Aligning Linux Distributions with Presidential Hopefuls
To be clear, and to temper some of the passionately loathsome comments that a post like this might inspire, I’ll preface these thoughts with an assurance that they are not intended as an endorsement of any candidate, party or ideology. Personally, I’d like to resurrect Rousseau’s state of nature, if only I thought it could endure. And there would be no Linux there, since everyone would be running around the forest. But that’s neither here nor there.
Linux Distributions of Choice |
|
|
Comments (34)
14 earlier comments in the full thread.
Well, it's either funny or it;s not. If you think it's not because of political affiliation, the problem may be with you and not the humor.
Or it may not be funny. That's up to the reader to decide.
But let's take the posts in reverse order, shall we? Koriel's statement is merely a slight exaggeration of existing union rules that I've encountered half a dozen times or more in my life, and could probably find a dozen ready examples of if I searched. My statement is merely the repetition of the oft stated positions that the government knows how to spend money better than individuals do and that such government spending is good for the economy, both of which I thought you agreed with. And Bob is merely extrapolating Krugman's expected position on the matter from dozens of his articles on the subject. Bernanke's position on the matter is less certain, I'll admit.
The only one that's remotely political is mine. The other two are at best only moderate exaggerations of factual situations. Union rules are what they are, and are supposedly not political in nature. Krugman is an economist, not a politician, and his economic positions are well known, and again supposedly not based on politics. Ditto for Bernanke. And since mine merely notes a rather mainstream economic position, currently being practiced at all levels of government in most countries around the world, I didn't see the harm in it. If Scott disagrees, he's welcome to delete it, of course.
Caitlyn, as you've demonstrated several times, you think any discussion of economics which doesn't agree with yours is political. It's not. It's economics. The two aren't the same, and discussion of economics and economic theories is not banned by the TOS. Whether it should be or not is a matter you'll have to take up with the management.
And again, if Scott disagrees, he's welcome to delete my posts. But until the discussion of economics is banned in the TOS, such "humor" is fair game.
Of course, if your position is that unions, union rules, Krugman's and Bernanke's positions, and various economic theories are explicitly political in nature and explicitly support one and only one political position then your argument is at least internally consistent. Except for the last, I doubt you're trying to claim that however.
Don't worry though a lot of people don't appreciate my humour, its a burden I must bear.
It that's what it takes to get Caityln to appreciate the humor of an opposing viewpoint, I'll volunteer.
Quoting:Raspberry pie? As long as it doesn't have a use-case, it's covered under the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep bare ARMs.
Masterful! Huzzah! cr wins!
I mean really, it's a -broken-windows- story, both the office window and an instance of Microsoft Windows. How much more "On Topic" could I possibly be?????
Now I'm afraid that if I mention Nero actually setting the fire in Rome in order to rebuilt it to his own specifications, it will be taken as a political rant against the prevailing power structure. ....of 100 AD?
You anti-nerists are always distorting the truth! Always spreading false rumors about Emporer Nero. He may have been cruel, but it was only because he loved the Roman people so much. I've even heard some anti-Nerists claim that Nero played a fiddle while Rome burned.
Well, I'm here to set the record straight. The fiddle wasn't invented yet, so he could not have been playing one! It was actually Mrs. O'leary's cow playing a cithara while the city burned for seven nights.
I don't believe the cow was responsible for any broken windows though.
So did I, Bob, so did I. I thought the same thing about Keynes' economic theories about government spending. Obviously we were wrong.
Quoting: unless we all start cursing at each other which I do not anticipate..;-)We can use raspberries, right? :-P
How's that for cursing? No cussing, however, which merely demonstrates a lack of vocabulary.
Anyway, I think I figured it out. I said "Bernanke", Bernanke is a government employee, governments involve politics, therefore it could have been political.
I'm also only 3 hops away from Kevin Bacon.
I consider it impossible NOT to make "political" comments if such tortured logic trails must be traversed in order to avoid it. I recommend some thicker skin.
Only if you include cream. :)
Hmm, a raspberry and whipped cream pie. That might be worth getting hit with, as long as I could keep it afterwards.
> Bernanke is a government employee,
Not technically. He works for the Federal Reserve, which is one of those "quasi- government agencies".
I was going to excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the matter, but it gets too long, so I recommend people who are interested take a look at it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
The actual nature, responsibilities, and powers of the Federal Reserve are an extremely interesting and entertaining subject, but not really appropriate for discussion here.
But that's why I felt the need to point out that he was an economist and not a politician in my commentary above. I was the one who explicitly mentioned government employees, but I only did that because government spending is an such a fundamental part of Keynesian theory.
But appointed by the President, and the Fed was created by an act of treas^H^H^H^H^HCongress.
While the Fed's status as "private profits at public expense" may be technically true, as its existence is as a govt-created monopoly and cartel, and The Bernanke has his job at Presidential suffrage, I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to say Govt Employee.
To call The Bernanke an economist is to insult economists.
The best way to determine that for certain would be to see who signs his paycheck, and I don't honestly know who that is.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
