Speaking of low content, I think there is a single reason why these forums are better—despite their drawbacks—than almost every form I’ve been on in my 13 years on the internet: the Active Topics page. Dividing forums into different sections may have its benefits for someone, but I haven’t figured out who. I absolutely LOVE seeing all the active topics on one page. Then you know if you post an important topic that belongs in a rarely-viewed division or sub-board, everyone will still get the chance to see it. Like 4chan, or facebook, I know if a topic was squeezed out past the first few pages then it probably wasn’t popular for a reason…and if I was interested in it I’m free to bookmark.
What a lousy article. Smallest spender? Please. Maybe it grew the slowest under Obama, but he’s still spending more than any of the others. Pure deceit.
Well, now you can’t say that you haven’t heard of it and can reject the idea when you hear it from people who believe this guy (when, in conversation, they probably won’t mention the inconvenient truth of it all; that’s when you zoom in and zing!). KRAV MAGA!
According to the Associated Press, “A recession is officially defined as two straight quarters of falling output.” So, if Europeans all produced t-shirts that said “F—k you, ordinary Europeans” and the output measure ticked up, then there would not be a recession. I bet the old Soviet Union was prosperous by this recession definition.
Looking at it now I guess the internet changes the meaning of the comment. It was meant to be a joke.
I recently had this really engaging conversation with someone regarding praxeology and the whole time he seemed pretty interested. When the conversation had clearly died, he just sort of asked me “So, what you’re telling me is… you’re voting for Romney?” The question was so out of nowhere that I started laughing pretty hard.
Posing the question at you, John James, I anticipated either getting a flaming or a YOMANK (hoping for the latter).
aww dammit. You should have saved that for after one of us posted a really long monologue. Then it would have totally resonated. That’s why it was funny for you.
All I did was post a video. That, plus the fact that you included Doren in it, and all he was talking about was idiotic journalists made it confusing.
I probably would have spit up if it came after a really long text post.
Yeah, his question came at the end of the conversation where it mainly consisted of me elaborating some of the earlier arguments while he mainly listened. When he asked the question I did a double take: What the hell? It was precisely because of the randomness of it in relation to the monologue, as you say. The best part was that he knew it too and laughed with me- we’re buddies and I didn’t want to offend him if he was serious.
Since you posted his video in the comment, I figured that what you thought of the article was pretty much what Lee Doren said in the video (as well as anyone who read even the subtitle of the chart presented front and center) such that the little remark would have the intended effect. Lee was on a roll.