Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Liberal Agenda: ITT We Pat Backs

13»

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »

    EDIT: Also, where is Kevin Nash? He is conspicuously absent.

    I like to think he's gone Galt.

    I'd like to nth the appreciation for this post.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »

    EDIT: Also, where is Kevin Nash? He is conspicuously absent.

    I like to think he's gone Galt.

    This made the thread worthwhile.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    i am in here patting organichu on the back

    that is what this thread is for right?

    patting on the back?

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I think David Miscavige is evil, but not because he's rich. He's evil because he's the leader of the Church of Scientology.

    As for Tony Hayward, I blame BP's shareholders rather than him.

    But more generally, I don't think rich people are morally obliged to share their wealth. My own support for progressivism is built on maintaining equality of opportunity, and if taxing work and goods is necessary to achieve that, then so be it. Beyond what is needed for that, if shareholders and sports teams and media conglomerates and all the other people who pay all these massive earners want to throw their money away, then it's up to them. They seem to think they're getting their money's worth.

    Well, why not? You're subscribing to Lockean classically Liberal Anglo-American notions of property rights, but these are by no means clearly the best interpretation of property ever conceived by the world.

    Many people are uncomfortable with redistributive policies for this reason -- simply because it conflicts somewhat with the culturally-ingrained notions of ownership, earnings, individualism, etc.

    But, if we are to look at things less morally and more consequentially -- we have essentially massive amounts of unutilized resources languishing in the coffers of our most wealthy, neither contributing significantly to GDP growth nor to government coffers. It's merely doing nothing, except perhaps assuaging some primal urge gone haywire for status and security that drives people to earn what are essentially pathological levels of wealth (over-consumptive or obsessive collecting/hoarding behavior is generally considered pathological in all other realms, why not with money? Accumulating such wealth usually comes at the expense of the well-being of others; at the expense of one's other pursuits and interests, interpersonal relationships, and ultimately it is irrational because most of it goes unused. Sounds like mental illness to me).

    At the end of the day, I think we have a very simple calculus to perform:

    Money has a limited power to make people happy. Many studies in many countries in many decades have essentially confirmed the basic thesis that being poor or in debt can make you miserable, but being comfortable supplies you with essentially no less satisfaction than being fantastically wealthy, ceteris paribus.

    It would even seem that right-leaning folks ought to anticipate this, as they seem so enamored of economics, yet marginal utility would seem to suggest this relationship rather clearly. The richer you are, the less useful everything you buy is. Once we cross a certain threshold, things that are not easily purchased become much more significant to our well-being than anything that can be bought -- intangibles like being lonely or having many friends, having a meaningful career, a happy family, etc., etc.

    So, again, to look at this from a very functional, consequential attitude:

    Huge amounts of money doing nothing in the accounts and assets of the extremely wealthy

    Meanwhile: huge amounts of people suffering because of a lack of money and assets

    I don't really care if moving the money from one group to the other violates classically Liberal notions of ownership or property rights or earnings -- if it contradicts those ideas then those ideas are misguided and ought to be re-thought.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Manji2099 wrote: »
    CRAZY MORALLY ABHORRENT HYPOTHETICALS AND ETHICAL EXEGESIS

    Oh, and just FYI, under Bush, people who made >30k a year were tax exempt. After this last April they freaked out and started scrambling to repeal that law since....45% of Americans were paying no taxes.

    INSANE SLIPPERY SLOPE AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE GREEK ECONOMY

    The middle bit.

    This seems unlike to be true.

    What the hell is going on in this thread?

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    In fact, I think one of my least favorite ideas in the history of the world has to be the concept of "earning" or "deserving."

    Unfortunately, it is probably evolutionarily inscribed on the brain as nearly every culture on earth has such a concept, so it seems unlikely to be removed. Sigh.

  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    wait are people criticizing a strawman

    does that mean the OP is joking

    i seriously don't get it

    if this is a really big congratulatory "i'm smarter than conservatives" thing, i think someone ought to definitively nail down the solemnity and in how jocular (if at all) a tone it ought to be read

    I thought it was a giant back patting thread? All get to sit about and mock different view points because we are smarter then them by nature of their view points and glad pat. It's even implied in the title.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I think David Miscavige is evil, but not because he's rich. He's evil because he's the leader of the Church of Scientology.

    As for Tony Hayward, I blame BP's shareholders rather than him.

    But more generally, I don't think rich people are morally obliged to share their wealth. My own support for progressivism is built on maintaining equality of opportunity, and if taxing work and goods is necessary to achieve that, then so be it. Beyond what is needed for that, if shareholders and sports teams and media conglomerates and all the other people who pay all these massive earners want to throw their money away, then it's up to them. They seem to think they're getting their money's worth.

    Well, why not? You're subscribing to Lockean classically Liberal Anglo-American notions of property rights, but these are by no means clearly the best interpretation of property ever conceived by the world.

    Many people are uncomfortable with redistributive policies for this reason -- simply because it conflicts somewhat with the culturally-ingrained notions of ownership, earnings, individualism, etc.

    But, if we are to look at things less morally and more consequentially -- we have essentially massive amounts of unutilized resources languishing in the coffers of our most wealthy, neither contributing significantly to GDP growth nor to government coffers. It's merely doing nothing, except perhaps assuaging some primal urge gone haywire for status and security that drives people to earn what are essentially pathological levels of wealth (over-consumptive or obsessive collecting/hoarding behavior is generally considered pathological in all other realms, why not with money? Accumulating such wealth usually comes at the expense of the well-being of others; at the expense of one's other pursuits and interests, interpersonal relationships, and ultimately it is irrational because most of it goes unused. Sounds like mental illness to me).

    At the end of the day, I think we have a very simple calculus to perform:

    Money has a limited power to make people happy. Many studies in many countries in many decades have essentially confirmed the basic thesis that being poor or in debt can make you miserable, but being comfortable supplies you with essentially no less satisfaction than being fantastically wealthy, ceteris paribus.

    It would even seem that right-leaning folks ought to anticipate this, as they seem so enamored of economics, yet marginal utility would seem to suggest this relationship rather clearly. The richer you are, the less useful everything you buy is. Once we cross a certain threshold, things that are not easily purchased become much more significant to our well-being than anything that can be bought -- intangibles like being lonely or having many friends, having a meaningful career, a happy family, etc., etc.

    So, again, to look at this from a very functional, consequential attitude:

    Huge amounts of money doing nothing in the accounts and assets of the extremely wealthy

    Meanwhile: huge amounts of people suffering because of a lack of money and assets

    I don't really care if moving the money from one group to the other violates classically Liberal notions of ownership or property rights or earnings -- if it contradicts those ideas then those ideas are misguided and ought to be re-thought.

    The part I highlighted orange is a factual error; most unconsumed income is saved, and most savings are loaned out to people who need to borrow to carry out investment. Presently there is a good case for dramatic fiscal expansion due to interest rates hitting the zero nominal bound, but I think we can safely recognize that this is an exceptional circumstance - and all fiscal expansion would do is put said savings to work, anyway.

    But regardless of that error (which is relatively unimportant for your case anyway; I'm just pointing it out because I like to nitpick), if we are going to think consequentially, then I think it should be kept in mind that exceptionally high upper income tax rates are empirically associated with low economic growth for a variety of reasons. It isn't because the people who are taxed at high rates are Randian supermen who are contributing all that growth; it's more of the practical problem of geographical competition coupled with induced high interest rates associated with lower saving.

    And growth is, well, fairly important for welfare. We should still couple growth policies with a strong social safety net, for equality-of-opportunity reasons; intergenerational poverty and social stratification has a nasty way of quickly entrenching itself.

    Besides all that - I'm guessing that you're trying to get at the typical utilitarian basis for progressive redistribution; if you intending to do so, you should have assaulted consumption rather than income or asset wealth.

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    The part I highlighted orange is a factual error; most unconsumed income is saved, and most savings are loaned out to people who need to borrow to carry out investment. Presently there is a good case for dramatic fiscal expansion due to interest rates hitting the zero nominal bound, but I think we can safely recognize that this is an exceptional circumstance - and all fiscal expansion would do is put said savings to work, anyway.

    Er, paradox of thrift? I.e., while savings do get loaned out, they certainly contribute less effectively to growth than outright consumption or investment, no? Or does that only matter in the context of a society-wide trend such that there would be too few people taking loans in the first place?
    But regardless of that error (which is relatively unimportant for your case anyway; I'm just pointing it out because I like to nitpick), if we are going to think consequentially, then I think it should be kept in mind that exceptionally high upper income tax rates are empirically associated with low economic growth for a variety of reasons.
    They are?

    To what extent is that effect found? Historically speaking, our highest rates of upper-income taxation were at our peak levels of growth (1940s-1960s). Obviously there are a huge variety of factors to consider when speaking about growth across decades in a large country, but clearly those high rates of taxation were not prohibitive of growth. Cutting taxes on those income brackets from the 1970s through the 2000s did not substantially raise growth rates -- in fact they sank and then remained mostly level, correct?

    What effect, ceteris paribus, can we really be sure of? And if you can provide an inductive example rather than a deductive one I would prefer that (I have certain philosophical beefs with economics in general, mostly due to how much of it is not done in the methodology of the natural sciences. I am literally the exact opposite of von Mises).
    It isn't because the people who are taxed at high rates are Randian supermen who are contributing all that growth; it's more of the practical problem of geographical competition coupled with induced high interest rates associated with lower saving.

    Wouldn't there be an offset in that, the lower classes, now freed of many financial burdens (say, free or nearly free -- to them -- public transportation defraying costs that would otherwise be realized in personal transport) be more able to save? How much of a reduction in saving would really happen? And couldn't the country just pursue more expansionist monetary policy if that's the case?
    And growth is, well, fairly important for welfare.

    This is a big can of worms right here. We'd need a whole 'nother thread but suffice to say I think that's far from proven, as long as we're defining welfare as subjective/self-reported well-being.
    We should still couple growth policies with a strong social safety net, for equality-of-opportunity reasons; intergenerational poverty and social stratification has a nasty way of quickly entrenching itself.

    Why stop at equality of opportunity? Inequality of reality has plenty of nasty consequences in and of itself.
    Besides all that - I'm guessing that you're trying to get at the typical utilitarian basis for progressive redistribution; if you intending to do so, you should have assaulted consumption rather than income or asset wealth.

    I would appreciate more explanation on this -- it seems like you know your way around economics pretty well.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Since when is the USA a medium sized country? I believe it's number 3 or so in total size, including Alaska.

    Let's see if I can remember this correctly:

    - Russia
    - Canada
    - China
    - United States
    - NOTMERRKALAND

    So, yeah, fair enough - America's a pretty large land mass. 4th place ribbon ain't so bad.

    The continental mass by itself is not very big. However, combined with Alaska, the United States does have a lot of area.

    Our advantage is, I think, that compared to Russia or Canada, our land is on average far more fertile, and we do not have huge tracks of just tundra and ice.

    I don't think that's necessarily true.

    Alaska is, in essence, a huge track of tundra and ice. It is, for the most part, uninhabitable. It's comparable to the worst parts of Canada or Russia.

    Unlike Canada, we also have large deserts. Russia actually have huge amounts of habitable land, but unlike the United States, the Russian Fed. doesn't necessarily have the wealth to expand into uninhabitable land. The US has turned large sections of the country that are not originally fertile, or for that matter readily habitable, into suburbs through mass irrigation and other methods.

    Russia--or rather the USSR--did the same thing to, for a while. Then the Germans showed up and torched the western half of the country, and killed a few dozen million people, so it was hard to start from scratch. The Ukrainian "Black Earth" project is like that. Really, there's no comparable analogue for the agricultural and infrastructural disaster that was the second world war for the CIS countries in the US. Not even the US Civil War. The US has had plenty of time to turn itself into the world's bread basket--and no one to destroy it or kill everyone. It's pretty amazing, but even a little creepy--look at any satellite photo of farmland in the midwest, and you realize, "Humans were not intended to do this, to create millions of acres of identical farmland..."

    But, I'm a liberal, not an agriculture scientist.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited June 2010
    So... this is like where hippies circle jerk, right?

    Don't you take ONE MORE sip of that espresso before you give a disdainful look and use your words at me!

    am i doin it rite

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    stuff

    Hm. To respond point-by-point:

    Paradox of thrift: the paradox of thrift is usually held only to apply when the economy is in recession; to be precise, when the level of unemployment is higher than the level of unemployment the economy would exhibit under non-accelerating inflation. It isn't a long-term or permanent phenomenon.

    Taxes: despite what you might have heard from the Heritage Foundation, tax levels in the United States have not been very high through its modern history. And because the United States is one country, and exhibits very high capital and labor mobility internally, state-level income taxes are usually low (the intuition is that if one state raised income taxes, capital and labor would simply flee to another state. Appropriately, the state with the highest income taxes is the one with the least mobility to other states, i.e., Hawaii). And federal taxes are, well, one data point, and you can't isolate away things like the postwar boom from other factors, like the reglobalization of world trade and surge in aggregate demand due to postwar reconstruction.

    So comparative tax studies are usually carried out in Europe.

    I should emphasise something about the issue of tax: popular arguments about this are usually very stupid. Paul Krugman (correctly) notes that conservatives who blame US recessions on high MTR's are smoking crack, but if you read Krugman very carefully, he will note that he isn't saying that the relationship there is causal (which he won't; the international comparative evidence suggests that it isn't); rather he's just poking holes in terrible arguments.

    Savings offset: it is generally accepted that lower income is correlated with a higher propensity to consume disposable income and a lower propensity to save; it is for this reason that (say) Keynesian fiscal expansions should be targeted at lower income groups for maximum effect. And alterations in monetary policy are all short-run fixes; in the long run all prices and wages adjust, so in the long run the classical growth model holds; if we kept applying monetary policy in the long run, all we'd get is accelerating inflation.

    Welfare: I should note that empirical happiness research is problematic, and where it works, its results have a tendency to behave erratically vis a vis income and wealth. Here's Ben Bernanke on happiness; he describes Easterlin's pathbreaking paper near the middle.

    Utilitarianism: there's a simple utilitarian argument for redistribution much like the one you forwarded; we know that diminishing marginal utility has empirical validity (mostly), which suggests that we can improve social utility by redistributing from those who have a lot to those who have very little (under most plausible choices of social welfare function).

    But since income not spent doesn't contribute to utility, presumably consumption is a better proxy for utility than income. Although consumption taxes are regressive, we can still create a net progressive consumption tax by first applying said tax, then redistributing it so that the net impact is progressive.

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    incomedistributionthumb.jpg
    Spoiler:

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It actually gets even more extreme than 0.1%; the real spike has been in the 0.01% level.

  • KelorKelor Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    i am in here patting organichu on the back

    that is what this thread is for right?

    patting on the back?

    To be honest when I read the thread title I thought it said ITT we pat blacks.

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Paradox of thrift: the paradox of thrift is usually held only to apply when the economy is in recession; to be precise, when the level of unemployment is higher than the level of unemployment the economy would exhibit under non-accelerating inflation. It isn't a long-term or permanent phenomenon.

    So saving is not less valuable than consumption in a healthy economy. Fair enough. However, if we want to talk about the extent to which funds are maximally utilized in increasing subjective well-being, I'm not sure loans are one of the best categories (especially compared to, say, competent and efficient public policy, or the opposite of loans -- the alleviation of debt).
    Taxes: despite what you might have heard from the Heritage Foundation, tax levels in the United States have not been very high through its modern history.
    90% under Eisenhower and Truman wasn't high? I thought we were talking about top brackets, or are you talking about the average MTR?
    And because the United States is one country, and exhibits very high capital and labor mobility internally, state-level income taxes are usually low (the intuition is that if one state raised income taxes, capital and labor would simply flee to another state. Appropriately, the state with the highest income taxes is the one with the least mobility to other states, i.e., Hawaii). And federal taxes are, well, one data point, and you can't isolate away things like the postwar boom from other factors, like the reglobalization of world trade and surge in aggregate demand due to postwar reconstruction.
    Right, that was my point. Clearly taxes are not uniquely important enough to have any clear correlative effect on the American economy throughout history, but I understand that doesn't mean they have no effect. However, if that effect is essentially obscured by other, much more important factors, I also have to question if it's worth worrying about.
    So comparative tax studies are usually carried out in Europe.

    And? What are the results? How big of an effect does taxing the rich really have?
    I should emphasise something about the issue of tax: popular arguments about this are usually very stupid. Paul Krugman (correctly) notes that conservatives who blame US recessions on high MTR's are smoking crack, but if you read Krugman very carefully, he will note that he isn't saying that the relationship there is causal (which he won't; the international comparative evidence suggests that it isn't); rather he's just poking holes in terrible arguments.
    Right.
    Savings offset: it is generally accepted that lower income is correlated with a higher propensity to consume disposable income and a lower propensity to save; it is for this reason that (say) Keynesian fiscal expansions should be targeted at lower income groups for maximum effect. And alterations in monetary policy are all short-run fixes; in the long run all prices and wages adjust, so in the long run the classical growth model holds; if we kept applying monetary policy in the long run, all we'd get is accelerating inflation.

    The bit about low-income folks I know, but I assume there would still be something of an offset, right? And that extra consumption would presumably be good for growth. Monetary point taken.
    Welfare: I should note that empirical happiness research is problematic, and where it works, its results have a tendency to behave erratically vis a vis income and wealth. Here's Ben Bernanke on happiness; he describes Easterlin's pathbreaking paper near the middle.

    Great speech. I actually really like Bernanke (and the Fed is my favorite government agency). Still, I think he's even pretty clear that GDP is not the end-all be-all. Unemployment and steady prices are more important.

    I think he also makes a bit of a misstep when talking about how rich people are also healthier, have more leisure time, etc etc. One thing policy makers (understandably) often miss is that subjective well being is the real goal, and it doesn't always correlate to objective well-being. We may be much healthier than Colombians, but Americans self-report as feeling very unhealthy: 3 on a 10 point scale, compared to an average of 6 for Colombians, despite low life expectancy, high infant mortality, and so on.

    Well being is only useful if people feel it subjectively. Objective health has benefits -- surely anyone dying of tuberculosis does not feel healthy subjectively, so obviously being objectively unhealthy can intrude on one's feelings -- but on a day-to-day basis, objective measures of well-being should be analyzed very skeptically as to how they correlate to subjective well-being.

    Also, while he's right that richer people within countries tend to report being happier, IIRC, that benefit tends to plateau pretty quickly after one is merely upper-middle-class.
    But since income not spent doesn't contribute to utility, presumably consumption is a better proxy for utility than income. Although consumption taxes are regressive, we can still create a net progressive consumption tax by first applying said tax, then redistributing it so that the net impact is progressive.

    I get what you're saying, and I think you're right relative to what I said, at least. However, consumption at least does have positive effects for the economy generally. I think what I actually might really detest is wealth -- assets. The stuff that the wealthy own, which is sitting around not doing anything to really make them happy.

  • CharismaismydumpstatCharismaismydumpstat Registered User
    edited June 2010
    @ The OP.

    You say that lots of people in the world are poor and that this is a bad thing. You say that people who are not poor are obligated to give their excess money to those who are.

    You have demonstrated that you have a computer and internet access, neither of which are essential to your survival as a human being. If you actually believed in the things that you say in this thread you would immediately sell your computer and cancel your internet subscription and go out and give this money to someone who really needs it.

    The long and the short of it is that if you ever post on PA again you will have demonstrated yourself to be a champagne socialist who doesn’t actually care about poverty enough to do something about it.

    I look forward to not hearing about your future life of devoted service to the poor and needy.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If we're talking worldwide, sure. But if we're talking the United States or most of the West, the ownership of a personal computer is quickly becoming an assumption rather than a luxury.

    Honestly, our economy does so much to reorganize the strata of proletariat vs bourgeoisie that it's hard to see a bunch of twenty somethings getting the axe during a workers revolution when we're by and large squarely in the lower to mid income brackets.

    While we may not fit the classical definition of bourgeois, we definitely don't fit the idea of the proletariat as well. We're definitely strong candidates for the petite bourgeoisie.

    I think our leisure time and our rabid consumerism/materialism will eventually work against us.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Rogue Coral Springs, FLRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    @ The OP.

    You say that lots of people in the world are poor and that this is a bad thing. You say that people who are not poor are obligated to give their excess money to those who are.

    You have demonstrated that you have a computer and internet access, neither of which are essential to your survival as a human being. If you actually believed in the things that you say in this thread you would immediately sell your computer and cancel your internet subscription and go out and give this money to someone who really needs it.

    The long and the short of it is that if you ever post on PA again you will have demonstrated yourself to be a champagne socialist who doesn’t actually care about poverty enough to do something about it.


    Uh, are you implying that capitalists are somehow different?

    fiV9i14.jpg
    蒼く咲く華 日は灯り 天に流れる | Kill The Past
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited June 2010
    I get what you're saying, and I think you're right relative to what I said, at least. However, consumption at least does have positive effects for the economy generally. I think what I actually might really detest is wealth -- assets. The stuff that the wealthy own, which is sitting around not doing anything to really make them happy.

    Why is happiness the be-all end-all? What about susstainability, purpose and simple freedom.

    Happiness is something that might come and is generally a reward for accomplishment. When of the greatest things about the United States is how in enshrines the idea of "the pursuit of happiness." That means no one is going to get in your way when trying to be happy, but it also means that we're not going to try and correct your happiness either.

    Taking rich people's money and redistributing it to poor people is a hollow happiness IMO. I think paving the way for accomplishment and achievement are better goals for our society. Welfare traps (as opposed to non-trap welfare) and reliance on government (as opposed to simple help) undermine those things.

    Also your view on consumption is common, but wrong IMO. If consumption is so important, then getting everyone addicted to smokes would be great for our economy. 1) They'll buy tobacco 2) They'll buy smoking jackets and 3) They'll buy chemo-therapy. It's win-win-win on the consumption front. Also they'll die before they can draw too much money from pension plans.

    Yes, smoking helps the GDP. But it doesn't help the economy. It's a stupid, worthless waste of worker's time (growing tobacco rather than something else) and human capital (people dieing). So GDP strikes me as a dumb way to measure things.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2010
    The OP was cute and made me snigger. Tee-hee-snort!

    Fun has been had, and now I'm locking this down before it becomes a breeding ground for stupid and invective.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
13»
This discussion has been closed.