Bristol-Cruiser

An impending crisis for PA

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Amati said:

That distinction would go to the W2 class? (Like W2 1 percenters, for example, which is around an average of $480,000 /year, adjusted.  I think even Warren considered ~$200,000 yr middle class?)

I don't know what the solution is because it quickly gets complicated but $100,000/yr in the SF area or Manhattan is definitely middle class while in Omaha or Rapid City, SD (I looked it up) you are among the wealthy elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I don't know what the solution is because it quickly gets complicated but $100,000/yr in the SF area or Manhattan is definitely middle class while in Omaha or Rapid City, SD (I looked it up) you are among the wealthy elite.

That’s why I picked an average adjusted.  (Bell curves within Bell curves within Bell curves.  Even a good displacement curve can look like a Bell curve)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I 100% agree with the reasons WHY we need both some form of UBI and MFA.  Our current system is broken.  The pandemic ripped away any pretense that it wasn't.  

I'm simply saying that I don't think it's going to happen - mainly because there is too much inertia in gov't and the change is too great too fast.  To do either one, especially UBI - we would catapult ourselves over all of the semi-socialist euro countries literally overnight.  Ain't gonna happen, unfortunately.  There are too many stubborn and ignorant folks out there who would scream socialism and Stites Rats!  You would literally have to re-write the entire, and I mean ENTIRE, system for how we do stuff.  Unemployment insurance, taxes, welfare, medical, and on and on.  While there may be some companies slowly waking up to these (UBI, MFA) being a potentially good idea - you have far too many old entrenched congress critters in power on both sides of the aisle who are not easily going to let go of their power.  And make no mistake - to make these massive and fundamental changes, the critters at all levels (Fed, state and local) will be losing LOTS of power.  How do you campaign on "welfare reform" when there is no longer any welfare programs?  How do you campaign on any number of things, especially ones that involves keeping a perpetual "victim class" going when that all goes poof overnight?  

Len, as I said - I would like to see those sorts of changes.  But there are forces far greater than you think who would oppose it.  And I'm not talking some dark, sinister, behind the scenes puppet master.  I'm talking about everyday ignorance, inertia, resistance to change, fear of the unknown and the outright reluctance of people to relinquish power and wealth when the current system is working FOR THEM.  I think you're being extremely naive as to how quickly something like this will happen and what it would take to get us there.  Obamacare was a relatively minor tweak to the current health insurance system compared to what you're saying is going to happen by the midterms.  NFW it will happen that quickly much less at all.  Look how long it took the ACA to get passed and it's still being fought over bitterly what 12 years later.  I admire your pollyannaish outlook, but it ain't gonna happen.  Now if you said maybe by 2050, I might buy that. 

And I honestly hope I'm completely wrong.  

That is why I expect it to be introduced as a stimulus package tied to employment rates and some other metrics. I expect it would be an incremental process, where first there is the stimulus on a monthly basis tied to metrics and then it begins to evolve into something more permanent, the remaining social safety net would simply atrophy and die off as the need for it rapidly fades when accounting for "stimulus" income. Everyone wants more stimulus, people are much more tentative about UBI. So call it stimulus and tie it to employment rates and some other metrics, which in reality will likely never me met as the economy is fundamentally transforming. The net of it is the same, it is just how it is introduced and what we call it that changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of government handouts "atrophying" and going away are scarce at best. Can anyone think of a few?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

That’s why I picked an average adjusted.  (Bell curves within Bell curves within Bell curves.  Even a good displacement curve can look like a Bell curve)

Hijacking your point entirely but I wish I could track down my stats prof from college and knee cap him. We were force fed normal distributions and frequentist stats. I wish I had learned about Pareto and Bayesian. There's even a tech report from Berkeley Stats (#2 in the country) which back then said that Bayesian wasn't suitable for the undergraduate mind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah, that. Minor technicality.

Then Bush II - who was really a Democrat because only Democrats start wars - invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan because they had nothing to with 9/11 but he couldn't punish the home country of those who did.

Some days you really have to wonder about the intelligence of some people.

FKT

Don't have to assess intelligence when you can assess profit motive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think PA will be safe for a while yet.

We have the Investigations, Indictments and Incarceration of the players in the current R clown show fiasco to look forward to.

“Give me my fuckin money!” Ring any bells?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Remind me - who started the Iraq wars and the Afghanistan war?

FKT

Remind me who drug us into Viet Nam, Korea, and WWII... Okay....  WWII is a little but of a stretch, but there some that will say Roosevelt was looking to pick a fight..

And didn't Obama promise us to get out of Afghanistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

A2C224C6-33C1-4F2F-8F4B-094BD4F7D7A7.jpeg

I hope the wife had holes on the lid of that jar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nacradriver said:

Remind me who drug us into Viet Nam, Korea, and WWII... Okay....  WWII is a little but of a stretch, but there some that will say Roosevelt was looking to pick a fight..

And didn't Obama promise us to get out of Afghanistan?

Missed one, Pres. Wilson was a Democrat and got the US into WW1 after he promised not to.

OTOH in WW2 a lot of prominent Republicans including the Bush family had business ties with the Nazis and fought tooth and nail against getting dragged into WW2. It was commonly said that the US should not give a single soldiers life to save the Jews.

Nice, huh?

In any event, the Democrat Presidents who go involved in those wars also won them.

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

In any event, the Democrat Presidents who go involved in those wars also won them.

We "won" Korea, Vietnam, Libya and Syria?  Tell me more of your revisionist history please.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

In any event, the Democrat Presidents who go involved in those wars also won them.

We "won" Korea, Vietnam, Libya and Syria?  Tell me more of your revisionist history please.  

"THOSE" meaning the ones I referred to in that sentence, not any old war you want to drag in. Jeesus. you are a tiresome quibbling asshole

When did the US declare war on Libya? We bombed the fuck out of Qaddafi, hell I was floating around the Gulf of Sidra when we did that. Is that "winning"?

Korea could be said to have been won because we successfully defended South Korea from invasion. But I think that war is not officially over, plus it was the U.N. not the US of A, so it doesn't count for two reasons. I would put the biggest blame for Viet Nam on LBJ but certainly Kennedy and Eisenhower played a part in getting us into it. Definitely not a win there..

Pick a war, any war, dumbass, blame it on the Democrat of your choice. BENGHAZI!!!!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added the Pentagon Papers as a cite and I'd need something more authoritative evidence than the Pentagon Papers. FDR was known for his anti-colonialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

I added the Pentagon Papers as a cite and I'd need something more authoritative evidence than the Pentagon Papers. FDR was known for his anti-colonialism.

Well, anti-other-country colonialism maybe.

Hawaii & Puerto Rico. Bunch of other Pacific islands. Arguably the Philippines for a fair stretch. Chinese bunds/cantonments guarded by US Marines.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I added the Pentagon Papers as a cite and I'd need something more authoritative evidence than the Pentagon Papers. FDR was known for his anti-colonialism.

FDR was, but the Ivy League shits that made up the intel world weren’t. Uncle Ho was baffled we didn’t support him post war.

UCB produced a Vietnamese-English dictionary during WW2 - their Asian studies program (or whatever it was called then) was one of the few places that had a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

FDR was, but the Ivy League shits that made up the intel world weren’t. Uncle Ho was baffled we didn’t support him post war.

UCB produced a Vietnamese-English dictionary during WW2 - their Asian studies program (or whatever it was called then) was one of the few places that had a clue.

Looking back on it, I'm baffled we didn't support Uncle Ho. Same with Mossadegh. But the Ivy League shits that made up the intel world weren't very intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Looking back on it, I'm baffled we didn't support Uncle Ho. Same with Mossadegh. But the Ivy League shits that made up the intel world weren't very intelligent.

 they were bright and intelligent, but not worldly. Reading a nybooks review of Marie Antoinette, reminds me of Edmund Burke - the queen was only nice if you weren’t starving 
 

it was linguistics at UCB, Emeneau, annamese-English dictionary. Says so much the army dumb fucks couldn’t grok it 20 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Shit

I wanna read the story about flying cats terrorizing West Virginia

- DSK

That thing looks embalmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No big deal, the middle class is going to build the robots.  Then we will buy the stuff the robots make.  Until the robots build more robots themselves.  Then we’ll just have robots.  Someone should write a book about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only planet known to be inhabited solely by robots, Mars, is reportedly running smoothly and without war.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Eisenhower

Truman you dumb phuck... go read your history.  Eisenhower was pulling out, something you father should  have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Truman you dumb phuck... go read your history.  Eisenhower was pulling out, something you father should  have done.

Is it true they call your mom the Southern Pacific because so many trains have been run on her?
 

Eisenhower’s MAAG is the “official” beginning of US involvement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Is it true they call your mom the Southern Pacific because so many trains have been run on her?
 

Eisenhower’s MAAG is the “official” beginning of US involvement 

Is it true yous was the original crack whore? Do you even know who your father is?

So you're saying you know more on the subject than Daniel Ellsberg?  Between the you and him, I am going with his version...

Go read the Truman Doctrine and then ask the French who supplied and help finance their war with the Viet Minh. If Truman would have kept Roosevelt's promise, this shit never would have happen and we would have had an ally in the region.  Furthermore, Kennedy and McNamara we well advised to get out of the shit fight as it was a losing proposition, however, they doubled down.  Even MacAuther told Kennedy to get the fuck out of there..

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

...     ...

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

 

The Dulles brothers....

What do I win?

Trying to make "getting into Viet Nam" a partisan shitfight will not lead to happiness, unless you enjoy seeing blame put on both sides.

History: near as I can tell US military involvement in Viet Nam started in 1844 when the USS Constitution made a port visit.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nacradriver said:

Eisenhower was pulling out, something you father should  have done.

Almost spit my coffee out over that one.  WFD.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

With this, I will strongly disagree.  "Wait what out"???  I think Truman's use of the nuke was timely and appropriate - and ultimately saved a metric fuckload of both US and Japanese lives.  "Sitting tight and waiting it out" would have been a disaster of epic proportions and prolonged the war with a nation who was both willing and eager to fight to the death of every last man, woman and child.  

Let the shitfight begin......  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
59 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

 

The Dulles brothers....

What do I win?

The dumbass award, apparently.  What did the Dulles Brothers have to do with Truman and the Manhattan Project?  Fuck all is the answer.  Allen Dulles was in the OSS in Switzerland during WWII and was focused on covert actions against germany and had nothing to do with Truman's decision to drop a nuke.  He was too low ranking at the time to even be noticed by Truman.  In addition, both he and his brother were advisors to FDR and Truman's opponent in the 44 and 48 Presidential elections, so I can't see Truman seeing either as a trusted confidant.  It wasn't until Ike won, that they had any role in US policy.  

And this is now where Doug goes full retard and says that's not what he meant and will deflect from the topic to hide his ignorance.  "I didn't mean that".  Well you said it, so I can only assume you meant it.

BTW, speaking of the Dulles Brothers - if you want to read a fascinating history of the CIA, pick up the book called:  Legacy of Ashes, the History of the CIAIt's a really fascinating read by Pulitzer winner Tim Weiner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
59 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

 

The Dulles brothers....

What do I win?

The dumbass award, apparently.  What did the Dulles Brothers have to do with Truman and the Manhattan Project?

???

Last I heard, the subject was "getting involved in Viet Nam."

But feel free to change the subject on any little whim, we know how your mind wanders.......

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

???

Last I heard, the subject was "getting involved in Viet Nam."

But feel free to change the subject on any little whim, we know how your mind wanders.......

I didn't change the subject.  You were (poorly) attempting to answer a question posed by Nacra.  Nacra didn't ask you any questions about vietnam.  He asked who authorized the use of nukes.  So you replied to the only question in the thread with "the dulles brothers" as an an answer.  The "What do I win" statement is usually a strong indication that you're attempting to answer a question in a snarky "Duh" sort of way - as if everyone should know the answer.  The one and only question in the post that you replied to was about the use of nukes.  So no, you do not win anything. 

In fact, Mr. Flyer, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.  :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

???

Last I heard, the subject was "getting involved in Viet Nam."

But feel free to change the subject on any little whim, we know how your mind wanders.......

I didn't change the subject.  You were (poorly) attempting to answer a question posed by Nacra.  Nacra didn't ask you any questions about vietnam.

Yeah?

My reply was to this post.... just to make sure, I quoted it:

 

1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

.....

So you're saying you know more on the subject than Daniel Ellsberg?  Between the you and him, I am going with his version...

Go read the Truman Doctrine and then ask the French who supplied and help finance their war with the Viet Minh. If Truman would have kept Roosevelt's promise, this shit never would have happen and we would have had an ally in the region.  Furthermore, Kennedy and McNamara we well advised to get out of the shit fight as it was a losing proposition, however, they doubled down.  Even MacAuther told Kennedy to get the fuck out of there..

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

 

 

 

That certainly does not seem to refer to Truman's nuking Japan.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

???

Last I heard, the subject was "getting involved in Viet Nam."

But feel free to change the subject on any little whim, we know how your mind wanders.......

- DSK

And see, right on cue you attempt to deflect when caught in a stupid statement.  But in the spirit of accuracy - I was wrong when I said there was only ONE question in Nacra's post that you responded to.  There were actually three.  Which one of those three questions is it more likely you were responding to with "The Dulles Brothers? What do I win?"

1 hour ago, nacradriver said:
  1. Is it true yous was the original crack whore? Do you even know who your father is?  Doug's answer:  The Dulles Brothers?
  2. So you're saying you know more on the subject than Daniel Ellsberg?  Doug's answer:  The Dulles Brothers?
  3. Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.  Doug's answer:  The Dulles Brothers?

Which of those questions were you attempting to answer with "the Dulles Brothers"?

There's only one that I see that might even be sort of, possibly be connected.  Are you saying the John Foster or Allen (or both) was your father?  That doesn't speak highly of your mother if that is the case.  

Just saying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

.....

So you're saying you know more on the subject than Daniel Ellsberg?  Between the you and him, I am going with his version...

Go read the Truman Doctrine and then ask the French who supplied and help finance their war with the Viet Minh. If Truman would have kept Roosevelt's promise, this shit never would have happen and we would have had an ally in the region.  Furthermore, Kennedy and McNamara we well advised to get out of the shit fight as it was a losing proposition, however, they doubled down.  Even MacAuther told Kennedy to get the fuck out of there..

Oh! who authorized the use of nuclear weapons when again they were told to site tight and wait it out.

 

 

 

That certainly does not seem to refer to Truman's nuking Japan.

- DSK

And that bolded part doesn't appear like Nacra is asking you a question.  Seems like more a statement of opinion on his part.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dulles were useless pieces of shit. John Foster Dulles ostentatiously wrote about Hiroshima:

If we, as a professedly Christian nation, feel morally free to use atomic energy in that way, men elsewhere will accept that verdict. Atomic weapons will be looked upon as a normal part of the arsenal of war and the stage will be set for the sudden and final destruction of mankind.

However, the French said that Dulles had offered them nukes during the Battle of Dien Bien Phu

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27243803

A massive airstrike from our aircraft carriers was considered as well with a nuclear option if China then intervened.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent6.htm
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

And that bolded part doesn't appear like Nacra is asking you a question.  Seems like more a statement of opinion on his part.  

:lol:

you trying for the Dog Impersonation Award?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

And that bolded part doesn't appear like Nacra is asking you a question.  Seems like more a statement of opinion on his part.  

:lol:

you trying for the Dog Impersonation Award?

No.  Going back and re-reading it - I could see how you took "Go ask the French" as a question, even though it wasn't a question.  So I retract the mockery.  Sorry.  

As a suggestion, if you're going to answer a question in a post that has multiple different unrelated questions - maybe bold the one you're answering to avoid any misunderstanding.  Just saying.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 2:45 AM, astro said:

It's not about meat or veges.  It's about calorific intake.  The more energy you process the sooner you die, as if there was a meter accounting for it.

Turns out that's not correct. More recent studies show that the life extension effect from low caloric intake diets is actually about reducing just one specific amino acid, methionine. Methionine is very low in a plant based diet and very high in animal proteins. One chicken breast has 350% of your minimum daily needs for methionine. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hard On The Wind said:

More recent studies show that the

Hahahahhaaaaaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now