Slashdot Mirror

Not only is it part of the deficit, it's the biggest part of our debt.

Not only is it part of the deficit, it's the biggest part of our debt.

I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video ... I know you find that awkward.

Find what awkward? Your continuing decision to lie about it?

No, nor more than I do the lies about Shirley Sherrod.

Nothing awkward for me. It's curious that you bother, but not awkward for me.

Why would you think that? Are you somehow confused about what words mean, or do you just have no understanding of people's actual feelings?

If anything, every time somebody brings it up, I know it means they have nothing of substance to actually say.

I suppose I might feel chagrin though, that instead of healthy discussion and debate, we get lies.

And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?

You're expecting me to put much effort into it, when it's been a debunked story known for years?

You might as well expect me to care about Romney's claim about an "act of terror" in the presidential debates.

But seriously, you've got nothing but ad hominem, that's why you can't defend your own words or ideas, but have to offer lies.

I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction.

Oh, you want to know who edited the Congressional Record? But I guess if you don't intend to make factual statements, you wouldn't want them to be kept.

The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!

You're the one not talking about an actual bill, or offering a countering proposal, but spending a considerable amount of effort to belabor us with nothing more than an empty, long-discredited, shameful attempt at castigating Nancy Pelosi for a speech that you so desperately need to take out of context.

Unfortunately for you, the real speech can be read, go ahead, take your time:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech this morning at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo). This year marks the 75th anniversary of the organization. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:

“Thank you, President Valerie Brown [of Sonoma County, Calif.] Don’t we all take pride in Valerie Brown recently being named County Official of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of all of America’s counties? Thank you, Valerie. Her

The only one with a gun inside was the shooter until the police entered the building a couple of hours later.

Wrongo! Check your facts.

Now I'm not saying that having a bunch of drinking folks carrying guns is a good idea, but I am saying that a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll. However, we will never know the answer to all these "what if" questions.

Well, let's see, we have examples of armed peoople shooting up bars and restaurants when gathered, so we can know that there are problems with that solution. We can also see that this club had security, armed security.

Maybe instead of guns, a solution would be to control the entrances better, or to have more exits.

But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings) not the other way around. The statistics don't lie, and they tell a totally different story than what you think, especially if you tend to be on the left side politically.

What? Statistics lie all the time. So do claims about them. Even assuming your allegations are valid (and with the Kleck numbers, no we can't), it is entirely possible to come to the wrong conclusion, or for outcomes to change.

Stop thinking you know anything. All that arrogant "We know" from people gets annoying. No, you do not have superior reasoning or intelligence, and believing you do causes more problems.

We also know that mass shooters seek out gun free zones to ply their trade.

They seek out places where people are gathered, they want to kill a lot of people at once, we don't want people with guns in those places because of the risk of what they would do.

This applies even more with drinking.

According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.

Ahem? Adam Lanza was in Connecticut, you may be thinking about James Holmes.

You really should be a bit more careful to check your facts.

So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys. Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions...

No, you won't. Even attempts to find out how bad guys get guns, which had inconsequential impact on the total firearms said bad guys had, are treated as if it was a deliberate attempt to illegally arm them by the Obama administration. In reality, of course, the program, was legal and began under the prior administration. Instead it became a political football.

Just like any number of proposals.

However, this "assault weapon" ban garbage or the attack on the AR-15 in particular is a non-starter as is most of the "gun control" legislation coming from the lefties.

Actually, everything is a non-starter, can't even have a conversation thanks to sneering and condescending attitudes like this.

But I'm beginning to think that this is really about political posturing and not really about doing anything, it's about blaming the other side for saying "no" to them on a topic that garners them emotional support from the sob stories, and not anything else...

Beginning to think? You're late to the party. One side s

The medical term for what you're doing is called "projection".

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C...

The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.

Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.

"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.

Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.

Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.

Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an e

I think we all know, if we are perfectly honest with ourselves, that when the amount of high-powered firearms that are freely available is higher, then the number of people killed in shootings will be higher as well.

Studies agree with you. However, studies do no agree with your implied conclusion: firearm availability causes higher homicide rates.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

The end of the article summarizes it nicely:

In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."

Does the higher availability of guns in the U.S. cause the higher homicide rate, or does the higher homicide rate lead to the higher availability of guns in the U.S.? There is no causal relationship between the two; there is merely a statistical association.

In particular, pay attention to the non-firearm homicide rate in the U.S., which is also higher than in any other industrialized country. This strongly implies that firearms are a red-herring. The U.S. has deep societal problems that are unrelated to the availability of guns, and that do not fit into clean, easy pigeon holes. Gun death is merely a rough measure of those deeper problems, which will not be solved even if guns are eradicated from the country. The means of homicide will change, but not the underlying cause.

Some official statistics may look decent, but the labor-force participation (a figure not prone to fudging like politically redefined unemployment) is the lowest it has been since 1978.

With over 94 million not even looking for work — and thus not included in the unemployment statistics — we can afford less and less non-necessities.

With the constantly rising food-prices and the incomes of those still working stalling, expect further declines.

Socialism — measured as the part of the GDP spent by government — sucks.

Some official statistics may look decent, but the labor-force participation (a figure not prone to fudging like politically redefined unemployment) is the lowest it has been since 1978.

With over 94 million not even looking for work — and thus not included in the unemployment statistics — we can afford less and less non-necessities.

With the constantly rising food-prices and the incomes of those still working stalling, expect further declines.

Socialism — measured as the part of the GDP spent by government — sucks.

Did you conclude that yourself from listening to him, and the context of his words? It sounds more like you are repeating an interpretation of his words from some very recent news articles. What you'll find out about Trump is that he's not one who thinks there is only one way to solve a problem or move forward.

Trump believes there is 42% unemployment in the United States.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

Snopes, you say. That must've been some mind-bending research.

Several thing:

-the labor participation rate has been declining for more than a decade, almost entirely (more than 80%) because of baby boomers are aging out of the work force and retiring.
-The current rate is the lowest since March 1978. However, the rate for every month from 1948 to 1978 was even lower still.
-From the 1950s onward the participation rate of men was has been declining steadily, but this was almost entirely offset, and then some, by increasing numbers of women in the workforce
-Now a reverse trend is happening, as women are being to stay in the home more and not work
-even more young adults are entering college, which delays when they enter the workforce, also lowering the participation rate
-the rates of change we're seeing are very low, on the order 0.1% or less typically
-it is estimated it will take until 2050 for the rate to bottom out at 60.4% if current trends continue, by which time all baby boomers will be gone from the workforce for some time, and their children (the 2ndary boom...ie, us) will have largely left the workforce as well. further changes will depend on what the birth/death replacement rate stabilizes at, though its expected to slip somewhat negative, as well as immigration.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

What makes you say that? Obama was also a vocal opponent of trade deals during his campaign. In fact, both he and Clinton promised to renegotiate NAFTA during the 2008 Democratic primaries. And this was from the hope-and-change candidate that people were literally swooning over.

There have been districts with >100% voter turn out as recently as last election, but I guess the dead voting is normal to you.

feel free to post an example, but meanwhile: "Q: Is it true that there were more votes than voters in Wood County, Ohio, and St. Lucie County, Fla., and that Obama lost every state with photo ID laws?
A: No. A viral email that makes those claims is bogus. It fabricates Ohio and Florida results. Also, Obama won four of the 11 states with photo ID laws." http://www.factcheck.org/2013/...

Top five spending categories: Pensions (Social Security) - $1221B, healthcare $990B, defense $829B, welfare $383B, and interest on the national debt $240B.

Better, now you're getting more specific, but you're missing the point, aren't you?

Social Security, separately funded still, isn't it? Its revenues are not drawn from the general tax base. Healthcare, aka, Medicare, still separately funded as well. And those expenses are not going away. That money was collected under a promise, it would be wrong to keep taking it and not delivering. It's not discretionary. It's mandatory.

But then you look further at the Welfare, and see it includes...Workers Comp? That's an insurance program too. I can't count it as welfare. Money taken with a promise itself. I'd have to look more and see what else is similar, but looks like it'd knock off a percent or two just from a quick look.

So that's a bit over 2000 billion out of the pool, leaving the defense spending looking much larger if you don't conflate it with the mandatory programs.

Which is why they do. It serves to mislead very well. Do you not see it?

And right now, Social Security runs in the red adding to the Federal deficit, and has done so since 2010.

So? Did you think I was making a claim about it being revenue-neutral right now? I wasn't. I was pointing out that it's not discretionary spending, and that you conflated numbers. Social Security still isn't being funded from the general tax pool, so what are you trying to make an argument for revising its policies to make it year-to-year or something?

Whatever. Do it if you like, but you'll still have those obligations. It's not a discretionary program at all.

You end it? It was collected with a promise. That money is going to go back to the people who have a right to it. You won't change the deficit at all or the debt.

SSI/Medicare is not self-funding; in fact, it's been contributing to the deficit since 2010. It's running in the red, because those funds were not promised to you, were not guaranteed to you, and were in fact used for decades to increase Federal spending. Now that withdrawals are running higher than taxes (16% on all income up to $101,000), it's adding to the deficit.

Top five spending categories: Pensions (Social Security) - $1221B, healthcare $990B, defense $829B, welfare $383B, and interest on the national debt $240B. And right now, Social Security runs in the red adding to the Federal deficit, and has done so since 2010.

Actually, he was a constitutional law professor .

Clinton did have surpluses
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

And most of the debt under Obama is STILL related to the ongoing War on Terror and recovering economy.
And while the Average may be high, that ignores that the actual year-year values have been trending downward.

So again.
You posted BS.

After my last company meeting on healthcare benefits, 6 years into the affordable care act, I can say for certain that "affordable" healthcare has not been delivered to "everyone".

Well, that'd be hard, since it wasn't about delivering affordable health care, as it was not a national plan for a healthcare infrastructure.

Would that that had been the agenda.

Every single person I know is paying significantly more for healthcare than they were 6 years ago. Even worse, many are paying for plans with such high deductibles, that their so-called health insurance is never used.

Sounds like they need to re-examine their choices then, but how do you expect us to help strangers?

The ACA did absolutely nothing to contain cost increases that have been outstripping inflation and wages by many many times. At best the ACA can be credited with bringing catastrophic coverage to some folks who never had any coverage at all - at a significant cost to everyone else.

Hmm, some sources differ with your contentions.

The ACA needs to be put in the trash and replaced with something that actually controls cost increases.

Go ahead and suggest it. The Republicans sure haven't.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/...
http://www.snopes.com/politics...

No, there is not a $20 medical tax on your new fishing pole. Odds are you are lying. That was a seller error applied to a few errors that went viral. You are lying when you said it happened to you. You heard about it on some conservative talk show that does no fact checking, and repeat the lies.

Pick a more believable lie next time.

Facebook is a left-leaning political outlet that has ties to the gun-hating Democrats and tracks all the details of its users. Its founder and boss, Zuckerberg, has created several political groups with phony names specifically designed to mislead right-leaning voters. Here's just one example. Among these are several "Super PACs" with the word "conservative" in their names, one of which was created to support unlimited cheap labor immigration and is running ads for Marco Rubio whom it backs because he was their tool in the attempt to get "comprehensive immigration reform" passed.

People who care about the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, or National Security should have nothing to do with the dirtbags at Facebook.

People who oppose things like gun registration, are effectively registering their guns and gun ownership if they are on Facebook.

If correlation = causation, there may be something else we need to take a look at: http://politicsthatwork.com/gr...

The rest of these point out that you're statement of "easy access to firearms actually protects people" is most likely bullshit.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

http://www.nationaljournal.com...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

http://www.inquisitr.com/18064...

http://www.deseretnews.com/top...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/50...

You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel."

Okay. Your response still wasn't an answer to that. But, fine...

How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.

Unfit, as in I shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?

I like how I gave you enough information to verify it on your own but... no you choose to believe what you wish to. Here you go:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/the-oregon-shooting-and-gun-free-zones/

Redell, Oct. 19: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit. There is a general prohibition against the possession of weapons on campus that would apply to College patrons, but this, similarly would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law (ORS 166.170).

Oh and there was a student that went on camera saying he was armed that day, he's still a student there.

Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.

Heh. Two actually, you're intentionally ignoring one I mention, not sure why. Given how hard it's been to get you to read even that It's not suprising you haven't heard of more. There was the Hartford Distributors shooting in 2010, 9 dead. 8 shot, 1 killed in Modesto over the summer. Six killed, 2 injured at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis 2012. Six killed one injured in a Seattle Cafe in 2012. Four killed in a spa in Atlanta, 2012. Four killed at an IHOP in Nevada 2011. Four cops killed in a coffee shop in Washington 2009, here they opened fire on clearly armed people. Eight killed in a nursing home in North Carolina, 2009.

Sorry I'm bored with writing these up.

Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.

With one possible exception they all had a connection to the shooter, important detail in this topic.

...rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy?

Yes, history ... and YOU.. have shown that guns rarely hit their mark. More shots don't make me safer.

Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?

You wouldn't accept two shootings in a non-gun-free-zone as a rebuttal, so I assume you'll believe the morons you listen to on the radio.

If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.

Not only am I doing it right, but it's really dumb of you to have such a strong opinion on something if you won't even bother to educate yourself on it. Armed ignorance... lovely.

false.

you can pretend that premiums never rose before Obamacare, but the simple fact is premiums have always been increasing, which is expected in an economy that includes growth and inflation.

and the other fact of the matter is that after Obamacare, that growth in premiums have been SLOWER and SMALLER than before it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

You may not be able to afford your insurance, but it isn't because of Obamacare.

"Everything is new under Obama. Before Obama there was no terrorism, "

9/11 was in the making from Afganistan which was pre Obama

" no debt, "

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/... Long before Obama

"no healthcare premium increases, "

And no healthcare for the poor

"no illegal immigration, "

http://immigration.procon.org/... say no more

"no deadlock in government, "

And no ability to make any changes because of the self interested capitalist groups who are in power.

"no economic downturn, "

GFC started in 2008, Obama took office in 2009

"no corporate welfare, "

Should have let the banks all die

"no cronyism and more."

The US has always had that

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/...

And then there is the fact that the mis-quote is all over far right websites. A simple google for it will find more than you can go through in a day.

I will likely be downvoted, even though what I write is absolutely true.

Revolution was predicted at least 6 years ago, a result of public land policy changes made 50 years ago and yet nobody talks about it. In fact, if anybody brings it up, they are immediately dismissed as radical, or simply silly.

Starving people are dramatically more likely to revolt than well fed people. Somehow, mentioning this ridiculously obvious fact is universally dismissed.

No they don't.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...

they're rational people who want them and their children to have good lives, why wouldn't they?

"Wanting" isn't enough. They left their children behind to seek handouts in Europe. These "refugees" are the first in history to have a majority of men and few to no families among them.

Wrong

Insightful? Good grief! Let's unpack this tight little knot of hate.

In the US we already have less than 90% of the crime being perpetrated by less than 10% of the population.

Nope. In fact the maybe 70% of americans have broken some law that could land them in jail.

I can see why they might be upset with a 1% bump

I see what you did there, implying that the 1% would be added to the 10% of criminals, and not to the general, law-abiding population. Kinda cheap.

nearly made entirely of Muslim males from shit holes and failed states in the Middle East, in their teens and twenties,

Nope. 51% of the Syrian refugees are women, which is pretty much what you'd expect.

who are particularly notorious for their bad behavior.

Not sure if this refers to muslims, people from the Middle East, or males in their teens and twenties. Which makes this statement either islamophobic, racist, or just plain bigotted. Take your pick.

Funny thing, Hillary supporters started that controversy, not the conservatives.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

> the homicide rate in Australia is almost exactly the same before and after the ban. This has been well debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/... According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Yeah, that debunking has been well-debunked too... violent crime has been decreasing in all first world countries, and using other countries as a control shows that Australia's violent crime is higher than it should be.

> the homicide rate in Australia is almost exactly the same before and after the ban.

This has been well debunked.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

"While it’s true that some of her ardent supporters pushed the theory, there is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with it."

Hillary had her own mail server. Big deal. That doesn't make me dislike her any more than I already do because all politicians are clueless about technology.

Yeah, because that's the only thing she's ever done.

Besides, every single effort to recount the votes in Florida showed that Bush had an even larger margin of victory than at the time of the first count.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Next time, do some research rather than just being a parrot.

but what evidence do you have that NASA has manipulated any of their work for political reasons?

The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present. The chance of this happening randomly from correcting random faults in the data is 1 in 6 = 1 in 60-million. In other words, they couldn't me more naked about cooking this data that a great deal of Climate Science depends on to match NASA's agenda (presumably to create an artificial temperature gradient to get more "crisis" funding from the US government). For example, if you compare the raw surface data for the US vs. the cooked data, you will find that the 1930's were actually warmer than today, whereas the cooked data shows the 1930's being cooler:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

The thing about the RSS and UAH satellite data is that it is direct, full-coverage, and objective. The satellites whiz around the Earth several times a day, so every spot on the Earth is monitored pretty much in real time. This is most important for the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth where the surface observations are extremely sparse and large areas are extrapolated to conjure up quesionable numbers. Numbers that directly contradict the direct satellite observations. And other surface data sets for that matter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

NASA's cooking of the books for the surface data is generally unknown to the public, but this round of the next, the public might just catch on.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

1) read this http://judithcurry.com/2014/07...
2) tell us whether Judith Curry is in collusion with the AGW fraud or not.
3) " they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present"
"The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend." http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

If you have a first hand experience of what doctors do then you are a doctor yourself and have skewed perception of that trade. If you are not then you just do not know much about it. It may be a trade but it is a skilled trade and not much software can replace that yet. As with many other things some manual highly skilled work is needed and can be augmented by a lots of automation that could (in theory) slash a huge part of your bill.
As for truly innovative coders - by themselves they cannot do much still, especially that coding by itself is just part of the whole development process.
As for your claim on doctors and teachers pay - I googled a bit because I grew curious. There was a report by this asshat in white house that there are some places where these salaries are on par but there is no report apparently confirming that. See here for reference.
I can see where your ignorance is taken from - I medicate myself and my kids as much as I can and that is much more than any of my neighbuors and colleagues would trust themselves yet as soon as symptoms reach levels I cannot be sure what they indicate I go to a doctor if only to be told to take rest and wait till the sick body cures itself (supported by checks on symptoms that I cannot verify myself like: blood tests, how my throat looks like and other things that I have no clue about). Doctors have as much difficult work as troubleshooters of complex systems that have to judge where fault is on basis of very limited and often confusing information. I can hardly see this being replaced by machines any day soon albeit the automation of some of the tasks can be of great help especially as the knowledge well is so deep today that pulling basket from it maybe beyond reach of a normal human without an intelligent mechanical helpers.
Looking at this then I must conclude that your post is just a nice trolling attempt. Or do you happen to have data confirming your view point? Do not worry if it is long as long as it is well structured.

The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal. She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal. If she were the only person to approve or she was the deciding factor, the accusation might have merit and more examination done. She wasn't directly involved in the deal, there's no indication that she was a deciding factor, and there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation. There might be questions about the sources of money for the CF, but to imply that there's some sort of quid pro quo going on is just baseless.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium production.

Yeah, about that

Meanwhile, we keep hearing about $2 billion dollars in 14 years. Let's call this what it really is: $133 million/year.

Voting "present" if I recall was his biggest achievement in those years. Having no real accomplishments other than being elected is outstanding political work these days. It also is working for Hilary.

Your penchant for posting factually untrue things is Palinesque. Obama's "present" votes represent 3% of his voting record.

Of course, a lifetime of scandal should be enough to prevent her from running. At this point the DNC can't complain about anyone the GOP having "Scandals"

Do I believe Hillary or Bill are the most trustworthy people? No. You, however, are willing to believe anything to justify your opinion. Even things that are not true.

Why didn't the reporters do the same thing with a Jr Senator from Illinois? Remember, he was just a couple years into his first term as Senator, voting "present" more often than anything else.

Because what you allege is factually untrue unless you want to redefine 3% as "more than anything." Senator Obama voted "present" 129 times which is 3% of the 4,000 votes he cast. This is why no major news picked it up; it wasn't really news and it wasn't true. Second, in the Illinois Senate, the "present" vote is often used to as disapproval of measure without having to vote "no." Simply put it: Your facts are wrong.

Red Flags abounded, but he was "black" and "dynamic". Having the first "campaign" meeting at the house of two former (or still) radicals wasn't a hint of things to come

So you are alleging is that having a meeting at someone's house is a wringing endorsement of everything about the host? That must mean that Ted Cruz is most definitely gay. Are you really that naive in thinking that when raising funds you can only attend functions with people you agree with 100%. Seriously are you that naive? Or do you recognize that you need a broad consensus and support for offices like Senator.

While Palin was new to the National scene, she didn't get elected Governor because she was a woman,

And I have never said anything about her gender up until now. You are the first to mention it. Being a woman wasn't her problem. Being Sarah Palin was her problem.

she pissed off a lot of people both (D) and (R) up there. She was just too "small town" for national appeal.

No, she didn't get elected because people thought she was dumb. I personally believe the stories that she didn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That she didn't know there were two Korean countries. That she didn't know the Queen of England does not actually run the UK. These are simple things that she could have known if she was basically aware of history or the world. Now the if the average American does not know these things it is merely a shame; someone wanting to run the country needs to know these things.

The (D) and (R) power brokers love fancy city slickers ... that is unless you're Bill Clinton ;)

Really, is that why George W Bush was President? Or why retired Naval Captain John McCain is a Senator.

Just wait for these inv... undocumented Earthlings to really figure things out. In addition to medicines, they'll also be eligible for schooling, tax "credits", food stamps, "Obamacare" and other assistance. Some of these hand-outs will be illegal (in the US), but they will happen and no one will be punished for allowing it to happen.

What are you talking about? factcheck From factcheck: "Rep. Gary Palmer falsely claimed on a radio show that temperature data used to measure global climate change have been “falsified” and manipulated." and "Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."

You're going to have to submit a citation on this. I have already submitted citations on my part,

This isn't WIkipedia. What you have cited are partisan comments by people with an axe to grind, plus misreading (by you) of other quotes. But here is what the IRS says on the topic.

Residency Test


Your child must have lived with you, or your spouse if you file a joint return, in the United States for more than half of the year.

And for the proposition (I assume yours) that an ITIN is sufficient: No it isn't:

Yes. The taxpayer, the spouse (if filing jointly) and any qualifying child listed on Schedule EIC must have valid Social Security numbers (SSNs) valid for employment and issued by the Social Security Administration. You cannot claim EITC using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or Adoption Taxpayer Identification Number (ATIN) issued by IRS.

Rand Paul, who you gleefully quote, was talking about fraud and his numbers are grossly exaggerated

So you are wrong about your central claim (that the amnestied aliens will be able to lawfully claim EITC for non-resident children) and wrong on the size of the problem -- even looking at fraud.

So now it's time for some ad hominem. Rand Paul is not a reliable source of information -- just look at what he recently said about vaccines. I am going to make the unsupported claim that non-resident children of amnestied aliens cannot legally get SSNs. Whatever the truth is on SSNs, it's not legal for them to claim EITC for non-resident children. You haven't provided a reliable citation for your position, while I have provided one for my position.

Go back to your tea party meeting. It's people like you who are driving the increasing disparity of wealth in this country and the stagnation of incomes for anyone except the top 0.1%.

It's clear that your comprehension skills are poor, so I should probably not expect you to understand what is really going on.

I think all of them are true, but not everyone will agree.

True. (Not everyone will agree).

"Medical expenses are the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in America"

This is actually false, and if you pay close attention to the details of the study, you'll see it's not even at the top of the #1 reason for filing bankruptcy. FactCheck has some discussion of the issue, citing other studies and how the Hardvard one lumped "medical bills" along with other issues, including job loss.

"The US constitution prohibits establishment of religion by congress"

This certainly true on its face, but could be construed as false by omission, and implies less restrictions on Federal laws than the Constitution actually provides. The relevant text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - so not only can they not establish a religion, they cannot make law "respecting" any religious establishment, that is, any organized church cannot be given any special dispensation at all, and, further, any religious practice cannot be interfered with. Of course, Congress has violated that one many times, probably most famously by such things as banning peyote from Native American's traditional religious practices. Ironically, the First Amendment's admonition was intended to protect people that designed their own religious practices outside of the established religions - a highly valued right with origins Colonial America's protestant value system. Yet the Native American Church was established in order to petition for protection of the use of peyote by its members. So in practice, recognizing the use of peyote by members of established religion, but not by individuals, is the opposite of the original purpose.

responding to myself here, but I particularly like how that starshipearth... link points to a factcheck article to slap a veneer of truth on their accusations.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
You might note that this article does nothing but praise how reliable snopes appears to be.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue...

Below we see the usual attempt to declare that the actual data is misleading, instead we need to express it as a percentage of something else (Because the actual data tells the truth)

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/...

I have a degree in Business Economics from Northern Arizona University and am the owner of a small software development business.

In my opinion cries for more spending on education by the folks on the left has nothing to do what so ever with the quality of education, and everything to do with greed. The NEA and NTA are large contributors to the Democratic Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... -- and thanks to Citizens United, we'll never know for sure how much dark money they contribute. The cycle works something like this:

Politician cozies up to the NEA/NTA and promises some favor if they donate money (openly, or to his PAC)

NEA/NTA give the money, which they have taken from the members, that are paid from the public trough.

Politician get elected and repays the bribe, er, contribution by doing something the NEA/NTA wants. Thanks to Citizens United the dark money given by the NEA/NTA is not reported.

After years and years and years this cozy incestuous little system creates a scenario where so many promises have been made, that the unfunded liabilities to pay for these perks and benefits far exceeds what the taxpayers will ever, possibly be able to pay for. Every possible dime gets cut from actual education, the bulk of the money is going to the administrators, or being extracted from the teachers in the form of dues, that's being returned to the greedy party apparatus. In many states, one either joins the Union or does not get a job. It's legalized extortion combined with legalized money laundering, and it is wrong on so many levels.

This is one of thousands of examples, both parties setup these little money laundering machines to feed their greed. I picked the NEA/NTA because this thread is about education, and it's blatant theft that is easy to verify. Just look at what we spend per pupil .vs. the results we get back and ask yourself WHY?

So when a political party, or a politician, wants to raise taxes in order to pay for something, and uses highly charged populist emotional rhetoric, one should be very, very, very suspicious of the motive. I would put it to you that some sixty percent of the local, state, and federal budgets represents this kind of crap, as opposed to giving we the people a fair value for the taxes we pay.

How do we fix this? We stand up and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH. We demand zero based budgeting for all local, state, and federal budgets, each and every year. We don't tolerate the foolishness where there is a 5% built in rate of growth in some department's budget, and it only grows 4%, and politicians declare a savings or a surplus. Not spending money you never had is not SAVINGS. We force every local, state, and federal department to be 100% transparent about where ALL the money goes. We demand Citizens United be repealed. We eliminate public sector unions, which have a monopoly over the public work force, abolishing forced unionization for public sector jobs in states that do not have right to work laws. We force government agencies to compete with private enterprise for as many services as possible, in order to incentivize efficiency. We quit throwing money at problems that we are clearly not solving, so many local, state, and federal programs are simply jobs programs, they add no value and accomplish little.

Plenty more good ideas, but I think you get the general sense of things. I am a social progressive and a fiscal conservative, but above all things I am against government greed...

Remember all the fans adoring Candidate, President-elect, and even President Obama for his use of Blackberry? While mocking McCain for his inability to even use keyboard (because his hands were repeatedly broken by the People's Torturers in North Vietnam)?

In all likelihood, Megan J. Smith was one of the fans... Possibly, even with a special female twist to it...

Well, maybe, the job of running the Executive government's bureaucracy is just too difficult? TFA certainly suggests that... But that's exactly the job, Obama was hired for, darn it. There were people pointing out his shortage of executive experience — he never ran things (other than a failed charity — once), but this was countered, incredibly, by how he ran his election campaign...

Well, here we go — either he was never as advanced technologically as he and supporters portrayed him, or he has no ability to execute — to run things... Certainly not enough of it to affect the oft-promised change. Management is hard, let's go golfing.

Source here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/...