Slashdot Mirror
Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry
ramoth4 writes "Local Crawford, TX (Bush's adopted hometown) paper The Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry for president. Kerry's home paper, the Boston Globe, hasn't come out with an endorsement yet. It's a very interesting editorial, especially in light of Bush's performance in the first debate."
A paper in town of 46,000 people makes an endorsement? Who cares if it's Bush's 'adopted' home town?
I'm asking because a paper named "The Lone Star Iconoclast" doesn't sound too mainstream, and suggests pre-existing partisanship.
Rob
I think that it just goes to show, that true conservatives cannot vote for Bush. The Republican Party is no longer conservative, they are a bunch of various single-issue voters who cobble together for political strength. As the debates progress, more people will see John Kerry, not as the man Bush and his cronies has spent million to defame, but as a strong leader, who really cares about the people of America and America's place in the world. Other than a couple of retread ideas from his first campain (tort reform, etc) Bush has a campain based on attacking Kerry as weak; he cannot run on his record, so he tries to burn his opposition.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
This junk is quoted from the Democratic Party's website and framed as the independant thoughts of the editors. If you want to slam someone at least be creative about it instead of committing plagarism.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's sad that the AP picks up the fact that a paper with a circulation of 425 supports Kerry. But there is not mention that the Lowell Sun, a ciculation of 100,000+ and a major newspaper in Massachusetts, Endorses Bush.
No Bias here. Noooooosiirrreeee.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Can we please get some Bush voters commenting on this? Is there anything you LIKE in this president's record?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I am.
I vote on these issues, in this order: abortion (against it), homosexual agenda (against gay marriage or special rights for people just because they're gay), and the character of the candidate. In this election, Bush has the edge over Kerry in all three of these categories, so I'll be voting for him.
I was just wondering, why would a Newspaper or a news outlet go out and say "We're endorsing this candidate over this other one".
I mean, shouldn't they at least TRY to be non-biased about the news they report? I know I know...there is this "Liberal Media" that's suppose to pump up all Democrats and rake-across-the-coals all Republicans...at the same time there are conservative news outlets that almost try to convince us that Democrats cause cancer....but shouldn't they at least pretend to not be biased?
I want my news from unbiased..."we don't endorse anyone" kind of thing. I know, it's a pipe dream to try to find just raw news reporting without SOMEONE saying it's biased one way or another.
Just always wondered why newspapers go out on a limb like that.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Kerry's home toilet paper, the tabloid Boston Herald, hasn't endorsed anyone yet either.
The question you should be asking is "How many right-wing stories have been submitted?" It's not like there's absolutely no one in the /. editorial staff that will post any of those submissions; that's what pudge is here for.
If you haven't formally submitted that Lowell Sun editorial yet, you should do so. That's the only way right-wing articles will get posted.
Rob
in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
On the basis of a couple of social issues that won't change (abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress), you're voting for a President who:
pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.
has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.
constantly switches position on the important issues, such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.
lets his religious views drive his policies, hurting science and cutting proven social programs to give tax money to churches.
can't admit mistakes.
Good plan.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
As with most of the stories that wind up in this section, this is:
1) Ludicrously insignificant
2) A week old
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Well that settles it then! Everyone vote for Kerry!
I mean, really - I have no idea who to vote for until someone tells me. I'm just scared that someone will come along and endorse Bush, and then I'll have no idea what to do...
Where do you think the leftover embryos from artificial insemination go? If they aren't used for stem-cell research, they get thrown away. The only solution is to ban artificial insemination.
Rob
Research the candidates on their issues. Then research to see if they stuck to their campaign promises. Don't go by endorsements, that's the lazy thing to do, unless you really trust the source. For example, I'll try going through my state's voters' guide for all the candidates. I'll create a text file called "Vote". I'll list all the candidates, then write down YES, NO, MAYBE, MAYBE/YES, and MAYBE/NO. Then come when my absentee ballot arrives, I'll go through the list, and then try deciding. A few issues might throw me, and sway my vote to vote no on that candidate.
Social Security as it exists today is a massive government mandated pyramid scheme that lets politicians in Washington dupe millions of people out of hard earned money on the grounds that it's "for retirement". In truth had the government issued savings bonds (the lowest yeild investment you can get) to everyone on Social Security everybody would have been better off. The government could have used the lower interest debt to pay off higher interest debt and the retireees would have more money. Furthermore the retirees would know EXACTLY how much money they have for retirement and know it is gauranteed instead of having some vague promise subject to political whims. Instead, the current scheme was concocted where people working today pay for those who worked before them and they in turn will be paid for by those who work after them. Obviously this rely's on the pool of workers never dropping, a rediculous assumption. Furthermore, as it is, the payouts on Social Security for almost all beneficiaries are below inflation (that is they are getting less value out then they put in) and served as a worse investment than savings bonds (which is considered the lowest return you should every accept and then only in small ammounts). While this isn't that big of a deal for those of us making enough money to plan for retirement without social security, many people who are less fortunate then us NEED that money to be invested wisely so that they CAN retire. Ripping them off for political gains is amoral behavior and should stop. What we need to do is get the government and it's bueracray out of running a retirement bussiness. Steps:
- Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in. Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has. This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.
- The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).
- Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).
These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
"special rights for people just because they're gay"
mmmhhh, isn't it that marriage is a special right for people just because they are straight?????"
if you're a homophobe at least admit to it and don't try to cloud in some stupid 'special rights' aversion blabla
remosito
PS yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls...;-)
N3WBI3 -- RedSox fan from NY
It's ironic, but meaningless. The owner/editor is a Democrat who has run for office, been defeated, and doesn't live in Crawford.
Most of the town residents have started boycotting the paper since the editorial ran.
Funny- that's the reason I decided that Bush wouldn't get my vote- because everything he's done on both issues has been nothing but slight of hand showboating.
First- Bush personally isn't anti-abortion, he even paid for one for his girlfriend back in 1970. He's using that as an issue to get religious people to vote for him- and he throws them bones, like the Partial Birth Abortion Bill which got destroyed by the courts, and reducing funding for sex ed programs that include abortion and birth control as options (thereby insuring that no abortionist will EVER run out of patients). He's done absolutely NOTHING to help change the society to a point where the choice of life is the only logical choice in every situation- which is what we'll need to reduce abortion (merely making it illegal will only return us to the 1960s, which had exactly the same abortion rate as today but a far higher death toll from the procedure for the mothers).
The second- Kerry rightly points out that there's no need to worry about widescale destruction of embryos for stem cell research because FETAL stem cells are a scientific dead end; all we can learn from fetal stem cells is how to get adult stem cells to change their programmed tissue types. Mitochondrial DNA Rejection will likely always prevent embryonic stem cells to be a source of spare parts for adults. So once again, Bush has pulled a fast one- by limiting to 43 lines for FEDERAL research, he's done NOTHING to stop the PRIVATE research, and he gets to showboat it for people who wouldn't vote for him otherwise.
So if these are the two reasons you're voting for Bush, may I suggest Peroutka instead? He's WAY more in line with your thinking- heck, Kerry's private thoughts on both matters are more in line with your beliefs anyway (Kerry has publically stated that no family member of his will EVER have a medically unneccessary abortion- and that life begins at conception).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Do you remember anything?
No and I dont remember the doctor smacking my rear but Im pretty sure I was a preson when he did it
What's your reaction to all the naturally unconcieved babies due to miscariages?
The same as still born babies
Why do you value embryos and fetuses as much as a living human being able to make choices, who is also hopefully a productive member of society?
For the same reason I value babies and toddlers as much as I value already producing adults. When I was a baby I could not make choices, and was not a productive member of society (hell I know adults who are not productive) does that make them less worthy than joe cubicle?
Slavery was more written into the constitution than abortion could ever been believed to be. So I guess all those silly abolitionist in the 1840's should have shut up and accepted it as for all times legal..
Quotes from various places in the article:
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda."
"He let us down."
"He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong."
"Again, he let us down."
"Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House."
People in Crawford are in a position to know George W. Bush a little better than most citizens. It seems that the newspaper is merely saying openly what a lot of people in that town think.
Also, Bush's alcoholism is a matter of importance. For example, look at this: Is Bush drinking NOW?. For a more in-depth analysis, see this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Remember, Bush quit the Air National Guard the same month the ANG instituted drug testing. Did he fall off the wagon again?
--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."
The Lone Star Iconoclast participates with the rest of the USA in the self-delusion that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and won't inevitably fail. So much for being Iconoclast.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
When Democrats like Kerry come out talking about how eliminating the death tax was pandering to the rich. Farmers sitting at home trying to figure out how they are going to scrape by conclude that the Democrats have their head in the clouds.
I've known too many farmers get ruined by that tax to ever vote for anyone stupid enough to support it and I've got to conclude that if you can't (or won't) do simple research on this issue, you probably won't do it on others. I've even told some democrats about this problem and have met with nothing but name calling, denial, and rejection.
On a personal note, as someone who has personally spoken with many politicians on both sides I can at least say that whenever I've had a problem, the Republicans have listened and usually tried to help. I've NEVER had a democrat politician take the time of day to quit with their retoric and try and understand what I have to say.
That's not to say I don't disagree with the Republicans on many issues (I'm probably split about 50/50). But having repeated good experiences with them does influence my voting.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
This is like the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. What you will find in the establishment clause is that the state should not establish religion. It is actually the "Supreme Court mandated separation of church and state" based on its interpretation of the Constitution.
Abortion is the same. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow or forbid it so legislation must settle the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, but that still doesn't put any words about abortion in the Constitution.
Please note that I am not saying anything about my views either way. I am merely pointing out what the Constitution does and does not say. My views on what legislation should or should not be passed are a different matter.
From your link:
Ahem, Bin Laden, has not been captured, and our economy is still hurting. Ahem, Halliburton. Let us not forget that it was the Enron jet (Aerobus btw) which Bush rode to 'victory' in 2000. Now at least, he has a proper American made plane to ride to campain stops. Hold tight to that vision, because it is the only thing that Republican's can point to. FUD.So in conclusion, your single issue (like the Lowell Sun) is Sept 11, becuase that is the only reason they list. Some hard to pin down idea about who is stronger, nothing else that it.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Im sorry this is just a plain stupid statement on both a logical and factual basis.
There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)
On to the "theyll do it anyway", people steal cars and die in high speed chases so why keep car theft illegal... people will do it anyway.
Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.
But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..
so with your respect for the "sanctity of human life", I assume your against judicial murder ala the death penalty then?
No, it's much more complex than that. What you call "embryos" are actually zygotes, fertilized eggs that are frozen for possible future implantation.
Human embryonic stem cells are harvested from blastocysts, which are very young embryos. In order to turn a zygote in to a blastocyst you have to let it grow.
That's the key difference. Harvesting embryonic stem cells is, ethically, equivalent to letting a baby grow only to kill it and use it for experimentation.
Medical ethics is important. It's better to be overly cautious in the face of hard ethical questions to give time for the philosophers to catch up with the engineers.
Particularly in this case, since the results from tests involving embryonic stem cells have, to date, been so utterly dismal.
I write in my journal
Doesn't Kerry support a "Family Farm" loophole for the death tax? Of course, I'm in an area of the country where a family farm rarely exceeds 100 acres and $900,000 in value, and so family farms haven't been swallowed up as quickly by agribusinesses here.
However, having said that- there's something I could support Bush on if I was convinced that he'd do anything about it properly (that is, relieve the family farmer without putting in a giant loophole to allow all his friends to continue to hoard liquidity for multiple generations).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Actually, Larry Flynt of Penthouse fame researched it in an article he was doing in 2000 about hypocritical politicians. The same article included a story about Al Gore dumping toxic waste into the Tenassee River (since the environment was Gore's big thing). The story has been confirmed since then; but it pales in comparison to what else W was doing in 1970, so it rarely makes the news.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Someone buys something, works it makes it profitable (paying taxes the whole time), and when he dies the government decides to take another chunk..
Of course, we had a to kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqis to do so, and now let's see if we can keep the country away from the hands of wouldbe warlords and dictators.Approximately what percentage of them were in Iraq *before* we conquered it?Glad to see selfless idealism is alive and well.He bribed you with your own money, genius.
And this has what exactly to do with Mr. Bush?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
i have the same problem. and i've seen posts from other people with that problem as well.
whats really weird is that i can't stop clicking on these politics links even though they're stories about insignificant garbage.
Sorta. From the Baltimore Sun:
Sen. Kerry and President Bush also differ sharply on estate taxes. Under current law, the basic exclusion from federal estate taxes this year is $1.5 million. That exclusion is scheduled to rise in stages, reaching $3.5 million in 2009, while the top tax rate, now 48 percent, is set to decline in stages. The estate tax is scheduled to vanish completely in the year 2010 -- only to reappear in 2011.
Sen. Kerry favors raising the basic estate-tax exemption to $2 million "immediately," Furman says, and also setting an exemption of $10 million for a small business or family farm. The exemption would grow with inflation. President Bush wants to kill "death taxes" completely.
I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL. I get taxed on my income, I get taxed on my interest, I get taxed on profit from my property when I sell it...how many times do I need to get taxed? The fact that the estate tax is 45% is also a killer.
--trb
Please read my post above on the "death tax" and how it hurts small farmers before repeating this.
> such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.
This is one of Bush's biggest problems. he starts off in one possition that makes sense and then caves to pressure from the media, special interests, and other politicians.
> pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.
That statment shows you know nothing about the military realities of the situation.
Al Queda in Afganistan is hiding in very dangerous mountain terrain where providing sufficent air support is next to impossible. The mountain divisions and other special forces are still there fighting them. Putting an armored division or infantry in Afaganistan would be a huge waste of resources and serve only to risk the lives of the soldiers involved.
Invading North Korea (which you seem to be suggesting) would make Iraq look like a cake walk. We tried bi-lateral talks under Clinton and they resulted in the Korean's getting nuclear bombs. The unfortunate thing is, there isn't much we CAN do other then try to exert enough external pressure that the regeim there collapses. (and that's part of the point of the multi-lateral talks).
As for Iraq, I'll remind you that hindsight is 20/20. The consus of the intelligence community and the oppinion of the UN was that Iraq had WMD and would use them or sell them given the chance. That information may have been wrong (there are other equally plausible explinations), but at the time it was what we had to go on. The debate was what should we do about it. Try weapons inspectors again and hope it works or take the SoB out? It's easy enough for you to sit here knowing the consequenses to say you'd have done differently. But looking only at the information available at the time, you might have come to the same conclusion the President did.
The biggest problem in Iraq is that Turkey didn't help us had the 4th I.D. been able to come down through northern Iraq and meet the 3rd I.D. in Bagdad, a lot of these thugs would have been killed and a lot fewer Bathists would have escaped.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's not just the south, it's the midwest as well. I had this ongoing argument with an ex-girlfriend about why the midwest would vote predominantly pro-Bush in 2000, and the death tax was the #1 issue, I thought. Looking at predictions, it would appear to be the same this year.
--trb
Well, there's always room to change your mind and/or amend your ways. Gore was anti-abortion once as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's his personal belief.
I do agree that Bush mostly pays lip service to the abortion issue, but he will pick judges that will base their decisions on the Constitution and not just pull rights out of their nether regions with vaguely-worded justifications that barely conceal the fact that they are merely establishing these so-called rights by fiat.
Speaking of hypocritical politicians, we could probably find stories of a year where Clinton didn't cheat on his wife or Nixon took someone at his word.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
America is running out of people with morals and values.
And this has what exactly to do with Mr. Bush?
It means that we're running out of Kerry voters.
There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)
Well, maybe not 1.5 million a year- but certainly above 1 million a year. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193727.html This article suggests that the teen pregnancy rate in general has fallen since the early 1960s- and the abortion rate more so- but that was before the Bush Admin's fiscal policies induced the jump in the abortion rate that you reference (Clinton had it down to 1.3 million/year- but then again, he didn't have the tax-break-induced recession to deal with, and when the cost of a live birth pushes $2000 even with insurance vs $400 for an abortion, it's easy to see where those who worship money will be going- to the abortionist rather than the delivery room).
Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.
Among thinking individuals, there is no debate left on that issue- LIFE begins at conception, it's a biological fact that can't be disputed. Legal personhood begins at birth, but that's only because the US Constitution has yet to be amended to fit with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which in Article 2 says you can't use birth to discriminate against human beings (among other things that people commonly discriminate on).
But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..
Depending on your source, someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions could be avoided simply by making birth and motherhood have the same econimic impact as abortion and career upon the family. In 1948, a Democratic First Lady stepped forward in the United Nations to dare suggest that pregnancy and motherhood be granted equal economic protection to work- and it got written into the Declaration of Human Rights. I want to see a pro-life candidate who is willing to make that a reality- to give up some corporate profits to reduce abortion. Until I see that, I will never again vote on pro-life issues alone.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'll see your anecdote, and raise you mine:
All of the alchoholics in my family are fully functional. So much so that you wouldn't know they were alchoholics if you didn't see them with beer in hand at 8:00 am. Sharp as tacks, not a slur or a drunken moment, just smiles and good cheer all day long.
And no, I don't endorse it or practice it. And I'm not voting for Bush. My point is that you can't judge the man for that one picture because it is all about the individual's biology.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
i generally hate all your posts including this one, but you aren't usually angry which i appreciate and i'm curious what someone on the left would think:
what if the tax system had no loop holes at all. everyone paid the same graduated tax rate. that goes for people and corporations and charities and nonprofits and every other legal entity. (note i'm not talking about a flat tax.)
i think that this would make things more fair and simple and reduce the tax code to 10 pages. and it would raise government revenue a lot. (so we could then cut taxes, yeah!) also when we had tax cuts or tax increases it would be a lot more obvious who was getting screwed and who wasn't. politicians would be more likely to just pass a general 1% increase or 1% decrease or something like that.
not that this will ever happen.
but i'm curious. what do all you kerry freaks think about this?
Are you seriously trying to equate blastocysts to anything remotely resembling a human baby?
For those Slashdotters who don't know, a blastocyst is a ball of undifferentiated cells. That's it. A blastocyst is barely any different than a zygote from a moral standpoint, since neither of them have any organs or tissues at all, much less viable lungs, hearts, or brains.
Rob
An estate tax is fair because allowing anybody to gain more than 10x anybody else to begin with is inherrantly UNFAIR, at least according to Plato's Republic. Nobody gets so rich that they leave behind a $10 million estate without taking advantage of their fellow citizens and their government in some small way. Thus, society needs a payback at the end. It also prevents the real evil- idle rich children making a mess of the world with their parent's money.
Personally, I think we'd be better off without a death tax, but replace it with a cap on yearly income instead. Go ahead and take away the 45% taxes at the time of death; but replace it with a 100% tax bracket that kicks in on any money made over 10x minimum wage (about $235,000/year, currently, but to do it right it needs to be indexed to minimum wage). Better yet, let's give a tip of the hat to the myth of individualism- if you qualify for this tax bracket, not only should you get a refund for any taxes paid on the first $235,000, but you should also be able to raise the limit by paying money out as payroll (which redistributes the money to your employees) or charity (which redestributes the money to the needy) instead of redistributing the money to a corrupt and ineffectual government that thinks that spending $500,000 to create a single $20,000/year job is a good use of government borrowing power.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Freed the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the process
... A LOT ... since Sep 11, 2001. Perhaps if hadn't left the job of pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to the Pakistanis so we could invade/occupy Iraq, then they wouldn't be gathering strength in Afghanistan again as we speak.
There are lots of brutal dictators in the world. When are we going to start invading half of Africa? How about North Korea? I can't wait! Or do we only care about people oppressed in resource-rich nations? We also killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqis (non-militants) in the process.
Also, I don't recall anything about "brutal dictators" or oppressed people in the case made for war. It was all about some sort of arsenal of nukular weapons. Even though inspectors didn't find any, that simply meant that they were hidden REALLY well.
as well as captured 75% of the leadership of Al Qaeda.
Yeah that seems to have put a real dent in things. Since terrorist acts of violence have actually increased by
I still have a job in the tech sector, and that's all that matters to m[e]
Well that pretty much is the creedo of the Republican party. Sell out everything in the long-term in exchange for $400 more a year. Who cares if we are ALREADY IN A FUCKING DEFICIT AND EXPENSIVE WAR so that our children will end up paying for your sorry-ass tax cut and they'll get no benefit from it. But who cares! Short-term benefits for ME!
Good. America is running out of people with morals and values.
As long as they're YOUR values? And what is moral about giving extraction/polluting industries free reign to pollute our rivers and lakes? What is moral about jacking those most in need of prescription medicine with higher bills than any other industrialized country so your big pharma buddies can get some fatter dividend checks? What is moral about doing some insider trading to the tune of $800K while your stockholders lose millions? Bush was Enron BEFORE it cool!
"More organs means more human." - Zim
As unpopular as it is here in the US, I am a Christian
No, it is disturbingly popular. Relax, you're in the majority; most of our countrymen profess a belief in invisible superheros, and insist that after you die you're not, uhh, dead.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
This might have actually been an interesting development, if the newspaper that ran the editorial had a circulation of at least 100,000. But, unfortunately for Michael, it so happens that we are talking about a paper in Crawford, Texas (population 705). The town paper in question, The Lonestar Iconoclast, has a reported circulation of 425.
In other news, the Po Dunk Junior High Tribune in Dustville, Nebraska has endorsed Donkey Kong for President. According to the editors of the school paper, "We believe that Donkey Kong is the best candidate for president this year. I mean, after all, he's a video game ape. How many other candidates can put that on their resume?" Interestingly, the junior high's recommended candidate for Vice President? Michael, from Slashdot.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
I do agree that Bush mostly pays lip service to the abortion issue, but he will pick judges that will base their decisions on the Constitution and not just pull rights out of their nether regions with vaguely-worded justifications that barely conceal the fact that they are merely establishing these so-called rights by fiat.
If previous conservative picks to the judiciary are any indication (especially Scalia) the only basis for their decision is who offers the best vacations, and does my family have any stock in their company.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL.
Because it helps to ensure that those who are rich are those who earned their wealth?
Rob
This isn't a respectable paper. Its founder was a very virulent anti-Baptist writer. One who took very negative views of black Americans.
Nah, I don't think I would want this endorsement, regardless of how many years since its founding. The original founder is just to shameful.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes..
Anyone with a good tax lawyer can pass money off to the next generation. It's property that's hard to pass off: land, ownership in a business, etc. The sorts of things we want to pass on and encourage.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
That doesn't change with a vote for Kerry though- just whether the Federal Government should handle the matter or the states is the only difference.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
there are certainly a lot of things i don't like about the president's record. mostly i am hoping he won't be as bad as kerry.
specifically i am hoping he won't be as protectionist as kerry and he won't grow the size of government as much as kerry. i think these things are vital to the economy and the well being of americans.
probably the 2 things he has done which i feel fairly happy about are:
1. the invasion of afghanistan. i think it needed to be done. maybe there were some bad choices made, but i don't see kerry or anyone else doing better. mostly i expect mediocre results from government, and generally i thought this response to sept 11 was pretty well done. i really like harmad karzai or however the hell you spell his name.
2. tax cuts. i saved a few hundred dollars i suppose. mostly i'm happy about the dividend tax cut. i don't have a huge amount of money in the stock market but i hopefully will someday. people say this is a tax cut for the rich, but i think something like 60% of americans have money in the market so i still think its an important, fairly broad cut. nothing is perfect. at least he didn't raise taxes like democrats wanted to do. democrats complain about the deficit and i'm not happy with that either. bush cut taxes and grew the size of the government when he should have cut more taxes and shrunk government. still i figure kerry would have grown government more than bush and not cut taxes at all or worse. i'll take what i can get.
bush isn't my ideal candidate. i just think he will do better than kerry. and really who is an ideal candidate anyway? i mean other than myself.
Heck, if Taco's Journal Entry on the percentage of articles getting posted is accurate- you should submit the Lowell Sun editorial 25 times.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So are you now asserting that men (read: G.W.Bush) can pass judgement and dole out death on fellow human beings just as God can, but a mother is not fit to decide whether her fetus lives or dies? What makes it OK for him but not for her? Bush would call you a flip-flopper.
A huge part of the problem here is the over taxing of the American family. I am somewhere around the 80th percentile of income earners in the US, my nicome would easily support my family if I did not have to pay so much of it in taxes. Even with that I make due and with my wife pregnant and thinking of leaving her job I know we will get by but it will be hard.
In 1948, a Democratic First Lady stepped forward in the United Nations to dare suggest that pregnancy and motherhood be granted equal economic protection to work- and it got written into the Declaration of Human Rights.
How do you grant a mother economic protection?
I want to see a pro-life candidate who is willing to make that a reality- to give up some corporate profits to reduce abortion. Until I see that, I will never again vote on pro-life issues alone.
So you want to see us pay people *not* to have abortions? And this will greatly increase the tax burden, thus making it more impossible for a family to be single earner.
It is kind of amusing you claim that Bush cannot run on his record, which he is doing, yet Kerry refuses to run on his record in the Senate. Why is that?
/.
Fact is that Kerry faces a party where a good number of his people support the war and then are balanced out by many who oppose it. He can't please both meaning he is bound to lose out somewhere. Where you have a party powered by anti-religous bigots colliding with many ethnic groups who base most of their values in religion. No, Kerry has more work cut out from him. Assembling groups on the idea of "Anyone but Bush" doesn't get you to the finish and isn't something to be proud of. Of course he could ditch his integrity and be like Carter and accept victory at any cost (taking a Nobel prize when it was clear it was given to somehow insult Bush)
The key thing to remember is how one sided the press is in general and slashdot is great evidence of this. The whole politics section seems to revolve around negative Bush stories, negative modding of anyone expressing pro-Bush ideals, and then topped off with stories of nearly zero value like this one.
If you looked closely at the newspaper which claimed to be backing Kerry you would quickly realize this isn't something you want to brag about. The found was a anti-Baptist Zealot who not only viruently attacked religon but he also showed quite a bit of racism when he referenced blacks.
Your insightful mod points only show off the nearly blind liberal hate that infests
I won't be voting for Bush either, but at least I am not delusional nor filled with hate as many here are.
Karma to BURN.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What about the comparison between the life of a rich oil man and the life of a retarded man who has committed murder? To me, that's also the same comparison- but not to Bush.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They must have some bitching equipment, buildings, or live near a large city to get farm values of $9k/acre! If farms that small are that valuable - are they animal feed operations or tobacco farms, or are they near a large population center that values the land for development instead of agriculture?
Around here, sustainable farms are much larger (farming entire sections of land or more (that's 640 acres for you city dwellers)). If the land is the only asset of the farm at death, that's easily of $1.25M.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Surely you're not comparing the execution of criminals to the execution of helpless children.
A human life is a human life- regardless of who the human being is. One cannot be for the sanctity of human life and be for the death penalty in cases where life imprisonment with modern technology would do equally well.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I have a friend like that. But, there are times when he is super crabby.
Do you see any behavior, other than drinking alcohol at 8 AM, that would make you think they were being affected by alcoholism?
Theoretically, zygotes can spend years "living" in the freezer, only to be unthawed, implanted (not even necessarily back into the same womb), and grow into fully functioning adults- so the "living on its own" test is an outdated concept to say the least.
Biologically, life begins at conception- just ask any biologist. Whether that life is deserving of legal protection is left to the lawyers.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Does this include the severly mentally retarded? Does this include the elderly? So if you need an oxygen tank to live your not really a person?
So let me get this straight, if medical science could save a baby at say 10 Weeks, that is not a human being but 9 weeks is not? Twenty-one and twenty-two week premature babies are now supported routinely (where in the fifites and early 60's 30 weeks was the bar), and have a good chance of survival. By twenty-four weeks after conception, premature babies have a 40% chance of reaching adulthood without any major complications. By twenty-eight weeks, the chance is 90%. By twenty-nine weeks, survival is almost definite.
So as medical science pushes forward and we can save bebies at 10, 9 weeks now are they human? what of the babies in the 80's at 14 weeks? they were not human?
Your opinion is not thoughtful, at least MH was intellictually honest and not puking up something which is purly propiganda, and dangerous propiganda at that.
as well as captured 75% of the leadership of Al Qaeda
Actually the quote is "key members and associates"
and the 75% is a number that "...sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's orifice."
and the statement leaves out 1 important point, that it leaves out an important point that wasn't addressed by the president: "Every one of these people have been replaced."
Freed the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the process
And in return has left them a country in ruins where no matter what kind of government we set up will be torn down by civil war once we leave. If Iraq keeps a government setup by America they will be universally dispised by their arab neighbors and most likely invaded.
As it stands right now Iraq is a hot bed of terrorist activity (something that really did not exist under the previous regime) and America is (well it's troops) constantly under attack by islamic fundamentalists.
And hell, why was freeing the people from Saddam so much more important then freeing the people from Kim Jong Il, a much greater threat to world stability then Saddam could ever be.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Yes. I responded. And got fed up with the blowhards (yes, on both sides, but mostly the ACs), and now don't want this crap anymore
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
That statment shows you know nothing about the military realities of the situation.
Great -- an armchair neo-con military genius. Like we didn't already have enough of those going around.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why they let the 1,000 some-odd troops of the 10th Mountain Division sit idle in the same theater while we outsourced the Tora Bora job to the local warloads who completely failed to get the job done (in fact some of them actually helped Al Quada to escape). Is 10th Mountain not trained or equipped to operate in this terrain? Do you know anybody in the Army or National Guard (trained for Mountain Duty or not) that wouldn't have volunteered to go into that battle to try and kill that son of a bitch?
Perhaps you'd also care to explain why Robert McNama... err I mean Donald Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his generals and invaded Iraq with less then a third of the recommended force leaving our supply lines vulnerable to attacks and lacking enough manpower to even prevent the friggen hospitals from being looted by all the criminals that Saddam let out of jail prior to our invasion? Looked real good to the Iraqi people (ya know those pesky people whose hearts and minds we are trying to win) when we deployed our available manpower to protect the Oil Ministry while allowing the Hospitals to be picked clean.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
A huge part of the problem here is the over taxing of the American family. I am somewhere around the 80th percentile of income earners in the US, my nicome would easily support my family if I did not have to pay so much of it in taxes. Even with that I make due and with my wife pregnant and thinking of leaving her job I know we will get by but it will be hard.
Absolutely agreed, but there's another strategy for taxation available; tax corporate income rather than individual income. Don't tax payrolls at all- and you will have eliminated the effects of taxation on that 80% of US families. However, neither the Republicans or Democrats are likely to do this one anytime soon; I don't know of any candidate who is willing to make corporations into second class citizens when compared to human beings.
How do you grant a mother economic protection?
You've already given one way- grant special taxation rules for family income in comparison to income used for other things. A second suggestion that has come forth in recent years is to create localized public daycare for the infant-to-preschool age groups, and hire any woman who has not enough income to raise her child as a daycare provider. There are many possible plans- but all would require giving up corporate profits to do this.
So you want to see us pay people *not* to have abortions? And this will greatly increase the tax burden, thus making it more impossible for a family to be single earner.
Not if the taxes to pay for it come from some other income other than payroll taxes and individual sole proprietor income. The grand majority of income generation in this country is from limited liability corporations, the very groups that encourage materialism over maternalism. Why not take the money away from them to help restore the balance? They'll get some of it back anyway in increased sales to single-income families and single mothers who would otherwise be on wellfare.
However, my whole point is this- we should be thinking of ways OTHER than legal to attack abortion. The Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus way back in 1982 said that Charity was our biggest weapon against Abortion- I see NO reason not to do this on a national scale.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Bush is against abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem cell research; Kerry is not. For this reason alone, Bush will be receiving my vote.
But that's such a simplistic view of 'pro-life'. Sure, I voted for Bush last time for similar reasons. However, I no longer consider Bush to be truely 'pro-life'. Killing 20000+ Iraqis (it's estimated that half of them were innocent civilians) , 1050 US soldiers dead, 24000 wounded - this doesn't seem to me to be 'pro-life'. Also, Bush's environmental record is abysmal - again this doesn't seem to be 'pro-life'. He's for the death penalty - how is that 'pro-life'? Cuts in medical care for the poor - again, how is this 'pro-life'? We need to also be concerned with people who are no longer in the womb as well...
I'll be voting for Kerry this time.
Keep in mind that the fact that something is alive doesn't necessarily mean that it should or must be protected. We each kill billions of organisms over the course of a day just by existing.
As for "viability becoming earlier and earlier," it may be possible for a zygote to grow into a baby outside of a woman's womb in the future, but not today.
Rob
No, that's not a conservative value. That's an economic policy goal, and it's one that not all conservatives agree about.
Oh, if this is about what values all Conservatives share, that's easy.
Conservatives have no values. There is not a single value shared by every Conservative. Not a one. None.
Conservatives are for open markets and free trade.
Oooh, I'm sorry. Wasn't it Clinton that passed NAFTA? Wouldn't that make it a LIBERAL value?
And thus- Kerry's reversal of the loopholes would be a good thing.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Except that Kerry's proposal doesn't do that. I just claims to.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It would be more honest if you would change the name of this section from "Politics" to "Bush Sucks. Vote for Kerry."
They must have some bitching equipment, buildings, or live near a large city to get farm values of $9k/acre! If farms that small are that valuable - are they animal feed operations or tobacco farms, or are they near a large population center that values the land for development instead of agriculture?
All of the above- mainly fall into two categories, animal feed and grass seed crop (this area of Oregon produces something like 80% of the world's grass seed). It's due mainly to the terrain (the Willamette Valley is anything but flat, the foothills of the Cascades and the foothills of the Coast Range both come almost down to the Valley Floor) that farms do not grow larger here- back in Eastern Oregon they do. In addition, strict land use laws are such that any farm can only be used for farmland even if it's right next to a city until it is included in the urban growth boundary- at which time property taxes tripple immediately and few farms can survive as such.Around here, sustainable farms are much larger (farming entire sections of land or more (that's 640 acres for you city dwellers)). If the land is the only asset of the farm at death, that's easily of $1.25M.
So $10 million could easily cover $1.25 million in land, another $1.25 million in buildings, another $1.25 million in equipment (you city dwellers probably don't know what a Steiger is- but one of those tractors can cost a few hundred thousand easy, and if you meet one on a standard two-lane country road you will need to either reverse or hop the ditch). Kerry's plan still sounds quite sound to me for protecting small farms and businesses.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Kerry's $10 million loophole seems adequate to cover that- and the raises for inflation insure that it will increase in the future. Bill Gates wouldn't be able to pass on his wealth- but taking a lesson from his father, I think his children will be lucky to get a $100,000 business loan if they drop out of college.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There are lots of brutal dictators in the world. When are we going to start invading half of Africa? How about North Korea? I can't wait! Or do we only care about people oppressed in resource-rich nations?
:-)
... A LOT ... since Sep 11, 2001.
Lets see is todays argument that we don't have enough troops or that we should be saving the whole world at once? ( What is the sound of one flip-flop flopping
Do you honestly believe that China will allow N. Korea to get nukes? If we follow your argument we have not invaded NK because they are not "resource-rich", I'll agree with you that they have very little in the way of natural resources, So where do you think NK will go to get resources if they were to acquire nukes? Several thousand miles over open ocean or right next door in China and Russia?
Also, I don't recall anything about "brutal dictators" or oppressed people in the case made for war.
Maybe you should have removed your head from your ass and checked out a few different news sources. Lord knows your head might explode if you attempted to listen to anything other than Air America. But perhaps you read The New York Times once before. Allow me to quote for you from Febuary 25th 2003:
Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace.
Theres plenty more where that came from.
Yeah that seems to have put a real dent in things. Since terrorist acts of violence have actually increased by
Please site your source for this! While your at it please site historical evidence that would even begin to make the case that terrorism would decrease if we had allowed the attacks of 9/11 to go unchallenged!
Perhaps if hadn't left the job of pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to the Pakistanis so we could invade/occupy Iraq, then they wouldn't be gathering strength in Afghanistan again as we speak.
Theres that damn flip-flop sound again...anyway which is it, we shouldn't be fighting terrorism alone or we should do this ourselves?
Sell out everything in the long-term in exchange for $400 more a year. Who cares if we are ALREADY IN A FUCKING DEFICIT AND EXPENSIVE WAR so that our children will end up paying for your sorry-ass tax cut and they'll get no benefit from it. But who cares! Short-term benefits for ME!
So lets raise taxes to 100% and pay off all government dept? Then we can setup a big government office to redistribute the the money back to those that "need it". I'll tell you what man I can't wait those bread lines look like a real hoot!!!
Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts.
What is moral...prescription medicine...higher bills than any other indust
Steigers' are the wrong color green for out here in the midwest :)
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
No, I want to see people taking responsibility for their actions and understanding the consequenses for those actions. Sexual intercourse, in most cases, is a choice--something that potentially could lead to the consequence of pregnancy. Providing "outs" like abortion removes personal responsibility.
I agree with this as well- but I'd have to say that we're facing a population implosion in countries with a high standard of living where abortion is legal, and that fact has to be addressed first.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
How does a $10 million loophole for family farms and small businesses not succeed in allowing more family farms and small businesses to be passed down to children? I'm as skeptical as the next guy, but this seems pretty darned simple to me.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
True- they're a lighter shade than John Deers...but boy are they a hell of a lot bigger! I've seen a guy with a Steiger tackle plowing a 75 acre field in under 4 hours- merely because he was taking a quarter of an acre swath at a stroke!(but don't be like the guy who tried to hook up standard implements to his Steiger- and tore the tounges right off....)
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
According to the officer I bothered to track down and speak to before forming assinine opinions about something I know nothing about (unlike a certain other slashdot poster): the terrain was incredibly dangerous and air support wasn't an option, and our troops hadn't had time to do proper recon and the military felt (this is the key here, MILITARY EXPERTS, not some POLITICIAN, but an OFFICER DOING HIS JOB; the SAME OFFICER that will work for Kerry if he's elected) that the risk to our soldiers lives was far too great given our alternative options. I'd love to see you make better calls IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR. Do you know anybody in the Army or National Guard (trained for Mountain Duty or not) that wouldn't have volunteered to go into that battle to try and kill that son of a bitch?
They didn't know the certain SoB was there until AFTER battle plans were drafted up and the fighting had started. Again you are making a call after the fact. The whole issue is moot however, No matter who was president, the call would have been the same because the president doesn't sit around micro-managing the military.
I mean Donald Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his generals
Maybe because others (including the General I spoke with and I'd presume other military advisors working with Rumsfeld) felt they had a better plan? Rumsfeld did his job: he made the call as to which plan to go with
As I stressed above, the real problem with the plan seems to be that Turkey jumped ship at the last minute and wouldn't let us lauch an assault from the north at the same time. That fubared the plan after it was too late to change. Turkey's pullout is a legitimate complaint against Bush, his team's diplomacy FAILED and cost our troops lives because it fubared the military plan.
How come everyone wants to throw out BS complaints when there are perfectly valid ones that can be made? Maybe just maybe it's because it's a lot easier tow some party line and quote sound bytes off of national TV then it is to find experts get their thoughts and make an informed decision independant of what the spin-masters tell you.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
But it is still "alive" and it posesses all of the building blocks necessary to create a human baby.
So does my load on a petri dish full of ova. I wouldn't think twice about putting it all on a cracker and... throwing it in the trash, despite the potential. Come to think of it, we are all walking around with unused potential building blocks. Women: menses is murder! Never expel unused eggs and uterine lining again. EVER! Men, save those sperm. I mean all of them, I don't care how many gatorade bottles you have to stuff in your freezer.
> If a space probe found on a distant planet > a "ball of undifferentiated cells",
> EVERYONE would be proclaiming, "We found
> life! We found life!" Well, if it's life,
> then it should be considered as such.
Oh, face it - unless it talks, is exceedingly cute, AND doesn't taste like chicken, whatever it is will be bred and stir-fried. End of story.
You badly need some perspective. Ramming a coathanger into a 2nd trimester fetus is one thing - harvesting stem cells from an 8-week embryo is something else entirely. It isn't a forgone conclusion that it's unethical. Sure, it's debateable, but there is plenty of room for discussion if you can dispense with dogmatism for a moment.
Both major parties want to control your life. There's about five inches between the agenda of the Democrats and the Republicans, and only on highly divisive issues which are harped on because they're highly divisive.
They're also both aided and abetted by a media which never concentrates on substantive issues and instead gives us a constant, meaningless stream of soundbytes, empty endorsements, and stupid comments about which candidate had the slicker speaking style or better hair.
We've let politics in America degenerate to the banality of the Redskins/Cowboys rivalry, (btw: Go Cowboys!) and in effect, insured that the government will grow stronger at our expenses, and for the benefit of big business and other special interests.
What to do about it? This year, I'm seriously planning to vote for a third party candidate who more closely matches my values. I'm also taking the attitude that I should live my life the way I want to. If I don't like one state's tax policy, I'm not moving there. I voted with my feet and moved to Texas instead of California. If you don't like Wal-mart and other unethically run businesses, then find some locally owned businesses to patronize. If you don't have any, please move to Austin and support our local businesses. I didn't buy an SUV bacause I don't want to consume that much fuel, and I bought a 1000 square foot condo instead of the big house I can afford. I don't see the need to buy a bunch of needless crap to fill up a big house.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
That is a very gratuitous assertion. I think Scalia fits Bush's descriptions perfectly. It's people like Blackmun who were just making it up as they went along. It doesn't matter what your ideas are or how you think things _should_ be (that's Congress's job), it matters what the Constitution or the laws _say_.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
frankly i could care less about reputation. i don't understand this obsession. this isn't a high school popularity contest. i just want the right thing to get done. if you want to tell me the wrong thing is being done we can argue about that, but i could care less about whether you are ashamed or not.
I've talked to one farmer who is really into it - down to the point of fertilizing just the rows where the plants are growing as opposed to spreading it over the whole field.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
So by extension, you are saying that it should be legal to abort today and not in the future?
Depends on if (a) it is indeed possible for zygotes to be viable in the future and (b) the method used to make them viable is available and affordable to the general public.
That said, I don't see how the idea that something can be accepted today and unaccepted in the future necessarily conflicts with moral absolutism (not that I even agree with the idea of moral absolutism, but I digress). Even under absolutism, humans are imperfect and as such do not have a perfect understanding of morality. Do you think that doctors who performed bloodletting in the Middle Ages were purposefully immoral, or just ignorant of proper medicine?
I don't get why what I'm saying is an example of moral relativism, anyway. Isn't it possible that it could be moral (or at least morally-neutral) to perform abortions in societies where technology is not advanced enough to allow for zygotes viable outside of the womb, but immoral to do so in societies that are advanced enough? Another analogy: Assuming that the death penalty is moral and causing needless suffering is immoral, wouldn't it be OK to hang a person if and only if there was not a more humane way to execute him (e.g. lethal injection)?
Rob
Given the duck-hunting incident and Scalia's decision in favor of Cheney- not gratuitous at all. But I'll agree that Scalia fits Bush perfectly- they both care far more about personal profit than they do about other people's lives OR what the Constitution says. As a rule- those who believe in personal responsibility cannot believe in a truly seemless garment of protecting human life. The two points of view are contradictory in the extreme.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Furthermore is a bad idea from an economics stand point. It's in the interest of the public to have these small and medium sized businesses (that are worth the income they make in about 10 years) to stay opened and locally owned. Taxing the family because a member dies (especially when family businesses are usually run by several family members) either forces them to close down or build into their budgets a death expense. Most choose planning on a death expense. This results in less money they could put into their business and into creating more jobs.
Example:
There is a family owned bussiness not far from my house. The brothers who own it each take home about $90,000 a year but because the business is capital intesive it's worth at least $12 million. If they have to pay a death tax, they either have to set asside a HUGE portion of their business income (and hence the bussiness, because it's captial intensive, will deteriorate) so that they can pass on an inferiour bussiness or sell it when they die, (and because of it's nature the buyer will close it and fire all 50 employees). In this case and other's like it the death tax COSTS JOBS.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
How do they get that kind of resolution out of a commercial-grade GPS unit? Mine can rarely tell me where I am within 10 meters- seems like you could have a lot of rows of corn in 10 meters!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Beyond that, I'm not sure. I've been too busy to go out on a farm visit and see it in action. From what I've seen, it's neat stuff though.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
FYI, Officers are paid to make tactical decisions. Part of the descision making processing is evaluating risks. Taking UNESSESSARY RISKS by putting soldiers in a situation where it's possible that MOST of them would DIE NEEDLESSLY is stupid. Had that happened you'd be on slashdot bitching about that.
Again, why not complain about any of the THOUSANDS of REAL problems instead of making up FAKE ones?
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Precisely, to me, that the death tax needs to be on liquid assets only, eventually, and even then, PERSONAL liquid assets. But as you say- the super wealthy can hire lawyers- though it's pretty amazing to me that it's cheaper for a small business to keep back 45% of it's value in a bank account than to hire a lawyer to advise them on a better way to do it. Even if you had to pay the lawyer $150,000/year, well, you could have that lawyer in house working ONLY on stuff for the business for 36 years before you'd spend as much money as holding back 45% of a $12 million capital-intensive business's worth. Thus creating a job, if only a parasitical one.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
To me, a business worth $12 million with 50 employees ain't a small business anymore- and they could save $80,000 a year by paying themselves the same as their employees, right off the top. $50,000 a year is enough for anybody to be comfortable on, just about anywhere in the US.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Surely you're not comparing the execution of criminals to the execution of helpless children.
Well let's talk about those criminals. I happen to be a left-leaning staunch Democrat. I personally don't have a moral problem with the idea of the death pentaly. I do have a problem when I see somebody like Kobe Bryant or OJ Simpson walk away unmolested after breaking the law because they have money while some poor idiot who might just be innocent sits on death row because his public defender was drunk during his trail. The death penalty is like communism -- it's one of those things that looks nice on a piece of paper but will never be implemented fairly or effectively by flawed human beings such as ourselves. For that reason (not some drummed up notion about the "sanctity of human life") I oppose the death penalty.
The "execution of helpless children"? A embryo that exists as nothing more then a mass of stem cells that might develop into a human being is hardly a helpless child. And let's not even talk about stem-cell research. Do you seriously advocate forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Isn't that a violation of her right to have a final say over her body? If the state can force her to carry an unwanted baby to term can they also force her to marry someone she doesn't want?
And while we're on the subject what's with this notion that a woman can have an abortion if she's raped or molested but not otherwise? If all human-life is scared why not that human life? Is it the future-child's fault that Mom was raped? The position of the religous right on this issue doesn't make sense.
And hell (just incase I'm not already modded flamebait) while we're on the subject a lot of Republicans seem perfectly willing to write-off civilian deaths in Iraq as "collateral damage". I guess once you pop out of your Mom's vagina your life isn't nearly as important as it was before.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Poor Chrisopher Finke, Christianity is the majority religious category of Americans, yet he still feels like a minority. How many Americans would have to be Christion before you lose your persecution complex: all of them? 99.9%?
So when god kills them, its ok? Meet jesus Christ - the most prolific Abortionist in history. If someone get's cancer, obviously it's in God's hands. IF a doctor cures that person of the cancer, they are going against God's will. You religous folks boggle the mind.
XML causes global warming.
The grandparent is referring to the idea of supply-side economics, which states that high taxes discourage people from working and/or honestly paying their taxes, which in turn lowers government revenue. This has been thoroughly discredited in regards to the US as our tax rate isn't even close to high enough to be on the "wrong side of the curve."
Rob
This is a week old.
Why does slashdot think it can do political reporting? You have a hard enough time getting tech stories correct, and I swear every time you post a political article it just makes you look like a bunch of fuckwits.
Further, the mother of the embryo, in most cases, made the choice to conceive
Oh really? So the person who is ignorant of proper birth-control methods decided to conceive? I'd wager this is where most abortions come from -- do you really think somebody is going to get pregnant on purpose so they can spend money on an abortion?
And let's not even get started on cases where the condom broke or the man couldn't pull out fast enough. By your logic anybody that decides to have sex "made the choice to conceive". Hell for that matter anybody that decides to get raped "made the choice to conceive".
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Talk is cheap, bullshit is free, vote the record.
XML causes global warming.
I never said that you should or shouldn't vote for Bush. All I have maintained is that you were blaming the president for a call made by some officer who would have made that call no matter who was president. As I've repeatedly said, your refusal to acknoledge this is puzzling. There are plenty of good, valid reasons to not vote for Bush (along the same vein there are plenty of reason to not vote for Kerry, or any other politician for that matter), but some random miltary officer's call is not one of them.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
You have to draw lines that define human life in that continuum someplace.
You've chosen to draw a line at conception, because of your beliefs. You have to live with the consequences of that choice. But, you're also insisting that your choice is the right choice for everyone. You've decided that everyone should live with the consequences of YOUR choice. I realize that you feel that it's not your choice, but your God's choice. But your feeling that doesn't alter the fact that it is YOUR choice. YOU decided that ONE particular interpretation of scripture was right, and everyone is obligated to go by those rules, since they are YOUR God's rules.
Why should that be?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to draw the lines that define a human life somewhere else? I accept the consequences of MY decision, just like you do (you do, don't you?)
Science is becoming capable of allowing any human cell to become a new, independent human being. Can I draw the line that defines a human life to include any cell that can become a new, indepedent human life? Now I have to protect any living cell of any human body, because with the proper care, it could become a new human being. Of course that's absurd. The point is "you have to draw the line somewhere".
For myself, I'd draw a line at the presence of brain tissue. There are other considerations for other circumstances, but avoiding responsiblity for your own decisions by making it "God's Will" is just cowardly.
As a side note, if you think declaring yourself to be a "Christian" makes you unpopular in the US. Go ahead and tell people you're an atheist and see what kind of reaction that gets you.
For those Slashdotters who don't know, a blastocyst is a ball of undifferentiated cells.
No, the cells in a blastocyst are not undifferentiated. That's how we can get stem cells from them.
I write in my journal
So does my load on a petri dish full of ova.
Um. No. Ova contain exactly half of the building blocks necessary to create a baby.
Ramming a coathanger into a 2nd trimester fetus is one thing - harvesting stem cells from an 8-week embryo is something else entirely.
Why?
It isn't a forgone conclusion that it's unethical.
No, it's not. Nor is it a foregone conclusion that it's ethical. It's a topic of debate. And while the jury is still out, it's wise to be conservative (pardon the choice of words) about it.
I write in my journal
Good interpretation- but I meant it as Anybody But Bush. Anti-Big-Business also fits as well, however; especially given that Bush seems to be the biggest slave to big business to hold the office yet.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Social Security wasn't created to be retirement program. It was put into effect to keep old folks from dying in the streets, and evaluated on that criteria, it has been very successful.
And fear moners and profit mongers nonwithstanding, social security is still in solid health. By the most pessimistic of predictions, the program is slated to take in more revenue than pay out for another 15 years. And every year the CBO and Social Security Trustees release their report, that number gets bumped up (previous years accounting showed 2017 as the year where payouts finally match revenues).
According to the latest trustee report, 2053 is the year where full scheduled payments may be impacted. But again, every year the trustees produce their report, the margin from the current date increases.
The scare is a manufactured one, a campaign of Wall Street making to get their grubby hands all over lucrative administrative fees for such a regulated, bureaucratic alternate privately funded looting.
AZspot
"Why?"
Well there is a big difference big difference between a 2nd trimester fetus and a 5-8 day old fetus which is where embryonic stem cells come from. There aren't any brain cells in a fetus until at least 40 days in and then they are barely functioning. Until there is a functioning nervous system there is no consciousness. I know the big religions will argue life begins at conception but I'll contend life is most definitely not sacred until it has consciousness.
Embryonic germ cells, on the other hand, are harvested at 5-8 weeks and are in somewhat more of an ethical gray area.
By the way here is a great resource on stem cells.
I think there is a key thing to point out about most organized religions when it comes to their positions on abortion and birth control. They have a conflict of interest. There is an overwhelming tendency among most religions to try and maximize the growth of their flock. It is their survival mechanism. They want to maximize the number of people who subscribe to their doctrine, support it (especially financially) and spread their faith.
It is consistently in their interest and doctrine to try and eradicate people who either subscribe to no faith or an opposing faith. By eradication I mean either converting or killing them. Muslims do it, Christian do it, Jews have mostly had it done to them though they are doing it to Muslims now. The crusaders did it, the conquistadores did it. Native americans faced massive pressure to either become Christians or be eradicated, starting with Chris Columbus.
This is also a basic underpinning for why so many wars are fought for religious reasons, one faith is trying to eradicate an opposing faith.
It doesn't register with most people but the Popes oppose all forms of birth control and abortion, not because of a great spiritual enlightenment, but mostly because they are trying to maximize the number of Catholics in the world because thats how you win the religion game, you win by maximizing your numbers and minimizing the numbers following other religions.
Maximizing your numbers might have been a tolerable goal when the world was relatively empty. But, now that the world is becoming severely overcrowded and we are running out of resources it is unforgivable.
Birth control and abortion of unwanted pregnancies are rapidly becoming a necessity if we want to survive long term as a species. Religious zealots (the pope and the Republican party) who are, at every turn, trying to knock the legs out from under population control are doing the world grievous harm.
Which of these two is more humane and Christian:
A. Practicing birth control and aborting unwanted first trimester pregnancies
B. An exploding population leading to billions of starving, miserable, suffering, conscious beings who die painful and premature deaths anyway.
Aborting a life at 1 and 2 years AFTER BIRTH via weeks or months of agonizing starvation and disease is way more cruel than an aborting a first trimester fetus.
You see religious zealots really just dont get the big picture and are in fact just being selfish in trying to propagate their belief system at the expense of the whole species.
@de_machina
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
2000 total collections 2,096,916,925
2001 total collections 2,128,831,182
In most conventionally excepted numbering systems 2.1 billion is larger than 2.0 billion.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that? Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!! But that couldn't cause a down turn in production and GDP and thus effect gross taxable revenue...NO...Never.
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Have you ever even looked at the stock market performance before. The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
I've read a little about Crawford. I get the impression that the newspaper's EXTREMELY negative view of George W. Bush is not so unusual that they would have to worry about people canceling their subscriptions, or advertisers boycotting the paper. Newspaper must reflect the ideas of their readers and advertisers at least a little just to stay in business.
--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. You must pay it back.
When I was a teenager I worked in a restaurant for a short time. There were alcoholic chefs that had both 1 and 2.
What about behavior that is of more direct concern to others? Here are traits that many people think are characteristic of George W. Bush. Do you see these traits:
Likability, anger, lying, absence of deep or analytical thinking, polarized thinking, rigid thinking, obsessive repetition, inability to perceive the needs of others and inability to understand someone different from oneself, grandiosity, believing that one's own ideas are all-important, impatience, incoherence, illogic, and mood swings.
The first needs a little explanation. Often alcoholics can be very socially engaging for short periods.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. You must pay it back.
Right on Demachina. Wish I had mod points.
The Catholic position on contraception and birth control might appear moral in the United States. But it is absolutely unconscionable in the areas that hold the vast majority of the world's population. The number of people indirectly killed by statements like this far outweighs the number of abortions in the western world.
Here, I'll do it for you.
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2001 - 2,128,831,182
2002 - 2,016,627,269
2003 - 1,952,929,045
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
I didn't read the first one right when I posted that, but both of the other items are correct. So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
In fact, 2002 is less than 2000.
What's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that?
Again, what's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000. An attack in 2001 should NOT mean that 2003 is worse than 2000. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that?
Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!!
Yeah, you're right. Yet three YEARS later we're showing WORSE numbers than BEFORE the attack. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that attack?
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Ummm, no.
1982 - 632,240,506
1983 - 627,246,793
difference = -4,993,713
Then a jump UP!
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2003 - 1,952,929,045
difference = -143,987,880
With NO jump up.
Not 2x as bad.
Not 5x as bad.
Not even 10x as bad.
Almost 30x WORSE than your example. And still trending downward.
The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
No. Stay on your original topic. Tax cuts increase governmental income. Yet the numbers do NOT show that happening. In fact, the CONTINUING trend is over 30x WORSE than with Ronnie.
Where is the "increased government income" that you're promising? Or are you going to continue to hide behind an attack that took place over 3 years ago?
Not 30x, just 3x. I had an extra zero there.
Really? As opposed to the 12,000+ Iraqi civillians killed so far in the invasion and occupation? Just how much worse would Saddam have to be to beat that?
I think you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. That's okay. The White House does it all the time.
Good. America is running out of people with morals and values.There is little to no correlation between "morals and values" and religious belief. If anything, the religious believer is more likely to justify his or her unethical actions through religion ("God told me to kill the unbelievers.")
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
As soon as I thought of the Subject "Bush != Conservative", I knew that this was going to be a big loud thread, I knew that my post would be among the first couple of posts, and the title 'jumped'. Honestly the title was an afterthought, I would have like to have supported it more by quotes from the article, but the story was live at that point and if you wait for 10 minutes to post on a hot topic you had better attach your post to someone else's thread (as I think that you did).
When someone replies to my post, I have something substancial to add (or subtract, if you will), and I feel like it, I will reply. For example I posted a 'funny' about 'my Evil Twin' a couple of days ago, several posters 'burned' me (in a funny way) and if it was IM I'd would have replied "ROFL", I couldn't think of anything meaningful or funny, which was even remotely 'on topic' so I am letting it age. I might make the effort to thank them for the good laugh before the topic is closed, but it's not on the 'a' list. Of course I am getting so off topic here, I think that I would be a little disappointed if I didn't get at least one 'off topic' mod point!
Judging from your userId you have been on slashdot a good while, you should know better. Complaining that someone replied to your post on slashdot is like complaining that the Mountains aren't flat, it's just not their nature.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
No its not because you are making the assumptions that you can not prove true. The Reagan data clearly shows an increase in government income.
It is correct that the data for the Reagan years shows an increase in income.
You assume that if the Bush tax cuts had not happened that government income would have at least remained steady, this is easily proved to be a false assumption.
No I am not assuming that. I am pointing out that the data does not support your claim that cutting taxes increases government income.
And I am showing that in a very easy to understand fashion. I am taking the data that YOU provided and showing that the governmental income DROPPED after Bush's tax cuts.
Therefore, tax cuts do NOT mean increased governmental income. It's simple science (unlike your pseudo-science).
You claim change X has effect Y.
Change X occured at two instances.
Effect Y was noticed at one instance.
The OPPOSITE effect was noticed at the other.
Therefore, you are wrong.
And as such my argument is that the tax cuts, in this case, saved the economy from a further downhill slide.
Typical pseudo-science. Just like phrenology. When your claims don't match reality, claim that there was something that you didn't mention that more than countered the factor you claimed would have an effect.
Flip-flop Alert: You tell me is the economy improving or not? You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell. I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?
You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell.
Why not? They are the same thing. The tax revenues are down because the economy is down.
I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
How? Unemployed people do not pay taxes. Therefore, since the economy is bad and so many people are unemployed, the tax revenue is down.
Or do you live in a world where unemployed people pay federal taxes? Life must be extra hard for those unemployed people in your world.
I'm not the one off topic and looking for micro trends to prove my point. The overall Macro trend from 1980 to today does show a "CONTINUING trend" in government income not the "3X" decrease you site but instead a 4X increase.
But that macro trend you are quoting covers 8 years of Clinton's budget management.
You cannot use revenue growth data from Clinton's tax-and-spend years to compensate for the decline during the cut-taxes-borrow-and-spend years of Bush.
If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.
To put is simply, Bush's tax cuts have resulted in lower governmental income. Just look at Clinton's years to see the difference.
Is that you Twirp, sure sounds like you, sure talks like you, sure has the same brand of well though out, well reasoned arguments we've all come to expect from you.
You still seem to be cowering behind anonymity when you reply to my posts I see. Come on Twirp, pull your tail out from between your legs, stop being a pussy and lets go toe to toe with some good old fashioned debate.
@de_machina
Bush has gotten slammed again and again for unfair trade practices, e.g. putting tariffs on steel.
bush has endorsed outsourcing. kerry has spoken out against outsourcing. much of kerry's support comes from unions. if you are against protectionist policies, you won't be voting for kerry.
Somehow I'd think "reflects the ideas of their advertisers" has a somewhat higher level of importance than "reflecting the ideas of their readers", seeing as how subscriptions barely cover delivery costs- it's the advertising that keeps the whole shebang going.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The editorial board of a small town newspaper is not indicative of anything. But you're making it out to be big news. Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Not if it were inside of a sentient creature.
A blog about stuff.
I agree. That's a shocking conclusion, however, because business owners are usually a higher proportion of Republicans. Do Republicans in Crawford know something we don't know?
--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 Billion.
RTFA- Republicans in Crawford know that their boy W has been a HUGE disappointment as far as their own conservative values go. *ANY* honest digging into this administration at all, will return a similar judgement.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies.
... and the dot com bust. ... and whatever else you can claim in an attempt to support your unsupportable position. Just like any other pseudo-science, when reality doesn't match your claims, claim that other factors that you hadn't mentioned were even more adverse than the one you did mention.
...
The federal government's income is not the economy, but it is based off of the economy.
Bad economy == low income.
Was that too hard for you?
I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US.
That wasn't a counter. That was a fantasy. You are not able to provide any evidence that the economy is still suffering from that single attack three years ago.
There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.
No, you presented some data to "support" your claim that cutting taxes raised revenues. The data you provided contradicted that when looking at the latest tax cuts.
So now you say that it is because of the WTC attack.
By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect?
No. But if Bush is re-elected, look for 2005 to be worse than 1999.
As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?
Nice try. Now look at the 5 year chart. See the huge drop?
Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???
No, that's from the data you originally submitted to support your position. Go back and look at it if you need a refresher.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db07co.xls
It looks like the federal income went up with Clinton. That is the material you originally sited.
So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.
Pure fantasy. All you have are your fantasies about what would have happened. Otherwise known as a "false assumption".
The fact is that federal revenue is DOWN even with all of Bush's tax cuts.
It's so far down that it is worse today than it was three years ago.
Whereas Clinton showed growth.
Strange how someone doing the exact opposite of what you claim increases revenue
while someone doing exactly what you claim decreases revenue.
But you aren't wrong. Those figures you presented must be wrong. Clinton couldn't have had growth and other things lead to Bush's tax problems. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket. You're never ever wrong.
France tried to talk the US out of going into Vietnam and France tried to talk the US out of going into Iraq. Both appear to have turned into little more than a boon and arms manufacturers and funeral home proprietors.
Where's the enemy in that?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Nope, but you are certainly having a hard time excepting it.
:)
... but that those TWO instances had the OPPOSITE results.
Hey, I posted it. You are the one that with the reality problem.
Thats correct and if you would read carefully you might understand that it is not suffering NOW from those attacks and I provided both stock market and Fed interest rate data to support the fact that the economy is improving.
Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None. It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.
Just like phrenology.
Just like astrology.
And you seem unable to get past that point. There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now.
Rather, for every dollar Bush cut taxes, only 9 cents have worked their way into circulation.
Just extending the unemployment benefits and keeping taxes as they were would have put over 70 cents of each dollar back into circulation.
The fact is that Bush's policies have trashed this economy and blind fools like you are attempting to claim otherwise by latching onto any fantasy that will allow you to blame someone else.
Nope to the best of my knowledge they are correct but they are only pieces of the puzzle if you want to look at the pieces individually then you must look at the factors that effect those pieces. You refuse to acknowledge anything other than the piece. And then spout off about what that piece must mean, yet you fail to provide anything that backs up your claim other than the piece you started with.
No, that was the evidence YOU originally sited and what YOU originally claimed it showed.
When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.
Either it is accurate - and you are wrong about Bush.
-or-
it is not accurate - and it doesn't support your claims about Ronnie.
Maybe you didn't know this but when you say that data has a certain meaning and then come around and use the same data as proof of your theorem, there's a name for it. Its called circular reasoning and its not good science!
Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you?
I only pointed out that your data covered TWO instances where taxes were cut
I think you're just trying to throw words and phrases around in an attempt to get anything to stick. Whereas I am focused and detailed. But you can't see that because you're caught up in your pseudo-science.
Go back to your astrology.
This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.
1 04 56496
Really? I do that? Well I would expect an example from you then.
Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.
No you have not. And if you refuse to post your evidence, this is the last reply from me. I will not sink to your level of did did-not did-too did-too-not. Grow up.
Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim.
Maybe you're new to this "scientific method" thing. You make a statement (tax cuts increase revenues) and provide supporting evidence (Ronnie's tax cuts).
I then looked at that evidence and found a second case (Bush's tax cuts) of your claims that contradicted your position (the revenue went down).
Therefore, either your position is incorrect or the supporting evidence you provided is incorrect.
Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=
It was you that refused to remove the data that was effected by economic anomalies, which when you do shows that the trend is still present.
Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.
Translation: astrology.
Since the data does NOT show what you claim it shows, you try to explain it away by claiming that other factors offset it by more. The same pattern that is present in astrology.
Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.
Again, let me explain this "science" thing to you.
You make a statement that is contradictable. You provide supporting evidence.
If your evidence does not support your statement, then your statement (or the evidence) is in error.
By your "logic", Bigfoot and astrology would be facts because no one can provide any evidence that they are not correct.
The same as your "facts" about the WTC attack counteracting Bush's tax cuts.
Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...
The data itself provides that. Look at the ORIGINAL data you provided. Look on that for the years that Bush has been in office. See the DECLINE? Do you know what "DECLINE" means?
You said that cutting taxes raised revenues and you presented data to support that, but the data shows that you are wrong, so you provide interpretations of what may have been in an attempt to compensate for the failings of your original data.
Again, pure astrology.
First off, an analogy to illustrate the flaws in your logic.
... and/or Z caused it not to rain.
You claim that washing your car makes it rain. You post a calendar showing the days it rains and the days you washed your car. On some of the days that it rained, you had washed your car.
I point out that there were also days you washed your car that it did not rain so the "evidence" that you provided does not support your statement. This was the original exchange.
All subsequent exchanges have been you claiming additional criteria to account for the days without rain.
So, washing your car causes it to rain, and you have evidence supporting this, except when it doesn't rain in which case it would have rained except specific circumstances A and/or B and/or C and/or D
Coincidence is not causality.
The second line is especially important as it is your point, yet you continually simplify your own argument as we progress to suit your needs.
No I do not. I am showing that your claim is very simplistic, but only for those cases where the results match your beliefs.
For those cases where the results do not match your beliefs, you feel free to pile on additional factors until you can justify to yourself that you're still correct.
You're problem is that you have an extremely limited understanding of Keynesian economic theory. The most notable of that is your failing to understand that it is a model and, as such, is abstracted to a degree of simplicity for people like you that makes is useless for discussing real world situations.
And so I respond ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 46242 )pointing out within the data the same trend of a decrease in revenue when the tax cuts are first phased in.
The Ronnie trend was a one year drop, then consistent gains over the following years.
The Bush example was a one year increase, then consistent drops over the following years.
They are the opposite of each other and not the same as each other.
I may have made and over estimation of you intelligence at this point by assuming that you know that both the Reagan and Bush tax cut were not all phased in at one time, but over the course of several years. (At this time less than half of the Bush tax cuts are in place! ) but in both cases we see a downturn in government revenue, The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue and the reports I showed you in later post predict the same upswing in revenue.
Emphasis added. If the same pattern is present in both cases, why haven't they resulted in the same effect?
Ronnie had increases the second year, Bush is still showing a loss three years later. The same pattern, that has different results indicates that the pattern is not a factor.
Your right there's no jump up, because theres no where to jump to. Theres no data.
I posted the data right there.
You've yet to provide anything to support this statement. On the other hand I've provided you with two reports as well as stock market data that contradict this statement.
Incorrect. All you've done is pile on the rationalizations for why your predicted outcome did not materialize. Again, back to the car/rain analogy. When the result is what you predict, you believe your simplistic model accurately predicted it.
But when the results are NOT what you claim, you pile on rationalizations for why it did not happen.
In science, this shows that your original theory is incorrect.
If the economy does not need stimulation theres no point in cutting taxes!
And now you've gone completely off about "need". This isn't about "need", this is about whether cutting taxes increases revenue. Car/rain. Coincidence is not causality.
Cutting taxes increases revenue (Ronnie).
Raising taxes increases revenue (Clinton).
Cutting taxe
I've known too many farmers get ruined by that tax to ever vote for anyone stupid enough to support it and I've got to conclude that if you can't (or won't) do simple research on this issue, you probably won't do it on others.
Can you find the myth in the above post?
Simple research, indeed. Have your irony circuits overloaded yet?
Unfounded assertion
Unfounded assertion
Yep
Bullshit, you can pray at school. What you can't do is force prayer to be part of the agenda at school, or have the school lead the prayers such that all students are unwilling participants, or have prayer be part of the curriculum. You're being dishonest, the constitution prohibits actions which tend to establish religion. Prayer-as-curriculum tends to establish religion. You can put your head down and pray at your desk, or you and the others of the deluded majority can get together and speak in tongues during down-time during the day. No one is stopping you for the most part, liar.
WTF does this have to do with your rights being eroded?
Other people are allowed to do things that they want to do, yet this erodes your rights? LOL you selfish lying deluded fuck. HAND.
XML causes global warming.