Dr. Tyler; Captain America

It's pretty sad when a good website like that has to advertise so much to keep their site open when the liberal faggots like Franken and Chuch fucking D can just go around and blow millions on BUYING a radio station. Really says something about which is the party of the little man, doesn't it?

No, because it's utter bullshit that liberals are supporting nancy boys like Kerry who are just bound to weaken our country just like Clinton did, and just like Carter did. And look what happened. This is EXACTLY what Coulter is saying in this column, and it's an issue we need to look at when we're voting this year.

April fools. This would be all over the news.

This thread is gold, considering I don't read the WWE forums and therefore, have no working knowledge of the various fags in there. Although, those of you who have cracked the "AND HE NAMED HIMSELF AFTER A DRUG COMPANY FORLRFORLF" jokes are a bunch of stumblefucks. ... Carry on.

I very rarely laugh at stuff that I even find funny, but I've found myself laughing out loud a few times to the Daily Show, Chapelle, or a movie every once in a while (but only in the theaters).

... You're right. When you're the voice of reason, I need to step back

... Okay, seriously, this is retarded. He's spouting shit out from an economics textbook... BUT SO AM I! As he said, PAGE FUCKING FIVE! Market inefficiencies are caused by underallocation of resources. Having people unemployed is an underallocation of resources. You want your market to be as efficient as possible. Thus, you DO IN FACT WANT TO REALLOCATE YOUR RESOURCES BY TRAINING THESE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE SO THEY CAN BE PRODUCTIVE IN OTHER FACETS OF THE MARKET! But instead, the administration and Popick and everyone else is simply repeating "Outsourcing is good. Don't worry" instead of working towards getting more efficiency in the market. So how in the fuck is this NOT a proven fact?

Here's your first problem: you're assuming my position is based around "OMG BLEEDING HEART LIBERALISM!!!" It's not. It's based around market inefficiency. Regardless of whether we have a perfectly efficient market or not, we should still be working towards a more efficient market. We're not doing that by letting these skilled workers wallow in unemployment.

I'm frustrated because your boundless theories and formulas are addressing problems I'm not even bringing up. I'm frustrated because you've ignored my central point and sniped at things that I'm not arguing. I'm frustrated because I've been repeating myself over and fucking over and you're sitting there thinking "YES I'M WINNING" only because you have an elementary grasp of reading comprehension.

*sigh* They're on unemployment and/or working at McDonalds/retail/etc. Seriously, you've proceeded to make about ten arguments against statements that I wasn't even making. I have an understanding of economics. I know that outsourcing is an inevitable part of the economic cycle. I'm well aware that above-normal growth is unsusatainable. I also know something that I've been repeating like, over and fucking over. Unemployment. Equals. Economic inefficiency. In order. To work towards. A better economy. We must. Eliminate. Inefficiency. Having skilled workers serving Big Macs is not efficiency. Thus. Job training. Swear to god, this is the last time I'm repeating myself.

.... This is worse than arguing with Mike.

Eh, forget it. If you're really arguing that the great majority of the masses who are currently out of work will suddenly just become trained for other jobs and become efficient workers again by themselves, you're delusional. And if you think their kids will actually be able to afford a post-secondary education in order to fill these jobs on the next wave (or cutting edge) when their deadbeat fathers and mothers are unemployed and poor, you're double-delusional. Anyway.

Does anyone else see how he's completely missing the point? I'm going to respond by speaking in really choppy sentence fragments. Market inefficiency. Is bad. And thus. We should. Work. To allieviate. It. Instead of. Ignoring it. And spouting off things out of the textbook. So we should reallocate the resources.

WTF. No, I'm not. I'm saying that we're responding to the market's inefficiencies (i.e. unused labor resources) by repeating "Outsourcing is good!" ten times fast instead of investing in job training and reallocating those stagnant resources.

I'm listening to it online now, and personally, I don't think Kerrey was that bad (although, it did sound--as you said--like a politician talking on a political show).

A good point. However, if we made this a state issue (yes, I'm aware that takes culpability off of Bush), these programs could be instituted into state-funded colleges, etc. which would defer the cost, I presume.

Read: I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR PRECIOUS FREE TRADE! The numbers aren't the point of the argument! The point is that if you've read an economics textbook within the last 50 years (which, I presume you have), it talks extensively about little things like "resource inefficiency" and the like. Whether it's 200 or 200,000, we've still got a significant number of workers that are out of work and would be better served in another industry in which they're currently not trained to perform! However, no one seems to be in favor of like, well, TRAINING these workers so they can, um, be used more efficiently! I swear to god, I took this entire argument STRAIGHT out of a Friedman column.

How about this: a bajillion manufacturing workers were laid off between I don't know and now, and now they're sitting on unemployment with people arguing that they're leeches. How is that not economic inefficiency? Why are we arguing against government subsidized job training? Also, frame my argument in favor of protectionism while you're at it, mmkay? Read the post plz thx! ..::Tyler -- who has taken several economics courses, thank you very much! (like my new tagline? Oh em gee, it's hotness)

You can spout off formulas from your economics textbook ad nauseam, but that doesn't change the fact that these jobs aren't here yet. By all means, if I'm completely overlooking a bustling industry that is begging for this shift of labor resources to fulfill its potential, name it. Biotech isn't it, because it's already being flooded by this generation of college students. As I said before, by the time half of these kids graduate, the industry will be another IT field; it'll be hot for about five years and then it'll start being outsourced just like the rest. Relying on an intangible, unexpected break in technology (e.g. IT, internet jobs post NAFTA/auto industry) is fairly reckless policy when you're 1) looking to get re-elected and 2) trying to make sure that all of your country's citizens have the best opportunities to survive. If we have active job training programs for these individuals who were laid off, this would hardly be an issue; we'd be reallocating resources efficiently and your economics professors would be grinning ear to ear. But we're not. We've either got people sitting on unemployment or bouncing around from low paying job to low paying job. That's a problem (inefficient allocation of resources), and to solve it, an administration (whether it's Kerry or Bush) has to take steps other than saying "Outsourcing is good!" and ignoring it.

Works for me! It's a good play off of "Moonie", which is what Rev. Crazy Ass Moon is usually called, and it's succinct. Chalk one up for the good guys!

I've stayed pretty much out of this thread because it was bound to be the aforementioned dickwaving thread, but I did note one good point made that Popick couldn't really defend, and I'll reiterate it right now. The "good" facets of outsourcing include making way for new, high(er) tech jobs that pay more money. Except as we're losing jobs in the manufacturing and IT realms, we've got absolutely nothing opening up on the cutting edge. What, do you expect the manufacturing world to become fucking biotechnicians? Even the biotech field &etc. isn't exactly bustling, and the hot college majors like pharmacy are overrun to the point of the job market potentially being overcrowded when these people actually graduate. So, in this case, I fail to see how basically folding these people's lives is going to help us; while you (and me, I admit it; I'm going into one of several fields that will never be "outsourced" and probably will never make below 60k a year, and that's for the first few years) don't particularly mind the fact that these people are losing their jobs, the United States government is supposed to be committed to helping everyone in its country, not just a select few. And thus, we need to do something to allieviate this problem, whether it's keeping the jobs in the country or promoting job training programs for those individuals who were laid off.

OMGMOONIETIMES2K4 works well.

If you're tough at all, don't take painkillers at all. You just end up fucking up the injury worse because you think you can do something you really can't. Also, as someone alluded, behind the neck military presses are horrible on your rotator cuffs, so stop doing them. Do them in front or don't do them at all; lat pulldowns excercize virtually the same muscle without the rotator cuff damage. Trust me, you don't want to hurt your rotator cuff. That shit hurts.

IT'S NINA~! Wait.

Michelle is a badass two weeks straight. Last time, she was KUNG FU MICHELLE!~ and this time, she shot the moron straight up gangsta style. And WTF Jack is killing himself next week?!?!