Crimson G

Is this the Yankees thread or something? I'm just here to give a thumbs up sign of approval for the good start the Mariners have got off to this year. Hope it keeps up since I'll be attending the home opener where Carlos Silva will be the starting pitcher.

I thought Craig was pretty top-notch this episode, but I'd otherwise agree with the assessment already given... the music video sequence at the end was pretty decent, too.

Really? No laughs for you. I was laughing for minutes on end when Sharon brought up Randy farting and holding her head under the covers.

Yeah but I have not seen Severed Ways. Didn't Kane, Austin and Cena all use wrestling moves, I am sure they did. The Rundown had the Rock Rock Bottoming some guy. I just watched the End Game trailer and it's probably the worst thing I've seen outside of stuff done in my college film classes. "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood."? Really? It seemed like everyone (in the trailer, at least) had no clue how to read any of those lines and the cinematography was laughably bad for a horror movie/thriller/whatever they were going for. It looks worse than a reenactment on Rescue 911 or Unsolved Mysteries.

Um. This is the AAA locker room, not the WWE locker room. You realize there's an abundance of minis and people built like Mistico in Lucha Libre, right? Edit: Don't know why I originally capitalized minis.

And, damn there were some somewhat frightening moments in this, some amazing special effects, some incredibly (unnecessary) graphic moments, and some really poorly thought out moments in this movie. I thought the good outweighed the bad in the end, but wish they would have cast someone better to play the fatherly figure clearly needed for the role held by the emotionless Nicolas Cage.

Nope, the ex post facto provision of the Constitution only applies to criminal sanctions. American jurisprudence leaves leaves a lot of leeway for these types of actions by federal agencies when authorized by Congress. See, for example, US vs Carlton. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This is straight out of the Constitution. A tax is a law, and this one is "after the fact" of the contract, so the contract is not subject to the law. All future contracts of $250,000 in TARP-funded companies are, however.

I too hate contract law. Let's fuck over all rich people because some of them made poor decisions at work. [/end sarcasm] They fucked themselves over when they drove their business into needing bailout money in the first place. About a dozen of these executives at AIG took their retention bonuses and then split. That was paid by our tax dollars. And you are defending these guys? Are you yourself rich or something? I wasn't trying to defend these guys except indirectly. The proper (and only constitutionally legal) way to break an already written and binding contract is through Chapter 11 Reorganization (aka bankruptcy court.) Ex post facto law is explicitly unconstitutional (article 1, section 9), but seeing as we've pretty much shredded everything in the Constitution, I'll simply say that I understand and agree with your point-of-view (in theory.) These people failed and (most of them) do not deserve to continue their employment at AIG, let alone receive the bonuses coming their way. It is already a done deal however and this violation of the Constitution leaves the government open to lawsuit and further scandal because, if challenged in court, this 90% tax on executives at specific companies will not stand. And, no, I'm not at all rich. I work at a gas station convenience store and have over $15,000 in college loans to repay, if that tells you anything. I simply care about upholding the rule of law (if I believe it helps support our natural and unalienable rights.)

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end." It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.) But since it is NOT the same thing as making a human life, then why is it wrong? He's trying to say that the rule to not make a human life covers potential life...but does it really? How is "cultivating human cells for harvest" any different than donating blood or other things that involving people donating cells? I think these questions need to be answered before anyone can prove extracting embryotic stem cells is the moral equivalent of slave---wait...whut? So you'd be fine with creating embryos simply to utilize them in stem cell research, rather than what they're biologically meant for, which is to grow into a human being? It's treating (potential) human beings like they're no different from chicken eggs. We should simply use these things regardless of how we've gotten them and their legitimate functions in growing into human life. Mr. Krauthammer correctly said that this is treating human beings as a means, rather than an end.

I too hate contract law. Let's fuck over all rich people because some of them made poor decisions at work. [/end sarcasm]

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end." It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.)

If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. I believe he's objecting to the use of humanity, not necessarily the state that these humans (or potential humans) are in within that same arena of scientific use. He's arguing that developing a human embryo to harvest it for genetic research or whatever other purpose is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether you believe them to be persons or not. I believe Mr. Krauthammer agreed with Obama on this point (if this what he meant by such a muddled sentence), but disagreed with the way he allowed for such a wide possible interpretation of the new position of the federal government. Basically, his point was that science is not a replacement for morality and morality needs to be involved in a proper and careful interpretation of stem cell laws. Obama seems to have given science a morality of its own. (It's the same point made by Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park. "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.")

Anybody read the article by Charles Krauthammer (I know I'm gonna get dinged for this one) regarding Obama's stem cell announcement. I thought it was actually a rather fair indictment on the man (until the last sentence, perhaps): Morally Unserious in the Extreme

Gorgeous George married Doyle von Frankenstein from The Misfits, "wrestled" in 3PW before it folded, showed up in TNA as "Minsa", and I think she's still semi-active on an indy level.

Owning a house might be put in the proper perspective again. Houses will no longer be treated as sources of credit, but strictly as living spaces. Houses will become affordable again. According to the article I posted above, perhaps houses will become smaller and use less energy. That's about all I can think of right now. But, the point really is that this needs to happen and will happen because the housing bubble cannot be sustained, not necessarily that it ought to happen. I agree with you that it would be nice to continue building new houses and therefore support the people in the industries reliant on that business, but we don't have the money to do that. It would be nice if everyone had all their basic necessities taken care of and didn't need to work, but that's not reality.

Came across this article, and it's great stuff on why renting is better than buying houses: 5 Reasons Renting Still Beats Buying

Shawn Michaels' foot also contains a "band" that sometimes needs to "warm up", at least according to J.R. And once they do, it's almost assuredly death to whoever is hit by that foot, be they wrestler, promoter, referee, or even timekeeper. As far as gimmick matches being criticized, how about any match (chain, strap, etc.) where you have to drag your opponent around and touch each corner. How is that humiliating other than being technically a loss? If I was a wrestler, I'd let my opponent touch all four corners. You still haven't beat me in a wrestling match, just a gayer version of the tug-of-war. I get the concept, I just don't understand how there's any magnitude to the match. Same with _____-on-a-pole matches. Whoop-de-doo! You can climb up and grab something suspended on a stick! Let's throw a party for you!

The fact that we're going to be paying for this with U.S. treasuries (the public debt) and, more likely, massive inflation means that I'll be paying for this just as you will be. It's something that's not going to benefit me in the slightest, especially when it utterly fails. I don't think it's a good idea and I'm being forced to pay for it no matter what, through public debt assurances, future tax hikes to pay for that debt (assuming we ever try to do that), and, again, inflation. Actually, I'm not opposed to preventing future foreclosures through stricter monitoring of the financial sector and tighter rules on how and why banks can lend. Neither of those things will alleviate the situation we have now. In all likelihood, they'd probably exacerbate the problems by further restricting credit and raising interest rates. But, those are the things that need to be done to produce a vibrant and lasting economy, rather than a future bubble economy (like this administration wants to re-inflate.) Preventing foreclosures already scheduled to occur, however, is what's currently on the docket. This is an attempt to stabilize housing prices which are, quite frankly, still far too high and need to fall even further before demand will begin to match the amount of supply out there. The government cannot create that demand, it can only provide the illusion of its existence and even then it has to pay for it with something, usually either debt or inflation. So Plan B is to eliminate the problem of a still-growing supply-side (the foreclosed-upon houses) by paying the difference of between what the borrower ought to pay (by his agreement) and what they now can pay. The difference is paid to the lender absorbing that loss (i.e. the bank), but still doesn't address the much lower level of demand in the housing market, which will continue to dip (whether people are in houses or not), or the economy as whole, which needs to start to turn around before the housing market can turn around. (The housing market will not lead the way out of this depression.) The problem is, as Peter Schiff frequently points out, Americans are broke. They can no longer afford their luxurious lifestyles with the debt they've accumulated. The final nail in the coffin will be once the rest of the world stops buying our debt and looks to dump the dollar as their reserve note, which is already well on its way.

Perhaps. But, if you're taking people like Jim Cramer seriously then you're an amateur who shouldn't be involved in the stock market in the first place.

Speaking of which, Lita made fun of Kanyon's lisp in 2001 as well even though she was a face. Wait. Hold on. Lita made fun of somebody's speech pattern?! Do you have video on this?

I disagree. It's one thing to say we shouldn't be concerned. It's another to say that we shouldn't be propping them up and supporting their bad decision, whether they were properly given the facts or not. People get swindled all the time. And I don't think it's ever a good thing. But, I don't think that I should be forced to pay for their bad decisions or even bad fortune. I am not responsible for insuring their financial success. If there's legal recourse, then take it. But let's not invent ways to prop up people who made poor decisions on the backs of people who are, at this point, still okay in their house/rent/whatever setup. It encourages those who can still afford their mortgages or still have positive equity in their house(s) to make those same mistakes because the people who did so already have profited from them (at least for a little bit.) The system as a whole is broken, however. The reason is the Fed, government restrictions and guidelines on the banking system, and long-standing banking policies such as seen with the FDIC (which is broke) and the whole fractional reserve system. Additionally, these people are not making prescriptive statements like when lawyers give legal advice and physicians give medical advice. They are making predictive statements. The equivalent would be trying to sue the weatherman because his forecast for sunny skies was wrong.

You cannot hold Santelli responsible for everything that goes on on the network he happens to work for. He doesn't run the thing and can't tell people like Jim Cramer to stuff it unless he's given a chance to respond to Jim's comments. This is asinine. Rick Santelli is no more responsible for the quality of reporting on CNBC than Jon Stewart is for the quality of programming on Comedy Central. Should Jon Stewart be denigrated because Larry the Cable Guy works on the same network as him? Regardless of who is spouting what information, people can't just blindly take what "experts" have to say and follow it. They have to do some investigating of their own and, if they don't, they receive the punishment that ignorance brings. The real losers are the people who bought into the lie that homes had inherent equity that would always remain at the same level, if not increase over time. It should just be common sense that when dealing with a commodity (like a home), prices rise and fall according to the market. Not believing prices will ever fall is either willful ignorance or sheer stupidity. And yes, it was precipitated by even stupider sales pitches and incentives, but those came from the government, not the TV networks. The Fed is to blame.

I disagree. He was being a dick to Santelli for canceling on his show, but didn't show any clips of Santelli to criticize. It was mostly CNBC anchors, rather than financial commentators, which means that these people weren't even "experts" on what they were talking about. Don't get me wrong. Almost no one on that network has been remotely right about the situation (and at least Stewart had the decency of not playing a bunch of Steve Liesman quotes back-to-back), but taking a bunch of out-of-context and ill-thought-through remarks and making snide comments about them does not constitute an "owning." Really? Resorting to Jim Cramer quotes? There's whole youtube collections of Santelli actually owning Cramer on his bad calls and his backtracking. See here: Rick Santelli VS Cramer Unedited Clips

It might still be profitable for a company to locate here, but it's not optimally profitable. That's the point of the Laffer curve---to display that where tax rates are ought to be beneficial to both businesses/individuals and the government. You're looking at inflation from a Keynesian/Monetarist perspective, while I'm viewing it from an Austrian perspective. Here's a great article explaining the basic viewpoint of Austrian Capital Theory: Ignorance of Money and the Rejection of Austrian Economics by William L. Anderson Here's another article with a graph and explanation that the "credit crunch" was not a contraction of credit, but a stagnation in the growth in the amount of credit available for lending. The problem is not with the supply side of the economy, but with the demand side. The banks were in no position to absorb the shock of the economy not growing, since their business is lending, so they've begged the government for additional funds to support the debt which could not be called in and restore their debt to capital ratios to the point they should have been at in the first place. In the meantime, they've managed to create a crisis of confidence in the stock market and the housing market (by having to pull back to realistic standards in order to actually recoup money from their ventures.) They have tried their utmost to reverse this trend, but it's simply good business to stick to these standards for economic growth. They present less risk because they require less exposure. Unfortunately, we're following the same mistakes that got us into this situation, though people no longer have the credit scores necessary to acquire these loans nor are the banks being encouraged to give these loans out recklessly because they'll be taken to task for it. It's a lose-lose situation for them and it forces the government to keep throwing money at the problem, only to have it be absorbed by the black holes that the banks have become. The FDIC doesn't have enough money to cover the insolvent banks, we'd need to allocate large amounts of money to do that. BofA and Citi, two of the five largest banks in the world, are on the edge of collapse. WaMu already collapsed and is slowly dragging JPMorgan Chase down with it, but it's nowhere near the level the other two are at yet. We'll see what comes of these "stress tests", but I'd predict we'll probably try nationalization at some point. If not next week, maybe the week after that. Nothing's set in stone anymore.

I'm pretty sure Objectivism is about as far away from totalitarian as you can get. Maybe you mean another word here? Atlas Shrugged is often listed as one of the finest pieces of fiction dealing with economics. I don't think she, or people like Yaron Brook who's been everywhere discussing this on TV, are naive or unpracticed in the field of economics. Glen Beck is certainly no libertarian, but he's definitely had quite a few libertarians on his program lately, and he's been buying into more and more of the philosophy as this recession progresses. Obviously he still has his pet interests (and god knows he loves our defense spending), but he's far more libertarian than someone like, say, Sean Hannity. I only "lumped" Beck in with that category since he addresses these points daily in his TV show, radio program, and newsletters, and gives these people a platform to allow their voice to be heard. I don't believe he's leading the charge.