolutely totally hit 9 figures as an average Joe, as long as you invest in a way that isn't braindead and keep putting money in.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'this sucks... i guess i'll be hiring an accountant next year... i'm getting close to those figures you were talking about :S'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: '40%, 5%, -25% = arithmetic mean 6.7%.  you really returned 3.3% per year'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if your agi is between X and X and You or Your Spouse is covered by a 401k, then you can only deduct a percentage'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'no, your math is super wrong'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and if it is over X (and you or your spouse is covered) then you cant deduct any'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'arithmetic vs. geometric isn't a small difference, it's a galactic difference'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'geometric mean is better for return rates imo'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'Okay, the geometric mean return is 14.5%'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but my spose does not work, we still file jointly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'spouse*'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes so she can contribute at higher combined AGI than you can'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'gemotric mean since when... 1980 when long rates were 15%?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jhav: 'So it takes 50 years.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but she might have to have some earned income to contribute at all'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'ugh, you're right... i'll have to talk to a tax pro'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'thanks for bringing this to my attention'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'thats the bible for IRAs'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'catching up.. scars at 150k I think you can deduct little to nothing'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'interpretation by non-lawyers or non-tax professionals may be flawed.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'but like i said, don't let that dissuade you, it's still a more efficient vehicle than not contributing and investing the money on the side'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'for that matter interpetation by tax lawyers and IRS chairmen may be flawed'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'make the non-deductible contriubtions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'make roth contributions if you are not eiligble to make deductable traditional I think'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'm far more concerned with ensuring i file my taxes appropriately'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'since they got rid of that limit (assuming that hasn't changed since)_'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'nods, i'd wager a guess that roth contributions are limited somehow too though'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they used to be limited to people with below 100 AGIO'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but they removed that and as far as I could find (with a short search of the code) there isn't an effective limit anymore'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'realizing of courswe that roth contributions are not deductable anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'right, it's paying taxes now, not later... where traditional ira is paying taxes later, not now - simplified, but right?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and whether or not roth distrubtions will be tax free when you go to take them out is anyone's guess :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'basicaly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but of course rules could change'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and the AMT plays havoc with all of this if you make enough to be affected by it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'emm, there is still a max limit on a roth ira contribution'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'yes i think its the same as for traditional but don't quote me on that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'well, whatever the limits are, i have years before i'm too worried about it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'for now, i want to make sure that my claimed IRA deductions are safe'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you can do 5k (or 6k, i forget) of EITHER roth or regular IRA.  not both.  once you hit AGI around 100k, you can't do the roth, and even the regular stops being deductible.  but you can still make a 5-6k non-deductible regular ira contribution (which you should)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you all have lofty hopes for these things'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'motley fool says it is 5500 for 2014, 6500 if you are 50 or older'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'however, if you have losses, or you want to pay taxes, you can convert a regular ira to a roth'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'and there is no limit on that'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i maintain a brokerage account seperate from the IRA/401k, so the amount i invest won't be changing, just where it goes... and i'm not yet to the point that i need to have a serious discussion with a tax/investment professional'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and, with no offense meant, i won't be coming to aard for that discussion ;)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'must be nice to have sufficient money to invest'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'according to the same article though there is still a cutoff for income on ROTH contributions phasing out between 181k and 191k'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'nods, it certainly makes life suck less'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you might do better on aard, actually'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'you might be surprised who is on this site!'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but as I said its a motley fool article so take any advice it gives you with a grain of salt the size of new hampshire'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i might be, but i would rather have the discussion with someone i can check the background of'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) I Sense Nonsense: 'Theoretical theories.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so if i talk to someone on aard, it's because we exchanged identities and i've found them worth it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'remmeber that free advice is worth what you pay for it :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'paid advice is rarely worth paying for'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'advice is advice, not instructions or requirements'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'paid advice may or may not be worth what you paid for it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'll still make my own decision'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts nods at <pretitle> Scars.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but free advice is always worth what you paid for it :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'regardless'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'no way emm, the best advice I've ever gotten in life and business was free'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'and the least helpful was paid for'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'n=1'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the free advice i get is rarely helpful, the paid advice i get is occasionally useless'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'perhaps you are miscalculating the value of advice'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'but taking personal responsibility for your decisions is the best attitude'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'source of the advice matters :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'also you might be miscalculating what you are paying for the "free advice"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'free advice from family/friends... meh'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if you have established a relationship with a mentor (say at work or something) you have actually paid for the advice.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'even if it is "free"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'over xmas at family, we were discussing "what is middle-class"...one cousin said when he was living in chicago, they had a household income of 400k and were middle-class'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'i would call 400k in chicago lower upper class not upper middle class, but of course class definitions are arbitrary and subjective in the US'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'I wouldn't say they're arbitrary.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'different regions have different costs of living'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'what axioms are they based on then hanslanda?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think it foolish to rely on a pension pot for retirement'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'they're not authoritatively-defined'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'what's the difference between middle class and upper class?  one is able to consume luxury goods at will and one isn't? '
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'tiger: 401k and IRA aren't pension pots, they're savings accounts...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i realize this isn't going to be some "always true" statement or something found in a book... but a good friend of mine once told me that the difference between middle class and upper class was not income, but the ability to accumulate wealth... middle class doesn't accumulate wealth, the upper class does'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so thats how i define it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'noone is able to consume luxury goods at will'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'zuckerberg can do a pretty good job of it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'abe, they're more like brokerage accounts, but yeah'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'that's an interesting shot at it scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it depends on what you consider luxury goods abelinc :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i kind of like that approach to it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'can he buy a new lear every week?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'buying a luxury cruise liner, mid-sized islands, small countries...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: '400k gross income burning 400k on non-wealth building things (regardless of how it's justified) will always see themselves as the working middle class'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'he could do that, yes emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but if you chose to live off of 150k, and invest/save the rest and see your personal wealth grow, you may find that you're able to use your money to make more money and no longer be beholden to a job.. which seems pretty sweet to me'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'i guess we are blessed enough to be considered upper class but I still wear my 10 year old clothes and shop the clearance rack'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nobody in the real world earns $150k a year'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Jerk Fiendish: 'what's the real world?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): You raise your eyebrow at Tigernuts.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'that's a pretty funny claim'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i guess it's not the world i live in'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'define "real world" and "earns" and "$150k"'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'my guess is half the people on debate history earn that, tiger'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'certainly not what Tigernuts thinks it is.  There are entire job-hunting sites dedicated to people who make that much.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you're in what, the top 8% of earners? 6?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I don't, but I almost did for awhile before I stopped working and started law school'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and I hope to again soon.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i don't make it, but i'm around 5-7 years from it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'gross, that is'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'I'll guess that less than half of debate earns 150K, but it takes aobut 345K to get in the top 1% so 150k doesn't quite put you out of the real world.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '81st percentile for 150k married'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'unmarried, emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'lots of us are married'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'married, single income here'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you're not on here in a married context'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'I'm not?!?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Jerk Fiendish: 'are we talking about individual income or household?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): You peer intently at Archimedes Eureka.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and besides, that shouldn't matter. Why the hell government treats married peopel different is a crime'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I think im always in a married context'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'well i'll agree the 'love tax' on two working professionals getting married is total bullshit'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'the marriage penalty is why marriage rates are tanking lately.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'yeah, that seems a bit overly simplistic'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'its harder than that though'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'taking marriage out of government and taxes would solve a lot of the gayt marriage issues too'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'do you balance individual income earners versus 2 income earners?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'only a little.  I mean, you have gay couples, but generally across the board people are finding that getting married < living together.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'do you balance individual income earners who have to pay for all of their services vs one who has a stay at home spouse?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'deductions get messy...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'should one get a break for having dependents?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no breaks, no deductions'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for anything'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'meh, as soon as people go this route i'd perfer a consumption tax'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'it makes no sense to me that two working professionals pay higher taxes if they get married than if they don't get married.  bad incentive.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i have nothing against consumption tax'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Jerk Fiendish: 'I don't think we should tax people extra because they have TB'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if everyone was forced to file seperately, then a married couple could distribute the income of one spouse to both spouses (through completely legal means) and pay less in taxes than an individual who made the same amount'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'TB?'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there is literally NO way to make it fair for everyone'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'tuberculosis.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Jerk Fiendish: 'tuberculosis = consumption'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'oh'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the reference is lost on me...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'consumption is a broad diagnosis which covered many things, but most often TB'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'ah, thanks'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'in which case i've sort of ruined a fairly highbrow joke :S  my bad'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Jerk Fiendish: 'culturate yourself'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'anyway whether there is a "marriage tax" or a "marraige benefit" is not looking at the problem closely enough'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'for high earners, it's a tax plain and simple'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'tax incentives create tax loopholes, for better or worse... a simpler tax code would be ideal, but that takes power away from the government, which just isn't going to happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'marriage is a tax at all income levels, Kojiro'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'and more importantly, it takes power away from those who know about the secret loopholes'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i feel like we're very much saying the same thing abe ;)'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): You grin evilly.
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for the rest of us mere mortals, saving for a pension is a pipe dream'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'no, saving for a pension you think is worthwhile is.  You can always save a little bit, and you can always trim something back if you aren't currently saving anything.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the only thing i can try and do is get somewhere to live, and leverage that if i need to in old age'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'and you can work to better yourself or manage your finances better...'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'll be pensioned off on disability, so fat chance of that, and remember this is the UK'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'the sooner you start, the less you can get away with socking away at a time.  Also, if you save in small increments at a more frequent rate rather than one big one at a less-frequent rate, you get psychological benefits as well.'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's not worth it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for many people in the UK, welfare or prison are actually career opportunities'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if the choice is prison or starvation prison doesn't sound so bad'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'exactly'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'it is only optimism and fear of scorn that keeps more from going that rout'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'when people lose everything and have nothing else to lose, they lose it'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'thus i will have no sympathy if you high earners with your tax loopholes get fucked in arse by the system you are propping up'
T3/r7/2014-01-05.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'is Matt Drudge trying to hoax Hilary into declaring for 2016, or is it a genuine advert he's running?'
T3/r7/2014-01-07.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Toyota, Honda, and Nissan cars erequipped with Garmin and Tomtom satnavs have been stealing trip data from cars and refuse to delete it'
T3/r7/2014-01-07.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'meantime, US airforce helicopter crashes 20 miles from my house onto a nature reserve, killing 4 men and polluting the environment'
T3/r7/2014-01-07.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good news: http://wearechange.org/change-member-beats-federal-reserve-court/'
T3/r7/2014-01-07.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Expect considerable Russian anger as it has now been discovered that a US financed NGO has bee orchestrating the Kiev anti-Russia pro-EU protests'
T3/r7/2014-01-07.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'more goon news! US District Judge Edmond Chang ruled Chicago's ban on licensed gun stores is unconstitutional'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=1'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yahoo got caught serving advertising that installed a botnet on client computers that mined bitcoins for the writers'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'is that illegal?'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'technically, but they won't get in trouble for it'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Seltsimees Dagnir: 'thanks, obama'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'google tried to blacklist drudgereport and a few other non-left leaning websites last year for infected adverts when it turned out they were provided by an advertising supplier owned by google'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'same sort of thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'willing to believe incompetence rather than by design'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'though i liked the bitcoin bot net, first non-offensive virus i've seen in a while'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'UK chancellor looking at significantly raising the minimum wage. He always tends to consider my ideas a few months after i suggest them'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'You pay they get the profit.'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'I suggest they double it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't need to double, 7.50gbp would be fine, and would be a 20% raise'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'speaking about drugs: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/swedish-minister-spreads-satire-marijuana-article-21448139'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's needed because the UK tax payer is basically subsidising companies to pay people small wages through tax-credits and welfare topup for low paid workers'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well Sweden do have an issue with being run by a bunch of authoritarian lunatics'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'still you could expect them to do some back ground checks on what they're talking about'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'background*'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'don't be silly, they only run the country, why would they bother with silly pointless things like science'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(that's sarcasm, folks)'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'both the US and the UK are guilty of the same'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ElFeneri: 'I guess it's too close to the truth for being sarcasm. More like satire.'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i heard Obama's lot are restricting what wood buring stoves can be sold'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'our EPA is good at regulating things that don't effect them as the end user.'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'see, now, i understand why they want to, but a method of doing it that didn't require trampling on peoples rights would be to create an "efficiency/green" rating scale A-F that is mandatory is provided with the literature/sales bumf, and offer a mail in rebate for A-rated stoves'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'the last time they did it, the costs of woodburning stoves went skyrocketing, and this time they are figuring in pellet stoves, so this should be an even more exciting bit or regulation'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wonder if it extends to kits'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'friend bought a high-efficiency norwegian design multi-fuel stove - have to say it's absolutely awesome'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'what makes one kind of heat better than another'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'depends on what you're heating'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and what fuel you have available'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and how much it costs'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'multi-fuel stoves are awesome in rural habitat as a secondary source of heating where you have free or next-to-free fuel'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the same stoves are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard in a city'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'UK police were cleared today of shooting an unarmed man. A jury (WTF) found 8-2 in favour of a "lawful killing" verdict, thus proving that  regime agents are above the law'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'what was the unarmed man doing?'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'getting out of a taxi that 4 cars full of armed officers had just made a forced stop on'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'I mean don't get me wrong, overuse of force gets me the wrong way too, but sometimes a guy had it coming.  You can be unarmed and choking someone to death :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: ''intelligence' claimed they he had just picked up a handgun from a friend, the shooting office claimed he had a gun in his hand. It was in fact a phone. Police later lied about him having a gun in his hand, then tried to cover up the lie'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'that sounds pretty police state fascist though.'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i believe it was a tragic error, but that should have been the verdict, not lawful killing'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'typical police overreaction'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'I mean I get that's not an easy job, and when you deal with criminals everyday you start to see the worst in people.'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'when it happened last in 2011 it caused riots, worst seen since 1983'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'but still, if you're going to carry around a lethal weapon, you've a responsibility for what happens as a result'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that works both ways, it should have been unlawful killing/corporate manslaughter'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'definitely seems unlawful killing to me, to say the least'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i agree'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you force a black/white choice on the situation, chances are you're going to get it wrong'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'it's a shame ranged non lethal weapons aren't very effective.  It'd be ideal if the cops had an option in the grey area to subdue someone effectively and quickly, so as not to error on the other side of caution'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no such thing as ranged non-lethal weapons'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Taokan: 'about the closest we've got are various types of knockout gas, and that doesn't work great outdoors and still can cause health issues'
T3/r7/2014-01-08.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'shouldn't be necessary. if your justice and legal system were set up properly with the right laws and priorities, these situations would occur less'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'and transformers was dark of the moon...no "side"'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'mis'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'there's no dragons here'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'hmm, they're not even the same color :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'woo, VCR's rule.'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) I Sense Nonsense: 'Heck yeah they do'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: '58% of americans still own and use a VCR.'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) I Sense Nonsense: 'VCRs definitely have the upper hand when it comes to quality'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'never owned a vcr in my life!'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'you poor soul....you should go get one!'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'that's fucked up, a dad actually hopes that his second son dies (first one died while tackling a suicide bomber).'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'I tackled a suicide bomber once, but he was practicing.'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'no shaheed for you!  Back of line!'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'roasted camel ?'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'it's arabic for martyr.'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'I want some roasted camel.....'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'mmm, cabbage'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Chris Christie is such a fucking liar. He had a reputation already for being vindictive and underhand. Like -hell- did he know nothing about those deliberate road closures'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'do you prefer emotional science or the boring standard science?'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'boring'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'chris christie aka krispy kreme is a big fat fucking liar'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Not Guilty Kojiro: 'is this the fact channel?'
T3/r7/2014-01-09.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'here. '
T3/r7/2014-01-10.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wasn't here, but kojiro is right'
T3/r7/2014-01-10.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what's the news, debate channel?'
T3/r7/2014-01-10.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'UK government actively trying to strangle the supply of housing, first through selling off state housing stock off, now strangling money going to local council housing associations who provide social housing'
T3/r7/2014-01-10.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'mmm, prairie oysters'
T3/r7/2014-01-11.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Summoner Yuna: 'So what Daily Blessing reward gives out random exp?'
T3/r7/2014-01-11.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Summoner Yuna: 'Mischan'
T3/r7/2014-01-11.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Moabyss: 'off'
T3/r7/2014-01-11.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Flidjit: ''ON!''
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'should i complain to my landlord about the maintenance guy who left a device for burning marijuana in my apartment when he let pest control in to spray, or some other course of action?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'give it back to him?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'tigernuts the landlord probably would do that anyways'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'is he a good/reliable maintenance guy?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'tigernuts well, he did let pest control in pretty effectively. i dunno about his other skills'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'had dealings with him before?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'nope.'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'are you likely to in the future?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'depends on if my landlord identifies me as the one who complained?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'if so , he might come in and trash my apartment sometime, sure'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if he hasn't caused you problems, why complain?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'tigernuts if you went to yosemite or yellowstone park, and left trash behind.... it would make other visitors' visits less pleasant'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'd still give him the benefit of the doubt'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'in my case, he wasnt a guest, he was an employee of my landlord, he had no business leaving trash in my apartment.'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or just chuck it out'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'well, it'd be better to sell it before chucking it out ... it's got little ornamental silver designs electroplated on it'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'its too bad must of the drug users i know use oxy, xanax, or meth rather than marijuana or i could ask someone how much it probably cost.'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well it's your call, if it's someone i'm likely to have to deal with again, i'd give them a chance and go easy on them'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'oh, well i havent even met them face to face yet.'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'i just see them riding around the property on the little golf karts every so often'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'could always keep hold of it til you bump into him again'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: ''again' ... reading comprehension -1'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'bump into doesn't necessarily mean in person in this context'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) 2/3 Flying VampireDude: 'oh i know who i can ask ^_^;; that chick that has a headshop will be able to tell me what they cost.'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why would the value matter?'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'crazy headlines, FBI drops upholding the law from their mission statement, Republicans website drops opposition to amnesty, and reports of Obama marriage on the rocks'
T3/r7/2014-01-12.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'apparently USA testing crop-harming biological weapons in Japan, Taiwan, and on the US mainland in 1961/62'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YqIwaiMt08w'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'looks like Fat Bully Christie is getting some Fed attention for spending $25million of federal aid given in the advent of Hurricane Sandy on advertisements for tourism'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it includes when you used energy and at what rate, along with what devices used the most'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'anyway, just another way they're trying to screw more money out of people and micromanage their lives'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'just amused me because the Uk are always the poor suckers that get to run test-case for the tyranny coming down the pike for you guys'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Nebmaatre: 'but it's for the good of the planet, or something /sarc'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good of the balance sheets of the energy companies, and allows them to bring in the energy/carbon tax they've for so long wanted'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and hell, having more control of the serfs isn't a bad thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.zdnet.com/googles-reach-expands-into-your-home-more-via-3-2-billion-nest-acquisition-7000025109/'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and Google just bought the main player in smart-home and smart-energy edvices'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'oh joy :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'time to get out of the fucking city, Suzie'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade deletes the line with the cusswords
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in economic news, median income in the US, adjusted with governments own figures, is now lower than in 1989. For med it's lower than 1974'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Israeli witchfinder general was buried today'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's entirely possible his stroke/coma was caused by poisoning'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'always a sorry day when an important terrorist dies'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'how to pronounce "damn" like the black people do?'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) ~S.E Aqua~ Eskilade: 'dayumn?'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'i mean.. um spell'
T3/r7/2014-01-13.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'sounds right:)'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'china are making military plans to reclaim an island in the south china sea currently occupied by Philipino troops'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'sound like fun. (sarcasm)'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, sounds like a possible trigger for China vs USA'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you'd like that, wouldn't you'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nothing distracts from incompetent leadership and economic desolation like a war'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'How is it the police were not found guilty in the Kelly Thomas case? Something desperately wrong there'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'which one was that?'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'group of police beat an unarmed homeless man with learning difficulties to death'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6yaeD-E_MY&feature=player_embedded'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in another case of police stupidity, a deaf oklahoma pensioner was beaten up by an officer for "not obeying orders" shouted at him from behind his car despite a big sign in the window saying "driver deaf"'
T3/r7/2014-01-14.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'he was also denied an interpreter during his entire detainment'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so Obama has announced he will now pass laws without congress using his pen and his telephone. Aren't you glad he has magical office equipment that lets him violate the constitution!'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'I am confident that the quality of decisions will not go down'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that would be almost impossible'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tinada grins evilly.
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Senator Starbug: 'how is he passing laws without congress?'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'he is choosing not to enforce parts of law, and he is using regulation to emulate laws. '
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what does he plan to do? no idea'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Senator Starbug: 'so executive orders?'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'those are not executive orders'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'he claims he can use executive orders to get things done, but that's not what executive orders are for'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Senator Starbug: 'what are they for?'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for internal affairs of federal government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for instance, a president cannot enact gun control via executive order, nor can he legalise pot'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Senator Starbug: 'but he can chose to not enforce pot laws in states with medicinal or legalized?'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no, actually he cannot'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(even though i'm a pot supporter)'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the constitution designates one of his key duties as being to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'by deliberately not enforcing the law, much like when he decided by executive order not to bring in the worker mandate for obamacare, he was in breach of the constitution'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if he wanted states to be able to choose their own pot laws (which is what he is hinting) he should submit a bill to the parliament removing pot from the scheduled substance list'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'chances are it'd pass'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/01/15/injured-mountain-biker-endures-seven-week-erection/'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(more appropriate for the level of this channel?)'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'crumbs, forgot the other big news: US Supreme court decision to knock down net neutrality laws signs the death warrant for the free internet'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i like: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2014/01/15/jimmy-kimmel-savages-obamacare-and-uninformed-young-people-who-suppor'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Endtime: 'ah the estimable political judgement of Jimmy fucking Kimmel'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'his sketches are spot on'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '(on this)'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'shit comedian though'
T3/r7/2014-01-15.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'he's certainly no George Carlin'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/senior-uk-defense-advisor-obama-is-clueless-about-what-he-wants-to-do-in-the-world.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'sounds like a good thing -- any time a US president has a clear idea about what they want to do to the rest of the world, disasters normally happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'heh'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wouldn't put too much weight on this guys' opinion, he has a book coming out'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'someone with a book to sell, surely not!'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'someone with a book to sell makes inflammatory comments to get headlines, shock'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'NSA collects 200 million text messages globally every day. Hands up anyone who is surprised any more?'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Vost: 'I am surprised'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'oh, they do a lot more than that.  txtspooking is so childsplay compared to other things.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Vost: 'that it is only 200 million'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'they suck at reading then lol'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'like they read them. they'll have supercomputers scan them for key phrases, but mostly they'll store them for later'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'compared against a watch list, for instance'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and mine them for behavioural intel'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'that would be far less than 200 million inane lols and emoticons to read.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'if they read them so well half the us would be in jail'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'NSA says they don't operate on domestic soil.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'bullshit'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'oh, definitely.  The US also has never stopped doing whatever activities the Geneva Accord illegalized (torture, assassination, terrorism, etc), but in the political arena if there's no proof then it didn't happen.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, drugs trafficking to fund black ops, gun smuggling to banned groups etc'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'Im sure i watched a documenty telling the people of all the torture they do use on the public'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'stuff the NSA, you've got police openly beating people to death and or shooting unarmed people'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and not getting into trouble, both in the UK and in the USA'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'and Canada it happens here'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'its called the northern flush'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'they slowly move the crazys and Criminals further and further north'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'I see it every year'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i can't answer to that'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'no, more direct stuff Tiger.  We assassinate "bad guys" we can't touch politically or militarily.  We torture the shit out of the enemy.  We violate sovereign borders/spheres of influence at will.  The big caveat is that we do all this secretly and are sufficiently successful at it (and similarly fail when the other guy does it to us) that none of the players can actually come forth and complain.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nogs, and that's why you're hated the world over, are headed for poverty, and are becoming a police state'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'It's actually proven that most of the world considers USA to be the terrorsts rather then the other way around and when another country gets fed up and retaliates the USA calles them the terrorests and get the public to belive them so they was goto war'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, with a bit of luck you'll get drawn into conflict with China over that island that the Phillipines nicked from them 40 years ago'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'you really missed the point of what I said, Tiger.  The US is just as horrible as some forgotten backwater caribbean state.  Even the Haitians are in on this play, and they really can't do shit.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't disagree with that, though it wasn't always like that'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'really since WW2'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'the reason china is mad is cause the US build a military base right next to them'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well yeah, US would be mad if roles were reversed, i seem to recall some issue with Russia staging missiles in Cuba...'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'yes, it was.  It was actually a bit worse, really, because back then people really understood the meaning of privacy.  FDR, for example, was more of a playboy than Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt but he didn't put it out in the public eye for all to see.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'difficult to be private these days with the technology'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'not really.  It's more that the attitudes in general have changed.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well both'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'not tech its the mantality '
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so what do you do?'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'u can have tech but if no one wants to spy it would go another way completely but since we all have to watch are backs all the time it seems spying will be about'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'you simply avoid the temptation to tell people about your shit, and simplify access to it.  It's far easier to control what everyone else knows about you if you don't have a slew of leak points.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'that's what made the Area 51 stuff such a genius move.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, if you want to avoid people knowing stuff, you have to abandon all technology'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'no its fine to know'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'not really'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'its care what everybody knows all the time that really matters'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you want privacy, you have to nip it in the bud at the government level'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'as important is the supreme court striking down net neutrality laws'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this could lead to some carriers banning traffic from sites they don't like, and price differencials'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'differentials*'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'that largely means less child porn and online virus warehouses.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it'll mean censorship'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it'll basically mean barriers going up across the internet'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'Whomever created viruses should be destroyed freaking usless making people life more difficult'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'have you actually looked at the internet lately?  Pretty much anything a person would want is behind a membership signup.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's not so, Hans'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Well actually, The intelligence services create many viruses, and they are responsible for a great many security holes that allow viruses tow ork'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'like really u sell a person a computer to go online gaming and then all of a sudden boom thx for the 2gs Screw viruses'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what about it, jaygod?'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'i got a computer once to play games online strictly'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'a lot of the internet is behind a signup, but if I want so sign-up for facebook right now it will download the same speed as google plus, hopeful my internet provider will leave it that way.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'download one game that was beeing advertised that week boom done 1 week fried computer'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so with the net neutrality gone, conceivably they could charge google a premium to transmit their data across their network'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'they don't leave it that way currently.  Throttling, as an example.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'oh dont worry about it now I know my way around LOL'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'but just like that a virus cost me 2gs and for what purpuose>'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'none simply to fuck with someones life. that is basicly the same as spying'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's what governments do, Jaygod'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'fuck with people's lives and spy'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and bleed them dry'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'not just goverment I knew people back in high school that creating them was fun just to fuck with people'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'no purpose nothing it was simply the mantaility'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'thats what we need to change the way we think'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you mean that people will now lay down and be rogered by the people that are supposed to be working for them, then yes, i agree'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: '99% of people in goverment over 45 need to step down and back away and let room for uncorrupted youngers to take over'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'hah, uncorrupted youngers...'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'probably need 90% of government to be permanently removed, the remaining 10% replaced with patriots'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'I think there are also corrupt people onder 45.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'naa they been there before i was a kic'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'patriots are too valuable, I'd go with scuds.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'kid'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'im 30'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'so thats a long time i've been seeing there faces'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wish you'd get rid of Feinstein and McCain'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'dont worry we do 2'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they'll get in again'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'some way of getting primary challengers would help, good democrats to replace weak one, good republicans to replace weak ones.  You have to vote against your political leanings sometimes to vote for a good canidate.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'F that'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'not 2 u malkar'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you've got sufficiently brainwashed and/or unforgivably stupid people to always vote them back in'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'I think its all rigged cause I dont know one person in my town that voted for them'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'the house seats should be diversified across all measures--sex, race, economic status...'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you can't guarantee that, Hans'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: '90% of the people you know are all-out liars.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hold your nose and vote tea party :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'yes, they are.  Statistics don't lie, Jaygod.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'Yes they do, Hans.  It's all about the context/style of analysis done with numbers.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'I can make u statics from nothing 2 and vote myself jaygod lol'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'also, everybody is more willing to lie when they feel they can get away with it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'cause someone told u this is how the voting went '
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well it's noticable that Obama's mob has been trying to overturn voter id laws passed in the states to try and combat voter fraud'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'obama is still kenndys'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'projectveritas.com has uncovered institutionalised voter fraud, most of it from democrat sources'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'not really, they've been doing that since GWH Bush.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'and to combat certain people from voting :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'always in lobby groups/activist groups, just sufficient distance away from the party that they can get away with it'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'Well ur not alloud to tell them therer beeing bad lol'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'hell, before the gigantic scandal broke, a democrat-funded welfare group was advising pimps how to avoid paying taxes on their child prostitutes.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Malkar: 'one idiot who works for Acorn doesn't mean there is a broad scandal.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it is NOT restricted to one idiot in Acorn'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'if it was just one idiot, ACORN would not have exploded.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there was a whole tranch of NGO's in Texas alone that were in on abusing obamacare navigator role to leverage democrat votes'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'multiple people have been fired'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'we had democrats signing up whole graveyards to get people voted in.'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Jaygod: 'ya i heard about that'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you should need to be on the voter roll (registered) and turn up with your voting card and photo id to vote'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and no, illegal immigrants should not have a right to vote'
T3/r7/2014-01-16.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'immigrants shouldn't have a right to vote period, unless they have permanent right to stay'
T3/r7/2014-01-17.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'fruitless but nevertheless true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bvWQuRf2Ig4'
T3/r7/2014-01-17.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '-5 '
T3/r7/2014-01-17.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://wearechange.org/breaking-news-adam-kokesh-facing-7-years-sentenced-2-years-probation/'
T3/r7/2014-01-17.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'kokesh escapes jail for the trumped up gun charges the feds tried to pull'
T3/r7/2014-01-18.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: 'A new report shows that 64 percent of Chinese millionaires have either emigrated or plan to emigratetaking their spending and fortunes with them. The United States is their favorite destination.'
T3/r7/2014-01-18.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Rizgoth: '1/3 of chinese millionaires with $16 million or more have already left China.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'chinese millionaires fleeing china isn't surprising or relevent'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what an awesome news story title: "Obama: one if by land, two if by sea, three if by metadata"'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'ObamaCare, says employer-sponsored health plans must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals with respect to either eligibility or benefits, and provides a tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, while demanding employers not provide better coverage to higher-paid employees.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's the gift to communism that keeps on giving'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why the future doesn't need you: http://tinyurl.com/o2dw4na'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Arnica: 'Wait while I put on my shades'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'try google glasses, it'll make you feel much trendier'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'but really, what did you think was going to happen with such an obamacare provision? It's designed to strongarm employers into ditching healthcare'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://rt.com/usa/congress-tpp-corporate-donations-802/'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'rofl, in an interview Obama blames his falling approval ratings on "racism"'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-19/obama-says-racial-animus-may-soften-support-new-yorker-reports.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Moabyss: 'Doesn't really sound too farfetched'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's extremely unlikely'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if anything, racism would give a positive discrimination'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'doesnt matter if ur black white red or blue U suck U suck leave race outa it'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}You debate: 'did racism increase recently? If not, then it wouldn't be the reason for falling approval...'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'of course not, abe'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'race is just another thing that these types of people leverage to further their political agenda'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no different to gender, age, sexual orientation'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'yeah most time strickly an excuse'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/195899-feinstein-metadata-program-here-to-stay'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Dianne Feinstein is like a pantomime witch. Any chances of unseating her in 2014?'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Arnica: 'None'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'not unless she gets primaried'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why not? oh, she's from California and people are braindead there'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no options for recall?'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'they see that D and it's over'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you can't recall us congress members tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what's with the love affair with D in California?'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'they can only be removed from office by losing an election or being impeached by their own body'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't understand how any of that works, Emm, not from round there'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and she's not up for election?'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'she is up for election'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but her district is safe'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'can't imagine her living in black ghetto'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'only another dem could taker her down in a primary challenge, which isn't likely to happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that comment implies racism i think tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Arnica: 'They actually send people to college in California, Tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'try demography, emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'if democrats were only popular with african americans they would not be a serious party'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they enjoy heavy support from black and latino, it's the only reason they are a serious party'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'as well as trendy greens and the trendy anti-whatever-we're-supporting-fake-rights-for group of the year'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'that's really not true, in reality the black and latino vote is a very small compared to their population'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not any more'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'old white people vote in droves and everyone else has to be poked and prodded before they'll even think about it'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'weight of numbers'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you suffer there exactly the same issue we do in the UK facing socialist holocaust thanks to the gravity effect of voting for self-interest'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: '61% of likely democratic voters are white tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'compared to the opposing figures?'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'while that is not quite the monochrome 90% of the republicans, it is still hard to say that they don't need their white voters'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'you're acting like voting in your own self interest is new or anything but universal.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or anything other than rational harperon'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's more than sufficient to support the argument, Emm'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's an issue when it leads to a totally broken system, Harperon'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'I would really hate to think that anyone knowingly votes against their own self interest'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'many people vote to what would be in their long term interests, or in the interests of the wider community'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'there is no way you can prove that tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't need proving, it's self evident that if you vote for something that is going to destroy your country for a bit of short-term personal benefit, that's a bad choice'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'the first part is still voting in their own interests so I don't contest that some have a longer view than others'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'but the second is pure speculation, or pure nonsense'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nothing speculative about any of it'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'I would argue that voting for the good of the greater community and just a different form of voting in your own sel interest more often than not'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'again you have absolutely no way to prove that anyone in the history of the world has ever voted against their own interest in favor of a wider community interest.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Harperon: 'and-<'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'and socrates would say no one is capable of such a thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you don't understand or disagree then you're deliberately trying to conflate immediate and short term again with long term interest'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Arnica: 'It is neither, it is brainwashing by the biggest wealthiest individuals in the coutry preying on people like Tigernuts who know no better and are subject to believing such stupidity'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Emm nods at Arnica.
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'that I could believe'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you're going try to be insulting, at least have the grace to spell correctly'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Arnica: 'Sorry Tigger nuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'personally i'd rather vote on ideology than cos i'll get an obamaphone'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'you know for someone who is supposidly from UK you sure spend a lot more time obama bashing than brown bashing or whoever your PM is now'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'our respected countries are governed by the same people'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i though you'd realised this'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'The Elite'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'just everyone else I know from UK who bitches about politics bitches primarily about their own politicians not ours.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'or if they do bitch about ours it is only in how they influence theirs'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'influence?'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'try "dictate"'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'GHCQ only gets away with spying on UK residents because of the NSA'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we only get blown up because of US foreign policy'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we only have financial crisis because of the deregulation of the american financial markets'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'UK has been spying on their own citizens since before there was a US, much less a NSA'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for the most part, the UK spies on it's enemies. We don't give them even remotely enough funding to spy on our own'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'US spies on everyone but so do alot of the countrys'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the agreement was that the NSA would spy on UK citizens because it was legal that way'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'well I have better things to do than argue with a brick wall.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Emm: 'later.'
T3/r7/2014-01-19.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'all in all, you're just another brick in it'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRdmrAj9YGs&feature=player_embedded'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'suckers'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'meantime, hacker David Kennedy shows how to hack HealthCare.gov and get personal details of 70,000 enrollees in about 4 minutes using nothing more than a browser with a few plugins'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/hacking-expert-david-kennedy-says-he-cracked-healt'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'So the malware against Target et al was writen by a 17yo, he wasn't using his powers for good.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Seltsimees Dagnir: 'thanks, obama'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'where was he from?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'most likely he downloaded most of it from somewhere, so are you really sure it was really written by him?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'ukraine I think'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nice, EU candidate'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'I have no proof he did anything, only mentioning what I saw on the news.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you should come to expect this sort of theft'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'as our lovely horde of ex-botters shows, really dumb people can do rather impressive things with someone else's hammer.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'every bit of 'electronic' transaction is russian roulette'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'our gov'ts would likely love an all electric transaction world, be harder to hide cash sales we aren't paying taxes on.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they want to control it all, which is as good a reason as any not to let them have it'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Ontuct: 'who wouldn't love a sales tax on private sales'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'cash sales are tiny'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'governments lose revenue orders of magnitude larger from corporate dodginess'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'which they're not interested in, because the people committing the fraud ARE the government, or have bought them, or will be them, or used to be them'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hard to have your credit card details stolen if you're paying in cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'if you actually HAVE a credit card, not that difficult.  Didn't Mastercard get hacked not too long ago?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i had bad activity on my card courtesy of Paypal'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'one bad piece of publicity on a cc company's part to raise Anonymous's ire, and all our cards are probably toast.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's no such thing as uncrackable or unhackable, but all this pointless consumerism and trendy convenience just exacerbates the risk, it's like sleeping around seedy whore houses and nightclubs without protection then wondering why you catch stuff'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Hey there's nothing wrong with seedy nightclubs!'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hence my next mobile phone is a nokia 3310 :-)'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'not until condom quality starts to deteriorate.  The last trojan product I saw advertised touted the fact it was 40% thinner.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'that's nearly half the condom gone, and you haven't even stuck it in your wallet yet!'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and as for facebook, people who advertise their entire lives on facebook deserve to be robbed'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone, here - we have pollution, energy, and climate issues caused by excessive population and we have privacy and liberty issues exacerbated by trendy pointless garbage tech users, combine the two - euthenise all facebook users and save the planet'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Or just nuke india.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'if we nuked india, we'd probably have to nuke our Pakistani allies as well.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Why?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'They hate eachother. They'll thank you.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'to prevent them from raiding the leftovers.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'It'll be irradiated wasteland, who cares. :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'I like that we're disucssing genocide like it's nothing special.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'why would you want to nuke India?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'other than because of Oracle'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Lots of people in a small space, + overcrowded planet.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'are they the problem?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Best bang for you.. well, bang.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'India is an extremely fertile and productive country, so i disagree'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Unless apparent, I'm not entirely serious. :D'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Most of the pictures I see from india are dusty people who make a living by scooping up poop.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'That might not be representative of the country though.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's still an impoverished country, but it's fertile and productive'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's also the world's largest democracy'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'So.. china?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Well nuking small countries won't get you anywhere, will it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sure, just use small nukes'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Screw it. Go for the US and get it over with.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'Big Trouble in Little China could be a fable about indian terrorism.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'It'll get us down a few % atleast.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'd go "LA, New York, DC", Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, then Germany'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Germany?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'What about all the cars?'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sure, Germany'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'don't hate on the germans just because they know how to work money better than you.'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what about them? they have factories all around the world'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'But.. Beer! Oktoberfest!'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Words like Krankelwagen!'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'Germany's big problem economically is that they're in the middle of the EU'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'personally i think the threat of authoritarian corporatist government is far worse than any problem, real or otherwise, from overpopulation or climate change'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this doesn't look happy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPsOopzp7e4&feature=player_embedded'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-elderly.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'i knew it!'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'self evident'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'i hated to learn history in school because i was afraid that it would fill my brain with useless crap'
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'mostly does lots of lies '
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'mostly does lots of lies '
T3/r7/2014-01-20.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'oops'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Bill Gates predicts an end to poverty in 20 years. What's he planning to do, kill them all?'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Purple HazeKnight: 'Who's "them"?'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the people in poverty, i'd assume'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Purple HazeKnight: 'Read Atlas Shrugged and try again'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wouldn't help'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMMGgQ1RFpc&feature=player_embedded'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Why is Bill Gates morphing into Woody Allen?'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'looks like the the US and it's Al-Quaida allies are racking up the pressure with some more selective and/or biased reporting of torture in Syria'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0&feature=player_embedded'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wow, US unemployment 37.2%, worst rate since 1978'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'cite sources.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://washingtonexaminer.com/wall-street-advisor-actual-unemployment-is-37.2-misery-index-worst-in-40-years/article/2542604'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'contains report from Bloomberg'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'it doesn't show how it derives said number - refuted.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'those numbers are provided by the government'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'Again - can't verify calculation - refuted.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'No, it classes everyone who doesn't have a job as unemployed regardless as to whether they're looking for work, or not'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then your existence is refuted'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'which is a ridiculous argument'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'See, that's what I was lookign for - does it include children, elderly, etc.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'also, does it include people who aren't "considered" US Citizens?  Ie - the illegal immigrants, etc.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'hence, it's an invalid claim/number.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'I doubt it includes children, but I bet it includes plenty of housewives who have run the numbers and decided that paying for daycare so that they can get a job to pay for daycare is a stupid idea.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'or househusbands :p'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'also, ad hominem is a great way to debate, good sir :P'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so is refuting everything you don't like the sound of'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Xaeris: 'no, I want proof.  You're showing me people who have said arbitrary numbers.  I don't see any of the work behind it, so I can't verify the numbers for myself.  That's a valid request in any sort of debate schema.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'I'd actually believe that number when it applies to all adults, regardless of whether they want work or not.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nods, that's the definition of unemployment'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'I just disagree with their interpretation of that number.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'depends on what you're using it for -- usually, they just use it to refer to those who are actually trying to be employed'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'ahh, but those who are actually trying to be employed is not what is measured by the official U3 unemployment statistic, which is currently 6.7%'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'U3 excludes anyone who is long term unemployed, anyone who has given up looking, anyone who is underemployed, and anyone has entered the workforce but not found a job yet'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'U6 is probably the closest to what most people would accept as unemployed namely all adults not working who are looking for a job, and the current rate of  that is 13.1%'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dispel Majic: 'that seems reasonable.'
T3/r7/2014-01-21.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'on the plus side, Nancy Reagan is still alive'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Terrible news! UK unemployment fell 164,000 in december to 7.1%'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MLHhGVVbSZQ&list=PLAzaFFdHVj58GiTaYBQMiZTHgq7qGJJug'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'should old people cancel their driving license?'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zimzar: 'there should be a retesting for sure'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'hm. what could be the test then? they CAN read signs...'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'they are slower. thats it'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'how can you test it?'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zimzar: 'retaking the driving part'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'they actually drive better than those newbies with 20 hrs lessons.. so that doesn't work'
T3/r7/2014-01-22.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zimzar: 'too general, everyones different'
T3/r7/2014-01-23.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/cop-killer-communist-terrorist-pen-nightmarish-blueprint-socialist-usa#sthash.dVvL9Mda.dpuf'
T3/r7/2014-01-23.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in better news, Dow Jones closed down 176 points ay 16297'
T3/r7/2014-01-23.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: '"alcohol does not kill brain cells" sounds like a decent argument for pot legalization.'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'some fantastic news headlines today'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '"Soros Libs: Cutting Off NSA Will Imperil Cherished New Deal"'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Schumer Suggests Electoral Reform As Way to Lessen the Grip of the Tea Party'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Obama blames unpopularity on Limbaugh, Fox News for making him into a caricature'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in bad news, Canada bans imports of Irn Bru and Marmite'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'It is a bit curious that someone as clever as Soros supports so many deluded liberals.'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and in good news, The Dow Jones is down 218 points, and the FTSE100 closed down 109'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'it's not as though there aren't any sane ones'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Soros is a corporatist'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'With any luck, we'll have those early Chinese defaults in a week, that might give us an amusing February'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'For corporatists, freedom, liberty, free markets, free will are all sins'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Confounded CeriQ: 'Continuum taught me that corporations are evil.'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good, it was right'
T3/r7/2014-01-24.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm beginning to lean towards Kokesh's plan, which is an orderly dissolving of the union'
T3/r7/2014-01-25.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'What do you call it when, if you're in government, you use the power of government to target your political opponents?'
T3/r7/2014-01-25.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservative-author-and-pundit-dinesh-dsouza-charged-in-campaign-finance-case/2014/01/23/69c67ee4-848a-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html'
T3/r7/2014-01-25.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/23/conservative-activist-okeefe-claims-cuomo-targeting-his-group/'
T3/r7/2014-01-25.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/head-hollywood-conservative-group-irs-told-us-we-had-been-targeted'
T3/r7/2014-01-25.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the UK, our socialist opposition wants to reintroduce a 50% tax band'
T3/r7/2014-01-25.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'meantime in the UK, major bank imposes withdrawal limits, citing nosiness: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that sounds a bit screwed up, Hawaii looking to legalise/tax mary jane exports, but without legalising it for personal use'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://watchdog.org/125321/hawaii-marijuana-export/'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Seltsimees Dagnir: 'thanks, obama'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'thanks, Gideon'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dabbil: '"Can you imagine factories that would be making Maui Wowie cookies" .. I guess, but I'd really rather not.'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hmm, how long before the obama regime starts acting towards it's political enemies like Kim Jong Un did to his Uncle's entire family'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'silly question'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps when a seal team visits Tigernuts (although there are cheaper options to terminate pests)'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no seal teams left, they blew them all up after the bin laden raid'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'besides, the last seal team they sent to get me crashed just off the North Norfolk coast'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps MI5 or MI6 may relocate Tigernuts to (say) Syria'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'MI5 are only interested in training muslim terrorists to blow up the underground trains in order to create justification for foreign and domestic security policy'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'MI6 are too busy wearing womens clothing, killing each other and hiding the bodies inside sealed holdalls dumped in the bath'
T3/r7/2014-01-26.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'now what should bake your noodles is the last two statements are based upon true events'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the latest poll, 63% of americans haev little or no confidence Obama will make the right decisions, and 51% thinking he is not a good leader'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'those are probably still better scores than david cameron'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in other news, New studies suggest a warming climate decreases storm activity and extreme weather'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tinada nicely asks Tigernuts to be more quiet.
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'warming, cooling, more storms, less storms, it's all AGW.'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tinada: 'or maybe that was manmade climate change, as long as it is our fault and the UN can tax it'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's all weather'
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts is agreeing with that Tinada person again...
T3/r7/2014-01-27.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'our lot here are rubbish though, they're crowing about growth of 2.4%, neglecting to mention that once you strip money printing, population growth, and inflation manipulation out of the mix, it turns out we never came out of recession'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '"North Dakota Cow Thief Is First American Arrested, Jailed With Drones Help"'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'I thought drones used for law enforcement within the USA was a conspiracy theory?'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in other news, Russian Bank bans cash withdrawals'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'it's not just the Russian bank.  The UK banking sector was doing it as well.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'was only HSBC, and they weren't banning cash withdrawals so much as demanding paperwork for them'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i intend writing to my bank tomorrow and demanding to know if they have any plans to do similar'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if they do, i'll be changing banks'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so Tigernuts dislikes paperwork (and perhaps papertrails) where banking is concerned'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'dislikes? bank has no right to know what i'm using my money for'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'll happily give them notice of a large withdrawal such that they can organise there to be cash there, beyond that they can go swivel'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'though it should be pointed out that, if you deposit money in a bank, legally it is no longer yours'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'they are merely assuring the NWO that any large paper-cash withdrawals are not being used for illegal or terrorist activities, and also protecting the senile from inopportune cash withdrawals'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'when you deposit money in a bank you become an uninsured creditor'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'bank goes to the wall, chances are you will not get your money back'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not their job, Zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'use that argument to wiggle out of a binding contract - default on your debts '
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what argument?'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'hrm, obtuse and clueless - likely not English'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not sure there is a safe place for money these days'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'The CEO of BitInstant, a Bitcoin exchange, has been arrested at JFK airport and  charged with money laundering. Charlie Shrem, along with a co-conspirator, is accused of selling over $1 million in bitcoins to Silk Road users, who would then use them to buy drugs and other illicit items.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i guess the fbi didn't like that a) they were trying to use a currency they didn't control, and b) they were cutting into the fed's money laundering and drug-running business'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps the FBI threatened to arrest the CEOs of HSBC for handing out large cash withdrawals without paperwork'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'fbi don't have jurasdiction here'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'nope, it was an attempt post-Target breach to make sure you aren't playing sly with the loot.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'in that case, BitCoin exchanges require to relocate to outside the USA jurisdictions'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there are several perhaps many forms of currency other than "money": real-estate, stocks, bonds, debentures, derivatives, valuable metals, wholesale diamonds, rare stamps, valuable? art, and recently: Bitcoin'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'don't forget about cigarettes and bubblegum.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'retail diamonds are a scam'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'drugs are a form of currency -- not sure about the bubblegum though - not addictive'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'bubblegum is a form of currency popular among smugglers.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'to such a degree, in fact, that there's a bubblegum shoplifting epidemic.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'very few people see gum and go "hold on, what's in the package?"'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade does not speak that drug lingo - so bubblegum is merely bubblegum
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'unless there is a chemical process for producing hard drugs from bubblegum'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'nope, x pieces of bubbleyum equates to, say, that $300 pair of sneakers you really wanted.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'as though a posh store selling overpriced sneakers is going to accept bubblegum as payment'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'they don't, but the professional shoplifter who will get them for you will.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so the shoplifter is then left with the difficulty of how to launder bubblegum into hard cash'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'another form of alternative currency were those plastic bracelet thingies that were really popular with middle-schoolers.  They became a way to signify what kind of sexual act you wanted.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'no difficulty, can't trace stolen gum.  Even if you could, nobody's going to think about doing so.'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'as though the parents did not get a pamphlet on how to read what those bracelets are actually saying'
T3/r7/2014-01-28.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'but if you imagined that a tubgirl may've sat on that gum, you'd likely not want to chew gum anymore'
T3/r7/2014-01-29.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'heh, they banned a cycle safety tv ad here because the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet'
T3/r7/2014-01-29.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good news! Dow Jones down 200 points'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not a good headline to hear: "Chief of Police Harassed by Feds, Placed on Leave After Signing Pledge to Uphold Constitution"'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Watcher Mahon: 'where did you read that?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'http://www.usaprepares.com/government-corruption-2/tsa-harasses-shane-harger-constitutional-chief-of-police-usaprpepares-com-instructor-chief-and-entire-olice-department-wrongfully-fired'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'is that "after" or "after and because of"'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there'll be a video interview tonight'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'hrm, an "entire-olice-department" '
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'on his way to the conference he was grabbed by a federal agent'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a day after his return he was placed on leave and asked to disband his entire police department due to his "political affiliations"'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'isn't discrimination based upon political offiliation against the law?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'not necessarily'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well technically it isn't a political affiliation anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'I mean, the House unamerican activities was entirely based on that surely?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'likewise in the UK there are banded organisation'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'reaffirming your pledge which you swore upon taking the job isn't really an issue'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'reaffirming your wedding vows isn't grounds for a divorce, for instance'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'well, probably not, but, for example, if you did that at a KKK meeting that would probably be a bad thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's pretty obvious it's not the KKK'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'I give an example'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'unless the KKK were popular, as in the 1930s'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'yes, of course, everything is fine if everyone agrees with you'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'are you suggesting they are right to persecute him?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'devil is in the detail'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no, it's not'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'oh, yes, it is!'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in this case, the detail is clear, it's political persecution'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'he's behind you!'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's cut and dry, the actors involved are well known to me'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'the detail, then, is what the politics are'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the persecuted guy is a libertarian leaning constitutionalist'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'too lazy to visit that misspelt weblink, and Tigernuts was too lazy to provide an accurate concise informative synopsis'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'following the constitution an upholding your oath is diamettrically opposed to the agenda of the federal government'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so that's where the clash is'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'and that is important -- although if you are honestly surprised that power of any form is being used to reinforce the position of those in power, then I am honestly surprised'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'surprised, no. DOesn't make it right'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'oh, a libertarian, yeah, well, they should throw the book at him, because those guys are all nuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'w'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that opinion therefore makes you a communist scumbag?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or a Nazi jew killer?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'no, you have it backwards'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'oh, a jew killing nazi, i get it'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'it's because I am a communist scumbag that I have that opinion'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'cause, effect -- worth getting the two straight, in general.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, regardless of opinions, if the law gets followed, this guy will get an apology and the feds will get the book thrown at them'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the Christian Jesus red-letter scripture advise against the swearing of any oaths -- USAmericans that take the oath of allegiance are likely to be cast into the lake of fire '
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'that would be a shame, because, you'd loose a libertarian cause celebre'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: '?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'any way, on the cause and effect front, I am tired, so I am going to bed -- sleep well!'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'hope your dreams are not blighted by the cries of the oppressed, whose torment you support'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the new (or old) game in the USA is for crook officials to disregard the laws and to commit malfeasance'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'clearly'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'along with closing road bridges to punish political opponents, slapping questionable funding law suits on political opponents'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wrongly arresting sherriffs for doing their job, then having to pay compensation after a law suit'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'until there are sufficient penalties to castigate malfeasance, the crook officials are unlikely to be deterred from abusing the decent laws'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and using the IRS to persecute political opponents, massing your vote by voting with dead peoples votes, and turning a blind eye to illegal aliens voting while trying to overturn local laws that require photo id for voting'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it's a dirty business'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Abomination rhymes with Obamanation'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Ellen Degeneres rhymes with hell and degenerate'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there is a naming conspiracy there'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'anything a bit more relevent and sensible to bring up, Zade, or are you in LSD mode?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the "conniving choice" of names by the wicked and the perverts and the crooks in the public spotlight indicates a premeditated intent to abomination'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sounds suspiciously like bollocks'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"The King's Bollocks" - the name of an English pub -- but is there more "dastardly" folklore to be discerned from that suspicious choice of name'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'whqt is wrong with marmite that Canada banned imports'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'additives that were banned in Canada'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'while i might not agree with it, i would respect it, just the same way US should respect GMO bans elsewhere int he world'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'at least there is Vegemite (currently the better alternative to marmite)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'gay australian substandard version of marmite'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'taste Vegemite and you know that Vegemite is definitely not gay'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Vegemite is horrid tasting'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'at least Vegemite is better than scotts Haggis'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'never had haggis'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you're suggesting gays taste nice, or being gay tastes nice'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Vost: 'I had haggis once'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Vost: 'it tastes okay - but best not to think about what is in it'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'saying that Vegemite is so outright horrid tasting and healthy that Vegemite must be straight and honest  (not deceptive and gay)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so deceptive and gay things taste nice, that's what you're saying?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Marmite with those poisonous additives is obviously deceptive and gay'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't contain poisonous additives, is very tasty, and is good for you'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Canada banned marmite, so marmite is defective (and gay)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they banned it because it was fortified with vitamins'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"vitamins" are not "additives" in the usual sense '
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they are if they are added'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts, if you use the wrong words to describe products, you are likely to be misinformative and appear to be trolling, deceptive, (and gay)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what are you grumbling about now?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'which government officials (names!) in Canada are responsible for banning food products fortified with vitamins'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'every bad law and or ruling is the result of (say) abominable and or clueless human(s)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or difference of ideology'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'or greed'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'vitamine E is good for your cancer'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"banning vitamins" seems to be the work of terrorist moles'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'while there is some evidence that pharmaceutical industry puts pressure on governments to inhibit the sale of vitamins, i don't think this is a conspiracy'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'i heard that vitamins are best consumed with food that mother nature has put in them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'excessive vitamin E ingested by males may cause prostate problems later  - but that is their choice  (to be healthier now and perhaps suffer urinary difficulties later)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tormat: 'almost all your food now is enhanced with vitimaans'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'but chuclit tastes good so nature doesn't know much'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'cuclate'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'chocolate..'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '200 iu of vitamin E daily is okay.  800 iu daily may risk prostate difficulties later'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'it's good for your lung cancer also'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'everything is bad for you, and good for you'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the elderly like chocolate as that keeps them regular'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'most of the "x amount is bad for you" are correlations not causations anyway'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'unless they can prove a systematic, functional cause-effect, it's probably bollocks'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'mid last century, a bottle of Vitamin C was banned in England without a prescription  (y/n)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you can buy vitamin c in england without a prescription'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'maybe these days, but cica 1970, nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'maybe these days, but circa 1970, nope'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i can't prove or disprove that, before my time'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't sound likely, however'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the EU has been trying to ban vitamin and herbal supplements for ages, just like they're trying to ban all seeds that haven't been specifically approved by them'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'because like Swalec, the EU are a bunch of commies and nazis'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'quite literally when it comes to the EU elite'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'banning (readily available extra) vitamins is an attempt to suppress vocal dissenters and ruin their health (since vocal dissenters are usually under more stress than the docile sheeple)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'less about ruining health, more about control and money for pharmaceutical lobbyists'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'banning (readily available extra) vitamins is an attempt (by the already rich) to suppress new entrepreneurs that are not already rich (since the process of becoming rich is often extremely stressful)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'though it's not about money when it comes to force-medication of the entire public'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'banning (readily available extra) vitamins and herbals is an attempt (by the pharmaceutical industry) to suppress inexpensive health remedies (since a public without inexpensive vitamins and herbals is more likely to be diseased and suffering from a plethora of illnesses to be allegedly and incompetently treated by the excessively-priced pharmaceuticals)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'that said, learning which vitamins and which herbals work inexpensively is (maybe) an expensive learning process) [the healthfood stores are happy though to sell (fairly-priced and overpriced) supplements, and at least the supplements are there]'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"force-medication of the entire population" is an abomination - if that is put into practie, that society is defective and deserves to be euthanised'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'so you agree that birth control is a bad thing?'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(that said, the english genetics is extremely inferior)  <-- sb an xchan but the english empire-building likely ruined their genetics'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'birth-control is good -- prevents unwanted and unloved babies'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'birth-control is excellent -- plenty of decent heterosexual sex (as god intended), and less overpopulation'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'using wars as a method of population reduction is usually bad'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'not if you do it right.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'if you kill everyone on the opposing side, there's nobody left to grow up with a driving hatred to bring you down.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the perversion of homosexuality is caused by excessive population stress (as indicated by studies of lab rats - when overpopulated in confined spaces)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Vost: 'rubbish!'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'extremely accurate!!'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'from the perspective of god, decent variety in the decent heterosexual human race is preferred'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'given that we've only relatively recently discovered that over 40 (or was it 400?) species practice homosexuality, I'm not sure that's accurate.  We have no data from beyond the modern population figures that are obviously putting some sort of indirect population stress on a species.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'decent, in his case, is significantly less than 1%.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so one side wiping out the other side is a no-no -- too much genetic variety is lost'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'lots of humans practice murder -- but murder is usually bad'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the fact that numerous species practice a perversion does not change the fact that a perversion is a perversion'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'if it relieves stress, it's not a perversion.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'animal practice a lot of disgusting things -- god tolerates that, within reason '
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'murder relieves stress, yet murder is usually bad, perhaps a perversion'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'humans are an indigenous part of the animal kingdom, Zade.  EVERYTHING practiced by humanity, in every sphere you wish to bring up, is fully and robustly expressed elsewhere in the animal kingdom.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'rape murder and pillage relieves stress, yet rape murder and pillage is usually bad, perhaps a perversion'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'rape leads to species diversity (among koala bears)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'humans are supposed to be decent caretakers -- but in your view, if you believe that humans are to be like perverse pervert animals, there are several remedies  (evil grin)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'Humans all have potential for great good or evil or both'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'there are no blind chimpanzees, and they jack off all the time.  Strike one against parents.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) The Legend Jaygod: 'yes there is lol'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'British Emperialism led to the English being rich - the victims of British Empirialism are likely disgruntled and seeking revenge'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'an example of a disgruntled: Tigernuts'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'monosex is okay when monosexual and or heterosexual thoughts and or "no thoughts" are entertained -- the first animals were likely asexual'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'the first animals were a mix of both.  They ate DNA, after all.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'and I don't mean that as a euphemism for swallowing a load.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'God likely tolerates monkeys entertaining themselves monomatically (the monkey is likely entertining heterosexual thoughts, or releving stress)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Hanslanda: 'mostly they're just bored, kinda like humans.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'but overcrowded monkeys are likely to be sick and perverted -- in which case diseases and predators come and euthanise the excess, preferably the killing off the perverts (leaving heterosexual breeding stock)'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the choice is to seek to be a decent heterosexual wise intelligent caretaker (likely human), or to be human animals managed by diseases and predators and wars and horrid nasty situations'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'use Doomsday! (Boom Boom!), that deadly comet cleanser (B-B-B-Boom-Boom!), and blast (perverted) humanity into the grave! (B-B-B-B-Boom!)  (loosely paraphrased from a 1950s jingle (likely Stan Freberg))'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'although the film "Knowing (predictions)", starring Nicholas Cage, was an interesting slant'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'Liberals, amirite.'
T3/r7/2014-01-30.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Dark Angel Azaezel: 'bacon, discuss'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'most telling headline i saw this morning was "Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been tapped to be U.N. special envoy for cities and climate change"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts, the obtuse don't know the "telling" significance of that headline -- merely another jew getting a plumb job'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"special envoy for cities and climate change" sounds like a waste of taxpayers money, a job to coddle the rich quislings for bootlicking the party-line, or to fund sinister changes'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it is a "jobs for the boys" move, to push an agenda that wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with interest for the wellbeing of the public'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'not sure yet that a Bloomberg is a Kissinger'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'he's rich and part of that club, doesn't need to be. He is a hand not a head'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Henry Kissinger, accused by some of war crimes against humanity - nah, the victims were south american and or those that were not yet accredited civilised humans doing what the USA wanted'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'but did Michael Bloomberg do anything as "dastardly" yet -- there are at least two sides to every story some say'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'yet i heard there was an arsehole than banned large coca-cola servings in restaurants in NY'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'small steps, small steps'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'normally, any Mayor that did that deserves to be impeached and or kicked out of office fast -- but what are the replacement candidates the beleagured voters say'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'a possible reason that Barrack Obame was elected was that the republican candidates all looked either incompetent and or crook (and that a large majority of voters despised the GW Bush repiblican administration and financial meltdown)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Zade requires to learn how to speak with more vitreole -- maybe listen to a few Rush Limbaugh shows for hints
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Republicans would do far better to get back to libertarian roots'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'won't happen while it's owned by big business and globalists though'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the globalists will kill the republican party - it's in their interests'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'kill the puppets - nah'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the globalists like playing puppetmaster .. unless the globalists are also puppets .. '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if they can't kill off the libertarian threat, they might have to sacrifice the party'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there is no Libertarian threat if you Tigernuts are anything to go by as an example of Libertarian'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i'm not an example'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Terry Goodkind had a good handle on what socialism does'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'with his books about the Old World empire'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Necroshine was a better threat (but incoherence, lack of training, the addiction difficulties, the paranoia, too twised inside -- was too dangerous to enable him)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'anybody with a name "Goodkind" is not to be trusted -- the surname reeks "fake and contrived" "distrust" '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'almost similar to the name "Goodfellows" but without the mafia connotations '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'since Tigernuts is against socialism, and since Tigernuts recommends Terry Goodkind, that indicates the Terry Goodkind is likely a defective author slandering socialism'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'reminiscent of the Saberhagen "Berserker" scifi-series where "Good Life is that life which assists the Berserkers to kill off all life, (since life is bad)"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"Brother Berserker" was somewhat grisly in some of the narrative'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'whether Saberhagen was more grisly in some passages than HP Lovecraft or August Derleth, unsure - fond memories though .. ycch .. maybe not .. too grisly'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"Good kind is the kind that likes to kill off kindness, especially socialist kindness ..."'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Terror Goodkind, er Terry ...'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'in the Berserker scifi-series, "Bad life was that life that resisted to be euthanised and elimiminated and or did not assist the berserkers to kill off life"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'at least there was no double-speak of "1984"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'if there was, at least the BVerserkers were more "honest"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'if there was double-speak, at least the Berserkers were more "honest"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the dialects er Daleks: "You will be exterminated"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and the Christian god: perhaps Rev 21:8'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what makes you think you have a right to exterminate others, Zade?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'you are apparently acknowledging that right by querying that right  (foolish you)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the right to life?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you have no right to exterminate others'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'neither does anyone'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the right to kill abominations'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you have the right to defend yourself or your family'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'it depends what you mean by "right" -- generally, this is a legal concept, and yes, some people do have the right to exterminate others'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that right to defence didn't ought to extend to exterminating anyone arbitrarily just because in your mind, whether clear or deluded, believe them to be an abomination'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'right isn't a legal concept'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'ah, right'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'so, what is it then?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'sits above laws'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts, your lack of literacy likely misread what Zade posted, or your lack of honesty is attempting to add to what Zade posted'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if a right can be revoked, it isn't a right, it's a privilege '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'sits above law, okay, well, that's a good clear defintion and the basis for a discussion'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i have to talk in the basest, simplest of terms else Zade falls off the wagon'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the "law" is a fiction promulgated by some humans'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'is it a fiction?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'unusually, i understand what you're saying, but i don't agree'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Aleister Crowley said "To do what thou wilt is the whole of the law"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Aleister Crowley was also a demon-worshipping nutjob'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"a right is anything i may get away with"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'an ultimately twisted way of looking at it'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"whilst i am striking wickedly with fist, that is the law (of the fist)." '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and if there are no repercussions, ...'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'working on the basis that a right needs to be recognised by society, and defended by society'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'given that society is actively dismantling those rights that were once held sacrisanct, i would agree with a modified form of your earlier comment: These days, rights are fiction'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'since rights are human constructs they must be fiction :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't think that follows, aphelion'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'houses are human constructs, they are not fiction'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'a "right" is an abstraction,  so its reality is conditional.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there are many things whose reality are conditional that are not fiction'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'well, rights are a social construct which sit outside of exact proof'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so are laws, that doesn't make them fiction'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'as a result of which, over time, they change, and some rights that we once held sacrosanct have disappeared'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'but this is not necessarily a bad thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'not inevitably, but in the vast majority of cases, is'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'for example, the right of a husband to all the property of their wife, or the right of property ownership of slaves'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i grant you that, and the clue is in the fact that for those rights to exist, they always and immediately contradict other rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(and) where did Zade say (and preferably prove) that Zade was right to exterminate others  (Zade 'd like to know, so Zade may exterminate others with a happy conscience)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'such as the right to various freedoms'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'perhaps somebody proved or at least realised that Zade was one or many of: a "good lifeform", a Berserker, a Dalek, a god (but there are lots of those), a vigilante, a scifi reader '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'come back to the happy place, zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the right to various freedoms, such as the right to exterminate others when there are no repercussions '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that right, were it to exist, automatically violates freedom to life and liberty'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you could argue therefore that such condition would never exist'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'that is what Bush did'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'that is what the USA does'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and Blair, and Obama. Doesn't make it right'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'They're all war criminals'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and proud!'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there is the fabled law of karma -- there may yet be repercussions!  (or maybe not)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'so many loopholes to the law of karma, as though karma is selective'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'you are under the mistaken impression that freedom (which happens to the same as liberty :)) is genetically acquired.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i have no such impression, aphelion'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'yet you speak as if we should be free by virtue of the fact we exist. We cannot speak of freedom as an absolute, we can only speak of degrees of freedom. Nothing in the universe is completely free, everything constrains everything else.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'when you create freedom by fiat, all you can hope is that everyone agrees with you. There is no rule that says they must.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you are stating something that I have already stated earlier, that rights exist only because they are agreed upon by society and defended by that society'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'as a sentient lifeform we get to make that determination'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'which is why democracy is a failure. There will always be people that will say, "Screw this, I am not going along with your program" and your freedom goes out of the door.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'democracy in it's current form is a terrible failure'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'you cannot have a rule that says that one is free to do this but not to do that. That is not freedom. So others are "free" to say you are not free and make it stick.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'humans obey (some) laws as a matter of convenience.  As soon as the laws become inconvenient, some humans disregard those laws  <-- that is from the law of nature: "To do what one wills to do, that is the whole of the law"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'merely calling someone "free" is far to granular to be useful, that's why rights are enumerated'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there is no problem with rights unless they conflict'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and when the corrupt make the laws, there is even less reason to respect those laws'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'rights come as part of a convention. There is no way to enforce such convention.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'actually there is a way to enforce sucha  convention'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'like the communists did, with mass murder'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'sure, but to enforce it you must constrain freedom.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'again, an unhelpful broadbrush statement'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if you wish to actively protect some rights, you have to give up other rights'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you took Zade's Aleister Crowly appproach, then yes, you couldn't enforce it'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'like the europeans did when they invaded the americas'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'well, at least you accept the fact that there is no such thing as absolute freedom.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that was accepted a long time ago, aphelion'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts likely misread or disregarded the "no repercussions" rider'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this isn't about absolute freedom, this is about arbitrary and systematic dismantling of previously held rights that were considered central to a free and good society'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'so, restricted freedom is a fantasy. Whatever it is it is not freedom.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and whether that is a good or a bad thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well, one would think, Aphelion, that the aim is to live in a society that is free as possible while still being functional and happy'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the issue i have with "giving up some rights" is that it's always portrayed as a temporary fix to a temporary problem, but it turns into a permanent "fix" for an evolving problem'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'humans have not evolved enough for such society.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'meaning... once society gives up a right... it's gone forever'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'have humans devolved in the last 100 years, Aphelion?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the Zade approach is different to the Aleister Crowley approach (which was introduced to the debate to show up the flaws in the Tigernuts approach)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'fundamentally failed, zade, since it is not my approach'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'to hear Tigernuts talk about "laws" and "rights", you'd almost believe that was Tigernuts talking of the the Tigernuts approach'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'they haven't devolved, they just haven't evolved.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if humans haven't devolved in the last 100 years, why have freedoms been removed?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'depends on your perspective... more freedom in some african countries today than there was 100 years ago'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'again, you act as if freedom is something that naturally belongs to humanity.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'more freedom in china today than 100 years ago'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"He was a Mongoloid, a Mongoloid, more devolved than you and me"  loosely from the Devo song'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'more in some far less in others'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): <pretitle> Scars shrugs helplessly.
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in the USA there is less, in the UK there is less'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'what's your point? even if you're right about the devolution of humans, and as a result we have fewer rights... yay? you win the internet?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you aren't gonna fix that'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'yeah, there is less in the UK, not that we are all chained by the shackles of the free market'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the devolving point was not mine, someone argued that we have fewer rights because we have devolved'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'we slave away at work for less money than our parents, while society becomes more and more unequal'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'that has not been my personal experience'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that is because we are less free, swalec'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i'm much better off at my age than my parents were at my age + 10 years'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you are in the minority now, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'exactly, we need to look at richer and better ways of moderating and controlling the influence of capitalism, so that we can enjoy the democracy that we deserve'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you know what's not the answer? undergrad degrees in anthropology'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'disagree with that, swalec, large scale democracy is not the answer'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you know what's not the ansewr? higher minimum wages'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you know what else isn't the answer? more taxes'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you want a societal shift, a cultural shift... that takes a long time'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'we're dealing with the end of the baby boomers leading the country'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"good socialism that assists assists the Berserker Zade to eliminate bad socialism and bad capitalism and bad etcetera"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'no amount of socialism will solve it, Zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'clueless!'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it's "solved" by the leaders in a society choosing to make it change'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and it's done through cultural shifts, not policy'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'well that's not going to change, Scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'when the leadership controls the culture, no such change will occur'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i think that as we see the baby boomers roll off into their graves and the next generation takes over those roles, we'll see a different shaping'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i see scant hope of that'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"Socialism is the answer, but what was the question." - a pun on "if God is the answer, what was the question."'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'that's because you're perpetually pessimistic and offer feel-good practically-impossible banter'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its justice, and all these things shall be added onto you". <-- Christian gospel propaganda'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i suppose if you have no idea what that's talking about, it may come across that way'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'or if you attempt to understand what that's saying by watching how self described christians behave'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"Like what shall be added"  "There is the lake of fire"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you only describe me as pessimistic as a result of disagreeing with conception of the problem'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'your version of the problem offers only hopelessness as to it ever being solved'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if you are right, then who is it, outside of the Boomer generation that holds the most power, and who is set to inherit that power the boomers have?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i disagree'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'if people disagree as to the state of the problem, how can they agree to the solution?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i suppose i missed the part where you offered a solution'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '(clueless (and blinded by his deceits) as to how to proceed)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the boomer generation will hand off power the next generation below them, i think that's generation X? i'll look'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'dismantling global corporations and global entities, a return to local democracies where country level governments serve to protect rights and enforce free markets'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'emphasis of self-reliance and self-governance'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'pretty much the opposite of what we have now with reliance on state and centralised control and dictation of everything'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'not a fan of economic globalization, eh?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'fuck no, economic globalization caused most of the problems we have today'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"free markets" are predatory'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'then we disagree as to what the problem is - i think economic globalization has provided more benefit than good'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'the problem is that capitalism globalised and democracy didn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i think that belief is madness'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the governance over global businesses will, and is, catching up'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'I can't see the "localism" works now -- we all live in the same world, same sun and will disappear under the same waves'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'globalisation was going to cause massive problems unless done very very slowly'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'irrelevent, swalec'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'localism will crush the developing world'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i can't sign on to that'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'localism allows people with different opinions, ideals and dreams to co-exist without throttling each other'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'in some areas, Scars, yes, but there is a lot of push back from the global businesses so don't believe that this will necessarily happen'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'really, Tigernuts? I mean, surely only if they live in the same bits of the world'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'yes, swalec, at least then you have the option to MOVE to the bit of the world where the people share your ideals'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you essentially want all of those irritatingly thick accented foreigners that showed up to the UK to steal all of those jobs to have never been provided that opportunity, correct?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'we currently have one-size fits all, and it doesn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'I don't want to move though, so that makes little sense'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the extreme rich learned that they were able to buy off the politicians and the judges and the academics and law enforcement and the military and the religions to permit the extreme rich to become richer and less rich to become poorer'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'short of the obvious infrastructure implications, swalec, i have no problems with immigration of people with similar beliefs and ideals'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'err scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'well, that always happened Zade, it's just that with a global system they are better at it'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'yes, but if I am happy where I am living, and but everyone disagrees with me, I fail to see how this helps'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the extreme rich learned that they were able to buy off and effectively force the politicians and the judges and the academics and law enforcement and the military and the media and the religions to permit the extreme rich to become richer and less rich to become poorer'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'back when america was a melting pot, immigration helped shape us... now that we're no longer interested in "melting" we are turning into a marbled cake'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'at least you 'd have the option, swalec, you don't right now'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'the US is not a melting pot, it's a lot of different substances bound by high pressure. When the pressure eases the groups move apart.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'hence the "back when" part'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'an the "turning into" part'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'immigration should never mean that you aren't expected to assimilate into the culture you moved into'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'there is no "back when" it always has been the same, as the number of groups increased so did the pressure. The US is one of the most racially polarized countries in the world.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'yup, we definitely throw bananas at our sportsman'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'aren't you, scars? tell that to the immigrants here'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'not sure what you tell ya, but you seem to more dislike the globalization of the work force than the globalization of businesses'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'eh? what gave you that impression?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'of Global Enterprise Inc. had offices in London, Tokyo, and NYC... but didn't import workers, i don't think you'd care'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if*'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'when immigrants arrive from inferior poverty-stricken tyranous-terror regimes, they most certainly are supposed to assimilate into the superior culture. Those immigrants are socially diseased and their culture is diseased.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the issue with that is Global Enterprises Inc. with it''
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the issue with that is Global Enterprises Inc. with it's offices in those places has a tendency to use the fact that tehy are global to circumvent rules and regulation that are there to protect the people of the individual countries'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'is this a complaint about using cheap labor?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that they are able to do so is a failing of democracy because it has been corrupted and bought off'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'which provdes you a cheap product?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'a classic example is GM  in Mexico. Mexican workers must buy GM cars at retail.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'even though they work for GM.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so a difference in *perks* is the problem?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that we -have- a cheap product because of cheap labour is not a good outcome. The influx of cheap goods from China to here in the early 90s might have been seen as a "good thing" by many people and economists because it kept inflation down. In reality it destroyed the economy here'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'but Canada is not affected by this rule. GM workers in Canada get the same break whey they buy GM as the US workers.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'weak example imo aphelion'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'really?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'the difference in employee benefits across countries is normal'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and fine, and acceptable'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'not only does the Mexican GM work have to pay retail for the product but his pay is laughable compared to Candian and US workers doing the same work for the same company.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'at my previous company, our brazilian counterparts were gives something like 6 more holidays than we were'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'GM is paying what the market allows them to pay'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'and here is the kicker, when the product comes to the US from Mexico, GM sells it at the same price as the US and Canadian products.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'with all due respect, Scars. Bullshit.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'do you think GM has magical control over the labor market demand for wages?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'are you unaware of how the price of labor is found?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'hint: it's not magic'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'oh, pure GM, they are forced to underpay their workers and force them to pay higher prices for the products that they practically give away to other employees.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'I really feel sorry for them.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'what incentive does GM have to pay more than they have to?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'would you choose to pay more for a product, just because you should?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'OH NO! FUCK YOU CLEARANCE RACK! I only pay full price here!'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'so you are saying that if they can rape the Mexican workers, more power to them. I get it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'GM is an example of the "free market" (that Tigernuts want to enforce)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'rape?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'they pay them dirt'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'GM shows up, is able to employ sufficient labor at a price... how did that price get determined?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'furthermore, why does the price stay there?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'ok, let's go along with your thinking. GM reaps a huge discount building cars in Mexico. Why don't they pass that to the consumer then? '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'because they lose money on US operations (not sure about CAN)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'because GM is a stock owned company who doesn't serve the customers, but serves its shareholders'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'GM is a terrible example of a localised free market, Zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'because GM is expected to increase its value, not operate as a nonprofit'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'GM is a better example of the globalised corporate corrupted market'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the "free market" approach permits GM to do whatever GM does -- Tigernuts likely approves of GM since GM is doing the "free market" thing'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'there is really only one "free market" reason why wages would go up in GM... demand for the skill nets a price higher than GM is currently paying'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'at that point, GM must pay more'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'so Mexico subsidies the consumer in the US and Canada. Now, explain why the US and Canadian workers are able to buy at a huge discount even though they work in an operation that loses money, while the Mexican counterpart pays retail even though his operation subsidizes the company. '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'that's a trivial example, but it's because that's an employee benefit, and benefits are there to attract talent... so its not there because GM doesn't need it to get the talent'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'it might be trivial to you, it's not trivial to the Mexican workers.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'it's trivial because it's the same discussion as wages'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'wages + benefits are a package to attract talent, if you don't need such a big carrot to attract sufficient talent, you cut your costs'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'especially if you're expected to build shareholder value, and GM is'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if GM were a nonprofit, you would see them behave differently'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'apparently Tigernuts believes that "free market" in a nonglobal setting is going to encourage business owners to be more "socialistic"? - nope! "no socialism" say Tigernuts  -- then those business owners are going to act like GM - ruthless and greedy and whimsical'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'oh, so if I am poor and need a job then I should be happy with getting pay at a discount of other workers with similar skills and work-type because they are better fed. I get it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'this isn't about poor, it's about skills'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if your skillset carries a low wage demand, then guess what?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'so your claim is that the Mexican workers are not skilled.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'my claim is that their skillset carries a low wage demand, not that they are not skilled... that'd be ridiculous'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'they are doing the same job as the US and Canadian workers, you cannot tell where the car was built because they produce the same thing, they sell at the same price. So how do you determine that the Mexican worker is less skilled?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Aphelion, that us the "free market"  you are free to take a pittance job or refuse to take the job -- there is no socialism in the Tigernuts "free market" approach'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'teh wages in the US (no idea on CAN, again) are more of a function of the unions than the "free market" deciding what to pay them'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'aside from being Mexican, that is :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'for example, honda, in the US, pays people less to do the same job that people in detroit do'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'not because honda hates poor people, or whatever... but because honda is paying what they must to staff the factory'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and it happens to be at a 1/3 of the cost of what detroit is doing'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'I doubt that. They all belong to the same union. I know for a fact that Nissan pays the same as Detroit.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Detroit is likely unionised'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'and Honda would be run out of town if they tried to undercut the union.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'lol, as recent as 2 years ago, i knew that honda paid less'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'anyway, what I infer from what you are saying is that corporations have no need operate in a way that would be fair to both consumers and employees, as long as they make a profit, the blood by the wayside is justified.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'then you get governments paying these global companies vast sums of our cash in order for them to move the jobs to CHina'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts claps half-heartedly, clearly unimpressed.
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: '"no need" - no, i'd disagree'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'well, whatever their "need" is, it's not compelling.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'corporations must give consideration to those who buy their product and those who product their product, but not to the point of sacrificing a profit (assuming they are expected to, not all corporations are)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if you don't, you have no one to sell to or no one to make your product'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'but employees and consumers are a means to an end, and that end is making a profit'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i don't see anyone disagreeing with that'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'though with global corporations, the end of profit tends to create an agenda of seeking a monopoly'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'I was sure you would say that. You think that they have mandate to exist no matter how they accomplish that. If they use inferior parts while charging a premium for them is ok as long as they show a profit. If they screw their employees that is ok, as long as the show a profit.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'and you can't see what that looks like.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'monopolies in the hands of the atate are bad enough, monopolies in the hands of corporations are fucking scary'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'The profits go to the few, while the blood flows from the many.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: '"blood"... there it is again'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate): Tigernuts is agreeing with that Exiled To Aphelion person again...
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'yes, blood.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'nearly ever corporation wants to grow marketshare'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'this is what happens when you let corporations get so big, so global'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'are you asking them not to?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you could argue tht every corporation seeks to become a monopoly'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a legimate goal of government is to prevent that, scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'legitimage'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'fuckit, legitimate'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if you don't know how you're employer treats you, find a new job?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if you can't find a new job because no one will hire your skillset, then that's on you'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'agreed, tigernuts - but that doesn't prevent the aspiration'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'until "socialism" is forced upon GM in Mexico, GM shall likely do what GM does, pay a pittance to mexican workers -- "the mexicans are used to being exploited, and the mexicans should be grateful that GM is giving them any jobs at all" - a local "free market" success story - approved by the Tigernuts approach'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'Fine, you think that corporations should squeeze everything they can out of their consumers and employees. You are entitled to your opinion.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'doesn't require socialism to fix that, zade'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'for instance, significant import taxes would stop it'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'you think corporations exist to produce cheap goods and pay high wages, seemingly... you are entitled to your opinion'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i view the priority of a corporation to be 3/5 profit, 1/5 employees, 1/5 consumers'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you should blame governments for letting corporations become monopolies and mistreating their workforce, but you should blame yourself and the the public at large for allowing them to get into that position'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'so to say the have a mandate to do whatever they want, no... that's not what i'm saying'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'there's a damn good reason i won't give money to MS, Apple or similar, and try to use small local producers wherever viable'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'nobody is perfect, but at least i attempt to back up my idealogy with action'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'also, when GM was invited into mexico under "free trade", the business agreement was that GM may exploit the mexican workers, and GM wants "the full pound of flesh" to quote from the shakespearean "Shylock"'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'no, on the contrary, I think they should put out a good product at a fair price, when they screw their workers and consumers to maintain a profit margin which their product does not deserve that's when I complain. If GM devoted itself to make the best car possible, it could justify its behavior somewhat. But it puts out mostly crap and premium prices.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i work for a financial institution that closely resembles a mutual company... the owners of the company ARE the customers... and, because of that, we have different priorities'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if the produce a crap product, eventually consumers will stop buying it'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'wishful thinking, Scars'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and not applicable in many markets'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'monopolies aside, yeah'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'in a competitive market, it works'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'in noncompetitive markets, it doesn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that doesn't solve the exploiting workers, and screwing local economies by going abroad'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'sure, you would think that. But what happens is that because GM charges a premium for their crap, the good auto makers can now price their products out of reach so the average consumer has to be content with the GM crap if it wants a car at all.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'i think you misunderstand my descriptino of for-profit coorporations as though i'm all in favor of it... i hated working for a stock company, and moving to a nonstock company has been awesome'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'well, Tigernuts, according to Scars, that's justified. I am surprised he hasn't trotted out slave labor yet :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'just feed the workers and call that wages, that should up the profit margin.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'yeah, you're not even listening to me at this point are you?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'ah, but not in the US, because the US opposes slavery (or so they say), do it in Mexico.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'we know they are lesser people anyway.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'yup, totally off the deep end here'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i understand what scars is saying, but it is an idealistic viewpoint that doesn't really translate to the real world'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'sure, one can be idealistic about treating workers like cattle.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'never said that'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'GM puts out crap because of deliberately planned assured obsolescence of crap -- the captive market where all automotive manufacturers put out crap assures the crap breaks down requiring the customers to buy more crap (the fact the car users are mangled and or die when the crap breaks is irrelevant to the profit margin and assured later sales)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'no, you didn't. But you justified the treatment of Mexican workers by GM. GM treats them like cattle.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'so Scars, do you think Apple treating workers like cattle in China such that people can have pointless consumerist junk with built in obsolescence in the western world is a good thing?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'what foxconn is doing in china is boarderline slavery, and its disgusting'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'So far the product they sell in China seems to be inferior, I hear a lot of complaints. Haven't a few phones blown up?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'and what GM is doing for mexican workes is a goddamn all-expenses paid resort trip, compared to what foxconn does to their workers for apple'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'ok, so since they are not as bad off as others, they shouldn't complain. I get it.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'yup, didn't say that either'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'I am just inferring.'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'doing a poor job of it'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"free msrket in action -> no socialist regulations requiring automotive manufacturers to manufacture vehicles that never break down for at least thirty years and are simple to repair when they safely break down'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Foxconn are not alone, go to any boxshifter and a large swathe of their stuff is made in foreign slave factories'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'foxconn is the only one i'm aware of, but i don't find it difficult to believe that it happens elsewhere'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Exiled To Aphelion: 'good night :)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Socialism in action-> government dictated cars built to government decree by unmotivated, unskilled workers resulting in crap cars that always break down for a higher price'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'a regulated market, not a true free market, and not socialism, provide an ideal balance... the question is always "how regulated?" and thats an endless debate'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Tigernuts, that is the current "free market" in action'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'both are accurate, neither are accurate'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'in a socialist model you're as likely to have regulations that limit the lifespan of a car, or limit it's reliability on the grounds that to do otherwise would put the workers out of a job as you are regulations that set a minimum'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'only in a free market COULD such a condition occur that someone would produce a quality car that doesn't break down. In REALITY, market economics and people's stupidity dictate that such cars don't exist because people don't understand the value of things'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'if i make widgets, i want people to continue to buy them'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'a widget is not a car'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: '"free market" in action-> industry dictated cars designed to enhance the profit margin, built by pittance-paid unmotivated unskilled workers, resulting in crap cars that always break down, and sold for a higher price when possible'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) <pretitle> Scars: 'might as well be'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'it is because of 'government meddling' that cars in this country are utterly unfixable by anyone except the vendor'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'what's worse, is they're now talking about tech to remote track, and remote kill your car'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'guess which industry is paying the government to meddle'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Bloomberg's lot, mostly'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'funny, I thought that the EU had forced the car manufacturers to release enough technical data so that people other than the vendor could service them'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'that's not true, swalec'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'really'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'really'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'can you tell me why that is not true'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'the computer diagnostics tools are provided solely by the vendors on a license basis'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'non-vendors pay through the nose to have access to the software'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and certainly Joe Public can't do squit all with em'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Swalec: 'so, for example, kwit-fit are not actually offering to perform manufacturers services of cars even though their website says they are?'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'given the opportunity, I'd rather have a car without all the tech, but built to modern quality'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'you deliberately chose not to read what i said, Swalec'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'Kwik-Fit can services of cars, though it may invalidate the warranty, and also they will pay to have access to the appropriate software tools'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they have access to the information, nobody said it had to be free'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'however, that is not the type of 'meddling' i was referring to, i was referring to minimum MPG limits, maximum emissions limits etc'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'again, "free market" fixing the prices of the diagnostic tools'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'personally i'd prefer a car with no computerisation'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'gives me nothing but grief'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'seems the MPG did not change for at least 50 years - only recently are cars starting to "claim" improved MPG (and likely lying in he process)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'they are a bit better'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and i'd like emission controls on lawnmowers, mopeds, atvs, snowmobiles, snowshovel trucks, garbage trucks, etcetera '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and snowblowers'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and emission and noise controls on electric generators'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'i wouldn't'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'when there is a blackout, those electric generators used by the odd house are able to be heard from at least 600 feet'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'and they likely smell too, but they are downwind'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'when a rolls royce of the 1970s was running, there was no sound detectable inside the idling rolls royce -- even sounded quiet standing next to the rolls royce'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'quiet gasoline engines are possible'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'there is already a chemical technology that converts petrol directly into electricity '
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'unsure whether the chemical technology handles the petroleum additives (without gumming up or breaking down)'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'the chemical process is likely extremely efficient - unsure - likely bulky -- as working version seemed to occupy the whole side of a long building'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'to make a quiet you must also make it extremely heavy, which screws over mileage and emissions'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'make a car quiet, that is'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'who wants a quit car, anyway? I want to hear it coming'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'and when there is a blackout, in zade's neighbourhood you must go without electricity because if he can't have electric, you can't, it's too noisy'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'good news! dow jones down 120 points'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Tigernuts: 'better news, dow jones down 150 points'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) .... Hwuaijijal: 'ted talks suck'
T3/r7/2014-01-31.txt.gz:{chan ch=debate}(Debate) Zade: 'Talk with Ted "bully bully" seances'