I'm sorry, I've gone over the thread and at no point do you show that what you say is true. The only link that you posted links to the comment you were replying to (which was your own comment). I happen to think you are probably correct. However, I was unable to find an answer as to when these laws were actually passed, although from what I could find it appears to have been in the 1970s.
So, what have you done to show that you truly believe what you just spouted? Do you drive a car? Is it electric? Or at least the most fuel efficient that you can find? Do you grow your own crops? Using human or animal muscle to cultivate them?
Do you live like you believe what you have written above? Because everyone I know personally who spouts the sort of thing you just wrote certainly doesn't. I have a brother who will sermonize on the subject very similar to what you just wrote. Yet, he spends half the year based in Arizona and the other half based in Pennsylvania, flying back and forth. In addition, he regularly flies to many other areas on business (and for pleasure). In other words, his lifestyle does not indicate that he believes it. Does yours?
Actually, more like mandating that oil refineries include a certain amount of cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from cellulose) in the gasoline they distribute and fining them for failing to do so, even though that quantity of cellulosic ethanol is not currently available.
When did I mention a conspiracy? Did I at any point say that Petraeus resigned because of Benghazi? Or as part of a cover up of Benghazi?
The person I originally replied to seemed to think there was nothing controversial about what happened in Benghazi. None of what you mentioned addressed any of the points I mentioned. They addressed things I did not bring up. Considering the Administration's attempts to avoid explaining its actions in Benghazi it is certainly reasonable to suspect that there is a connection. While at this time there is no reason to believe there is a connection, a reasonable person would be open to the possibility that facts may emerge which show that there was such a connection.
I don't watch Fox. Now, my question is, what do you know about what happened? How is Fox wrong? Was there or was there not a drone overhead during the firefight broadcasting video back to the situation room at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department? Were there or were there not planes that could have been there within an hour and a Special Forces Unit that could have been there within two? While the battle itself lasted for seven hours. Did the President say that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video the next day when he knew (or should have known) that it was no such thing?
Did the President order that everything be done to secure our people as soon as he heard about the attack,or not? And if he did, why was nothing done?
No, because too many people don't care that the Administration left an American Ambassador out to die without protection and made no attempt to save him while watching the attack invade American soil in real time.
I was going to post the below elsewhere, but it follows on what nine-times said. I would add the following to that post:
It looks to me like you saw a problem and instead of talking to the person who created it, you want out and found your own solution. When you became aware of the problems with the system, you should have talked with Bob. You could have suggested that you understood how it is hard to get things going when no one else has any interest in it at all. Instead of assuming that he was invested in a broken system, perhaps you could have assumed that he knew of the issues but did not have a good way to address them. There may be good reasons that some of the issues that you have are the way they are (that doesn't mean they can't be fixed, just that Bob has never had the time to do anything but patch things with "duct tape and baler twine").
That makes no sense whatsoever. Wages have only risen at the rate of inflation (or less, depending on how one calculates it). With that in mind, how does the fact that it still takes one on one interaction explain how the cost of college has risen much faster than inflation?
I would buy that except that tuition has been rising faster than inflation in higher education since the late 60s/early 70s. In addition, most colleges and universities have continued to increase the number of administrative positions relative to the number of students even as budgets get tight.
Heck just his remarks about the size of the US Navy being smaller than it was after WW1...
He did not say it was "smaller than it was after WW1", He said it had fewer ships than it did right before WW1. And Obama's answer was that the Army has fewer horses and bayonets than it did then. One might expect the CIC to know that the Army has more bayonets than it did before WW1.
Yeah, Romney has no decency. I mean look at the way he told that guy who worked for him whose daughter was missing to get back to work, the millions of dollars Bain handled everyday was more important than a daughter...No, wait. He shut the company down for a couple of days and encouraged all of the employees to go to New York to organize a search for her. I mean Obama is so much more caring. He looks after people like they were his own family...Of course when you look at the way he takes care of his own brother, it makes you wonder if there is anybody he cares about.
This was the last election with a hope for restoration of rule of law in the U.S.. The American people chose a President who believes in rule by edict.
It was not a Republican AG "trying to prevent that happening." It was an AG informing the OSCE monitors what the law written by the Texas legislature said regarding poll watchers. After the fuss died down there were several other AGs who informed the OSCE monitors that their state laws also forbid the monitors from entering the polling stations. These laws were not written to prevent the OSCE monitors, rather they were written to prevent voter intimidation.
Probably because he would like to be sure that the people who vote care enough to make the effort to get to the polls on election day, which suggests that they care enough to cast an informed vote.
You mean the approximately 1000 page law that was written by the Democrats in Congress and passed without a single Republican vote? The one that Nancy Pelosi said they would have to pass for us to find out what was in it (which was definitely true since it has so many provisions calling for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to write regulations that we STILL don't know what all was in it)?
Why aren't judges selected by the bar associations based on the political interests of the bar association?
That is what you are really asking and with that correction to your question, I think it answers itself. The question I want to ask you is, what makes you think the bar association is an unbiased, politically disinterested organization?
There is no way that Libya could have been another blackhawk down. Blackhawk down happened in Somalia because our forces in Somalia used the same tactics on several occasions, so the locals knew exactly what would happen when things got hot (and because political appointees at some level had denied the military forces on the ground the requested equipment prior to the incident in question).
As to what fighters could have done, there is some question as to whether or not those attacking the consulate would have remained present once their mortars had been hit by a missile from outside of the range of any of their weapons (one of the two former SEALS who was killed near the end of the engagement was "painting" the mortar that fired the shot that killed him with a targeting laser in the mistaken(?) belief that there was an armed aircraft overhead that could use it to hit the mortar. We know this from footage taken by the unarmed(?) drone that was beaming live footage to the White House situation room).
The way to fix that is to vote the ins out. That drives up the cost of buying congressmen considerably. It usually takes the various special interests two or three terms to determine the optimal bribes to buy a legislator (despite the common meme on this site, most legislators cannot be bought for a straight out monetary bribe, it usually requires figuring out what things the legislator wants that can't be bought straight out for cash).
I just re-read the post you replied to. He did not mention Obamacare either. All of the information I have on the situation in Libya is that fighters could have been overhead within an hour. A Special Forces Rapid Reaction force could have been there in about two hours. The last two to die, died seven hours after the fighting started.
You did not say anything about a better healthcare system. You said "Taking care of our people like a first world nation should." Most people consider defending and sending rescue for members of the diplomatic corps to be one of the first priorities of the Commander-in-Chief. Taking care of the health of their neighbors is usually something consider to be a more local responsibility.
More importantly, name one thing that Obama has done that has actually improved health care in the U.S. Obamacare has changed the way that healthcare is paid for and has introduced new regulations on those who deliver it, but what exactly has it done to make the health care delivered better?
Except of course that Nate Silver does not actually have a track record. He predicted the outcome of one election accurately. That is not a "track record". Nate Silver built his reputation on analyzing baseball, then when he predicted 2008 accurately, he was called the new genius of political polling. Analysis of polling data is significantly different than analysis of baseball stats. This does not mean that he is not a good analyst of political polls. What it means is that he does not have a long enough track record for us to know if he is a good analyst of political polls.
His comments this election cycle certainly suggest that he is partisan rather than nonpartisan. The other two parts will have to wait at least until we see the outcome of this election (if he turns out to be correct in this election, I would suggest increased confidence in his accuracy, but a little bit of skepticism because we are still talking a short enough time frame that his success might be partially due to chance rather than accurate analysis).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, I've gone over the thread and at no point do you show that what you say is true. The only link that you posted links to the comment you were replying to (which was your own comment). I happen to think you are probably correct. However, I was unable to find an answer as to when these laws were actually passed, although from what I could find it appears to have been in the 1970s.
So, what have you done to show that you truly believe what you just spouted? Do you drive a car? Is it electric? Or at least the most fuel efficient that you can find? Do you grow your own crops? Using human or animal muscle to cultivate them?
Do you live like you believe what you have written above? Because everyone I know personally who spouts the sort of thing you just wrote certainly doesn't. I have a brother who will sermonize on the subject very similar to what you just wrote. Yet, he spends half the year based in Arizona and the other half based in Pennsylvania, flying back and forth. In addition, he regularly flies to many other areas on business (and for pleasure). In other words, his lifestyle does not indicate that he believes it. Does yours?
Actually, more like mandating that oil refineries include a certain amount of cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from cellulose) in the gasoline they distribute and fining them for failing to do so, even though that quantity of cellulosic ethanol is not currently available.
When did I mention a conspiracy? Did I at any point say that Petraeus resigned because of Benghazi? Or as part of a cover up of Benghazi?
The person I originally replied to seemed to think there was nothing controversial about what happened in Benghazi. None of what you mentioned addressed any of the points I mentioned. They addressed things I did not bring up. Considering the Administration's attempts to avoid explaining its actions in Benghazi it is certainly reasonable to suspect that there is a connection. While at this time there is no reason to believe there is a connection, a reasonable person would be open to the possibility that facts may emerge which show that there was such a connection.
I don't watch Fox. Now, my question is, what do you know about what happened? How is Fox wrong? Was there or was there not a drone overhead during the firefight broadcasting video back to the situation room at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department? Were there or were there not planes that could have been there within an hour and a Special Forces Unit that could have been there within two? While the battle itself lasted for seven hours. Did the President say that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video the next day when he knew (or should have known) that it was no such thing?
Did the President order that everything be done to secure our people as soon as he heard about the attack,or not? And if he did, why was nothing done?
No, because too many people don't care that the Administration left an American Ambassador out to die without protection and made no attempt to save him while watching the attack invade American soil in real time.
It looks to me like you saw a problem and instead of talking to the person who created it, you want out and found your own solution. When you became aware of the problems with the system, you should have talked with Bob. You could have suggested that you understood how it is hard to get things going when no one else has any interest in it at all. Instead of assuming that he was invested in a broken system, perhaps you could have assumed that he knew of the issues but did not have a good way to address them. There may be good reasons that some of the issues that you have are the way they are (that doesn't mean they can't be fixed, just that Bob has never had the time to do anything but patch things with "duct tape and baler twine").
The the Army has 419,155 bayonets in its inventory. From the same source, the Marines have 195,334 bayonets and plan to buy another 175,061 this year.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Wages have only risen at the rate of inflation (or less, depending on how one calculates it). With that in mind, how does the fact that it still takes one on one interaction explain how the cost of college has risen much faster than inflation?
I would buy that except that tuition has been rising faster than inflation in higher education since the late 60s/early 70s. In addition, most colleges and universities have continued to increase the number of administrative positions relative to the number of students even as budgets get tight.
Heck just his remarks about the size of the US Navy being smaller than it was after WW1...
He did not say it was "smaller than it was after WW1", He said it had fewer ships than it did right before WW1. And Obama's answer was that the Army has fewer horses and bayonets than it did then. One might expect the CIC to know that the Army has more bayonets than it did before WW1.
Yeah, Romney has no decency. I mean look at the way he told that guy who worked for him whose daughter was missing to get back to work, the millions of dollars Bain handled everyday was more important than a daughter...No, wait. He shut the company down for a couple of days and encouraged all of the employees to go to New York to organize a search for her. I mean Obama is so much more caring. He looks after people like they were his own family...Of course when you look at the way he takes care of his own brother, it makes you wonder if there is anybody he cares about.
This was the last election with a hope for restoration of rule of law in the U.S.. The American people chose a President who believes in rule by edict.
One believes in the rule of law, the other believes in the rule of what he thinks best. The American people chose the latter.
It was not a Republican AG "trying to prevent that happening." It was an AG informing the OSCE monitors what the law written by the Texas legislature said regarding poll watchers. After the fuss died down there were several other AGs who informed the OSCE monitors that their state laws also forbid the monitors from entering the polling stations. These laws were not written to prevent the OSCE monitors, rather they were written to prevent voter intimidation.
On the other hand, the names of the parties should not be on the ballot.
That is one of the best new (to me) election reform suggestions I have seen in years.
Probably because he would like to be sure that the people who vote care enough to make the effort to get to the polls on election day, which suggests that they care enough to cast an informed vote.
You mean the approximately 1000 page law that was written by the Democrats in Congress and passed without a single Republican vote? The one that Nancy Pelosi said they would have to pass for us to find out what was in it (which was definitely true since it has so many provisions calling for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to write regulations that we STILL don't know what all was in it)?
Why aren't judges selected by the bar associations based on the political interests of the bar association?
That is what you are really asking and with that correction to your question, I think it answers itself. The question I want to ask you is, what makes you think the bar association is an unbiased, politically disinterested organization?
There is no way that Libya could have been another blackhawk down. Blackhawk down happened in Somalia because our forces in Somalia used the same tactics on several occasions, so the locals knew exactly what would happen when things got hot (and because political appointees at some level had denied the military forces on the ground the requested equipment prior to the incident in question).
As to what fighters could have done, there is some question as to whether or not those attacking the consulate would have remained present once their mortars had been hit by a missile from outside of the range of any of their weapons (one of the two former SEALS who was killed near the end of the engagement was "painting" the mortar that fired the shot that killed him with a targeting laser in the mistaken(?) belief that there was an armed aircraft overhead that could use it to hit the mortar. We know this from footage taken by the unarmed(?) drone that was beaming live footage to the White House situation room).
The way to fix that is to vote the ins out. That drives up the cost of buying congressmen considerably. It usually takes the various special interests two or three terms to determine the optimal bribes to buy a legislator (despite the common meme on this site, most legislators cannot be bought for a straight out monetary bribe, it usually requires figuring out what things the legislator wants that can't be bought straight out for cash).
I just re-read the post you replied to. He did not mention Obamacare either. All of the information I have on the situation in Libya is that fighters could have been overhead within an hour. A Special Forces Rapid Reaction force could have been there in about two hours. The last two to die, died seven hours after the fighting started.
You did not say anything about a better healthcare system. You said "Taking care of our people like a first world nation should." Most people consider defending and sending rescue for members of the diplomatic corps to be one of the first priorities of the Commander-in-Chief. Taking care of the health of their neighbors is usually something consider to be a more local responsibility.
More importantly, name one thing that Obama has done that has actually improved health care in the U.S. Obamacare has changed the way that healthcare is paid for and has introduced new regulations on those who deliver it, but what exactly has it done to make the health care delivered better?
Except of course that Nate Silver does not actually have a track record. He predicted the outcome of one election accurately. That is not a "track record". Nate Silver built his reputation on analyzing baseball, then when he predicted 2008 accurately, he was called the new genius of political polling. Analysis of polling data is significantly different than analysis of baseball stats. This does not mean that he is not a good analyst of political polls. What it means is that he does not have a long enough track record for us to know if he is a good analyst of political polls.
His comments this election cycle certainly suggest that he is partisan rather than nonpartisan. The other two parts will have to wait at least until we see the outcome of this election (if he turns out to be correct in this election, I would suggest increased confidence in his accuracy, but a little bit of skepticism because we are still talking a short enough time frame that his success might be partially due to chance rather than accurate analysis).
2. Taking care of our people like a first world nation should.
You mean the way he did in Benghazi, Libya? Where he left four Americans to die without making any effort to help them.