Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

Rick Santorum, specifically, is an idiot.

2»

Posts

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Santorum 2012

    "We'll fuck our way out of this mess."

    PBF077-Bunny_Pit.jpg

    ?

    DivideByZero on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    No wonder nobody wants to declare their presidential candidacy - even more people would pay attention to what they're saying.

    KalTorak on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Those rabbits seem to sum up Santorum's plans perfectly. The two oldest rabbits come out on top, the successive generations are left to die in a hole.




    I love Perry Bible Fellowship.

    Atomika on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    What we really need is jobs taken from people trying to earn a living and given to people living with their parents who will do the same work for chump change!

    Its brilliant!
    Economists call it the "lump of labor fallacy." It's the idea that there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the world, so any increase in the amount each worker can produce reduces the number of available jobs. (A famous example: those dire warnings in the 1950's that automation would lead to mass unemployment.) As the derisive name suggests, it's an idea economists view with contempt, yet the fallacy makes a comeback whenever the economy is sluggish.

    Sure enough, the lump-of-labor fallacy has resurfaced in the United States — but with a twist. Traditionally, it is a fallacy of the economically naïve left — for example, four years ago France's Socialist government tried to create more jobs by reducing the length of the workweek. But in America today you're more likely to hear lump-of-labor arguments from the right, as an excuse for the Bush administration's policy failures.

    The latest lump-of-labor revival came to my attention when I realized how eagerly certain commentators were picking up on a new study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In it, Erica Groshen and Simon Potter argue that the pattern of laying off workers during recessions and rehiring them during recoveries has changed: since 1990 employers have become much less likely to rehire former workers. It's an interesting study, and it might — repeat, might — shed some light on why businesses have added so few jobs during our so-called recovery.

    But I was puzzled at first by the enthusiasm with which a relatively academic paper was seized upon by usually bullish, supposedly hardheaded business commentators. The puzzle vanished, however, when I read these remarks more carefully: they were mainly trying to make excuses for the administration's dismal job record. You see, they say, it's not that an economic policy consisting largely of tax cuts for the rich has failed to deliver. No, it's a structural problem with the economy, which just happens to have arisen now, and nobody could have done better.

    Oh, well. But partisan politics aside, the growing lumpishness of American thinking about jobs is dangerous, in two ways.

    First, it encourages fatalism — if politicians and the public believe that new jobs can't be created, they will stop pressuring our leaders to find more effective policies. And that would be a shame, since the Bush administration has resolutely refused to try the policies most likely to improve the employment picture.

    [...] - Krugman, in 2003

    To a good approximation - a minimum cost of employing teenage labor, set above the level at which employers value the marginal teenage worker, reduces teenage employment. That this is the case isn't ameliorated by complaining that we would prefer if employers valued teenage labor more.

    There is a gap between the level at which employers value marginal teenage labor and the level we would prefer it be valued at - we can throw up our hands and say "no, we don't care about the marginal unemployed; those who can find employment are paid more and we are satisfied with that". Or we can say "we care about both, and we don't care about the marginal taxpayer, so we should fund the gap out of taxes, via a subsidy on employment". Or we can say "we care about the marginal taxpayer and the marginal unemployed, but not the marginal improvement to those already employed, so we should remove the minimum wage for teenagers". All of these are possible policy answers. But denying the existence of a tradeoff, by being outraged about the injustice of it all, strikes me as silly.

    @Atomic Ross - observing high unemployment is what one would expect if there would, indeed, continue to be applications, even at a lower wage.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Fair enough, but I would think it would just depress wages across the board wouldn't it?

    Actually on second reading I'm not entirely sure what you're saying Ronya.

    Blaming it on a head ache.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    @Atomic Ross - observing high unemployment is what one would expect if there would, indeed, continue to be applications, even at a lower wage.

    Indeed, but that's hardly going to help entitlement funding if annual incomes don't break into a taxable bracket, or worse, it keeps those employees in need of entitlements themselves. All it does is create a permanent and revolving service class that actually increases the unemployment levels of similarly-skilled workers outside the age qualifiers.


    And teen unemployment is always going to be high. They have no skills, no experience, and most of them aren't actively even looking for work.

    Atomika on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    That's a pro breeding cartoon?!?

    enc0re on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Since neither you nor I are Rick Santorum, I think we can safely recognize that the budgetary solvency of federal entitlement funding has essentially nothing to do with teenage minimum wages or the lack thereof, and everything to do with war, Social Security, Medicare, and Tax Cuts That Were Supposed To Be Temporary, etc. The effect is going to be small either way, at least from the perspective of a government of three hundred million people.

    From the perspective of the marginal unemployed job-seeker, not so much, of course.

    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    Atomika on
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Jesus Christ the conversation about abortion in this country is so cocked up.

    I keep reading about the new state laws in SD and now AZ and my mind is just blown. Forcing women to go to clinics multiple times over a 72 hour period, when the nearest clinic is hours away. Claiming that an anti-abortion law is actually civil rights legislation. Now this Santorum nonsense. Wow. Just wow.

    Why is it these people want to force every woman to have a baby (most of whom are terribly impoverished), but refuse to offer them any support after the baby?

    GoodKingJayIII on
    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Because they deserve punishment for having sex.

    KalTorak on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Yeah, this is about punishing women, nothing more.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    it's very obviously religiously motivated oppression, yeah, and it's fucking disgusting

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    it's very obviously religiously motivated oppression, yeah, and it's fucking disgusting

    I think it has more to do with control than any genuine interest in a human life. One, for the reasons I just said above.

    But two, the "pro-life" stance is ridiculously inconsistent, even as to fetuses.

    GoodKingJayIII on
    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • TNTrooperTNTrooper Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So Baby Boomer's SS retirement is in trouble because too many of them had abortions and the ones that didn't never told their kids that their local abortion doctor is Satan in disguise.

    TNTrooper on
    steam_sig.png
  • November FifthNovember Fifth Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Wouldn't any increase in taxes due to abortion be largely offset by the costs of treating individuals with profound birth defects?

    The birth rate for Downs Syndrome alone would increase by an order of magnitude, let alone more serious conditions. These are patients requiring a lifetime of care that would probably have to enter state institutions once their parents died.

    November Fifth on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Wouldn't any increase in taxes due to abortion be largely offset by the costs of a billion related things?

    fixt

    Atomika on
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    But two, the "pro-life" stance is ridiculously inconsistent, even as to fetuses.

    Funny, The Daily Show had a bit about this very issue. Can't easily find the clip in question at work, but here is what they touched on;
    Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour bragged at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference about his state's pro-life agenda, saying "Americans United for Life, I am proud to say, named Mississippi the safest state in America for an unborn child."

    What they responded with is essentially this:

    http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

    State
    Rate--Rank
    Mississippi-11.4----1

    Note: this is not something you want to be #1 in. The rate is for the mortality rate of infants up to 1 year old per 1,000 live births, meaning over 1% of newborns in Mississippi don't make it to their first birthday, if I'm not mistaken.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I got as far as
    "A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion."

    before my head exploded. That is some recursive shit right there.

    I dazed out at that point too. My eyes may have crossed even. It would have been funny to witness I'm sure.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Forar wrote: »
    But two, the "pro-life" stance is ridiculously inconsistent, even as to fetuses.

    Funny, The Daily Show had a bit about this very issue. Can't easily find the clip in question at work, but here is what they touched on;
    Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour bragged at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference about his state's pro-life agenda, saying "Americans United for Life, I am proud to say, named Mississippi the safest state in America for an unborn child."

    What they responded with is essentially this:

    http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

    State
    Rate--Rank
    Mississippi-11.4----1

    Note: this is not something you want to be #1 in. The rate is for the mortality rate of infants up to 1 year old per 1,000 live births, meaning over 1% of newborns in Mississippi don't make it to their first birthday, if I'm not mistaken.

    Those kids are safe right up to the second they're actually born.

    KalTorak on
  • templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    templewulf on
    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | Discord | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    Sweet.

    Deploy the Shermanator.

    KalTorak on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    KalTorak wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    Sweet.

    Deploy the Shermanator.

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002455/ ?????

    shryke on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    If the Confederated Empire of Red States has their way, yes, yes we do.

    Atomika on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    Sweet.

    Deploy the Shermanator.

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002455/ ?????

    250px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg

    KalTorak on
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Forar wrote: »
    But two, the "pro-life" stance is ridiculously inconsistent, even as to fetuses.

    Funny, The Daily Show had a bit about this very issue. Can't easily find the clip in question at work, but here is what they touched on;
    Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour bragged at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference about his state's pro-life agenda, saying "Americans United for Life, I am proud to say, named Mississippi the safest state in America for an unborn child."

    What they responded with is essentially this:

    http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

    State
    Rate--Rank
    Mississippi-11.4----1

    Note: this is not something you want to be #1 in. The rate is for the mortality rate of infants up to 1 year old per 1,000 live births, meaning over 1% of newborns in Mississippi don't make it to their first birthday, if I'm not mistaken.

    See

    When you suck out a amorphous mass of cells.

    Thats murder.

    But when a fully developed and born baby croaks due to your state being 200 years behind the rest of the world?

    Thats [strike]fine and dandy[/strike] gods will!

    Buttcleft on
    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • KhaczorKhaczor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    KalTorak wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    Sweet.

    Deploy the Shermanator.

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002455/ ?????

    250px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg

    I lived all around Georgia for many different years of my life. You do not want to bring up Sherman in any way there especially for the more backwater towns. Shit will get real pretty quickly if you say anything less than vitriolic about the Shermenator.

    Khaczor on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    If the Confederated Empire of Red States has their way, yes, yes we do.

    We should just let them secede this time around, the south is all welfare states anyway. They'd be insolvent in 5 years and then we could have hilarious "confederate americans crossing our borders taking our jobs" debates

    override367 on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Khaczor wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    To be unemployed, you do have to be looking for work. %employment is not the same as %labor-force-participation. Labor force participation among teenagers is going to be low unless demand for unskilled uneducated labor makes an unexpected comeback, yes.

    You never know. The way we're burning through petroleum, we'll be back to an antebellum agrarian economy before you can say Pacific Union Rail.

    If we're going back to an antebellum society, does that mean we get a do-over on the Civil War?

    Sweet.

    Deploy the Shermanator.

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002455/ ?????

    250px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg

    I lived all around Georgia for many different years of my life. You do not want to bring up Sherman in any way there especially for the more backwater towns. Shit will get real pretty quickly if you say anything less than vitriolic about the Shermenator.

    How can anyone look at that picture and see anything less than 100% badass.

    We can only aspire to achieve such success at our respective careers that our very names are cursed and reviled across vast, still-ravaged-and-smoking swathes of the nation over a century after our deaths.

    KalTorak on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Eh, it's not that much of an accomplishment when the people still cursing and reviling you are the Southern US, where they never ever forget anything.

    shryke on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Eh, it's not that much of an accomplishment when the people still cursing and reviling you are the Southern US, where they never ever forget anything.

    It's like Christian Bale's character in "The Fighter" - can't let go of the last time they had it good; doesn't matter that it was a really long time ago and at the expense of black people.

    KalTorak on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

    Job market particularly tough for teenagers
    (2010)
    Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

    ...

    The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.


    Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!
    They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

    I think the trick will be lowering the minimum wage for people under a certain age, say if you're under 18. the minimum wage is actually $2/hr less than that of someone older.

    Then have another bracket below that you can pay even less, say 16 and under get $3/hr less than the minimum wage.

    Of course, to balance this out you'll have to let them work more hours during the week to make up the difference and save up some money, build a resume, etc. Current restrictions on hours worked by minors would have to be rescinded or at least loosened slightly, but it wouldn't be that big a deal I think.

    But it wouldn't be fair if you could just hold them at those wages, so say after three months or six months you're required to increase that amount to the standard minimum wage.

    This plan will get a lot more teens hired by local businesses every few months or so and really bring down unemployment while injecting a lot more fluidity into the economy.

    You left out the punchline!

    Wait this was a joke about child labor laws right? The parts about rescinding how many hours children can work and letting people pay them a pittance?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yeah, this is about punishing women, nothing more.

    Has this been posted yet

    Because this should be posted

    prolifebeliefchart.gif

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.