Recent Statuses

24 days ago
Current The Jungle Book is good.
3 mos ago
Why go commando when you can be invisible?
1 like
3 mos ago
If I had unlimited funds, my income tax would also be unlimited, which would cause runaway inflation and completely destroy the value of the dollar.
1 like
4 mos ago
The commies showing up in the status bar is some riders of rohan type shit.
4 mos ago
Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? Men do, men do. Who keeps Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps? Men do, men do!


Most Recent Posts

Was just pointing out that innovation and good ideas are rewarded in the market. And if potato salad can somehow be funded...why does the government need to spend so much damn money themselves? (of others money.) This is a less serious point.

But, my main hang up will always be government subsides and bailouts. They should not exist, nothing is 'too big to fail', it leads to price increases and many bad things...

It's never 'worth' it. And really for how much we have wasted, it's getting into the sunk cost fallacy at this rate.

I'm not saying the market has no utility at all, I'm saying that the market isn't designed for long-term research on its own and requires subsdidy to work. The market is one tool, not the entire tool kit.

Also, I dislike the shit out of bailouts too, and I think shit like the Auto industry bailout was unnecessary (though politically useful I'm sure). I also think the bankers being rewarded was a despicable injustice and the bankers themselves who drove the housing collapse should have been booted into abject poverty for what they pulled. But I do have to say that the bank bailout itself was neccessary. Without it, the entire financial system would have caved in completely. That is insanely dangerous, especially in an economy as financialized as ours, and one where we rely on so much specialization that makes returning from a full depression very difficult.

Uh, she's called African-American youth superpredators before...and all of Trump supporters deplorable people. So um, wouldn't exactly put it past her? I don't know why it's worth defending.

You can draw some fucked up quotes from the other guy too (lord knows we've heard them enough to not need repeat them). Point being that the black and white "All Dems are feminist cucks and all Reps are MAGA" is over simplistic.

Don't worry I'm lazy too. xP (the rich people thing)…

This belies the argument in those articles that capitalists aren't being allowed to create jobs by an evil government that is regulating them to death. Such a world would be one where profit follows wages downward. What we've seen instead is a capitalism that has been able to cut workers out. Neo-Liberalism hasn't helped - it has destroyed the labor movements, weakened mid twentieth century regulation on the financial system so people can play unsustainable games with money, and as a result wages are fucked. Personally, I suspect that automation has done a big part of this too; we see that productivity hasn't suffered. Automation isn't so much about replacing all jobs as it is about driving down the cost of labor, which breaks the traditional capitalist relationship because the only way labor can participate in an idealistic market system is through labor, and anything that slows down that damages wealth access among the majority (giving us that annoying media trend that is "why r millenials not spending?")

This is to say again that the market system is not God. It doesn't fix all problems and answer every situation perfectly. It's as much an imperfect institution as any other. And it can, of course, change depending on the circumstances.

@POOHEAD189 He gave him a million bucks. I think Trump has made a pretty good returns in that investment. xP

I mean almost all small business owners get loans...I don't see why that's put against him.

I feel like I'm defending a man, who I'd probably be perfectly fine mocking under most circumstances...I just feel like, he's already gotten his 8 years of bush hatred out, without a year in office. And a lot of it isn't well justified either.

Ehh... he was also President of his father's business and had his father's business contacts and, of course, name. He didn't branch into a new industry to make his billions. Shit, he didn't even branch into a new city. He just went to a different borough of NYC.

The point isn't that he is evil for having been an aristocrat. The point is that he is an aristocrat, not a self made man.

@Andreyich You said you want all Chinese to move out. I called it racism. Something you called yourself, then changed your mind. And you flipped me off. I'm pretty sure nothing else can be gained from this discussion. :P

So yes, you unironically calling yourself an edgelord and saying you get radicalized like you'll become a white terrorist and being unnecessarily hostile when I really wasn't. Yeah. You are a strawman that is apparently real.

Like I said, you guys have your own demons too, politics ain't "Left is all bad right is all good."

And I agreed with that sentiment too. But I do think there's more that people could unite on, that politics current game is to be as unbearable and toxic as possible. Making middle ground only seem more impossible, but even attempting to be civil would be a nice change.

Eh, aside from the Estonian kid flipping your off, we're doing a pretty good job here.

And really, this is common politics on the ground. Not everybody following politics is an SJW or a White Nationalist. Most of us on both sides are just regular motherfuckers going to work and about our business.
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

"Bitterness" is being pretty lenient with the language. From where I'm sitting it looks like unbridled hatred, with some cry-bullying and hoaxing and just a dash of attempted mass-assassination. This was not "always going to happen," and we shouldn't be writing it off or explaining it away. I mean we've BEEN doing that, for a while, but..... idunno. I'm sick of pretending this is how shit is supposed to be. Once you start looking for reasons why the hatred keeps spreading -- well, you start to form some opinions about the leftists in the media.

That Trump won meant that his supporters had no reason to break out, but lets not forget that people were calling for revolution if Hillary won, or that the man himself spent the last couple of weeks of the election doing this creepy "They are going to steal the election from me" thing and suggested he wouldn't concede the election if he lost.

I don't particularly like political division either, but this attitude of "The left did it all! The right has never ever stirred the pot" adds to the problem. It takes two to tango, lets not get drunk on this idea that only the left is capable of histrionics.

This point boils down to, Subsides aren't good for the consumer or even the businesses themselves. That's the biggest problem.

And the market doesn't reward new interesting products and experimentation? Seriously? Kickstarter debunks the very idea that's a thing. (among other things.) People will pay and invest in good, useful products and interesting ideas. We are talking about otherwise, less useful and more expensive things that only exist because the rich are guilt tripping the rest of us that we're "polluting the planet" while living the most lavish lifestyles possible. Tell third world countries we're about to make your energy much more expensive and see how happy they are at the concept.

Kickstarter is like shark tank, it rewards immediate marketable innovation and potato salad. Kickstarter isn't nearly complex enough to handle something the size of a green energy on the same scale that interventionism can.

I'm not saying that either, but certainly far more on the left acting nuts, destroying property and embarrassing themselves. They didn't even go after republicans for being "Ebil", it wasn't the "Ebil" ones who write your check/pays for the government check. 1% percent. It wasn't even the vague "rich people" who were the evil ones, that worked in every other election cycle. No, they had to go a step farther. It was every single white cis man on the face of the earth that was the problem this time. AND everyone who disagreed with them even slightly. I don't even know how she managed to get more votes from how many people that excludes...(ya know aside from the dead and ones who can't vote legally and all. *this isn't serious I swear if this is used as a quote, I'm buying bleach.*)

Has Hillary Clinton ever used the word "Cis"? Let's not get tumblr and mainstream politics confused. I mean, I'm a white dude and I've never felt personally threatened by the Dems. Though I suppose that'd make me a Cuck in proper conservative parlance.

But yes, I will demonize Sanders because his actual ideas would fundamentally screw America. But that's my opinion I guess, and the history of socialism...

aw lawd

Missing the forest from the trees on that one, my point is he is a hypocrite. And most rich socialists messages are completely hollow and most of that mentality comes from greed. The rich businesses didn't get rich, by hurting poor people. They made money through a transaction benefiting both parties. The idea that you can make too much money, is ridiculous to me. Clearly not everyone, but again, if they were put in those shoes they wouldn't do it either. Or like people that win the lottery, they won't know how to handle it in the slightest, fuck their lives up and go broke. Proving that money doesn't solve always your problems.

I don't really see the logic there, but it's just conjecture at this point. So I'll say maybe, we'll never know?

It has happened historically and can happen again. A person can become too rich in that wealth disparity can come to symbolize failing returns for labor. It isn't an accident that the neo-liberal period of economic history coincides with the wage stagnation period.

It's confusing that you post this without mentioning anyone else. Because it seems to imply, that I disagree with that notion. So preaching to the choir, fellow canine avatar.

Yeh, I was siding with you on this. I just don't like spending a shit load of time on organizing the quotes, so going and hunting down the Estonian kid's name and then copy/pasting it was more work than I wanted to put in.
I think we'll find even more efficient ways to use those fuels. We've already made it much cheaper through fracking.

The EPA admits it has no proof it does anything, and the drinking water part they now claim, has been debunked.

But I'll be an optimist, and say I'd love to see alternative energy make progress because there's nothing wrong with competition. They just need to stop being subsidized, $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 25 times how many fossil fuels are getting. (and shouldn't be getting either for the record.)

And if the product was cheap and effective, and was actually a viable source. That's made a lot of progress in you're own words, It should be able to profit without so much effort.

And not be this much of a futile effort.

Science doesn't happen over night. The idea that we should cease funding improvements to our society if those improvements are not yet competitive on the market is very short sighted. That we haven't reached the point where clean energy is competitive doesn't mean that it is impossible that it will ever happen. Until then, the Market itself has no reason to favor funding for experimentation, so development in a fundamentalist Market economy would necessarily be way slower.

I honestly wouldn't defend that, but even if you believe so. Him not going after Clinton was his own undoing. Him supporting her after the fact, certainly completely went against his own message.

Again, he was a policy dude, so the idea he wouldn't sacrifice medicaid and the like to purge a bit of bile isn't that surprising.

Trump won because he would call terrorism, terrorism. He didn't call half of america, deplorable people. He won because he didn't demonize an entire race and gender for being evil and the cause of all the worlds problems. If we're going to talk about bitter venom losing an election, that's on the progressive left side. That you can thank for that.

Sounds like you're in love =p

Let's not go waaay out there and pretend Trump smashed this thing. The "Leftists are all ebil monsters and everyone knows it and thats why everyone everywhere loves Trump" narrative is a surefire way to land your own philosophy in the same type of unreality as that of the small cadre of SJW type space cadets you assume to be everybody left of center. The bitterness after the election was going to happen one way or another.

I can't respect Bernie in the slightest, for someone who basically said "White people can't be poor and don't understand what it's like being in a ghetto" in fact, I've said it before, I'll say it again. He can go f himself.

I disagreed with that particular statement, but since the rest of his campaign didn't bear the anti-white thing out, and because the other candidates were by far worse, Bernie is the least f-himself-able candidate in the running. It would be too bad if we as a culture sanctify Trump and demonize Sanders.

He's a six figure socialist, so that's a touch ironic. And a millionaire. Change only starts with yourself, why not redistribute his own wealth? Because when people want to steal money because "poor" well there's always someone worse off than you...why aren't you doing anything about it? It's because it's not for helping, it's being envious your neighbor has a bigger house.

And if Donald was poor, but got the funding from somewhere else and he was still as known as he was. It wouldn't of changed a thing...But yes, it's difficult for "anyone" to become president in that sense. But I mean, it's not hard to understand why that's the case..

So Bernie Sanders is a socialist because he is envious that other people having three bigger houses than him? Wat? The guy doesn't make enough money to personally fund public healthcare on his own, so his income isn't really pertinent to his policy positions. You'd have to think I'm an Arch-Marxist who actually thinks everyone should make the same income for that argument to have an effect, because otherwise it's nonsensical. I mean, shit, I personally know people who make six figures. That's not mega-elite status exactly.

Also, if Trump got the funding from elsewhere, which he would need more of to cover expenses that pre-existing wealth covered in this timeline, then he would probably land even closer to Dem spending then he already did.

IQ and race

goddamit. IQ tests are imperfect measures of intelligence. I mean, just look at the questions and imagine a person with a poor education trying to work them out. This doesn't reflect on their latent abilities, and therefore doesn't reflect on natural intelligence.

When I was in school I considered going into IO psych, which among other things focuses on IQ tests and Myers-Briggs tests and what not. The reason I considered it is because they straight up tell you in school that those tests are complete useless bullshit, but they make you shit loads of money because businesses and the government eat up any sort of test that simplifies complex ideas into something easy enough for HR to understand. So it was basically "There are a lot of jobs here and you can do well in this field if you can bullshit well."

Personally, I don't think intelligence is something that is easily measurable, and I'm not sure it will ever be something that you can measure on a number scale. There is just too much going on, too many factors in abstract and spacial thinking working at once to make a single genetic factor that is intelligence.
@Vilageidiotx do me a favor and find that picture of the different racial types with the irish skull along with the white and black one

This thing?

I'm betting that you're not arguing CNN was an arm of the Trump campaign. Think of every second of CNN's Trump coverage as a poorly-invested thousand dollar bill from the Clintons.

No, I don't think CNN colluded with Trump. That's the point I was making, actually, that he didn't need to buy them off because the media were more than happy to accidentally act as his media arm by covering him all the time, whether that be for sinister purposes or good ol' tabloid rubbernecking. Either way I'm pretty well convinced that the MSM Trump hates is the primary actor in getting him elected since it was them who made him the star of the show.

Again, I don't think the science is consistent and I don't know how much is actually human impact. And the like I said, the heat will go down half a degree for 50 years at least...supposedly. How the hell does that work if humans are the primary cause?

Will/can we argue, we aren't the biggest problem, but we are a PART of it? (and the 90 percent agree thing is total falsehood.) I mean I guess that would at least maybe stop a bit of the crazy hyper rich humans are killing the planet thing. (when third world countries are bound to be doing worse...but I think asking them to rid of their gas, when they have no electricity, is a bit pushy.) when our own air, water is cleaner than ever and we have more tree's than when we first settled in America...So I think we already are doing a pretty good job ourselves, like I said, our emissions are already going down. Yet Europe's is going up and they seem to be implementing a lot more environmental restrictions. Doesn't add up does it?

Right now you are posting one guy though. Complex science is a group effort that involves shit loads of people adding all of their work together and eeking out probabilities. You'll find one dude claiming just about anything - there are biologists who argue against evolution. And that is fine, because the multitude of evidences and arguments are necessary for something scientific to refine itself. We just can't get stuck on the idea that because there is minority dissent, the entire thing is a house of cards.

At this point, the consensus on global warming does lean the one way. Pretty heavily.

I understand that's what they're trying to do, but it's proven so far to be a giant expensive sinkhole. I'm not saying solar panels couldn't help assist, but I doubt it will ever fully replace anything. But I also highly disagree with all subsides, of government picking winners and losers for companies. It makes the free market, much less free...this could go into many different directions, but I just think it would be more even competition without subsiding either side. And see who comes out on top, for providing energy, effective and cheap energy. (The answer isn't giant windmills. ;P)

I doubt that fossil fuel is the pinnacle of civilization. That seems incredibly unlikely considering all we have accomplished thus far. If it's not wind power it'll be something else. Though it is my understanding that the energy potential is mostly being hampered by battery tech at the moment.

The problem with market deification is that the market is a very limited tool that requires quick returns, which scientific research can't always be expected to produce. We cannot expect the market to do everything for the same reason we can't expect any other single portion of our society to do all the heavy lifting.

I meant he showed that he had no backbone. I don't want a president without a backbone. With things that needed a man who could say, NO. One moment was when he let two BLM protestors take over his speech, call his racist (when the dude walked in the civil rights movement.) backing down so quickly to something clearly hostile/shallow like that. I can't imagine how that would go in a more serious way. Dealing with terrorism or other nations for example. But it wasn't just that, nearly every move he made in his campaign was way too passive. That won't win elections. That's a fact. And it wasn't only to be civil either, because he bashed plenty of people, just not the people he needed to.

The BLM thing fit in with the "This is about the people, I want to hear your voice" schtick. If he had them dragged out that probably would have ended his career right there tbh. It wouldn't have fit his message.

That he didn't bash people for the sake of political gain seems fine to me. He stayed on his message, that was pretty much his focus, and didn't focus on attacking his opponents. Like I said, I can respect the living shit out of a non-mudslinger. If it is true he lost and Trump won primarily because Trump was more vicious, well, that reflects poorly on us as a society.

Yes, the media giving him show much screen time and everyone being so damn desperate to stop him, probably did help. But I think it was everyone's/media's behavior with the people in general that got him elected. But no, The Clinton's had way more money than he did. Donations and everything. And if I ran, it be third party. So I'd have no chance. (I'd assume same for you?) -.-

But like I said, Bush one 'because you could have a beer with em' Obama won because black and pot. And Trump won because the left pulled a Microsoft...during their Xbone 1 reveal. Telling everyone, including their fans to fuck right off and deal with it. And Ps4 Trump won by doing basically nothing. "Hello, America. I don't hate all of you. Vote me."

*uproarious applause*


Donald Trump couldn't have done what he did if he weren't rich. That's all I am saying. If he were normal folk, he would have had to dump money. What he showed is that celebrity and wealth allows you to get the Presidency with a smaller campaign budget. Which, to me, isn't really that inspirational.

In an ideal situation I would prefer to be an independent, of course. That probably wouldn't be realistic though... they don't usually do very well. I mean, it's what, Bernie Sanders and Ross Perot that managed to snatch national attention as Indepenents? Cool company, but not super successful company.

And yeh, that break down is pretty good, but it goes further back then that.

William Henry Harrison was a man you voted for because he drank hard liquor like a proper country boy.
I dunno, when everyone's favorite engineer plays environmental expert, Bill Nye, awful show on nexflix guy. Says we should be jailing the opposition, I think the hysteria that has almost no agreeable evidence. It's a bit much.

Sure, that's inappropriate, I'm not talking about jailing people.

I don't think anyone -worth talking about- is actually debating, the earth is very, very gradually changing in temperature. It's soon going down half a degree for 50 plus years, no matter how many Prius's will be bought the following year. Or arguing that pollution is bad. But how much does this "climate change" caused mostly by humans? (If cow farts cause more damage than most things?) And how dangerous really is it? And should the people running the post office...actually be in charge of something so 'serious'? (the reason people stopped using the other so much of the global warming predictions were completely wrong and were proven to be 'small potatoes') So they switched labels...

Ehh... We are having an effect.

How dangerous is it is up in the air. Like I said, there are a lot of models out there...

...which makes it desirable to hedge our bets and assume that a bad scenario might occur, since if we attempt to avoid it and it doesn't occur all we've done is advanced our technology, whereas if it does occur and we did nothing than our shit is fucked.

I also think if it's a waste of time, all the money we wasted on this technology to provide less effective means of energy, would have been a pretty shit deal all around.

Inefficient now. The purpose of subsidizing long term research now is to bring the tech to a point where it is efficient enough for the more short-term nature of the market to take over later. Right now the market can't drive it because the market deals in short-term investment. Eventually, like with computer technology before, an event horizon will be crossed where market forces can start turning a profit with the tech. This assuming you aren't arguing that green tech can never be made efficient, which would be a weird place to decide human advancement must stop.

Bernie was just a coward during his election, he "endured" nothing. (less you meant endearing) But I think the days, of bernie sanders "nice guy whose looking out for you" has been over for quite some time now.

Yup, meant endeared. I disagree with the coward description and find it sort of sad that you want your politicians to be bloodthirsty too. But I suppose this particular character assassination shows that even libertarians can be Machiavellian in their approach to politics =p

Also Trump proved you don't need more money to win the presidency. (and that politics really is an american idol contest. Personality wins -at least- three entire presidencies in a row.)

Nope. He didn't use as much money during the campaign because CNN covered that for him by just repeating all his speeches and campaign promises over and over and over again. But he needed to be rich to have the access that he had, to spend so much time building his political brand and campaigning without real hurt to himself, and of course to have ever been enough of a public figure to make waves in the first place. If next campaign season you or I managed to pull off the same thing, well, that would be proof you don't need money. At this point though, the wealthiest candidate won.

Edit: I curse too much. Sorry. xP

I had respect for Sanders before, because he was so adamant about his message wrong as I think it might be, but he lost any shred of respect other than station to me when he surrendered without reprisal or retribution.

This imagines the politician as the power hungry individual by necessity, and that by not fighting for personal power above all else he showed himself a bad leader. Personally I respected his decision because he seemed more the policy-centered statesman, who backed down because he saw Republican destruction of policy he supports as more dangerous than Centrist Democrat wheel spinning. The reverse version of this idea would be why Ted Cruz ended up phone banking for Trump.
Also I think Bill Clinton was responsible for the housing market crash. (or at least was the one who started the fire.)

I'm honestly expecting for the left side and right side to make the exact same arguments against Trump, and I mean the EXACT same ones during the 2020 election. (Which will make that year possibly just as unbearable.) Because politicians don't seem to learn from history. If Trump isn't called racist or sexist even once during the 2020 campaign by people running against him, I'll *insert absurd thing here*. <.<

Hell, oddly enough I think Kayne if he ran for the left/third party, may get him a stupidly high chunk of the minority vote...(if he could manage to even take the campaign remotely seriously.)

I think every President since Reagan has helped with our economic woes, but the most typical economic explanation of the 2008 crash comes down to deregulation of the housing market by Clinton and Bush. This is the main reason I don't considered myself a Democrat... ever since Clinton, they basically do the same shit, just not as extremely. It's like good cop bad cop, but they both fuck shit up. We are in a Neo-Liberal political era, that's the reality of it, and there isn't much help for it until we deregulate and tear apart the safety net just enough for a recession to actually become a long-term depression again. We almost did that in 2008, but Bush woke up and abandoned right wing principles just enough to put the breaks on the crash. Since Obama failed to go after the problem in any more than a band-aid way, and Trump is pushing for further deregulation, we're certain to have another go at economic catastrophe. If this happens in the next four years, 2020 will be verrrry interesting. And if not, yeh, 2020 will probably be a replay of 2016 but this time without Hillary.

I think you and most people into the climate change sphere are being alarmists. And unnecessarily so. They never want to actually give us an answer how we can “solve” this problem, it's another problem that “has no solution or clear ending point.” which sure is politically convenient...

Eh, alarmism in Global Warming is justified IMHO. Scientists come up with a number of potential trajectories suggested by the data, and it shows that the alarmist answers we hear are a meaningful possibility. The end of the world scenarios are not certain, but the idea that we should do nothing when there is a meaningful possibility of severe desertification/rising seas/whatever is irresponsible.

As I've seen it the argument breaks down to scientific preparedness vs purity of the market, and since I believe that the whole Purity of the free market thing is essentially a theological argument, I have no problem sullying it to hedge our bets. Shit, even if global warming turns out to be very small potatoes, we'll get technological advancement out of the deal.

The Sanders' thrust lost its point and credibility when it was not only cheated out by its own party, but also pushed a strong socialist agenda. It helped none that it did not bite back against the Hillary campaign and took a beating laying down instead.

IMHO I found a lot of that rather enduring. That you have to be a rich person who attacks people to become President is too bad, but it does seem to be the case.
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Eh? Trump turned China against the DPRK, (partly) by destroying the Syrian chemical weapons program over dinner. I'd call that a difficult leadership situation and a home run.

That has been going on for quite some time. Shit, Xi Jinping hasn't even met with Kimmy III, and the latter has been office since, shit, five or six years ago wasn't it? That's a situation delivered to him on a silver platter. Hence why I used the Cuban missile crisis as an example, something that actually requires political delicacy.

Well personally the one major thing I could see stopping Trump from reelection going to war or continuing all the drone strikes. It certainly drew a lot of ire from his own side from the attack that wasn't explained. Also I'd consider both of them to be utter disasters. (and Obama literally pretty much did everything Bush did but worse.) But I guess throwing that aside.

Eh... I have a bad feeling that shit is normalized by now.

Also, I never voted for Obama, but the idea that he was worse than Bush is pretty silly. The Bush years started the Middle Eastern kerfuffle and then watched as an unregulated banking system mishandled housing loans, causing the second largest economic disaster in American history. Obama just failed to step down from the war ledge Bush walked onto and got tangled up in healthcare. Obama was a pretty average President really. I mean, if you go through a history of Presidents you'll find Obama level fuck-ups for most of them, just not so often Bush level fuck ups.

Do you think he'll be elected regardless of success? Because we can't seem to just elect someone once and switch them out? "We need 8 yearz bruh!" mindset that we almost seem cursed with two term presidents. Like whether I like someone or not, I'm really certain having two term presidents are particular helpful to them or us or the country. It's pretty obvious being president drains your mental and physical health, and most people can't deal with that pressure. So doesn't it kind of seem like were giving these people a well paid death sentence? Among other things. <.< I dunno, maybe that's just me.

Hell, he took the job, the effects of it on his health is on him.

The two terms thing is interesting. It could just be that shit candidates run in off years? I dunno. I don't think it is as hard a rule as we make it sound though. If it's true that the good candidates don't want to run against incumbents in normal times, Trump might break that pattern by virtue of being the beast that a bunch of candidates want to make a name defeating.

Fuck if I know though, I'm just spitballing. Trump is a bizarre phenomena.
I'm so lost on the economic discussion now that I'm not sure who is responding to what exactly. It's less like watching a debate that can be jumped into and more like watching two great meme icebergs groan on past each other.

Also, how the hell are we having an argument about free will? Did you guys get high last night?
We'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree!
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet