|
Vriess posted:Tweet in question: https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative/status/388299226125725696 My favorite is how he goes on about the massive job security you have when your pay is getting furloughed  EDIT: quote:
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
 Saw this one today, but I'm generally uneducated about the funding sources for these programs. Does anyone have a good spot where the information is generally condensed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:Not the worst by any means, but I was put off when it popped up on my feed. Piles of hair creep me out though. No, I do think that is the worst. Who DOES poo poo like that? I thought my one unstable republican friend had been awfully quite. He was just storing up.  The post is not as crazy as that Forbes op/ed which is basically all heresay and self-aggrandizing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/11/the-national-park-services-behavior-has-been-shocking-and-it-should-be-privatized/ "Let’s privatize the National Park Service." I don't think even Ron Paul would privatize the National Parks [Edit: Nevermind, he totally would, thanks SybilVimes] My friend supporting article (InfoWars, wow) are just as, I would say inaccurate but there are little "facts" to be had in them. And yes, I do think that underfunded parks and memorials are afraid of someone getting hurt and suing. York_M_Chan has a new favorite as of 17:27 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:
No information on hand, but the premise is that social security is far outpacing welfare and the money they 'worked for' is unsustainable. As a group, those on social security are pulling more out of the system then they've paid in, negating the 'worked for' argument. It's more complex then that as taxes come from many sources, but the numbers going onto social security are getting larger then the system can bare. Welfare isn't having the same problem as the increases in those receiving is lower and welfare itself is criminally low. Never mind the fact that 99.9% of welfare recipients will have paid taxes at some point in their life and are just as entitled to welfare as someone else to social security.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
York_M_Chan posted:"Let’s privatize the National Park Service." A very different headline: "WW2 veterans turned away from memorial, ticket prices too high"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
York_M_Chan posted:
Wrong, he called exactly for that 2 years ago: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/21/349536/ron-paul-public-lands/ And confirmed that was his desire a month later to CBS: http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44011/28705889/Ron_Paul--Sell_the_National_Parks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
e: meant to edit, not post, sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
She's posted again. I know this isn't nearly as offensive as some of the other impressive screenshots in this thread, but it really pissed me off.  Last week, it was all "yey, the government is shut down! Take that Obama!" Even though I tried to explain that a lot of people's paychecks and federal assistance was being put on hold, her response was a shrug and "Whatever it takes to stop Obamacare!" Now suddenly some website she needs to use is down and suddenly the shutdown is a problem. I still have no idea what website was needed for her studies, but I bet it was real important! I'm yellow. I started posting a response and realized I was going to start ranting about her lovely attitude and it wasn't worth it. So I just kinda stopped typing, hit enter, and walked away from the computer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:
The people sharing this wouldn't care if welfare programs were defunded anyways, so "welfare will run out of money!" isn't good line of attack against the program while "SS is running out of money!" is a great way to try to get decrepit old people to support a change that will 'strengthen' SS by cutting benefits for younger people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
This just popped up on Imgur: It's not easy being the owner of a large penis. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
eviljimmy posted:This just popped up on Imgur: Dude looks like Kenny Powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
TheAbortionator posted:Dude looks like Kenny Powers. Only when someone said "act macho" he thought they said "eat mayo"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:EDIT: I'm not sure about the large image. The first one was from a family friend that my parents have been friends with since high school, and when I blew up the image to post it here, it shows the actual image that she shared it from. Being friends with your parents' friends is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
 Finding the old man is a crucial part of this process. If you can't do it, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Oh no, my favorite part is they help you count to ten. If it weren't for the 'pass this on' crap, I would have thought this was an incredibly lazy educational poster in a kindergarten classroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
eviljimmy posted:This just popped up on Imgur: Is this man saying that he wants to defecate into women's mouths? That may be part of the reason he's not having much luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
- - -
Inspector Zenigata has a new favorite as of 21:37 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Inspector Zenigata posted:Analingus is rimming, not pooping into the other person's mouth. The thing about nature's own antidepressant is about semen. Update with the comments. This guy's such a charmer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Inspector Zenigata posted:Analingus is rimming, not pooping into the other person's mouth. The thing about nature's own antidepressant is about semen. "Women [...] should just eat [...] my [...] intestinal contents."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Reposted (on FB, of course) by a family friend:Dr. Jack Newman posted:The following is from a blog by a mother who tested her milk for alcohol. Not one of those useless kits that you can buy at various stores, but tested at a toxicology laboratory. I will copy from her blog the method she used and the results. I think this puts the lie to the notion that women should not drink while breastfeeding or need to "pump and dump" (an appalling term) after having even one drink. The following is an exact quote from her blog: I am highly dubious of this claim and it reads like antiscience rubbish. I am especially dubious because it's a sample size of one, there is no indication as to how often, if at all, the woman normally drinks (and how much she drinks), and wouldn't you want to test the amount of milk an average infant would consume rather than a single drop?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
- - -
Inspector Zenigata has a new favorite as of 21:37 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Reposted (on FB, of course) by a family friend: My question is: There's a really easy way to ensure the alcohol content of the only food your baby is eating during the most critical brain development is "zero" instead of "not very much, I dunno, probably won't hurt her". Why wouldn't you do that every single time? The effort:risk ratio there seems pretty off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Libertarians. “Hey guys my personal income is just like government debt.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
A couple of friends of mine were just tagged in a pic featuring giant nude anime ladies shooting lasers from their areola.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:Libertarians. Well, the obvious answer is to let the third son that can't get a job and wasn't able to go to university because you only budgeted for 2 college funds, and your parents, starve to death to bring the expenditure down to $35,000. Of course, we'll still keep paying for Son #1's fines and damages each time he goes out shooting the neighbour's mailboxes, that amount to $20,000/year, that goes without saying... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Reposted (on FB, of course) by a family friend: Alcohol is metabolized fairly rapidly by the body, on the scale of hours, so how much she normally drinks shouldn't be relevant. A milliliter is significantly more than a single drop (it's the volume of a cubic centimeter), and if you know the alcohol content in that sample, you know how much an infant would get based on how much it consumes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
 Dante is the original poster. He is married and has a baby, although I guess that doesn't mean he has any common sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
tentawesome posted:
Considering that the surface the anime lady is on is a lovely Unglued Forest, he's definitely lacking in common sense.  The Forest in question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Google says nursing infants drink 25 oz of milk per day and have an average birth weight of 7.5 pounds. In a scenario described in the facebook post, the alcohol (according to the facebook post) is about 1/1000 as concentrated in milk as in a vodka shot. If we assume that that's the concentration the baby normally drinks, that's 1/40 of a 1 oz 80-proof shot over the course of a day. Adjusting for weight, that's the equivalent of a 150-pound person drinking 1/2 of such a shot. That's not exactly a vanishingly small amount like the facebook post makes it sound like, but it also doesn't sound too large... until you remember that the 150-pound person isn't currently undergoing critical brain development. I can't adjust for that numerically, but the upshot is "don't drink and nurse you dumbass". 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Google says nursing infants drink 25 oz of milk per day and have an average birth weight of 7.5 pounds. In a scenario described in the facebook post, the alcohol (according to the facebook post) is about 1/1000 as concentrated in milk as in a vodka shot. If we assume that that's the concentration the baby normally drinks, that's 1/40 of a 1 oz 80-proof shot over the course of a day. Adjusting for weight, that's the equivalent of a 150-pound person drinking 1/2 of such a shot. I certainly wouldn't use the results of one person's ad hoc investigation to guide my own decision-making. I just wouldn't say that her doing this is anti-scientific, and the results themselves don't appear immediately unsound.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
I am OK posted:Mumsnet is a UK based forum of unfathomable terribleness. Usually who cares, right? In this case it actually has political clout. It is huge and our MPs kowtow to it. Oddly enough when I was doing my Thursday map at work someone had a lawn sign advertising that very website. I work in Toronto
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Just to throw in my own two cents and this is just base on what a professor said in one of my developmental classes, it's not entirely clear why some infants are negatively harmed by alcohol and others aren't. Obviously this doesn't include getting trashed every night when you are pregnant, but researchers don't know why some women can have a glass of wine and be fine and others will give birth to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. The professor suggested it might be more correlated to *when* in pregnancy you drink rather than how much, with earlier stages of development more negatively effective. I don't know if that is similar to drinking and lactating though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
The most  picture ever:
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
tentawesome posted:
It's called ART, you pleb. Haven't you ever seen an anime lady before?  This guy really reminds me of Mort from Anime Club.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:How does it read like antiscience rubbish? It seems about the most scientific approach a single individual can take. Mostly it reads that way to me because it's a sample-size of one; a properly rigorous approach would process milk from multiple nursing mothers (to control for situations like one's gut producing alcohol naturally) over a period of several weeks, preferably over a broad spectrum of society. Another reason it reads like anti-science rubbish to me is that someone is arguing against a reasonable idea ("don't drink and nurse") based on the fact that that one person metabolizes alcohol quickly enough for a shot of vodka to disappear completely from her milk after three hours. "Well it's fine for me" is not science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Yeah, but the 1/1000 concentration was the result an hour after finishing three drinks, and declined swiftly thereafter; applying that over the course of a day would assume the mother is also drinking pretty much constantly over the course of a day. I think it's still pretty disingenuous considering that it throws around numbers like "1/1000" when they're A. Consciously choosing to compare it to 40% pure alcohol instead of something like wine in order to make the fraction look smaller, B. Only comparing the concentration of alcohol to a 1 oz shot even though even within a single feeding the baby will drink multiple oz, and C. Not actually adjusting for body weight and presenting the adjusted figure. Basically, they're doing as much as they can in their presentation to make the alcohol look as harmless as possible. It lets them throw around percentages that look really tiny so they can say "Even after you adjust for C, it would still be negligible!" and people will believe them because gosh that percentage is so small nothing could ever conceivably make it significant! But if you run the numbers and do adjust for all of this, it comes out to the equivalent of about 1/10 of a drink even within a single feeding. Why wasn't that number written in the post anywhere? Because that number isn't actually as tiny as they'd like the reader to think, and if they'd presented their results honestly instead of throwing around unadjusted tiny percentages, people wouldn't be so quick to believe their conclusion of "Drink away, it makes basically no difference!" So if nothing else, there're doing something scummy by presenting their results in a misleading way, but that's not necessarily unscientific. Where it goes from being deceptive to downright unscientific is in the fourth factor they ignore: D. Infacts are still developing and can far more be permanently damaged by alcohol than an adult could even after adjusting for body weight. How strong is the effect of D? How much impact does the equivalent of 1/10 of a shot have on an infant's developing body and brain? I don't know - this isn't something I can adjust for with a single calculation. But I know it's an effect that exists, and I know it's impossible to conclude that any amount of alcohol is "safe" for infants without studying D and accounting for it. The facebook post not only doesn't adjust for D but also concludes "any of these percentage of alcohol in breast milk is unlikely to adversely affect the baby. Bottoms up!" without the slightest mention that D is even a possible effect that might be worth considering. That's a dangerous and unscientific; claiming to be able to draw that sort of conclusion while ignoring such a critical factor isn't just misleading, it's an outright lie. But hey, I guess a little deception and lying is worth it for the good cause of telling people to get shitfaced while breastfeeding. As for idiots on Facebook, some Arizona legislator is calling Obama "De Fuhrer" on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
You know what I'm tired of? The "let's put a hitler stache on a current world leader and make a great point". I say Queen Elizabeth today with, you guessed it, a hitlerstache. Like.... What? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
 I've got nothing to add.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 01:19
|
|
